Is Science Incompatible With Religion?

[Freddy]

Dear Freddy,

 

You would have to back up your claim with an argument.If you do not, you are as credulous as any religious person is. Anyway, I think Wilde is worthwhile quoting : " Science without Religion is lame.Religion without Science is blind."

SL

 

Oh really! Why do you not show us some empirical evidence to back up any religious claim? There is my argument: there is no such evidence!

[Sebastianlobo]

Oh really! Why do you not show us some empirical evidence to back up any religious claim? There is my argument: there is no such evidence!

You ask me a question the answer to which you claim does not exist, so what is the point of my attempting to answer it. In fact , it is unanswerable by anybody for the very simple fact that you have provided both question and answer, in other words, a dogma.And I am an atheist... SL

[CraigD]

Science is knowledge, religion is nonsense.

Dear Freddy,

 

You would have to back up your claim with an argument.If you do not, you are as credulous as any religious person is. Anyway, I think Wilde is worthwhile quoting : " Science without Religion is lame.Religion without Science is blind."

SL

Oh really! Why do you not show us some empirical evidence to back up any religious claim? There is my argument: there is no such evidence!

You ask me a question the answer to which you claim does not exist, so what is the point of my attempting to answer it. In fact , it is unanswerable by anybody for the very simple fact that you have provided both question and answer, in other words, a dogma.And I am an atheist... SL

 

One of the crowning achievements of the internet, and hypography in particular, is that they provide a place where one can witness 2 atheists arguing opposite sides of the topic “Science is knowledge, religion is nonsense.” :thumbs_up ;)

 

I fear that with a topic of so few words, yet such loaded words, such debate could be prolonged.

 

Historically and every day, much knowledge in conveyed under the heading of religion, and much that is termed science is purposeful, disingenuous nonsense. An essential difference between science and religion, I hope all can agree, is that religion allows the argument that a proposition is true, but cannot be proven. Such propositions must be “taken on faith”, their causes as “mysterious” or “incomprehensible”. Science doesn’t allow such arguments, though the argument “the proposition is true, but is only comprehensible to a person of high intelligence with <insert educational requirement here>, which I have, but you lack, and I don’t have the time, patience, or inclination to provide”, though very different, can convey a similar feeling.

 

I find it interesting that science can be well-described in religious terms, and religion, in scientific ones – and that both commonly are. Many religionists have promoted science as working to better reveal the nature of God, while scientists dating back to at least classical Greece have argued that religions provides a good tool for the maintenance and improvement of society. In this sense, science and religion are mutually compatible.

[CraigD]

As for Newton and Kepler – and their followers – not only do we not really know what and how they felt about God , but they might have hidden their true views behind their writings, particularly due to Christian pressures on thoughts and ideas. They might very well have had to negotiate the intolerance then prevailing.

While one can never completely prove that any person has not maintained a deception for their entire life, based on his own writings and those of his contemporaries, I don’t believe Newton’s religious views differed substantially from what he expressed in his writing. Though known both during and after his lifetime more for his scientific and mathematical writing, Newton is believed to have dedicated more of his lifetime to the study of religion than math and science. There’s also evidence from multiple independent sources that Newton dedicated a sizable portion of his study to “esoteric studies” such as alchemy, possibly with the serious goal of achieving physical immortality.

 

Statements by Newton such as “Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professor”s, from his post 1710 unpublished maunscript ”A Short Scheme of the True Religion”, and his criticism of his atheist or more radical religious contemporaries, suggest that, rather than the target of “Christian pressures”, Newton was, if anything a source of them.

[Sebastianlobo]

The Englsih word criticism is usually, if not always, associated to the French word “ critique” which describes a kind of philosophy of taste, aesthetic values etc…

The German word “ kritik” has the caore meaning of the attitude of an inquiring mind towards any subject. I use the word critical in this sense, and thus, critical thinking.

The point then is not one of beliefs or creeds, but of attitudes, and the question should be framed as : is critical thinking compatible with religious beliefs or beliefs based upon aprioristically determined limits to the very processes of critical thought, preventing it from going beyond certain boundaries. I shall illustrate my point : There is considerable statistic evidence that the universe we are part of is so fine – tuned for our existence that some kind of design preceeded its creation. This will disturb and stimulate the serious scientist into investigation. But there are those who, aprioristically, reject such a possibility, and consequently are not thinking critically. In fact, this is the main argument for my disagreeing with the proposition that “ Religion is nonsense”. That some religious views are nonsensical – and some scientific ones as well – is undeniable. The danger lies in dogmatic generalizations which reveal an uncritical approach.

[Qfwfq]

Well, here's my critique:

There is considerable statistic evidence that the universe we are part of is so fine – tuned for our existence that some kind of design preceeded its creation.

How about: "We are highly fine-tuned for the universe that we are part of."?

[Theory of Mind]

Science and Religion are natural enemy in those fields basing on facts. There are no conflicts between them in those fields basing on supposition, such as mathematics.

[Sebastianlobo]

While one can never completely prove that any person has not maintained a deception for their entire life, based on his own writings and those of his contemporaries, I don’t believe Newton’s religious views differed substantially from what he expressed in his writing. Though known both during and after his lifetime more for his scientific and mathematical writing, Newton is believed to have dedicated more of his lifetime to the study of religion than math and science. There’s also evidence from multiple independent sources that Newton dedicated a sizable portion of his study to “esoteric studies” such as alchemy, possibly with the serious goal of achieving physical immortality.

 

Statements by Newton such as “Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professor”s, from his post 1710 unpublished maunscript ”A Short Scheme of the True Religion”, and his criticism of his atheist or more radical religious contemporaries, suggest that, rather than the target of “Christian pressures”, Newton was, if anything a source of them.

There is no doubt that Newton was one of the greatest scientists ever and his tremendous influence on Western thought is well established – hence, Newton’s mechanicism.

 

However I feel it worthwhile to touch upon some aspects of the man and his times.

 

Newton was very clear and unequivocal when stating his belief on the Bible and the versions the establishment thought were the true ones. He did refuse Holy Orders and required a special dispensation do hold his professorship. At the same time he kept his studies on occultism and alchemy almost a secret. Upon reviewing what he had written on Religion Keynes considered him a “ monotheistic Maimonide.”

 

In the seventeenth and eighteenth century materialism was developing as the main threat to religion. The following remarks, by H.E Gruber, describe the atmosphere of late eighteenth – century Europe : “ In virtually every branch of knowledge, repressive methods were used: lectures were proscribed, publication was hampered , professorships were denied, fierce invective and ridicule appeared in the press. Scholars and scientists learned the lessons and responded to the pressures on them.The ones with unpopular ideas sometimes recanted, published anonymously, presented their ideas in weakened forms or delayed publication for many years.”

[Phileas Fogg]

Anyway. I do not believe that science in incompatible with religion.Science is fact.

Religion is totally based on faith. They are two different things.

 

People believe in many theories related to science that cannot be proven.

Why can't they also believe in a god or God?

It's completely opinion, and what the individual WANTS to believe.

:hihi:

Mercedes, it is funny what you say. You talk like a fundamentalist! :cup: It can not be said, or generalized that "religion is based on faith". This is perhaps true with some christian-pauline sects. Or maybe some other religion emphasizes "faith".

 

"Totally".... :) Only two, faith-based religions which come to my mind, are wahhabist/sunni-Islam, and Pauline Christianity. They might be the most popular ones; this might be the reason for confusion. They are the most loudest forms of religion, sure.

 

Why do you say that "science is a fact"???? Why I don't see that fact? For example, when they begun splitting atoms in chain reaction, and they saw this is harmful to your health; they still continued the harmfull action. I don't understand why this attitude should be called "fact" based, when you think of it, it reminds of wholly other thing; violence.

 

I suppose we could say, that sometimes/often science is based on violence. There human brain is using it's powers, to create better weapons. This is only one example. More often science is based on money.

 

Often it amuses me, how people see religion. It doesn't have to be faith. It doesn't have to be an opinion. :lol:

 

Like we had Dr. Freud, he was feeling lusty. It was not an opinion; it was a feeling. And he wanted to study his feeling "scientifically". So, he created his Sexual Theory. There was other scientist; William James, who studied religion from the scientific point of view. For him, I think, religion was an experience. He said, this experience, as such, is objective. And that there are many different types of religious experiences.

 

To say, that religion is based on faith, is - in my view, a nonsensical point of view. It sounds evangelical....

[ughaibu]

On the question, "why can't they also believe in a god or God?": anything that can be conceived can be believed, and, while it's up to the individual which beliefs are held, it's clear that reality cant support a random and infinite collection of often contradictory beliefs. Accordingly, beliefs are not reality except for the believer, presenting personal beliefs as reality disrupts communication and is thus an anti-social act, it is also extremely arrogant as it's tantamount to stating "your world depends on stuff in my head".

[freeztar]

I found this page while searching for something unrelated and I thought I would dig up some old thread and share the link with you for your entertainment:

 

Articles / Impact / Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery - Institute for Creation Research

 

:doh:

Creationist Cosmology

:zip:

[HydrogenBond]

Christ sort of summed it up when he said render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and render onto God what is Gods. Science plays an important role and many of its discoveries are analogous to rendering onto Caesar.

 

Where God comes in is connected to time projection and evolution. When one plans their day they project into the future and fill in the time. With God one is time projecting beyond their life. Without God, one will only time project to the end of their life. The time scale affects how one fills in that time. The longest time projection favors genetic evolution.

 

The fossil evidence supports this with most fossil very conservative or based on life that existed long enough to increase the odds of finding fossils. The short term, here today gone tomorrow, are not represented by fossils, since these were short term prototypes that didn't make it.

 

Let me give an analogy. Say we had two students studying over a semester. The first is more conservative and plans the entire semester. The second is a shorter term thinker, more in the day to day mind set. If they started with equal abilities, which of the two is more evolved at final exams? The atheist, by getting rid of God offers themselves a short term vision. This may be good for them but it doesn't help evolution. Luckily the more conservative long term thinkers of religion help pick up the genetic slack.

[Zythryn]

...With God one is time projecting beyond their life. Without God, one will only time project to the end of their life....

 

I disagree, as I don't believe in God, yet I work towards the general health and good of our society as a whole. I am concerned about the generations to come and plan for them as well as planning for my own future.

I don't believe I am unique in this. Neither do I believe that all people 'with God' plan for any time beyond their death. Sure, they plan and work towards being welcomed through the pearly gates, but have they planned anything once they attain that?

 

I do agree that some people plan for the future of generations to come and some people don't plan for anything beyond their death. However I don't believe (from what I have experienced) that the difference is the individuals belief in God.

 

Anyone aware of any studies on this? It is a very interesting question and I would love to hear about any data collected on it.

[jedaisoul]

Another point- if you want to accept science and be religious, you can find a way to make it fit. Conversely, if you want science to disprove religion, you can find a way to "prove" to yourself that it does.

The first statement is correct, but the latter incorrect IMHO. Science cannot "disprove" religion. To disprove religion, you would have to obtain scientific proof about statements that are outside the realm of science, thus are unproveable scientifically. So science can only disprove factual claims made by religions, not religion itself.

 

On the other hand, as it is solely based on faith, religion can "disprove" science, if you are so minded. It merely requires you to believe and it is so!

[alexander]

Is Science Incompatible With Religion?

That would differ on your definition of compatibility, and the side you look at it. If your definition of compatibility is (as defined in the Unabridged dictionary (used by dictionary.com)) capability of existing or living together in harmony, well then you needn't look back more then a few hundred years of early Vatican history to see that religion has always had problems with science, so there has been little harmony between the two from that point of view. Though you may look at science in the same fashion and come up to a different resolution, science has never had problems with religion, yes scientists think that religion is quite a laughable matter that is not backed up by any factual evidence, yes they have seen how religion is used to control the masses, they however have not been, for thousands of years, attempting to find ways to annihilate religion, so to some extent there has been harmony through indifference.

Now if you mean harmony as in the inner person harmony? Then yes, a few points of thought are very common in scientists who happen to be religious. Generally speaking, those scientist are trying to either explain godly phenomena (generally early scientist views, who try to describe why the sun comes up where it does, and sets where it does, etc.) or scientists that try to explain god, that try to tie in the supreme being into the creation of the universe, but try to do it discretely and scientifically, through endless math, etc.

 

gotta run, a server just crashed, be back tomorrow to continue...

[jedaisoul]

That would differ on your definition of compatibility, and the side you look at it. If your definition of compatibility is (as defined in the Unabridged dictionary (used by dictionary.com)) capability of existing or living together in harmony, well then you needn't look back more then a few hundred years of early Vatican history to see that religion has always had problems with science, so there has been little harmony between the two from that point of view.

However, the question is not whether the has been harmony, but whether there could be harmony.

 

The problem arises because religion pre-dates science, and therefore used to make physical pronouncements without fear of rebuff by something as inconvenient as scientific fact. Religion is travelling a long road (not helped by fundamentalists of various faiths) to find a legitimate voice in the modern world.

 

In principle, science and religion deal with different aspects of life; the physical and the spiritual. I would suggest that, provided they stick to their remit, there is no reason for dis-harmony. The question is, how realistic is that in practice? Also, are we talking of global harmony, or local harmony?