Can Science and Religion Coexist?

[editec]

Sure they can.

They've done so for a great long time, already.

 

[AllieBaba]

Prove it.

 

[JBeukema]

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. Collins’s evangelism.

Ignorant question.

yes, it is

There is nothing about Science that conflicts with Religion nor anything about Religion that conflicts with Science

Wrong. Science follows evidence and is based on reason and logic. Religion is built upon ignorance and stupidity

The only time you have problems is when zealots from either field decide to argue with ignorance rather then faith or facts.

Like you

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[AllieBaba]

Tell me you've read the whole bible, JB. I'm dying to hear you say it.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

like plants before the sun and the world sitting on pillars?

 

[Shogun]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

Co-exist as to what? Explanations for observed natural phenomena? No. As a comfort for humans? Yes.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

 

[xsited1]

Can Science and Religion Coexist?

I give you proof:

Science and Religion

See? A website where they coexist. Q.E.D.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Science proves itself "wrong" all the time, it's how it progresses human knowledge. Science isn't concerned with dogma, it's concerned with tenative knowledge. Religion is about dogma, it despises doubt and praises faith.

The two are very different from one another and probably the only time they coincide is where humans try to understand the universe. Religion tries to understand the universe using metaphysical methods, science uses the scientific method.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[edthecynic]

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?

Maybe it's because when they put God's word and their faith to the test, like walking on water, they find they can't do what Jesus did by faith, let alone GREATER things.

Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this [which is done] to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

 

[Diuretic]

I know I'm labouring the point here but science and religion are different and being different the question of co-existence is somewhat moot.

Are they united perhaps by a purpose? Maybe. If religion is a means of explaining the universe and its phenomena, then there is a similarity because science is definitely about that. So if the purpose is the same then it must be that the means are very different. Science uses a particular method, invented by humans (perhaps Plato and Aristotle are reconciled in that reason produced a very practical means of explaining observed phenomena). Religion uses a singular explanation for observed phenomena. But then they differ again because science can demonstrate its reasoning and its conclusions but religion can't, instead falling back on belief which is personal and subjective and not impersonal and objective.

Science is a means to an end, a method; religion is an end in itself. Einstein once wrote that curiousity has its own reason for existence, I'm sure religion can claim the same.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Talkin' all that shit, yet you provided no example

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Within the Garden he WAS alone. Obviously there were other people as when Cain was tossed out of the Family he married into another group. BUT that was NOT in the Garden. Do keep up.