Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[.Shane.]

Science asks how. Religion asks why.

 

[Leoreth]

Let's say this way: I trust G-d more, than humans.

Have you talked directly with God? If not, all you think you know about him comes from *drumroll* human accounts.

And from what I know for now, many points in evolution are real guesses of "we see the result, we have no clue what really happened, but we made up a nice system, and it wasn't contradicted yet, so let's celebrate it".

Ignoring the strawman you make out of the scientific method either out of malice or utter ignorance despite everything that has been posted here, please do us the favor and give an example.

Anyways, let's drop it.

You dabbling in something you really don't understand? Yeah, let's drop it.

 

[Lillefix]

Science asks how. Religion asks why.

True, but to quote everyone's favourite Atheist and evolutionist(warning: sarcasm): Why is just a silly question.

 

[warpus]

And from what I know for now, many points in evolution are real guesses of "we see the result, we have no clue what really happened, but we made up a nice system, and it wasn't contradicted yet, so let's celebrate it".

Then you don't know much about it at all, because that couldn't be further from the truth.

What do I think? You just ignore the truth because it contradicts what you've been taught by your religious peers and mentors.

Science asks how. Religion asks why.

I don't think that's really that accurate, at least the second sentence. Religion asks many questions, including why.. but also how, how much, where, and so on..

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"we see the results, we made a model, it explains the results, there are still gaps to fill, so instead of celebrating, lets work to improve that model."

 

[fishjie]

Science asks how. Religion asks why.

Religion doesn't ask. It tells you. Forcefully. When you don't buy in to their explanation of "why", it burns you at the stake. If religion were open and honest with itself and actually ASKED "why", it wouldn't be nearly as dogmatic as it is even today.

Edit: also i see only a small number of theists in this thread. do they all realize religion is a joke when it comes to science? i remember quite a few theists on this forum back in the day. what happened to all of them and why aren't they here to defend their faith? or are they too embarassed by the bad arguments of civ2...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A bit generalising don't you think?

And by no means should anyone suggest that civ2 is the spokesperson for religious people.

 

[_random_]

Religion doesn't ask. It tells you. Forcefully. When you don't buy in to their explanation of "why", it burns you at the stake. If religion were open and honest with itself and actually ASKED "why", it wouldn't be nearly as dogmatic as it is even today.

That's true more often than I ought to be, but it's certainly not universally true. I think Shane summarized the basic dichotomy quite nicely.

Edit: also i see only a small number of theists in this thread. do they all realize religion is a joke when it comes to science?

Given that the Scientific Revolution emerged from Christian thought, I don't. Do enlighten me, sir.

i remember quite a few theists on this forum back in the day. what happened to all of them and why aren't they here to defend their faith? or are they too embarassed by the bad arguments of civ2...

Dude, civ2 is hilarious. And given that the thread devolved into discussion of evolution, which few theists here deny, it's not like there was much to back up.

 

[General Pilates]

Civ2 does not represent any religion. If he's a jew, he's a bad one.

 

[Lillefix]

Civ2 does not represent any religion. If he's a jew, he's a bad one.

A weird and unusual one at least. Remember the Scotsman.

 

[civ2]

Very interesting.
Shows how much you all know about WHAT is a JEW.
Like, almost nothing.
And I'm VERY serious.
OK, maybe some of my arguments weren't too clear or strong, but that only shows that my science experience differs from yours.
It has nothing to do with my religion or especially HOW religious I am.
I'm sure, the "usual" Jew you refer to, is either:
1. Smart enough to NOT start pointless arguments like this. He's strong in his faith, so why care what other think/say at all?
2. Reform to the extent of being barely Jewish, except by birth. Such a guy will follow your lead, and will even attack other religious Jews, given the chance. He's not bad, he's just trying to escape himself.
3. A real scientist, regardless of his religious level. He can talk your language, whether agreeing or disagreeing. I'm not a real scientist and never claimed being such.
...
In any case, I'm neither.
And I also never put myself as a spokesman for anyone or anything, I was just stating my opinion, based on my knowledge and my religious views, though these weren't made up by me.
Whatever.

 

[fishjie]

Given that the Scientific Revolution emerged from Christian thought, I don't. Do enlighten me, sir.

I'd love to!

Any scientists back in the day who were theists, were theists because they didn't know any better. That, and the fact that anyone openly atheist back then could and would have been burned alive at the stake. Today's scientists, if they are religious (which the majority are not), are mostly deists, which means they do not believe in the naive concept of god most theists do today - the kind of god who created the world, cares deeply, and answers prayers. this concept of god is illogical, as are the religious texts attributed to these kind of gods. when i say religion is a joke when it comes to science, it is specifically because the religious texts they subscribe to are riddled with errors. in fact, most theists would argue that these religious texts aren't meant to be taken "literally" and are only meant to teach lessons. in other words they are mythology. and mythology is a joke when it comes to science. mythology isn't supposed to be scientific, its supposed to be a narrative that preserves cultural tradition.

So claiming credit for past scientists who were theists doesn't really count. Besides, the true scientific revolution started with the greeks, who gave us math, philosophy, science, the olympics, and lots of other amazing stuff. i don't really see any evidence the majority of the ancient greek philosophers believed in any kind of "personal" god like zeus or whatever. sooooooooooo yeah.

 

[_random_]

I'd love to!

Any scientists back in the day who were theists, were theists because they didn't know any better. That, and the fact that anyone openly atheist back then could and would have been burned alive at the stake. Today's scientists, if they are religious (which the majority are not), are mostly deists, which means they do not believe in the naive concept of god most theists do today - the kind of god who created the world, cares deeply, and answers prayers.

Any stats on that?

this concept of god is illogical, as are the religious texts attributed to these kind of gods. when i say religion is a joke when it comes to science, it is specifically because the religious texts they subscribe to are riddled with errors. in fact, most theists would argue that these religious texts aren't meant to be taken "literally" and are only meant to teach lessons. in other words they are mythology. and mythology is a joke when it comes to science. mythology isn't supposed to be scientific, its supposed to be a narrative that preserves cultural tradition.

Most major Scriptures originate in a pre-scientific era, so it's understandable that they don't communicate a scientific understanding of the universe. There's much more to any given religion than the sacred text, and as long as people don't try to force them into a scientific frame of mind, I don't think there's any inherent contradiction there.

So claiming credit for past scientists who were theists doesn't really count

Except the scientists of the Middle Ages and Renaissance didn't just happen to be theists. They saw scientific endeavor as an extension of Christian virtue.

 

[fishjie]

Any stats on that?

Most major Scriptures originate in a pre-scientific era, so it's understandable that they don't communicate a scientific understanding of the universe. There's much more to any given religion than the sacred text, and as long as people don't try to force them into a scientific frame of mind, I don't think there's any inherent contradiction there.

Except the scientists of the Middle Ages and Renaissance didn't just happen to be theists. They saw scientific endeavor as an extension of Christian virtue.

Check out the "Among scientists" section:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

As the encouraging data shows, as time goes on, less and less scientist believe in god or are agnostic. This would correspond to decrease in the # of ppl who believe a "god of the gaps" argument, in which people are believers because there is something that science does not explain. For example, before evolution came along, lots of scientists would have to buy into the idea that "designer" created us. dawkins even admitted as such. evolution provides a natural explanation of the diversity of life that does not require magic. And before we understood plate tectonics, we thought earthquakes were caused by angry gods. and so on. As time goes on and our knowledge improves, this "god of the gaps" has less and less places to hide. Of course "god of the gaps" is only an argument for the existence of some sort of "god" (whatever "god" even means, its typically a poorly defined word) - and not the existence of a specific god described in religious texts.

oh and bonus. einstein didn't buy into the desert dogma religious crap either. some great quotes:

"Where dull-witted clansmen of our tribe were praying aloud, their faces turned to the wall, their bodies swaying to and fro. A pathetic sight of men with a past but without a future." (Regarding his visit to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, February 3, 1923)

http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm

the scientists of the middle ages figured (correctly) that if god existed, then logic and science would support his existence. that's why guys like anselm were searching for a "proof" of god, and came up with things such as the ontological argument. of course, as centuries passed it was immediately obvious that the christian god as described in the bible does not exist*. like i said, they didn't know any better.

*if you take the bible as the literal inspired word of god, then if there are errors in this text, then this god (the one that fundies worship) cannot exist. you can be a liberal christian and think that genesis is just a "metaphor" but in that case you do not believe in the god of the bible, you believe in your own watered down version. just clarifying my statement in case it ruffles feathers.

 

[History_Buff]

OK, maybe some of my arguments weren't too clear or strong, but that only shows that my science experience differs from yours.

I don't want to sound like a total douchebag here, since I really don't know much about you (most notably age). Yet there's no point sugar coating this point.

It's not that your scientific experience is different, it's that your scientific education is worse than ours. I won't try to figure out why, but it's pretty clear.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And I also never put myself as a spokesman for anyone or anything

I know. I was just reassuring people with different religious believes.

I was just stating my opinion, based on my knowledge and my religious views, though these weren't made up by me.

I also realise that. They were made up by other people.

 

[Polycrates]

I'd love to!

Any scientists back in the day who were theists, were theists because they didn't know any better. That, and the fact that anyone openly atheist back then could and would have been burned alive at the stake. Today's scientists, if they are religious (which the majority are not), are mostly deists, which means they do not believe in the naive concept of god most theists do today - the kind of god who created the world, cares deeply, and answers prayers. this concept of god is illogical, as are the religious texts attributed to these kind of gods. when i say religion is a joke when it comes to science, it is specifically because the religious texts they subscribe to are riddled with errors. in fact, most theists would argue that these religious texts aren't meant to be taken "literally" and are only meant to teach lessons. in other words they are mythology. and mythology is a joke when it comes to science. mythology isn't supposed to be scientific, its supposed to be a narrative that preserves cultural tradition.

So claiming credit for past scientists who were theists doesn't really count. Besides, the true scientific revolution started with the greeks, who gave us math, philosophy, science, the olympics, and lots of other amazing stuff. i don't really see any evidence the majority of the ancient greek philosophers believed in any kind of "personal" god like zeus or whatever. sooooooooooo yeah.

I'm an atheist, but I will tell you that my current research institute is by far the most religious environment I have ever been in. The majority identify as religious, and a great number are very very religious - whether that be catholic, protestant, orthodox, jewish or muslim. These are people who are heavily involved in their evangelical churches or whatever, and follow the laws about fasting and sex and all that business. I'm yet to meet one who identifies as deist. And yet these people are all excellent scientists, who don't let their beliefs in any way interfere with their work. None of them are creationist, of course; it's a rare person who can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of such a constant barrage of evidence of our evolutionary origins (though I have heard such people exist).

 

[fishjie]

I'm an atheist, but I will tell you that my current research institute is by far the most religious environment I have ever been in. The majority identify as religious, and a great number are very very religious - whether that be catholic, protestant, orthodox, jewish or muslim. These are people who are heavily involved in their evangelical churches or whatever, and follow the laws about fasting and sex and all that business. I'm yet to meet one who identifies as deist. And yet these people are all excellent scientists, who don't let their beliefs in any way interfere with their work. None of them are creationist, of course; it's a rare person who can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of such a constant barrage of evidence of our evolutionary origins (though I have heard such people exist).

Interesting, may I ask what research institute you are at? That's surprising. Although the fact that none are creationist is reassuring. Because that level of cognitive dissonance could cause them to snap and go crazy

I'm a software developer and I've noticed among engineers/mathematicians/programmers in school, at work, and everywhere in between there are believers in these fields, because its so easy to compartmentalize the logic needed for our jobs from the logic needed to evaluate religious beliefs.

 

[_random_]

Check out the "Among scientists" section:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

As the encouraging data shows, as time goes on, less and less scientist believe in god or are agnostic. This would correspond to decrease in the # of ppl who believe a "god of the gaps" argument, in which people are believers because there is something that science does not explain. For example, before evolution came along, lots of scientists would have to buy into the idea that "designer" created us. dawkins even admitted as such. evolution provides a natural explanation of the diversity of life that does not require magic. And before we understood plate tectonics, we thought earthquakes were caused by angry gods. and so on. As time goes on and our knowledge improves, this "god of the gaps" has less and less places to hide. Of course "god of the gaps" is only an argument for the existence of some sort of "god" (whatever "god" even means, its typically a poorly defined word) - and not the existence of a specific god described in religious texts.

oh and bonus. einstein didn't buy into the desert dogma religious crap either. some great quotes:

http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm

Thanks. I'd heard about the high rates of atheism among scientists, but I was really more curious about the claim that most religious scientists are deists.

the scientists of the middle ages figured (correctly) that if god existed, then logic and science would support his existence. that's why guys like anselm were searching for a "proof" of god, and came up with things such as the ontological argument. of course, as centuries passed it was immediately obvious that the christian god as described in the bible does not exist*. like i said, they didn't know any better.

*if you take the bible as the literal inspired word of god, then if there are errors in this text, then this god (the one that fundies worship) cannot exist. you can be a liberal christian and think that genesis is just a "metaphor" but in that case you do not believe in the god of the bible, you believe in your own watered down version. just clarifying my statement in case it ruffles feathers.

So St. Augustine of Hippo was a liberal Christian? Because if so, I'm pretty impressed by the rate at which Christianity was liberalized.

 

[General Pilates]

Very interesting.
Shows how much you all know about WHAT is a JEW.
Like, almost nothing.
And I'm VERY serious.

A religious Jew doesn't know what a Jew is? Okie dokie.