Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So It Goes : Can Science and Religion Coexist?
Interesting Thoughts
TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES reported that President Obama has nominated Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. It caught my eye not only because this is a remarkably important position but also because of this passage:
[One of the objections some have made about the selection of Collins] is his very public embrace of religion. He wrote a book called The Language of God, and he has given many talks and interviews in which he described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical student. Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collinss evangelism.
Ignorant question.
There is nothing about Science that conflicts with Religion nor anything about Religion that conflicts with Science
The only time you have problems is when zealots from either field decide to argue with ignorance rather then faith or facts.
Bullshit. If you actually read the bible, instead of depending upon what you're fed, you, like most of the great minds of the world, would recognize that it is chock full 'o facts.
Can Science and Religion Coexist?
Yes. Religion must make itself compatible with science, though; the opposite is not true. If a specific religious belief contradicts established scientific knowledge, it's a superstition that should be abandoned.
I have to say, in regards to the OP, no. The pattern that has emerged is a diminished jurisdictioni by religion at every point where science has given us a greater, tangible understanding of our physical reality. I can't think of a SINGLE religious epiphany that has more weight than a case of snake oil this side of the scientific method. It's why both concepts continue to clash.
Yes. Religion must make itself compatible with science, though; the opposite is not true. If a specific religious belief contradicts established scientific knowledge, it's a superstition that should be abandoned.
And what if that "established scientific knowledge" is wrong?
How will anyone know it's wrong? I'd suggest that science, not religion, would be the tool that proves it. Religion has no hope of disproving science just as science has no hope of disproving religion.
How will anyone know it's wrong? I'd suggest that science, not religion, would be the tool that proves it. Religion has no hope of disproving science just as science has no hope of disproving religion.
I was unaware Religion was trying to disprove science. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of thinking that everything science has said to be correct is correct. There are countless scientific "facts" that have been accepted as such and later rejected when we know more evidence.
Thus to claim that science and religion can't coexist or that one has to bow to the other is an example of supreme arrogance. It requires we believe that we know and understand everything there is to know about both subjects. We may have alot of information in our post-modern society, but we arent all knowing.
Should we reject revelation when science hasnt caught up or reject science when religious views differ and/or are misunderstood? I think we should do neither. I think we need to learn truth whatever the source and method. And we can do that through reason, revelation, and experience. To eliminate our ability to learn from one of those areas is foolish and will prevent us from learning what there is in the universe.
Reason, revelation, and experience. Plato thought that humans could know by pure reason. Aristotle came along and put the sword to that idea and said we can only know by experience, so I'll accept one third of your proposition. .
Of course science is all about doubt, it's how it proceeds. If science were about certainty then it wouldn't be science, it would be religion.
Einstein overturned Newton, the world of science didn't suffer because of it, in fact it progressed immeasurably. If we were still in a Newtonian state of understanding I wouldn't be typing this and you wouldn't be reading it.
We don't actually learn from religion, we learn about it. We learn from science.
Reason, revelation, and experience. Plato thought that humans could know by pure reason. Aristotle came along and put the sword to that idea and said we can only know by experience, so I'll accept one third of your proposition. .
Hey 1/3 is better than 0.
Of course science is all about doubt, it's how it proceeds. If science were about certainty then it wouldn't be science, it would be religion.
I disagree. I think Science is premised on faith. If you dont have faith that you can learn something, you wouldnt experiment.
Einstein overturned Newton, the world of science didn't suffer because of it, in fact it progressed immeasurably. If we were still in a Newtonian state of understanding I wouldn't be typing this and you wouldn't be reading it.
And im sure someone will come along and overturn Einstein. Probably for overlooking the laws of the other 8 dimensions in his equation.
We don't actually learn from religion, we learn about it. We learn from science.
I disagree. When people understand the power of prayer and revelation they can learn directly from God. Few religions fully teach this and of those that do few really believe it. Its rather sad. But then what's the point of religion if God doesnt communicate?
I have to say, in regards to the OP, no. The pattern that has emerged is a diminished jurisdictioni by religion at every point where science has given us a greater, tangible understanding of our physical reality. I can't think of a SINGLE religious epiphany that has more weight than a case of snake oil this side of the scientific method. It's why both concepts continue to clash.
You cant think of one? Well then you must be correct. I mean no one else in the entire world could possible think differently. Thank you, oh great one, for thinking for the rest of us.
Bullshit. If you actually read the bible, instead of depending upon what you're fed, you, like most of the great minds of the world, would recognize that it is chock full 'o facts.
My favorite biblical fact is that Adam was so "alone" it was "not good" BEFORE he was separated from God by sin. How do you think that's possible?
Gen 2: 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.