How can science and religion get along?

[richardlowellt]

Both need to be a little open minded. That's all it takes. Acknowledge that despite your -current- belief there are things you do not know. Don't just dismiss everything because it doesn;t fit into you -current- world view.
I emphasise the word -current- because everybody's ideas and perceptions change over time. This just illustrates how we do not know everything.

As far as I can see there is nothing "open minded" about most religions. The Christian religions are very rigid in there beliefs with no room for question. Everybody's ideas and perceptions should change over time, but I think you know as well as I that those devoted to the word of the bible have not changed their dogmatic beliefs in hundreds of years.

 

[McBell]

As far as I can see there is nothing "open minded" about most religions. The Christian religions are very rigid in there beliefs with no room for question. Everybody's ideas and perceptions should change over time, but I think you know as well as I that those devoted to the word of the bible have not changed their dogmatic beliefs in hundreds of years.

Yes because there is only one denomination of Christianity and every Christian agrees 100% with every other Christian.

I mean, it isn't like you have Christians arguing with each other over same sex marriage or anything....


Yes,
this post is all sarcasm

 

[Madhuri]

As far as I can see there is nothing "open minded" about most religions. The Christian religions are very rigid in there beliefs with no room for question. Everybody's ideas and perceptions should change over time, but I think you know as well as I that those devoted to the word of the bible have not changed their dogmatic beliefs in hundreds of years.

True. Open minded people would have to question aspects of their dogmatic teachings and wonder if it should be interpreted differently. I guess you can't really take Abrahamic religions literally and also be open minded.

 

[themadhair]

Did you ask yourself how an unschooled man living in a desert will even know that these two water don’t mix.

^ Perfect example of why religion and science conflict. Here you have a situation where an adherent of Islam will insult and degrade their own prophet because they think it makes information that was common knowledge at the time somehow more miraculous. A similar example is when adherents of Islam will cite embryology in the koran despite the description being known five centuries beforehand by the Greek scholar Galen. Of course, the irony in all this is that such revisionist allah-massaging contributes nothing of value, helping only to propagate ignorance and prejudice.

Religion makes stuff up and science works stuff out. How could they not be in conflict?

 

[Amill]

The two get a long when you Wrap religion around the science. With an argument like "oh god set up the singularity before the big bang". Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, and things that are undetectable, so it cannot delve into any ideas on creation. The only way religion works with science is if you fill the gaps in science with god, which is the origin of religion, providing explanations for things we don't understand.

 

[MSizer]

They get along fine if a person has an appropriate perspective of both religion and science. Science (as Father Heathen said) is not a world-view. Science is a method for the collection, analysis and testing of data. Science looks at the phenomena of our natural world and seeks to find explanations and understanding of how our natural world operates.

Science is not a system of ethics, it is not a philosophy, it is not a way of living, it is not out to get religion, and it is not demonic.

Religion, on the other hand, is a system of ethics, a way of living, and a philosophy. Religion is the acceptance of a particular outlook/perception of our world and acting in appropriation to that outlook.

Religion is not a method of understanding or explaining the natural world. Religion is not a method of understanding or dictating history. It is solely for the betterment and refinement of mankind via particular ethical modalities and ideological beliefs.

When one realizes the difference between the two, it makes it very easy for the two to get along.

On the contrary TheKnight, religion is not a code of ethics (though it claims to be) and it does claim in many cases to be a method for explaining the world. The two are not compatible. I think the reason most people seem to think they are is that they have a tendency to be religious (slightly irrational) but don't want to sound like nutjobs, so they find a middle ground between the two and say something that sounds nice, like "I can see how both have their own domain, and I respect both". A person who honestly thinks this is both superstitious and lacks understanding.

 

[MSizer]

True. Open minded people would have to question aspects of their dogmatic teachings and wonder if it should be interpreted differently. I guess you can't really take Abrahamic religions literally and also be open minded.

You can't even be a "liberal" member of an abrahamic religion and be open minded.

 

[gnomon]

The question isn't can science and religion get along.

Science is a methodological process of cataloging and modeling observed facts. Religion is essentially a method of transferring cultural beliefs from one generation to the next. Or forcibly heaving one culture upon another.

Religions can accept current scientific models and thus appear to be reasonable or reject them and remain irrational. It's a process that has been in place even before the word science was defined. People should not be so put off that religions can continue to modify themselves according to new knowledge gained of our universe and ourselves.

However, those religions that jump the gun such as "quantum transcendentalism", a religion I made up to cover all the new "New Age", mystical, etc. religions invoking science as a foundation of their beliefs, should be recognized as irrational as those that are archaic. There is not much of a fundamental difference between a creationist and a bleephead*.

A common argument that science needs religion is that science lacks the morality to control itself. I question the need for religion, at least the traditional religions and the modern ones offered up in their place, as necessarily providing that. However there is definitely a need for some moral compass in science. I'm trying to find out if a story about genetically engineered bacteria that resides on the root systems of trees which could have resulted in an ecological disaster is true or not.

* A bleephead is one who is taken by the sham documentary "What the Bleep".

 

[Shia Islam]

^ Perfect example of why religion and science conflict. Here you have a situation where an adherent of Islam will insult and degrade their own prophet because they think it makes information that was common knowledge at the time somehow more miraculous. A similar example is when adherents of Islam will cite embryology in the koran despite the description being known five centuries beforehand by the Greek scholar Galen. Of course, the irony in all this is that such revisionist allah-massaging contributes nothing of value, helping only to propagate ignorance and prejudice.

Religion makes stuff up and science works stuff out. How could they not be in conflict?

With all respect,
First of all what you wrote shows that you don’t know what is meant by the Word Miracle.
Second You assumed that there is no God and made your conclusions based on that assumption.
Thirdly, if you want to contradict the Miraculous evedences in Quran. You need to have a scientific Approach.
First make a list of the claimed miracles.
Then try to prove that they are false.
Yes proving that one is false is enough, and nobody was able to do this.
Regards

 

[Madhuri]

You can't even be a "liberal" member of an abrahamic religion and be open minded.

Well, actually I tink you can. But the people I know who are liberal Christians for example, that are open minded, are people who do accept that it is the only path. They tend to be a little more spiritual than religious and just accept Jesus as -their- sviour but not necessarily as everybody's saviour. These are just some people that I know...

 

[themadhair]

First of all what you wrote shows that you don’t know what is meant by the Word Miracle.

I assume that any definition you would propose would not include writing about things that were common knowledge of the time. Maybe your standards for what qualifies as a miracle are much lower (or non-existent)?

Second You assumed that there is no God and made your conclusions based on that assumption.

My post made no such assumption. I took the information provided and presented a critical, if blunt, analysis. I fail to see how the assumption of existence of allah renders Muhammad’s writings about information that was common knowledge in a society with many travellers can be somehow raised to the level of a miracle.

Thirdly, if you want to contradict the Miraculous evedences in Quran. You need to have a scientific Approach.
First make a list of the claimed miracles.
Then try to prove that they are false.

Actually isn’t the onus on the person claiming the miracle to provide evidence that such an event was indeed a miracle? If writing about information that was easily observable (anyone living by the coast would know of it), and easily spread in a society with many travellers, qualifies as a miracle, then my noting of the corncrake in Antrim must also be miraculous. How else could I have obtained such knowledge that I never saw with my own eyes? It must be a miracle.

Yes proving that one is false is enough, and nobody was able to do this.

You ever read a science book? No? Figures.

 

[TheKnight]

On the contrary TheKnight, religion is not a code of ethics (though it claims to be) and it does claim in many cases to be a method for explaining the world. The two are not compatible. I think the reason most people seem to think they are is that they have a tendency to be religious (slightly irrational) but don't want to sound like nutjobs, so they find a middle ground between the two and say something that sounds nice, like "I can see how both have their own domain, and I respect both". A person who honestly thinks this is both superstitious and lacks understanding.

I suppose that could be the case. But I have found that those who say that science and religion are incompatible are consistently bigoted and arrogantly blinded by ignorance.


The two, as I said, are not incompatible because they each have entirely separate functions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only way for them to ever really get along, which will probably never fully happen, is for the super religious to realize that science isn't out to disprove them.

 

[Shia Islam]

I assume that any definition you would propose would not include writing about things that were common knowledge of the time. Maybe your standards for what qualifies as a miracle are much lower (or non-existent)?


My post made no such assumption. I took the information provided and presented a critical, if blunt, analysis. I fail to see how the assumption of existence of allah renders Muhammad’s writings about information that was common knowledge in a society with many travellers can be somehow raised to the level of a miracle.


Actually isn’t the onus on the person claiming the miracle to provide evidence that such an event was indeed a miracle? If writing about information that was easily observable (anyone living by the coast would know of it), and easily spread in a society with many travellers, qualifies as a miracle, then my noting of the corncrake in Antrim must also be miraculous. How else could I have obtained such knowledge that I never saw with my own eyes? It must be a miracle.


You ever read a science book? No? Figures.

Sorry, but you are not objective in the issue.

There are many big scientists who embraced Islam because of its miraculous evidences.

You need to get rid of the bias ...buy a translation of the Holy Quran...read it and then make your positions based on hard facts.

 

[themadhair]

There are many big scientists who embraced Islam because of its miraculous evidences.

Care to cite their peer reviewed research showing that the koran contains miracles? I’m totally biased against propositions with absolutely no evidence. I don’t care what a scientist believes – I care about what (s)he can demonstrate using evidence to be true. There are scientists who support other religions too. In fact the Jewish community are overrepresented in terms of Nobel prize winners – is that evidence for Judaism? Or evidence that this line of argumentation is an argument to authority due to lack of evidence?

You need to get rid of the bias ...buy a translation of the Holy Quran...read it and then make your positions based on hard facts.

Multiple free translations are available on the internet. Ignoring the discrimination to women, the debauchery of science with its reiteration of a primitive creation story, the talking to ants, etc. it isn’t a bad book of poetry. The best poetry is always written by folks who were unhinged and/or high as a kite. But as a book of knowledge or guidance it is completely worthless.

And for the record I had a much higher opinion of the koran before I visited this site and saw its effect as a scientific retardant on some of the Muslims here.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Science and religion can only get along when religion doesn't try to include malformed scientific theories and then blame science for not understanding those theories when science doesn't even try to address those said theories in the first place.

 

[DadBurnett]

IMHO - it is not science vs. religion; I have no real perception of their incompatibility. What's "wrong," why they seemingly "don't get along," is due soley to the closed-minded perceptions, assertions judgments of human beings.

 

[Shia Islam]

Multiple free translations are available on the internet. Ignoring the n, the debauchery of science with its reiteration of a primitive creation story, the talking to ants, etc. it isn’t a bad book of poetry. The best poetry is always written by folks who were unhinged and/or high as a kite. But as a book of knowledge or guidance it is completely worthless.

Sorry, but it's clear that you are repeating what many people say without backing it evidence.

Bring specific evidences:
You mentioned:

1. discrimination to women:
What evidence you have?

2. reiteration of a primitive creation story.
Bring scientific facts in contradiction with it as it's stated by the Quran?

3.the talking to ants.
If God can't make an ant talk...could you call him God?

4.its effect as a .
Assuming you are right about scientific retardant on some of the Muslims here, could you prove that this is a result of the Quran

 

[themadhair]

Sorry, but it's clear that you are repeating what many people say without backing it evidence.

Or maybe you never actually bothered to read your own holy book?

1. discrimination to women:
What evidence you have?

YouTube - Muslim Proves Women are Inferior with "science".
The quotation is at the start of the video. That quotation is the basis for the utter inanity that follows.

2. reiteration of a primitive creation story.
Bring scientific facts in contradiction with it as it's stated by the Quran?

Surah 71:16 and Surah 41:9 – 41:12. Moon doesn’t have its own light source and this account very clearly states the earth was created before the heavens. If you don’t know or are unable to do the research to learn why this is flat out wrong (which is what you would expect for a primitive creation story) then you are demonstrating the koran’s effect as a scientific retardant.

3.the talking to ants.
If God can't make an ant talk...could you call him God?

When you are making stuff up you may as well go the whole hog. I just find it funny that you can reason this way while demanding scientific facts. If the very rules of reality aren’t being followed here why would you need scientific facts???

4.its effect as a .
Assuming you are right about scientific retardant on some of the Muslims here, could you prove that this is a result of the Quran

Every single discussion involving scientifically illiterate Muslims on this forum has involved them citing the koran as their sole reason for why the science is wrong. I think it pretty compelling evidence for the koran as being a scientific retardant.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've noticed these are all reason that science and religion are AGAINST each other, not how they can get along.

Maybe both sides should put their johnsons away and stop peeing on each other.