Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully?

[C1ay]

As I see it, science deals with questions of 'what' and religion deals with questions of 'why'.

Not really. 'Why' does the sun come up each day? Because the Earth spins on its axis. 'What' is the sun made of? Mostly hydrogen and heavier elements that result from the fusion caused by the enormous gravity of the sun.

 

Science is about the facts, regardless of beliefs, and religion is about beliefs, regardless of the facts!

[C1ay]

I have to admit I was quite surprised to find so much discussion about religion here.

It's caused by the enormous quantity of religious visitors here that want to challenge scientific explanations of natural phenomenas that were previously explained by religion.

[granpa]

you see what I mean about neither one wanting to stay in its own rightful sphere.

 

the distinction between 'what' and 'why' is psychological not physical.

[joekgamer]

people can stay calm about the issues and discussions.

 

Unfortunately, the problem is that nobody ever does.

[geko]

I think a better question is does having both a scientific mindset and a religious mindset in the same mind bring about coherency, in the world and the beliefs pertaining to it. The answer's no of course.

 

Coherency is required for qualification. Since religion doesn't ask for or require qualification then lack of coherency is no problem. Science requires qualification, it's kind of the requirement in its aim of explanation.

 

Since science requires attempted qualification and religion doesn't, the systems are opposed and can't come to mutual understanding.

 

Having both a scientific world view and a religious worldview is contradictory/illogical. Having contradictions in your qualifications for why things are the way they are doesn't lead to understanding.

 

Therefore i don't think science and religion can co-exist and be judged as equal as far as understanding is concerned. Nor should a marriage be attempted because the end result is necessarily tainted and incoherent arguments.

[C1ay]

Another point to consider, science wants to find the truth and prove that it is the truth.....unquestionably. Religion simply wants to declare the truth.....unquestionably.

[granpa]

I think you conflate religion and mysticism.

 

A better question might be can empiricism and rationalism coexist.

[joekgamer]

I think you conflate religion and mysticism.

 

If that is so, then could you define the difference?

[Moontanman]

yes, i would also like to know why they are different. IMHO mysticism may not necessarily be religion but religion is most definitely mysticism.

[JMJones0424]

Ack, too slow to respond, seems that I've been ninja'd by two people :)

 

Not only would I like to know how one objectively defines the difference between religion and mysticism, but I would also like to submit that an even better way of stating the question would be...

 

"Can metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism coexist? Since one specifically denies the existence of the other, I see no way around the conflict other than tolerance.

[granpa]

If that is so, then could you define the difference?

first we would have to establish the difference between empiricism (scientific method) and rationalism.

 

only then could I even try to move on to religion.

[Maine farmer]

This point is a little off the recent posts, but what about morality? Religion certainly hasn't cornered the market on morality, but morality should be an issue of concern regarding science, and morality has to come from somewhere. Where might science lead if left unfettered by morality? Sometimes the issue isnt "can" something be done, but "should" it be done.

[Moontanman]

This point is a little off the recent posts, but what about morality? Religion certainly hasn't cornered the market on morality, but morality should be an issue of concern regarding science, and morality has to come from somewhere. Where might science lead if left unfettered by morality? Sometimes the issue isnt "can" something be done, but "should" it be done.

 

Religion did not invent morality, religion hijacks societies ideas on morality. Morals are instinctive in humans, it's what allows us to live in groups. What is moral in one society is immoral in another, religion simply adheres to what society thinks is moral. Different religions have different takes on morality so the idea of needing religion to make moral choices is fatally flawed.

[joekgamer]

Science is, due to its objective nature, amoral, meaning that it has no connection with morals. This is not to be confused with immoral, which is morally wrong.

 

But why does morality have to come from religion? Are all atheists immoral, selfish, jerks? The fact that they are not all immoral means that they drew their concepts of morality from elsewhere.

 

For example, I am an atheist. I drew my concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' from logical thought.

 

An example of this: Spent nuclear fuel can harm the environment when not properly sealed. Therefore, it is immoral to just dump it into oceans or bury it without the proper shielding.

 

And another: People work for their money. If I do not have money, then I can (hopefully) either work to get more or get food/clothes/etc. from my parents (and later, [but only as a last resort] welfare from the government). Therefore, if I have not done work to get the money I need, then it is immoral to steal the money that others have worked for.

 

I derived each of my morals this way. I worked them out myself, without the aid of religion, and came to (of course, only nearly, considering that some of the moral code in religion is religion-specific) the same conclusions. Where is religion required?

[Maine farmer]

Woa, there, I didn't mean to imply that I thought religion was THE source of morals. There are, however,I people who rely on some sort of religion to quide their moral behavior. We need to be concerned with more than living in groups in the modern world where we have the power to blow the whole planet to bits.

[granpa]

morality is a purely psychological thing and whats moral for me may not be moral for you.

 

science should leave morality alone and only deal with 'civility' instead.

[joekgamer]

Like I said in my post above, science is amoral. It doesn't matter whether you use it to destroy a planet or save it. The same E=mc^2 is responsible for the gigawatts of nuclear power produced each year and the complete decimation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of WWII. The same technology that has brought people all over the world closer together and sent a man to the moon guides the missiles that kill fighter pilots. A famous quote (I don't remeber who from, does anyone know?) goes, "Science is not good or bad. That comes from how you use it."