Reconciling Science and Religion

[Ostronomos]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to those minds that another individual might deem "inferior".
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

 

[Ebionite]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible

Religion is about belief, but science is about falsifiability. In common they share the ideal of knowledge. In the gospels knowledge was often shared through parables, since the knowledge was only for the inner circle. This hidden knowledge was symbolised by the sealed book and the key.

 

[Valjean]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias.

Not following.
A "scientific" version of something requires objective evidence. How would we possibly compile a comprehensive description of something intangible, invisible, and undetectable? What empirical, observable, testable, falsifiable evidence would we use to formulate this 'version of God'?
Rational people accept what is well evidenced, regardless of personal bias, and in a formal system like science, bias is systematically eliminated.
Science is not about opinion, utility, preference or commonsense. It's all about observation, objective evidence, and attempting to falsify hypotheses.

The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to those minds that another individual might deem "inferior".
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.

I agree religion is frequently used to pander to popular sentiment, but what does this have to do with the truth of its doctrines?
Blame a higher power??? What does that mean? Human behavior is the responsibility of the actors, isn't it?

No indication religion has led to political abuse or cults? Afghanistan's government is based entirely on religion, and Isis is a cult. For that matter, what actual cult can you name that is not based on religion?

I say religion and science are polar opposites and irreconcilable. They are entirely different things, with entirely different purposes, values and methods.

It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is about belief, but science is about falsifiability. In common they share the ideal of knowledge. In the gospels knowledge was often shared through parables, since the knowledge was only for the inner circle. This hidden knowledge was symbolised by the sealed book and the key.

Religion is about meaning, purpose, values, propriety and maintaining social order.
Science is about facts, mechanisms, and investigating objective truth.

 

[Ebionite]

Religion is about meaning, purpose, values, propriety and maintaining social order.

Not necessarily. From the Anglican Articles of Religion:

1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Science is about facts, mechanisms, and investigating objective truth.

Scientific theories are worthless if they are not falsifiable.

 

[ChristineM]

A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice

Science does not do pixies, leprechauns, unicorns or gods.

 

[Quintessence]

I can't help but notice the opening post only cites Christianity and their god as examples. Did you mean to make this thread about reconciling science and Christianity? Which version of Christianity?

 

[George-ananda]

Reconciling Science and Religion​

In my thinking there is nothing to reconcile. They should be complementary methods of learning about reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific theories are worthless if they are not falsifiable.

If it is not falsifiable it is not a scientific theory. You just sort of said "Blue is worthless if it is not blue".

 

[Jimmy]

Science does not do pixies, leprechauns, unicorns or gods.

Neither does religion, aside from gods

 

[Valjean]

Not necessarily. From the Anglican Articles of Religion:

1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

How does one religion's doctrine change the overall function of religion?

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific theories are worthless if they are not falsifiable.

OK, and that's why testing hypotheses, ie: trying to disprove them, is part of the scientific method.
Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is not evidence based and often not falsifiable. In fact, religion generally discourages any inquiry into its veracity.

 

[Valjean]

Reconciling Science and Religion​

In my thinking there is nothing to reconcile. They should be complementary methods of learning about reality.

But religion is not a method of learning about reality. That's not its function. It's not a research modality, and, in fact, discourages research and questioning. Religion generally involves unevidenced, unquestioned, axiomatic and frequently fantastical claims.

 

[Valjean]

Neither does religion, aside from gods

Religions posit all kinds of incorporeal beings and mythical creatures.
Science does only what's evidenced.

 

[Jimmy]

Religions posit all kinds of incorporeal beings and mythical creatures.
Science does only what's evidenced.

Not pixies, leprechauns or unicorns

 

[George-ananda]

But religion is not a method of learning about reality. That's not its function. It's not a research modality, and, in fact, discourages research and questioning. Religion generally involves unevidenced, unquestioned, axiomatic and frequently fantastical claims.

Sounds like you are describing ‘bad and narrow’ religion.

I was more referring to Eastern religions like Vedic science where things are systematized and debate and inquiry are encouraged.

Good point in that I need to clarify the type of religion I am referring to.

 

[dybmh]

I vote no. Religion and science are completely different human activities. It really is that simple for me. It's like looking in a merck manual for cake recipes. Triage at the ER is not working the the french-fryer at a diner.

Beyond that, folks here don't agree on the defintion of religion. So this thread has some work to do before even approaching a synergy of science and religion.

 

[Estro Felino]

It depends on one's own vision of God.
It's obvious Christians have all different visions of God.

 

[exchemist]

Religion is about meaning, purpose, values, propriety and maintaining social order.
Science is about facts, mechanisms, and investigating objective truth.

Yes I think religions in general are intended to provide a guide for living your life and dealing with the joys and sorrows it inevitably involves. This is clearly a purpose that has nothing to do with science. So there should be, in principle, no conflict.

I would not say, however, that science is an investigation of objective truth. Truth is a word little used in science, and rightly so. Surely science is about understanding nature, in a way that allows us to model and predict it. But I don’t think we claim to attain objective truth through it. We just hope to get closer.

 

[Heyo]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile,

It's impossible.

this does not mean they are totally incompatible.

They are.

A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice,

The only scientific version of gods that is accurate and comprehensive is the absent gods.

However, there can be a "philosophical" version of gods. If you propose ideal gods (the Platonic ideal) with some set of "allowed transactions" comparable to mathematics - without any relation to the real world, you could have a religion that is not in conflict with science. You'd have truly Non-Overlapping MAgisteria.
I know of no such religion.
All existing religions are necessarily non scientific as they all either claim a reality that doesn't fit the observation or is in axiomatic conflict with science. Science assumes an orderly universe (i.e. no magic) and almost all religions fundamentally rest on magic. You can't reconcile that.

Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.

The "if I wouldn't do it, someone else would" excuse of immoral behaviour.

 

[PureX]

Religion doesn't need to be reconciled to science any more that art or philosophy do. We ca describe an elephant using word. We can describe it using imagery. We can describe it by how it functions. And we can describe what it means to us, or to the world.

Each method provides us with a different set of information that can be used to further a different purpose. None is better or worse, and none have to be reconciled to any other. True understanding comes from allowing all these different ways of perceiving and sharing our experience of existence their full potential.