Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[_random_]

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.

I believe you're trying to say "God the Father." Also, it's "miraculously," not "through magic."

 

[Ayatollah So]

Tired old debate

With a clear, decisive answer that (because of its very clarity?) will never sell. To wit: it depends on the religion.

(Since the question was phrased in absolute terms, and since some religions are compatible with science, I answered No. But to WEIRD people (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) like most of CFC, non-Abrahamic religions might seem so "weird" that they "don't count". If that's how you interpreted the question, please be aware that I read it differently.)

And now I will read the replies to the thread.

 

[Berzerker]

most of the world's religions describe a water covered world before life and land were "created"

the science agrees... Before whatever happened ~4 bya to trigger life and plate tectonics the world had an ocean (the oldest minerals prior to this time were formed under water)

and a sumerian version of the "creation" of mankind claims the gods bound their image onto a creature roaming the southern lands of their serpent/water god. This new "human" was meant to take over the hard labor of the gods - to "till the ground". That was the Adam's stated purpose in Genesis...

a zulu myth claims their ancestors - the "artificial ones" - waged war on the apemen when the planet or star of god was visible in the sky.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

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.

The invention of "non-overlapping magisteria" was a highly useful one - for science. It allowed science to proceed with minimal interference. To some extent, it still does. So what if it's a little bit fictitious? Do you really want to declare war? I'm not too optimistic about your prospects if you do.

Now sure, in some cases war has already been declared by the other side. I'm not proposing unilateral disarmament. Just try not to win the science-haters lots of allies. Stick to the separate magisteria line for the sake of diplomacy.

 

[Winner]

I believe you're trying to say "God the Father."

No I am not.

 

[_random_]

If you're actually going for "Godfather" as in a baptismal sponsor, then yeah, it's one word.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm with you so far.

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.

You are now refuting the claim that no religion is incompatible with science. A claim I didn't make.

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.

And you included "practically" why? To refute me your counterclaim needs to be: "The same goes for any other religion".

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.

Are you suggesting that no one ever thought someone loved them because of the observations and it turned out to be wrong. Is your scientific observation here: "it looks that way, so it must be that way"?

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

Ok. Falsify the claim: "God is all" or "God alone is", on which some religions are based.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Science is empirical. Spirituality, by definition, cannot be empirical. The only way to justify their coexistence is to square the circle and compartmentalize one's beliefs; be religious on the weekend and be a scientist for the rest of the week. It makes no sense for one's skepticism to only go so far as what can be proven. Consistency means not having belief in what cannot be proven.

 

[civ2]

Answer: Compatible.
Reason: Both are seeking the truth, but from opposite directions.
As long as science doesn't interfere with spiritual (by denying it, which is totally unscientific, due to the inability to scientifically check non-physical things or ideas), and religion accepts proved scientific facts, - no problem.
One thing leads to disaster, when science starts assuming too much, and as the result, denying religion and spirituality, OR when religion is ignoring or denying obvious scientific achievements.
Former is a more modern thing, while the latter was typical for dark ages.
Both are tragic and wrong, but if we somehow make both problems disappear, science will do its true job: showing the beauty of G-d's Creation.
(I personally see the science attacks on religion as simply stupid, it's not in the task/range/ability/etc of science to decide spiritual things.)
I do hope, this thread won't grow into just another stupid bashing machine...

 

[Ahovking]

Answer: Compatible.
Reason: Both are seeking the truth, but from opposite directions.
As long as science doesn't interfere with spiritual (by denying it, which is totally unscientific, due to the inability to scientifically check non-physical things or ideas), and religion accepts proved scientific facts, - no problem.
One thing leads to disaster, when science starts assuming too much, and as the result, denying religion and spirituality, OR when religion is ignoring or denying obvious scientific achievements.
Former is a more modern thing, while the latter was typical for dark ages.
Both are tragic and wrong, but if we somehow make both problems disappear, science will do its true job: showing the beauty of G-d's Creation.
(I personally see the science attacks on religion as simply stupid, it's not in the task/range/ability/etc of science to decide spiritual things.)
I do hope, this thread won't grow into just another stupid bashing machine...

Agreed

 

[_random_]

It makes no sense for one's skepticism to only go so far as what can be proven. Consistency means not having belief in what cannot be proven.

If you're looking for things that can be proven, any science outside pure mathematics is the wrong way to go.

 

[History_Buff]

Answer: Compatible.
Reason: Both are seeking the truth, but from opposite directions.
As long as science doesn't interfere with spiritual (by denying it, which is totally unscientific, due to the inability to scientifically check non-physical things or ideas), and religion accepts proved scientific facts, - no problem.
One thing leads to disaster, when science starts assuming too much, and as the result, denying religion and spirituality, OR when religion is ignoring or denying obvious scientific achievements.
Former is a more modern thing, while the latter was typical for dark ages.
Both are tragic and wrong, but if we somehow make both problems disappear, science will do its true job: showing the beauty of G-d's Creation.
(I personally see the science attacks on religion as simply stupid, it's not in the task/range/ability/etc of science to decide spiritual things.)
I do hope, this thread won't grow into just another stupid bashing machine...

Sure, but it's not just the areas of direct conflict, it's a way of thinking. Science and religion both make statements about areas where we can't really be sure of an answer. Except we have this awesome track record with science, whereas religion has largely failed to predict anything accurately.

So when both make prognostications, we have to make a decision about which one we're going to value more.

 

[ghostmaker650]

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.

Where did you get your information that god made animals? I'm gonna take a wild guess and say The Book of Genesis. Now I didn't see any part that said god used animals to form humans, or even a passage that alludes to the possibility. It states very clearly how god created man. I'm sorry but that creation story isn't some open ended book left open for it's readers to draw their own conclusions. When you try to reconcile your clubs claims and beliefs with science you're absolutely deluding yourself.

Also I think your idea of perfect is far from my idea of perfect or even the definition of perfect. A perfect creature wouldn't have to kill and consume other living creatures to stay alive, and it certainly wouldn't have to s**t and p**s all the time

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Sure, but it's not just the areas of direct conflict, it's a way of thinking. Science and religion both make statements about areas where we can't really be sure of an answer. Except we have this awesome track record with science, whereas religion has largely failed to predict anything accurately.

So when both make prognostications, we have to make a decision about which one we're going to value more.

Exactly. I think the most striking difference is the progression of science as opposed to religion. Scientific knowledge converges on truth while religion diverges from it. Science starts out with many opinions and eventually settles on one as evidence is collected and analyzed (and so long as that opinion continues to be corroborated by available evidence). Religion, by contrast, starts with one opinion and is constantly diverging into many due to the endless possibilities of mere interpretation of holy scriptures. I don't think I need to say which one is better at discerning what is true from what is false.

 

[Ahovking]

Where did you get your information that god made animals? I'm gonna take a wild guess and say The Book of Genesis. Now I didn't see any part that said god used animals to form humans, or even a passage that alludes to the possibility. It states very clearly how god created man. I'm sorry but that creation story isn't some open ended book left open for it's readers to draw their own conclusions. When you try to reconcile your clubs claims and beliefs with science you're absolutely deluding yourself.

Also I think your idea of perfect is far from my idea of perfect or even the definition of perfect. A perfect creature wouldn't have to kill and consume other living creatures to stay alive, and it certainly wouldn't have to s**t and p**s all the time

-face plant- And how do you think God made man.......maybe using evolution the Book of Genesis doest go into detail. Nature can be a messy thing. In nature the strongest survive and the weakest often die out we are apart of nature.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

-face plant- And how do you think God made man.......maybe using evolution the Book of Genesis doest go into detail. Nature can be a messy thing. In nature the strongest survive and the weakest often die out we are apart of nature.

Actually, it's the most adaptable that survive, not necessarily the strongest.

 

[civ2]

Buff
The one thing that really annoys me, is when anti-theists claim that "religion provides no proof", then "beefing" it with "...no scientific proof".
Why "scientific" is any better than any other, eg. personal experience?
If I myself experienced something that can clearly be called a small miracle (and there are many people that could claim BIG miracles, up to life saving), why call this NOT an evidence?
I have no wish to prefer "scientific" over "personal", simply cause the former quite too often is "idolized" as THE ONLY TRUE one.
Well, it's NOT.
I'm a sane smart person, thus my logical conclusions about MY experience are valuable, at the very least, to MYSELF.
I don't even need to "scientifize" on it, I already got my answer immediately myself.
On the other hand of scales, there are some "scientific theories" that can't be experienced, mainly due to them being in the old-old past, rather than in human reachable times.
There are facts in them, and also a whole load of assumptions and speculations.
These, I consider not more valuable than my personal experience, at the very least, cause what I experienced, is true in my "world", whereas what others just assumed, is only true in their world, not mine.
I'm not sure if you get my point, but basically my huge distrust of stuff like macro evolution, is based on its uncheckability and solely speculative nature.
Yes, we can't scientifically prove anything spiritual - but do we even need to?
As in, would it make it any more or less real for our experience, if we also applied some scientific explanation to what our very eyes saw and our very ears heard?
I say, no.
And I'm quite sure, that most of you, if honestly thinking, will agree with me.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

He already said why scientific proof is better. Science makes useful predictions about the future. Religion does not. It is better to base one's conclusions about reality on evidence rather than experience, because the human mind is too susceptible to delusions.

 

[ghostmaker650]

Answer: Compatible.
Reason: Both are seeking the truth, but from opposite directions.
As long as science doesn't interfere with spiritual (by denying it, which is totally unscientific, due to the inability to scientifically check non-physical things or ideas), and religion accepts proved scientific facts, - no problem.
One thing leads to disaster, when science starts assuming too much, and as the result, denying religion and spirituality, OR when religion is ignoring or denying obvious scientific achievements.
Former is a more modern thing, while the latter was typical for dark ages.
Both are tragic and wrong, but if we somehow make both problems disappear, science will do its true job: showing the beauty of G-d's Creation.
(I personally see the science attacks on religion as simply stupid, it's not in the task/range/ability/etc of science to decide spiritual things.)
I do hope, this thread won't grow into just another stupid bashing machine...

In a perfect world? sure... but this ain't no perfect world.

Science can attempt to pursue answers in any field it wants, cause ya know that's kind of it's job. If it finds answers that interfere with your spiritual pursuits oh well for you. Religion is notoriously bad at accepting science, You'd have an easier time convincing an Al Qaeda suicide bomber to give up Islam, than getting religions to accept current science in a timely manner.

 

[Winner]

Short answer:

1. Why "scientific" is any better than any other, eg. personal experience?

"Science flies people to the Moon, religion flies them into tall buildings."

That's why. Internal convictions not based on facts or at least rational thinking are a very, very bad guide of human behaviour.