Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[Gigaz]

All the common religions are compatible with anything. Except with each other, obviously

 

[Winner]

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

Albert Einstein was not religious. Get over it, sheesh.

As for the others, one has to look at the circumstances of their life. The more into the past you go, the more necessary it was for one to be outwardly religious.

In any case, it's as I said - religious people can be scientists; however, religion is a system is wholly incompatible with science.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Depends on the religion, but in general - no, they're not compatible. Once religion start changing too much from it's original roots, it loses it's power.

 

[Tee Kay]

All the common religions are compatible with anything. Except with each other, obviously

Syncretism FTW.

Personally, I look at science and religion as two different things belong to two separate spheres of my life. Science explains and/or models how the physical world works, whereas religion explains the non-material world. Religion is like art; it doesn't need to make sense, and everyone has a different experience of it.

Fundamentally, there is no conflict between science and religion; the two only comes into conflict when people interpret mythology in a literal manner and attempt to impose that interpretation on the physical world. And even then conflict need not arise; for instance, one can perfectly accept both the Big Bang Theory and the existance of a creator God, the former physical and the other non-physical. And even if conflict do arise, it's not difficult to reconcile the contradictions within yourself.

Depends on the religion, but in general - no, they're not compatible. Once religion start changing too much from it's original roots, it loses it's power.

Which is why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are four of the least popular religions in the... wait a minute.

 

[Lillefix]

Now that big parts of Christianity is sufficiently sanitised(everything is figurative, and they don't really want to have any opinion on the physical world), I'd say it can coexist with science. Those who still claim that Mary gave birth as a virgin still have a way to go.

 

[ghostmaker650]

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

There's nothing wrong with having a custom religion, I'm glad there really aren't many actual Christians. That doesn't mean I have to respect the thinking behind it. If you want to be a member of a specific club, you have to accept and follow the rules. It's stupid to think you can pick and choose which rules you have to follow and still be considered a full member.

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

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

Now which one of these scientist can you say honestly believes half the nonsense from their respective holy books? I never said a religious scientist isn't possible. I said an honest belief in the actual religious views and claims (which I find to be a club member requirement) proposed by said religion and an honest acceptance of science isn't possible. And by "honestly believes" I mean actually believes to be true. For example, you cannot believe the book of genesis to be true while at the same time believing evolution and the theory of natural selection to be true. If you wanna say "well you don't have to actually believe the book of genesis to be true to be a member" I say BS.

I think Winner put it rather well...

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

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Which is why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are four of the least popular religions in the... wait a minute.

No, they're all the most popular because they've all conformed to science.. ..wait a minute!

 

[Winner]

Personally, I look at science and religion as two different things belong to two separate spheres of my life. Science explains and/or models how the physical world works, whereas religion explains the non-material world. Religion is like art; it doesn't need to make sense, and everyone has a different experience of it.

Since when have you become religious?

Fundamentally, there is no conflict between science and religion;

The exact opposite of this statement is true. I don't understand how you can even utter such nonsense, it's on the level of "Fundamentally, there is no conflict between eating meat and vegetarianism."

Religion is based on making claims concerning the nature of the Universe without a shred of evidence to support these claims. The mythology you speak about later is an integral part of every religious system in existence; mythology is literally the basis of religion. You can't have a religion without mythology, and mythology is fundamentally irreconcilable with science. You can have some sort of faith in divinity that is free of mythology and organized religion, but that is not religion and it is still not scientific.

the two only comes into conflict when people interpret mythology in a literal manner and attempt to impose that interpretation on the physical world. And even then conflict need not arise; for instance, one can perfectly accept both the Big Bang Theory and the existance of a creator God, the former physical and the other non-physical. And even if conflict do arise, it's not difficult to reconcile the contradictions within yourself.

Yes, because belief in miracles is perfectly compatible with physical laws as science explains them, right You could just as well say that magic is perfectly compatible with science

As I said, you can be a religious scientist, but you have to delude yourself - suppress one or the other of your conflicting views.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Painfully so, as anyone who saw Matthew Mcconaughey and Jodie Fosters efforts in Contact can attest to .

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Science and Religion are not incompatible. They don't have to be, at least.

As long as religion don't stand in the way of accepting proven facts, like, say, the evolution of humans from the same ancestor as all other life on earth.

 

[Tee Kay]

Since when have you become religious?

Religious people can be religious without shoving it into people's faces.

The exact opposite of this statement is true. I don't understand how you can even utter such nonsense, it's on the level of "Fundamentally, there is no conflict between eating meat and vegetarianism."

Not really. Meat-eating and vegetarianism are fundamentally opposed because they relate to the same sphere; ie food. Religion and science, at least for me, belong in separate spheres.

Yes, because belief in miracles is perfectly compatible with physical laws as science explains them, right You could just as well say that magic is perfectly compatible with science

Magic is science before it got its current name.

Miracles I'm ambivalent about. Because miracles occur in the physical world scientific explanations take precedent. If I want to find non-physical, spiritual meanings, I turn to religion.

 

[Winner]

Not really. Meat-eating and vegetarianism are fundamentally opposed because they relate to the same sphere; ie food. Religion and science, at least for me, belong in separate spheres.

That's where you're deluding yourself. Religion makes claims concerning the nature of the Universe, which is what science does as well, only... well, scientifically.

If religion wants to make claims concerning the nature of some other (i.e. fictional) universe, I don't have a problem with it - it would be similar to being a hardcore fan of fantasy and probably largely harmless. But until it stops appropriating this Universe, there will be a problem.

Magic is science before it got its current name.

No. Although I do maintain that Clarke's Laws is true

Miracles I'm ambivalent about. Because miracles occur in the physical world scientific explanations take precedent. If I want to find non-physical, spiritual meanings, I turn to religion.

You should turn to hallucinogenic drugs. They contain no more truth than religion, but they're way more fun

 

[Tee Kay]

That's where you're deluding yourself. Religion makes claims concerning the nature of the Universe, which is what science does as well, only... well, scientifically.

Well, if you insist on calling anything that isn't scientifically proven "delusional"... let's just agree that we disagree.

You should turn to hallucinogenic drugs. They contain no more truth than religion, but they're way more fun

I do want retain a certain measure of self-awareness and cognition even when I'm deluding myself. I'm normally lacking in them as it is.

 

[Leoreth]

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.

How is religion trial and error?

The only thing related to that I can imagine are people who adopt a religion to solve their problems and move on to another when it doesn't. And these are the worst kind of religious people.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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

So if the two have to be separated, they obviously are incompatible.
Let's see how many times I will have to repeat that.

 

[Winner]

Well, if you insist on calling anything that isn't scientifically proven "delusional"... let's just agree that we disagree.

You're deluding yourself if you think you can hold two irreconcilable views at the same time. It's called cognitive dissonance, and people react to it by inventing rationalizations that seemingly make it go away. Hence your argument that religion and science really deal with two separate realms of reality.

How is religion trial and error?

Religion used to involve a lot of trial and execution in the past, though it has gone soft lately

 

[Tee Kay]

So if the two have to be separated, they obviously are incompatible.
Let's see how many times I will have to repeat that.

Nay. Because they ultimately belong in separate spheres, science and religion don't need to fight for the same space, so they're not incompatible.

 

[Leoreth]

Religion used to involve a lot of trial and execution in the past, though it has gone soft lately

*rimshot*

 

[Tee Kay]

You're deluding yourself if you think you can hold two irreconcilable views at the same time. It's called cognitive dissonance, and people react to it by inventing rationalizations that seemingly make it go away. Hence your argument that religion and science really deal with two separate realms of reality.

Dissonance implies a conflict, but if I can hold my contradictions and make them work, and it doesn't harm anyone, then there's no conflict anymore; I prefer "cognitive consonance". All life is perception, right? (and I don't believe that science and religion are irreconcilable anyway).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Nay. Because they ultimately belong in separate spheres, science and religion don't need to fight for the same space, so they're not incompatible.

Well, it is fair to say that science and religion are not absolutely, that is, in every way whatsoever, incompatible. They can coexist within a single perception of the world, the universe, true. So one does not have to ultimately choose, right. But I wonder if that doesn't miss the point of the question.
If I ask you if Windows 7 and this really old game are compatible, you don't answer with "Of course. Just use Windows 7 on this PC and the old game on the other old PC,", rather you answer "That depends on how the inner workings of those two softwares harmonize with each other", so you refer to their nature. And that is how I would understand the question of this thread: Do the natures of science and religion harmonize? And to me the answer is an resounding no. That's why people who want to hold on to both have to create separate realms for them, have to use entirely different PCs.