Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[Mark1031]

Tired old debate but HuffPo has an interesting discussion here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/science-religion-incompatible_n_1327263.html

My answer is yes and Schermer explains it well. Sure you can state God in terms of an unfalsifyable vague deism that is compatible with all science now and yet to be discovered. But that is not what religion is for most of the world. It has specific tenants that have been falsified repeatedly over the years. I would add that to come up with God as a hypothesis, even in the vague deistic way, is simply not scientific. The hypothesis has no explanatory power and is untestable and where a religious dogma has been tested it has invariably been disproven and the goal posts are moved all the way to God started the big bang and was never heard from again. I suppose if that is where religion wants to move then it is not an impediment to science, but it is barely a religion.

The argument from the other guy is that hey there were religious scientists, in fact most of the great scientists in history were religious. I’d add the current NIH head is dogmatically religious. This simply proves that people can have cognitive dissonance not that the underlying tenants of the 2 ideas are compatible. It’s like saying I know statisticians that play craps therefore statistics must be compatible with winning at craps for who would play something they are guaranteed to lose money at? Note. I play craps, I know the statistics but while I am playing I invariably think I will win-cognitive dissonance.

 

[Save_Ferris]

The two are separate. Science is knowledge, religion is faith. If we knew that God existed, God would be science.

How many times do I have to say this?

 

[Integral]

Some kinds of religion are incompatible with science. You can't be a literal six-day Creationist and a modern biologist, for example. But if one divorces religious claims from their scientific claims, sure they're compatible.

I typically think of the religious/scientific split as a matter of crowding-out rather than compatibility/incompatibility. Science "crowds out" religious explanation for natural phenomena: you don't need to explain lightning with God when science will do it for you. Philosophy crowds out religious explanation for morality and ethics.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

The two are separate. Science is knowledge, religion is faith. If we knew that God existed, God would be science.

How many times do I have to say this?

This. It does not get any more simple than that. If religion changed with new discoveries, then there may be an argument, but they hold onto explanations that early practitioners with no technology had to come up with on the fly to sell their faith.

BTW - you have to say it three times rapidly while looking in the mirror with the lights out and a microwave in the bathtub.

 

[innonimatu]

in fact most of the great scientists in history were religious.

We were having a discussion about this in the WH sub-forum.

I'm of the opinion that religion does not look good in the history of science, that it has been an impediment more than a help. And I don't see that changing: for each scientists who can live happily with cognitive dissonance there is likely someone else who won't and will try to freeze science. Disagreeing with the use of some scientific discovery on moral grounds is something I'm perfectly fine with. I'm even fine with people wanting to block further research into some field on the same grounds: it's their right to offer such input, scientific priorities are not and should not be free from politics.
But disagreeing with demonstrated facts, that's where I draw the line! And that is what all complex dogmatic religions will eventually do: all great religions end up prescribing codes of conduct based on dogmas which were created based on conditions of a specific time and place. To change conditions undermines the dogmas, makes them ridiculous or, worse, impossible to reconcile with the new conditions. And such change is what scientific progress inevitably brings about. So there will be conflict.

 

[Andvare]

The two are separate. Science is knowledge, religion is faith. If we knew that God existed, God would be science.

How many times do I have to say this?

I want to marry you, and have your children.

Okay, perhaps not. beside the pregnancy would be rather difficult, being a male and all.


I am very much what you would normally would call an atheist, and yet I claim to be an agnostic, because claiming to be able to prove that god doesn't exists is as arrogant as claiming that there have to be a creator.
I have to have some evidence of a creator before I believe in god, though, but that is where I separate myself from the theists, my lack of belief, not my acceptance of science.

Religion is belief. End of story.
Where you could claim that religion and science is incompatible, is that for you to be religious, you have to believe, and acknowledge your belief. If it is science, it changes realm into the measurable world of fact. ( For example, in Christianity, you have to believe in God, the belief itself is holy. IMHO the attempt to make a belief into something else, is down right heretic in Christianity.)
Those two are not mutually exclusive! No scientists worth anything, would claim that he knew everything, but s/he would require some sort of evidence for any claim.

You can easily use religion to explain all the things you have no way of explaining with science, and vice versa. It's when you try to pass one for the other you make a mistake.

They are incompatible in the sense that they have no place besides each other in class. But each can easily coexists within a person.

The biggest physicists from last century were almost all of them religious (Einstein and Bohr were both quite religious, for example). (Edit: This is not a fact that can be used for anything other than,yes they can easily coexist)

And if I make no sense, it's because I'm a poor ass communicator, not because I'm more drunk than a glass of water in a Sahara marathon, though that is true as well.

 

[Joecoolyo]

They are not incompatible, they can coexist.

Not much more than that.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sure you can state God in terms of an unfalsifyable vague deism that is compatible with all science now and yet to be discovered. But that is not what religion is for most of the world.

It's all religion, isn't it. The thing about the human experience of religion is that there is no single experience of religion.

Also as Save pointed out, science and religion are two different things. Approaching religion as one would approach science is missing the point.

 

[History_Buff]

The concept of religion is not necessarily opposed to science. Though if it's not, then religion and faith become this constantly retreating bubble which doesn't hold much meaning.

Almost every religion as practiced here on Earth is opposed to science however. The only possible recourse is refuse to accept scientific discoveries, or cherry pick the portions of your religion you believe. Given that most people do that anyway, there's not too much of a problem in them co-existing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Dogmatism is a danger whether you are religious or irreligious.

 

[Ahovking]

if you think Science and Religion are incompatible then it shows how little education you got.

 

[Save_Ferris]

1. Reach thread first
2. Post common opinion
3. Other users agree
4. Become philosophical genius
5. ???
6. Profit

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I disagree. So long as you understand that the existence of a God is not proven, you are perfectly free to believe that God does, in fact, exist. Would you call me unscientific if, for example, I were to believe that some higher power which I call God initiated the Big Bang and started our universe? Because that's religion.

 

[ghostmaker650]

I think it depends on the religion.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are absolutely incompatible with science. They are two completely conflicting things, you can't honestly believe one and believe the other at the same time, it's impossible.

Almost every religion as practiced here on Earth is opposed to science however. The only possible recourse is refuse to accept scientific discoveries, or cherry pick the portions of your religion you believe. Given that most people do that anyway, there's not too much of a problem in them co-existing.

I agree. People somehow got this idea that it's perfectly fine to cherry pick away at their religion (though I guess it is better that they do). The only way to accept science with your religion is by ticking the custom installation box before installing, and completely ignoring the terms and conditions.

 

[Janig]

Religion is trial and error so it is compatible with science. The original post in this topic is biased in favor of scepticism therfor it'll always be bad.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I think it depends on the religion.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are absolutely incompatible with science. They are two completely conflicting things, you can't honestly believe one and believe the other at the same time, it's impossible.



I agree. People somehow got this idea that it's perfectly fine to cherry pick away at their religion (though I guess it is better that they do). The only way to accept science with your religion is by ticking the custom installation box before installing, and completely ignoring the terms and conditions.

There's something wrong with having a custom religion? Are you for creationism then?

 

[Winner]

Yes, they are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE systems. This doesn't preclude the existence of religious scientists, but it has to be said that they're deluding themselves.

Religion in principle shuns critical thinking, whereas science is based on it. The two can't ever be reconciled.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are absolutely incompatible with science. They are two completely conflicting things, you can't honestly believe one and believe the other at the same time, it's impossible.

That explains all the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scientists.

 

[Skwink]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are absolutely incompatible with science. They are two completely conflicting things, you can't honestly believe one and believe the other at the same time, it's impossible.

So these guys are all closet atheists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

 

[Tee Kay]

Or Micheal Faraday? Or Max Planck? Or Lord Kelvin? Or Louis Pasteur? Or Gregor Mendel? Or Albert Einstein?