Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[kochman]

Why would they be incompatible?

 

[Integral]

Why would they be incompatible?

Example 1.

Suppose you believe the Bible is 100-percent literal, no rhetorical flourishes, et cetera.
Now 1 Kings 7:23,26 implies quite plainly that pi is exactly 3.

Mathematically, pi is 3.14159....

Either you have to give up super-literal interpretation, or all of mathematics. Can't have both.


Example 2.
Genesis 1 is a creation story in which God creates the world and all in it in six days. Combine that with the genealogies in Genesis, and you get the result that the universe is no more than 15,000 years old.

Science(TM) measures the age of the universe at 13.7bn years.

Either you have to give up super-literal translation, or most of modern astronomy. Can't have both.



tl;dr any time a religious text makes a factual claim, and the claim is demonstrably wrong, you have a potential tension between "religion" and "science".

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

You all ignored my direct question:
Define Hitler as bad or good.
If bad - why? He was working for his country's general good.
If good - why? He was a mass murderer and a maniac.
You'd come up with two opposite definitions.
But if you exploit the token of "don't murder", you can surely say, that he was bad, based on that token.
The subjective good that could result for the country, was no excuse to commit something against the non-subjective prohibition.

Simple: we judge actions as being "bad" if they produce impressions in us that are displeasing. Actions are "good" when they produce impressions which are pleasing. There is no "objective" morality because there doesn't need to be. Most people are born with a sense of basic fairness. Those who are not are called "psychopaths," such as Hitler. What is so difficult to understand here?

 

[Integral]

Simple: we judge actions as being "bad" if they produce impressions in us that are displeasing. Actions are "good" when they produce impressions which are pleasing. There is no "objective" morality because there doesn't need to be. Most people are born with a sense of basic fairness. Those who are not are called "psychopaths," such as Hitler. What is so difficult to understand here?

Aww, that is an incredibly weak response. What are ya, some sort of moral relativist?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Saying that objective reality doesn't actually exist doesn't make one a moral relativist. There is no reason to believe that morality is objective when the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Hitler arrived, time for a lock.

 

[Ahovking]

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

True

 

[History_Buff]

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.

Scientific proof is better than personal experience because personal experience tends to be wrong. There's a reason courts don't place too much value on eye-witness statements; the brain and it's memories are much too malleable.

Nor do I think that religion would need to prove that God exists necessarily in order to vindicate itself. You give the example of miracles. If you could point to semi-routine events that were clearly miracles (principles of physics flagrantly violated in a well documented way), that would make a decent case for it.

What we have instead is personal miracles. You have some grand experience, and it offers some amazing insight into the face of God. But for whatever reason, nothing particularly miraculous is even proven to have happened. In the scientific world, if you saw a miraculous event (FTL neutrinos, to rip from the headlines) you can describe what happened, and if its true, I'll be able to replicate it, and see it for myself. If we disagree, then we have a common benchmark we can start from, and try and resolve our difference. With personal miracles, you just have you saying it happened, and me not believing you. End of story. In my opinion, that's science's great strength: it is universal, and infinitely accessible.

Of course, you're not wrong in saying it's wrong to hold religion to scientific tests. This is because science and religion are two fundamentally different things, with divergent goals. Science seeks to establish what is true; how we got here, how the world works, and what will happen in the future. Religion on the other hand, isn't out to establish the truth, but instead to find meaning from experience. In that world, it has a tremendous value to billions of people. But again, it's not universal. Other people will see different meaning, other people won't need mythology to provide meaning at all.

Again we just have to be wary of the point where the two intersect: the minds of humanity. The brain is a fickle creature, and hates to admit it's wrong. Hence why so many people cling to traditional wisdom and values. Yet when there is a conflict (and clearly they exist), science always eventually comes out on top. The world wasn't created in six days. It isn't six thousand years old. No deity created people from dust; evolution definitely occurred, and continues today, on all scales. Note that the Theory of Evolution isn't called a theory because there's doubt about the existence of evolution; the theoretical part is how and why it happens.

Now, do those conflicts mean religion and science are incompatible? I'd say it depends primarily on your definition of religion.

 

[Ahovking]

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.

One thing that frustrates me is that, people take Science as fact as 100% unchangeable its silly, in 3000 years time we will be seen to know as much as the cave men. cave man would never of Imagen the atomic bomb, man walking on the moon, computers just like today we couldn't possibly imagine where we would be in 3000 years time.

Science is not fact. its like maths if you add different variables(number) it will change the come out with a different answer. Its like before albert einstein you could go faster than light it was possible it was FACT until albert einstein change the variables.

 

[History_Buff]

One thing that frustrates me is that, people take Science as fact as 100% unchangeable its silly, in 3000 years time we will be seen to know as much as the cave men. cave man would never of Imagen the atomic bomb, man walking on the moon, computers just like today we couldn't possibly imagine where we would be in 3000 years time.

Yes, but the whole point is that even when science is wrong, we have a common standard on how to demonstrate that it is. There's no need to shout at the other person, and see who can win the most followers. No need to go to war to convert the heathens.

Nor does the knowledge of 3000 years ago really count as science, seeing as the scientific method wasn't in use. Science isn't just 'things we think are true.'

 

[Ahovking]

Yes, but the whole point is that even when science is wrong, we have a common standard on how to demonstrate that it is. There's no need to shout at the other person, and see who can win the most followers. No need to go to war to convert the heathens.

Nor does the knowledge of 3000 years ago really count as science, seeing as the scientific method wasn't in use. Science isn't just 'things we think are true.'

One it was just a rant and second no to us it wasn't a scientific method but to them it was a scientific method do you see where I am coming from ?

 

[History_Buff]

One it was just a rant and second no to us it wasn't a scientific method but to them it was a scientific method do you see where I am coming from ?

I do, but I'm just saying you're wrong to go about it that way. 3000 years ago, the going method for determining if something was correct was 'this seems right.' Which just so happens is the exact same method by which religion tends to work.

The fact that they were wrong about most things 3000 years ago doesn't cast much doubt on what we know now, since our method is much more rigorous.

 

[Ahovking]

I don't think god made man.... But if I wanted to be Christian or Jewish then I'd have to believe he created Adam from dust and Eve from Adams rib. It says it right there in the bible, I swear I'm not making this up.

-FacePlant- You Guys are as worst as the fundamentalist religious believers.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

One thing that frustrates me is that, people take Science as fact as 100% unchangeable its silly, in 3000 years time we will be seen to know as much as the cave men. cave man would never of Imagen the atomic bomb, man walking on the moon, computers just like today we couldn't possibly imagine where we would be in 3000 years time.

Science is not fact. its like maths if you add different variables(number) it will change the come out with a different answer. Its like before albert einstein you could go faster than light it was possible it was FACT until albert einstein change the variables.

I seriously doubt that in 3000 years, it will be proven that the planet earth is cubic, and it doesn't revolve around the sun, it's the other way around.

I seriously doubt that in 3000 years, they will think that south america and africa never moved away from each other, that they where never part of a supercontinent.

BTW, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. 2252 years ago.

 

[ghostmaker650]

One thing that frustrates me is that, people take Science as fact as 100% unchangeable its silly, in 3000 years time we will be seen to know as much as the cave men. cave man would never of Imagen the atomic bomb, man walking on the moon, computers just like today we couldn't possibly imagine where we would be in 3000 years time.

Nobody with a brain has ever claimed science to be 100% fact, and they damn well never claim it to be unchangeable. It's because science IS changeable that it's the most accurate system to go by. Religion is what's unchangeable, and it's because of that reason that it will always be wrong. Now of course people change a religion to fit their lifestyle all the time, but those people are deluding themselves.

Also your right, not all science is fact. But ya know... It's the closest damn thing we have. And if close isn't good enough for you then I guess your only option is to go create your own universe and be an all knowing god.

Yea... maybe that's how and why we're all here. Maybe some nutjob got frustrated because science wasn't producing enough "facts", so he created his own universe so that he could be god and know everything. (I'm currently accepting donations for this new found religion, if you don't donate then you're not cool and bad things will probably happen to you. No skeptics, critics, heretics, scientists, smart people, or gingers allowed.) For proof please refer to the inability of science to prove me wrong. Thank you.

-FacePlant- You Guys are as worst as the fundamentalist religious believers.

All I'm saying is if you want to believe in something then actually believe it. Is that such a crazy idea? I understand it's hard to actually believe anything from the bible but hey, you want to be a member.

And what is this "-FacePlant-" you keep doing?

 

[AlpsStranger]

As an off-the-hip response? I'd say there are definitely issues. I'd have to know whose religion. Are we talking about Francis Collins or Michael Behe/Ken Ham?

 

[El_Machinae]

I claim, with all certainty and strength, that if you remove religion, you remove the only basis for objective (as in non-subjective) morality, that you can take your child and point at, saying "this is what you should do".

Religion doesn't offer objective morality, it offers arbitrary morality. They're not the same thing. A well-constructed religion will give you a system for creating good morality, but then it's just science and philosophy bundled together.

Because religions commonly give arbitrary morality, they're a mixed bag of wisdom. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. When their morals are wrong, the morals need to be changed, and you can only do that if you've got either a moral system that's a good one or at least some type of zeitgeist available to create momentum.

Scientific proof is better than personal experience because personal experience tends to be wrong.

I'll go one further. I think those who rely on personal experience as a foundation for their religions tend to be wildly deceived by the religions they then adopt. As they learn more and more about their faith, they become less and less informed about reality. There're obviously some exceptions, the main exception is where people get one seed of a supernatural experience, and then rare 'communication' after that. Usually this is some type of zen experience that let's them remain agnostic but hopeful.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

...

And what is this "-FacePlant-" you keep doing?

A palm is a plant, right?

 

[civ2]

One thing you all forget:
There are many stories of miraculous cures, when DOCTORS clearly say that it's unscientific.
As of documented, depends what you mean by that.
All I hear here, is understanding personal as "in one's brain", whereas I'm speaking of actual physical events, that went contrary to PROBABILITY, or PREDICTIONS.
The fact that you were late for a crashed plane, due to your dog eating your homework, is NO LESS a "documentable miracle" than the same plane going at light speed.
Problem with such events is, people are too stubbornly "science lovers" to agree, that there is NO "coincidence".
I'll look into it, and will definitely find some documented miracles too.
Not overly supernatural, yet obviously miraculous.
See ya soon.

 

[El_Machinae]

With seven billion observers, unlikely events are likely to be reported. Coincidence is just that, coincidence. I don't see why you can 'claim' the good coincidences are miracles, but the 'bad' coincidences are not.