Can Science and Religion Coexist?

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Simply NOT TRUE. Science routinely fixates on some theory and will not change for YEARS as it is proven wrong again and again. Take Man Made Global warming as a for instances.

 

[Kalam]

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?

More accurate and compelling scientific knowledge takes its place. That's how science works, isn't it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

More accurate and compelling scientific knowledge takes its place. That's how science works, isn't it?

Not right away and sometimes not without a major doctrinal fight being had. As for Religion, lots of religions reevaluate what they think and believe as time goes by. The Bible, for example has MANY different groups claiming to know what it says and means, INCLUDING Islam since the old Testament is PART of Islam. Islam itself has, what, 3 major differing groups as well? Judaism also has differing groups.

 

[JBeukema]

And what if that "established scientific knowledge" is wrong?

More accurate and compelling scientific knowledge takes its place. That's how science works, isn't it?

Not right away and sometimes not without a major doctrinal fight being had.

It's not doctrine,. It;s com[peting models, each with their own evidence. That's generally how intelligent and logical debate occurs, not that you would comprehend such things.

As for Religion, lots of religions reevaluate what they think and believe as time goes by.

Then the fundamental claim of any such religions to be 'right' or have any claim to 'truth' is proven false.

The Bible, for example has MANY different groups claiming to know what it says and means, INCLUDING Islam since the old Testament is PART of Islam. Islam itself has, what, 3 major differing groups as well? Judaism also has differing groups.

Because they're all wrong and based on ignorance and stupidity. That's whey there god doesn't tell them the same thing- it's simply not real.

 

[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.

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.

Always the arrogant condescension!

The fact is that BEFORE Eve was created Adam was in a heavenly state of physical perfection, in paradise, WITHOUT SIN AND ONE WITH GOD and God himself pronounced that Adam was so "alone" it was "not good."
So the pregnant question is, "How can Adam be alone when he was without sin and one with God???"
We are told we are alone only when we are separated from God by sin and we can never be alone when we are one with God. We are also told that the concept of original sin is established on the premise that Adam represents all mankind, so all people would therefore be alone when one with God if Adam represents mankind.

Get it???? LOL

 

[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?

More accurate and compelling scientific knowledge takes its place. That's how science works, isn't it?

You seemed to have missed my point. What if "established scientific knowledge" is wrong when it supposedly contradicts religion? Should we through out religious belief simply because it contradicts "established scientific knowledge" if that knowledge later turns out to be incorrect?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Simply NOT TRUE. Science routinely fixates on some theory and will not change for YEARS as it is proven wrong again and again. Take Man Made Global warming as a for instances.

LOL

That's going to leave a mark.

 

[eagleseven]

And what if that "established scientific knowledge" is wrong?

More accurate and compelling scientific knowledge takes its place. That's how science works, isn't it?

Not right away and sometimes not without a major doctrinal fight being had. As for Religion, lots of religions reevaluate what they think and believe as time goes by. The Bible, for example has MANY different groups claiming to know what it says and means, INCLUDING Islam since the old Testament is PART of Islam. Islam itself has, what, 3 major differing groups as well? Judaism also has differing groups.

It took Christianity roughly 300 years from its inception to determine if Jesus was man or God.

It took Rocket Science roughly 25 years from its inception to put a man on the Moon.


Science is more adaptive to change.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Simply NOT TRUE. Science routinely fixates on some theory and will not change for YEARS as it is proven wrong again and again. Take Man Made Global warming as a for instances.

Talking about fixation

The evidence for how science operates is there. I mentioned the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics a little earlier. We also now accept that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around.

I could point out other paradigm shifts (Kuhn) to explain it further but I don't like overkill.