Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[Tee Kay]

Then we have to question the nature of religion; is it, as some people insist, set in stone, forever irreconcilable to science, or is it fluid and adaptable, like what it has been throughout history.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The problem is that all the religions are pretty old and human mind is not very plastic so its the religious peoples who does not allow the religions to accept the new scientific truths.
Neither Buddha nor Jesus where intelectuals or scientists since it wasnt developed fields of their days but both of them would probably have said nothing against science...
I can see no problem in using science to stabilze mans material life and spirituality in developing ones psychic life. It works famously...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Then we have to question the nature of religion; is it, as some people insist, set in stone, forever irreconcilable to science, or is it fluid and adaptable, like what it has been throughout history.

It obviously is adaptable, but I honestly don't see the relevance or your point.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think they're incompatible, but only in that religiosity will slightly detract from progress in science. But, in the same way, obesity is incompatible with science. However, given that religiosity and obesity are normal parts of the human condition, I think that scientific progress is more rapid when both the obese and the religious are involved, and excising those factors would detract from scientific progress

The real problem only kicks in when religious opinion interferes with a scientific understanding. Religion, historically, as an explanatory power and a moral-guiding framework. Both of these areas are properly under the magisteria of science, and so I'm not sure what religion is left to contribute.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Science doesn't offer any morality by itself - except perhaps be honest, precise and understandable (and other qualities essential to the success of science).

 

[El_Machinae]

No, that's true. But it's the most powerful tool we have of informing and improving moral systems. Philosophy offers theoretical frameworks, but you need real-world data to build into philosophical models.

 

[bathsheba666]

Science has gaps where theories are as yet untenable.

It is fun to fill the gaps with speculation, as long as it is harmless.

And then, the inquisition appears....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Religion is based on making claims concerning the nature of the Universe without a shred of evidence to support these claims.

Religion uses personal evidence to support claims. And those claims are usually not about the nature of the Universe. Sure, if you believe in the Young Earth theory based on your religious sentiment, you are correct. In fact not only is there no Evidence, there is plenty of counter evidence.

It's not unlike believing that specific people around you love you. You haven't got scientific evidence this is true, but you do have personal evidence on which you base the conclusion: this person loves me.

Religion can be incompatible to science if it makes falsifiable claims about the nature of the Universe as you called it.

So, to the general claim as asked in the OP my answer has to be no. If the question had been, can it be incompatible, then sure. There are many religious believes that are incompatible.

 

[Leoreth]

Then we have to question the nature of religion; is it, as some people insist, set in stone, forever irreconcilable to science, or is it fluid and adaptable, like what it has been throughout history.

This can only end with (at least for theistic religions) a fill-in-the-gaps God, and I don't know if that's really desirable for a religious person.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, that's true. But it's the most powerful tool we have of informing and improving moral systems. Philosophy offers theoretical frameworks, but you need real-world data to build into philosophical models.

But most of all you need first an arbitrary decision what to value. And there religion is particular potent. I agree that once this is done, everything that follows will be better served with science and philosophy. But this very first step is probably best served by something that is just as this step: Arbitrary and self-serving.

 

[Mark1031]

As I explained in the OP the fact that scientists can be religious does not address the question of the compatibility of the underlying tenants of the 2 modes of thinking. It simply shows people can hold incompatible views. BTW in the absence of the inquisition I believe 95% of current day NAS members are atheist/agnostic.

As I also stated you can design a "religious" belief that is not technically incompatible but that is not what the majority of religions are now or in the past. They make specific claims about things that while not necessarily falsifiable (they learned from being burned by Galileo) are things for which science has some evidence. For example, the common view of life after death. We know where consciousness comes from, it’s the stuff in your skull. We know when you die this stuff turns to mush. Now you can invent some other word for consciousness (soul) and frame your contention in an untestable way but you are making a claim about something science has data on and the claim is basically incompatible with the data.

Simply stating that one thing is faith does not address the question of compatibility. I can have faith that the earth is the center of the universe (an historically required article of faith for some religions) but that does not make it compatible with science or in some nonoverlapping magisteria. It overlaps and is incompatible. In fact I would argue the whole idea of faith is incompatible with science.

 

[Tee Kay]

So, to the general claim as asked in the OP my answer has to be no. If the question had been, can it be incompatible, then sure. There are many religious believes that are incompatible.

I agree.

This can only end with (at least for theistic religions) a fill-in-the-gaps God, and I don't know if that's really desirable for a religious person.

Luckily for the religious person then that there are no shortage of gaps.

As I also stated you can design a "religious" belief that is not technically incompatible but that is not what the majority of religions are now or in the past.

Which is perfectly fine, I think. Religion was never static in the past and it won't be in the future, and everyone experience religion in different ways. I don't see why this point is so hard to grasp; that one religious person may hold ideas that are incompatible to science but others may not, simply because there's no one way to experience religion, and thus no fundamental "base" religion which can be said to be incompatible with science.

 

[Ahovking]

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.

That's right and I would like to point out that God made animals then humans so it is possible that God used animals to form humans, the perfect creature.

 

[uppi]

I can have faith that the earth is the center of the universe (an historically required article of faith for some religions) but that does not make it compatible with science or in some nonoverlapping magisteria. It overlaps and is incompatible.

You could just clarify and claim that you mean the observable universe right now. Which the earth is the center of. So in this example you can make the religious beliefs and the science compatible.

In fact I would argue the whole idea of faith is incompatible with science.

On the contrary, I would argue that faith is an intrinsic component of human nature, and science would not work without it. As much as science as a whole tries to apply rational reasoning to everything, the individual cannot. You can try to verify as much as you can, but there always be things that you cannot verify yourself. So you need to have faith in humanity, or the scientific system that most of what you learn and cannot verify is indeed correct. If you start testing everything yourself, you will never get anywhere.

 

[Cutlass]

To the extent that religion discourages accepting the evidence of the real world, then yes religion is incompatible with science. However if a person accepted observable evidence as revealed truth, rather than the "truth" written 1000s of years in the past, then there is no real conflict.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To the extent that religion discourages accepting the evidence of the real world, then yes religion is incompatible with science. However if a person accepted observable evidence as revealed truth, rather than the "truth" written 1000s of years in the past, then there is no real conflict.

Many truths of religious/spiritual kind from 2 or 3 milleniums ago still stands but by their wrong understanding and missinterpretation has evolved absurd dogmas which are definitely standing in way of science as well as spiritual development of men.

 

[Winner]

Religion uses personal evidence to support claims. And those claims are usually not about the nature of the Universe. Sure, if you believe in the Young Earth theory based on your religious sentiment, you are correct. In fact not only is there no Evidence, there is plenty of counter evidence.

I am afraid that you're probably confusing faith with religion. Religion is a system that (obviously) includes and demands faith from its followers, but it also includes a set of ideas one has to believe in in order to qualify as a follower of that religion.

Say, to be a Christian, you absolutely have to believe that Christ was a son of Godfather (is there supposed to be a space there? I always get confused) who impregnated Mary through magic. Now tell me how that story can be reconciled with modern science. Oh that's right, it can't.

The same goes to practically any other religion, including all the Eastern nonsense that's supposed to be less doctrinal than the Western monotheistic belief systems.

Believers often argue with "personal experience" when they run out of arguments for their insane beliefs, but that is all nonsense - their religion's doctrines don't require that. They're supposed to believe a certain set of myths, usually written down in some book or preserved in oral tradition, no matter how contradictory they might be to modern science.

Thus, a religious scientist must be either a bad believer, or a bad scientist.

It's not unlike believing that specific people around you love you. You haven't got scientific evidence this is true, but you do have personal evidence on which you base the conclusion: this person loves me.

I don't really see how this argument supports anything you said. People usually do outwardly manifest love (doesn't matter what kind) in many ways that are demonstrably observable. A feeling that some supernatural being/divinity loves me would be just that, a feeling with no basis outside my deluded mind.

Religion can be incompatible to science if it makes falsifiable claims about the nature of the Universe as you called it.

Every religion does that, no matter how much they try to obfuscate that fact these days.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

As I explained in the OP the fact that scientists can be religious does not address the question of the compatibility of the underlying tenants of the 2 modes of thinking. It simply shows people can hold incompatible views. BTW in the absence of the inquisition I believe 95% of current day NAS members are atheist/agnostic.

I am not a scientist neither intelectual but I am realy careful not to hold incompatible wiews . I may hold incompatible wiews with some churches teaching but that doesnt make me less religious...

As I also stated you can design a "religious" belief that is not technically incompatible but that is not what the majority of religions are now or in the past. They make specific claims about things that while not necessarily falsifiable (they learned from being burned by Galileo) are things for which science has some evidence.

This is not realy a problem of compatibility of science and religion. It is problem of using common sesnse instead trying to missuse religion to manipulate and control...
It is a problem of destructive thinking. It concerns cardinals as much as rocket scientists.

For example, the common view of life after death. We know where consciousness comes from, it’s the stuff in your skull. We know when you die this stuff turns to mush. Now you can invent some other word for consciousness (soul) and frame your contention in an untestable way but you are making a claim about something science has data on and the claim is basically incompatible with the data.

Science knows next to nothing about consciousness. It is infinite and science deals mainly with the finite.

In fact I would argue the whole idea of faith is incompatible with science.

Faith is necessary for human mind as much breathing for human body. If there was no faith there would be no scientific discovery either. If I dont have faith in myself I cant accoplish anything. Faith in some higher force is just an extension of faith in oneself.

 

[civ_king]

As I explained in the OP the fact that scientists can be religious does not address the question of the compatibility of the underlying tenants of the 2 modes of thinking. It simply shows people can hold incompatible views. BTW in the absence of the inquisition I believe 95% of current day NAS members are atheist/agnostic.

As I also stated you can design a "religious" belief that is not technically incompatible but that is not what the majority of religions are now or in the past. They make specific claims about things that while not necessarily falsifiable (they learned from being burned by Galileo) are things for which science has some evidence. For example, the common view of life after death. We know where consciousness comes from, it’s the stuff in your skull. We know when you die this stuff turns to mush. Now you can invent some other word for consciousness (soul) and frame your contention in an untestable way but you are making a claim about something science has data on and the claim is basically incompatible with the data.

Simply stating that one thing is faith does not address the question of compatibility. I can have faith that the earth is the center of the universe (an historically required article of faith for some religions) but that does not make it compatible with science or in some nonoverlapping magisteria. It overlaps and is incompatible. In fact I would argue the whole idea of faith is incompatible with science.

Galileo was presented with the proposition "Come up with actual scientific proof or STFU", he did neither (well he came up with a crack idea that would have one high tide a day which is observably false...) so they made him STFU by sentencing him to house arrest in a... palace... then he complained and whined about being homesick so they sent him home and had servants take care of him... stellar parallax was finally proven in 1838

 

[Crezth]

Science and religion have, historically, filled the same roles in society. They both sought to explain the world, and it is in this sense that they are incompatible.

I am skeptical that anyone can claim to trust in the value of science yet still be religious - it is worth pointing out that as the influence of rationalism grew religion was forced to accommodate. No, the world cannot be literally 6000 years old. Religion must reconcile itself with science, yet science does not have to reconcile itself with religion.

As religion has already been relegated to the realm of the metaphysical, I'd say its relevance as anything more than a system of moral guidance is essentially nil. Which, you could say, is all it was ever meant to be - but then you'd be wrong.