Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[ghostmaker650]

If that plane did go FTL, then the event is no longer impossible, thus not a miracle by your example. That argument is circular. If we go by Meriam-Webster, it says supernatural causes, not impossible (though supernatural could be perceived as impossible).

The event still remains impossible so long as the means to temporarily break the impossibility is miraculous. In other words, it's still impossible so long as it's God breaking the rules, because God is capable of breaking the rules. Also anything that breaks the laws of nature certainly falls in the realm of impossible.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm thinking off a closed box with a person and some radioactive material to create a Schrödinger's Miracle.

 

[El_Machinae]

By the way, guys, civ2 does not represent all (or even a majority of) religious people.

Just like to put it out there.

It's a decent snapshot of my opinion of "personal religious experience" though.

 

[Atticus]

Defining a miracle as an unlikely event with a positive outcome really is grasping at straws.

It really depends. If you think what people knew 2000 years ago, many things we now think as normal would have been miracles then.

There's also possibility to use the word "miracle" in normal everyday language without religious overtones at all. Suppose I needed money for a medical operation, found a coin in the street, decided to play lottery and won the money for it. I could say it was a miracle, and still think that it was nothing supernatural.

Or you could do some experiments and notice some tendency. You could notice that all the perfect numbers are even, and call it a miracle. You could notice something in real world experiments you can't explain and call it miracle, or say that it would be a miracle if they weren't caused by something. (And notice that I don't mean they'd be "supernatural", just that you can't explain them).

From religion's point of view, why should divine miracles be (obviously) contrary to the scientific knowledge? Maybe it would be stronger message from God to give real blatant miracles, but then he could just inform us about his being and thoughts straight forward. It would perhaps be problematic for the stereotypical religious person, but I at least can imagine a world where God chooses not to care of making himself known all the time.

Anyhow, I don't think that supernatural miracles would be in any way necessary for religion.

Also, I don't think there's any reason to think science and religion would be incompatible. You could for example think that the area of religion is in those questions where science is silent. Why there was a Big Bang? Why is there something rather than nothing? How should one live his life? (I don't know what's the current thought about the first question, or how silent science is about it, but the point is probably clear: there are things that science doesn't even try to say anything about).

I don't think there's any need to insert God into those things, but neither that there's anything that stops someone from doing it.

 

[civ2]

ON TOPIC.
Religious Jewish scientists of today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Branover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_(Leo)_Levi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Domb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Aviezer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Kaplan
Now, who needs Einstein any more?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It really depends. If you think what people knew 2000 years ago, many things we now think as normal would have been miracles then.

There's also possibility to use the word "miracle" in normal everyday language without religious overtones at all. Suppose I needed money for a medical operation, found a coin in the street, decided to play lottery and won the money for it. I could say it was a miracle, and still think that it was nothing supernatural.

Or you could do some experiments and notice some tendency. You could notice that all the perfect numbers are even, and call it a miracle. You could notice something in real world experiments you can't explain and call it miracle, or say that it would be a miracle if they weren't caused by something. (And notice that I don't mean they'd be "supernatural", just that you can't explain them).

From religion's point of view, why should divine miracles be (obviously) contrary to the scientific knowledge? Maybe it would be stronger message from God to give real blatant miracles, but then he could just inform us about his being and thoughts straight forward. It would perhaps be problematic for the stereotypical religious person, but I at least can imagine a world where God chooses not to care of making himself known all the time.

Anyhow, I don't think that supernatural miracles would be in any way necessary for religion.

Also, I don't think there's any reason to think science and religion would be incompatible. You could for example think that the area of religion is in those questions where science is silent. Why there was a Big Bang? Why is there something rather than nothing? How should one live his life? (I don't know what's the current thought about the first question, or how silent science is about it, but the point is probably clear: there are things that science doesn't even try to say anything about).

I don't think there's any need to insert God into those things, but neither that there's anything that stops someone from doing it.

You can insert God in anything for all I care. If someone looks at an unlikely event and thinks "miracle" that's fine by me.

When that person goes on to try and convince me it's a miracle and calls me not open-minded enough to see it his way or too engrossed in denying God's intervention, I am going to object to that and tell that person he's grasping at straws.

edit: civ2, you typo-ed OFF

 

[warpus]

Science is incompatible with religion only if you try to use religion to explain how our world works.

Science is the tool with a very specific purpose. Religion is a different tool - for something else.

Use them for the right things and they won't be incompatible.

 

[Atticus]

When that person goes on to try and convince me it's a miracle and calls me not open-minded enough to see it his way or too engrossed in denying God's intervention, I am going to object to that and tell that person he's grasping at straws.

No objections. I wasn't completely observant of you two's argument, and was more babbling on my own than trying to hold civ2's side there.

 

[civ2]

Zig
SUUURE, who cares about actual scientists, when we can have PERSONAL OPINIONS...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your eyes look all weird. Are you drunk?

 

[ghostmaker650]

Science is incompatible with religion only if you try to use religion to explain how our world works.

Science is the tool with a very specific purpose. Religion is a different tool - for something else.

Religion is supposed to be an explanatory system of God (and what ever prophets) and how to be closer to that God. It's downfall came when it also tried to be the explanatory system of the world, universe, nature, etc.

 

[civ2]

ghost
To reverse it:
The clash started, when science started doubting the spiritual reality, of which it has no knowledge.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

This is not a yes or no question. Science is religion and religion is science, in that they are both explanatory systems for humans and the universe around with surrounding hero-figures and myths. The distinction is completely ideological.

As a matter-of-fact answer to the question, our concepts of "science" and "religion" are incompatible when they are understood as offering competing explanations of the same thing.

I find this quite appealing. As spiritual person I want to use the science to measure God the Finite and use yoga to enter into the God the Infinite.

 

[warpus]

ghost
To reverse it:
The clash started, when science started doubting the spiritual reality, of which it has no knowledge.

It's outside of the realm of the scientific method; assuming that it's beyond the 'natural'.

Science doesn't doubt anything - it's a tool that we can use to determine how natural phenomena operate. We can use it to answer questions like: How old is the universe? How was the sun formed? Why is there such a great variety of life on our planet? Why do moths have powdery wings?

The conflict between science and religion comes into play when people try to use religion to answer questions about the natural world, or when scientists try to use the scientific method to answer a question about the supernatural - for example, how many sons does God have? Does he wear slippers?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

ghost
To reverse it:
The clash started, when science started doubting the spiritual reality, of which it has no knowledge.

Guns dont kill people and science doesnt doubt.

 

[ghostmaker650]

Zig
SUUURE, who cares about actual scientists, when we can have PERSONAL OPINIONS...

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.

Is there a word for what just happened here?

 

[ghostmaker650]

ghost
To reverse it:
The clash started, when science started doubting the spiritual reality, of which it has no knowledge.

The clash started when religion started making spiritual claims of which it has no knowledge.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The conflict between science and religion comes into play when people try to use religion to answer questions about the natural world, or when scientists try to use the scientific method to answer a question about the supernatural - for example, how many sons does God have? Does he wear slippers?

Actually there is probably no reason why you couldnt use science as religion and vice versa. Only you shouldnt impose the half baked results/truths on anybody else with desire to convert them for the sake of the conversion.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The clash started when religion started making spiritual claims of which it has no knowledge.

Or to put it more precisely: when some religious people badly understood some spiritual truths and missused these false assumptions for imposing their will on others...

 

[holy king]

that very much depends on what religion you're talking about, doesnt it?