Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Science and Religion

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 11:11:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science and religion:

I recently overheard a discussion between two individuals about whether science and religion are compatible. Here are my thoughts.

Observation #1 Truth is truth

I think it is fair to say that science and religion are ways that people use to try to find truth. There have been many times people say something about science and religion along the lines of"

"There is no conflict between science and religion." Or "Conflict only arises from the incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both."

So what we end up with, is if true religion leads to a knowledge of truth and if true science leads to a knowledge of truth, there can only be conflict if one or both misunderstand truth. This essentially makes such an assertion redundant and equivalent to saying that truth is truth. Of course it is, if true religion and true science exist and they lead to truth, they would have to be compatible. Thus you could conclude that if there is contradiction, one must be false, ie. false religion or false science.

Observation #2 Broad terms

When we use the word "true" for religion or science, we are essentially leaving a way out if something is wrong. So if a religion concludes something false, we say" that wasn"t "true religion" or if a scientific law is debunked likewise. Religion and Science are broad subjects. I don"t think I would ever conclude that science and religion conflict, or say that they are harmonious. This is because there are many different religions and many different theories and fields of science.

Observation #3 Contradiction between miracles and science

How might we define a miracle? It seems fair to define a miracle as an extraordinary event caused by the power of God.

Young Earth Creation: I don"t know who still believes the earth to be only 6,000 years old. Such a belief is "in conflict" with science. While the age of the earth is not exactly known it is known to be more than 4.5 Billion years old and had life on it for at least 2.5 Billion years.

Adam and Eve: This story is in conflict with science. Likewise there is wide consensus that Adam and Eve cannot be traced back to as real people.

Noah"s ark: https://www.youtube.com...

Moses and the parting of the sea: In conflict with science.

Jesus Christ walking on water: In conflict with science.

I am not saying that it has to be either/or with religion and science, nor am I saying that science should necessarily be preferred over religion, but to say there is no conflict between religious theology and science is disingenuous. Walking on water is contrary to the laws of physics.

Observation #4 Scientists/theists

There are many and have been many scientists that have believed in God. That is not to say that they are right or wrong. There is a demonstrated decline in our day. Especially depending on the type of science they are studying. Math mathematicians have a higher rate of belief than most scientists. But Cosmologists have a very low rate. You may say that "there are probably more scientists that don"t believe in God, than scientists that do, but we have never decided what is right by numbers." That is true, I would never appeal to the number of people who believe in something as a justification of its being true. Furthermore, many have made a similar argument in reverse. In support of arguments for harmony between science and religion, many reference the faith of great scientists, notably Newton and Gauss. This is a double standard. While I would not say the majority of scientist not believing in religion indicates religion to be false a fair conclusion, I do think it fair to say that the decline of scientist"s belief in God indicates that scientists, on balance, don"t generally find science and religion to be compatible.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 11:32:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
True Religion is this...

Sincerity of Faith with a love of Highest Truth above all things, to practice forgiveness rather than condemnation or tolerance, and to purify oneself in order to better understand, practice, and reflect these things.

Any scientist worth his weight in Uranium would have to be a practitioner of True Religion, which is universally testified of in all scripture.

It really is true though, science and religion only conflict if you have an incomplete understanding of either. Truly, science has done a great deal to highlight The Truth as revealed in scripture.

It was science that truly led me to God, and as a quote that is probably falsely attributed to Werner Heisenberg rightly asserts, "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 12:01:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Like all life forms have been evolving, science evolved out of religion, belief to understanding, ignorance to knowledge, myths to explanations, superstitions to theories, miracles to facts, and so on...

There's little reason why science and religion should be compatible, it's rather irrelevant. Religion has had it's time and we should move on, it no longer has any value to societies any more. I'd rather go bowling than to church.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
thethrone
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 3:49:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:11:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
Science and religion:

I recently overheard a discussion between two individuals about whether science and religion are compatible. Here are my thoughts.

Observation #1 Truth is truth

I think it is fair to say that science and religion are ways that people use to try to find truth. There have been many times people say something about science and religion along the lines of"

"There is no conflict between science and religion." Or "Conflict only arises from the incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both."

So what we end up with, is if true religion leads to a knowledge of truth and if true science leads to a knowledge of truth, there can only be conflict if one or both misunderstand truth. This essentially makes such an assertion redundant and equivalent to saying that truth is truth. Of course it is, if true religion and true science exist and they lead to truth, they would have to be compatible. Thus you could conclude that if there is contradiction, one must be false, ie. false religion or false science.

Observation #2 Broad terms

When we use the word "true" for religion or science, we are essentially leaving a way out if something is wrong. So if a religion concludes something false, we say" that wasn"t "true religion" or if a scientific law is debunked likewise. Religion and Science are broad subjects. I don"t think I would ever conclude that science and religion conflict, or say that they are harmonious. This is because there are many different religions and many different theories and fields of science.

Observation #3 Contradiction between miracles and science

How might we define a miracle? It seems fair to define a miracle as an extraordinary event caused by the power of God.

Young Earth Creation: I don"t know who still believes the earth to be only 6,000 years old. Such a belief is "in conflict" with science. While the age of the earth is not exactly known it is known to be more than 4.5 Billion years old and had life on it for at least 2.5 Billion years.

Adam and Eve: This story is in conflict with science. Likewise there is wide consensus that Adam and Eve cannot be traced back to as real people.

Noah"s ark: https://www.youtube.com...

Moses and the parting of the sea: In conflict with science.

Jesus Christ walking on water: In conflict with science.

I am not saying that it has to be either/or with religion and science, nor am I saying that science should necessarily be preferred over religion, but to say there is no conflict between religious theology and science is disingenuous. Walking on water is contrary to the laws of physics.

Observation #4 Scientists/theists

There are many and have been many scientists that have believed in God. That is not to say that they are right or wrong. There is a demonstrated decline in our day. Especially depending on the type of science they are studying. Math mathematicians have a higher rate of belief than most scientists. But Cosmologists have a very low rate. You may say that "there are probably more scientists that don"t believe in God, than scientists that do, but we have never decided what is right by numbers." That is true, I would never appeal to the number of people who believe in something as a justification of its being true. Furthermore, many have made a similar argument in reverse. In support of arguments for harmony between science and religion, many reference the faith of great scientists, notably Newton and Gauss. This is a double standard. While I would not say the majority of scientist not believing in religion indicates religion to be false a fair conclusion, I do think it fair to say that the decline of scientist"s belief in God indicates that scientists, on balance, don"t generally find science and religion to be compatible. : :

Without science and the computer, it would be very difficult for our Creator to teach us exactly how He created everything.
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 5:56:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion and science suppose to compatible each other. When religion contradict with science then that religion is not worthy as a true religion no matter how the followers defend it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science and religion are subjects completely independent of each other. This is largely because science is based on empirical observation, while religion often relies on deductive, philosophical justifications. I wouldn't go so far as to claim they are mutually incompatible, but that depends on how you define "religion." Also, not all religions accept miracles -- only some do. Once more, a definition of "miracle" is required, since the majority of alleged "miracles" are scientifically explicable.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 5:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 11:11:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I recently overheard a discussion between two individuals about whether science and religion are compatible.

It isn't true that religion is a search for truth. Rather religious dogma is a set of subjective claims, searching for validation. Science, on the other hand, is an objective predictive model, searching for refutation. The two are pulling in opposite directions, and that's visible historically.

In the early history of science, nearly every scientist was religious, and scientists generally assumed that empirical inquiry would validate the accepted religious dogma of the day -- historically, physically, biologically, geologically, cosmologically.

In fact what happened was the opposite: the earth hadn't appeared as religious dogma predicted; physics, biology and medicine showed no sign of moral order or supervisory intervention; increasingly the idea that the universe was created intelligently and purposefully became contested; and scientists became irreligious in droves, even as the religious began to revise their ideas about what God was, and how God worked.

Subsequently, three important things have happened:
1) The God worshiped by the faithful is not the God they once worshiped. As apprehended by adherents, the post-Enlightenment God is increasingly passive, obscure, indifferent to faith, and deaf to prayer.
2) Science now treats religion as a purely psychosocial phenomenon to be studied. That's pretty much indistinguishable from treating it as delusion, rather than valued knowledge; and
3) Every diligent scientist of faith now carefully parks faith at the lab door, knowing that it adds no predictive value to any work done in the lab.

So technically, religion and science can still co-exist, but where once religion was at the centre, and science was at the margins, the positions have reversed. Religion is now on the margins, forced to replace dogma with scientific results, and scrabbling for scraps of intellectual and moral credibility from the wreckage of repeatedly debunked intellectual edifices.

So, science and religion are compatible like Vesuvius is compatible with Pompeii.
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 7:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 5:07:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:11:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I recently overheard a discussion between two individuals about whether science and religion are compatible.

It isn't true that religion is a search for truth. Rather religious dogma is a set of subjective claims, searching for validation. Science, on the other hand, is an objective predictive model, searching for refutation. The two are pulling in opposite directions, and that's visible historically.

In the early history of science, nearly every scientist was religious, and scientists generally assumed that empirical inquiry would validate the accepted religious dogma of the day -- historically, physically, biologically, geologically, cosmologically.

In fact what happened was the opposite: the earth hadn't appeared as religious dogma predicted; physics, biology and medicine showed no sign of moral order or supervisory intervention; increasingly the idea that the universe was created intelligently and purposefully became contested; and scientists became irreligious in droves, even as the religious began to revise their ideas about what God was, and how God worked.

Subsequently, three important things have happened:
1) The God worshiped by the faithful is not the God they once worshiped. As apprehended by adherents, the post-Enlightenment God is increasingly passive, obscure, indifferent to faith, and deaf to prayer.
2) Science now treats religion as a purely psychosocial phenomenon to be studied. That's pretty much indistinguishable from treating it as delusion, rather than valued knowledge; and
3) Every diligent scientist of faith now carefully parks faith at the lab door, knowing that it adds no predictive value to any work done in the lab.

So technically, religion and science can still co-exist, but where once religion was at the centre, and science was at the margins, the positions have reversed. Religion is now on the margins, forced to replace dogma with scientific results, and scrabbling for scraps of intellectual and moral credibility from the wreckage of repeatedly debunked intellectual edifices.

So, science and religion are compatible like Vesuvius is compatible with Pompeii. : :

Religious people are consumed with thousands of year old thoughts while scientists were given new thoughts to think with. It's amazing how God was able to keep his people separated in groups with nothing but thoughts.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 7:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 5:07:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/30/2015 11:11:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I recently overheard a discussion between two individuals about whether science and religion are compatible.

It isn't true that religion is a search for truth. Rather religious dogma is a set of subjective claims, searching for validation. Science, on the other hand, is an objective predictive model, searching for refutation. The two are pulling in opposite directions, and that's visible historically.

In the early history of science, nearly every scientist was religious, and scientists generally assumed that empirical inquiry would validate the accepted religious dogma of the day -- historically, physically, biologically, geologically, cosmologically.

In fact what happened was the opposite: the earth hadn't appeared as religious dogma predicted; physics, biology and medicine showed no sign of moral order or supervisory intervention; increasingly the idea that the universe was created intelligently and purposefully became contested; and scientists became irreligious in droves, even as the religious began to revise their ideas about what God was, and how God worked.

Subsequently, three important things have happened:
1) The God worshiped by the faithful is not the God they once worshiped. As apprehended by adherents, the post-Enlightenment God is increasingly passive, obscure, indifferent to faith, and deaf to prayer.
2) Science now treats religion as a purely psychosocial phenomenon to be studied. That's pretty much indistinguishable from treating it as delusion, rather than valued knowledge; and
3) Every diligent scientist of faith now carefully parks faith at the lab door, knowing that it adds no predictive value to any work done in the lab.

So technically, religion and science can still co-exist, but where once religion was at the centre, and science was at the margins, the positions have reversed. Religion is now on the margins, forced to replace dogma with scientific results, and scrabbling for scraps of intellectual and moral credibility from the wreckage of repeatedly debunked intellectual edifices.

So, science and religion are compatible like Vesuvius is compatible with Pompeii.

Very interesting analogy.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 8:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 7:16:44 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 5:07:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
So, science and religion are compatible like Vesuvius is compatible with Pompeii.
Very interesting analogy.

Thanks, D. I had to hunt to find it, but it bears closer thought, doesn't it?