Science and Religion not compatible.

[E. Nato Difficile]

Religion is not just literal mythology. The two can easily exist side by side, because religion is not necessarily made of statements about reality, but rather expressions of ourselves.

Admittedly, there are vast numbers of people with religious beliefs that constitute claims about reality. Religion is based on the notion that everything that happens is part of some cosmic plan, and plenty of religious people today are convinced that the complexity of natural phenomena could only be the result of agency. Either of these statements is just the kind of claim about reality that empirical inquiry addresses.

-Nato

 

[ChristineES]

What is your guys opinion on the compatibility of science and religion?

They're neither compatible or incompatible. They are two totally different things and they won't be combined. However, a person can believe in God, spirits, etc. and still follow science. Believing in God is just that: a belief. A belief is not the same as a fact.

 

[idav]

What is your guys opinion on the compatibility of science and religion?

They may be compatible or incompatible depending if you ask science and religion the same question. Though for both science and religions some answers are still "i don't know".

It is another issue if they are purposely ignoring science to stick to particular interpretation of any given holy scripts that can be shown to be clearly wrong. Like a literal six day creation for example.

 

[Riverwolf]

Admittedly, there are vast numbers of people with religious beliefs that constitute claims about reality. Religion is based on the notion that everything that happens is part of some cosmic plan, and plenty of religious people today are convinced that the complexity of natural phenomena could only be the result of agency. Either of these statements is just the kind of claim about reality that empirical inquiry addresses.

-Nato

Religion is way more complex than that. It's not based on statements of reality; it's core base actually lies in communal rituals, and thus is rooted in behavior, not reality-claims.

Don't forget that even Plato recommended removing epics, the primary source of information about the Gods in Greek religion at the time, from his Ideal State.

I, myself, regard mythology as a form of art, not literal history, and I think a lot of religious people feel the same way.

 

[MatthiasGould]

There is only a clash between religion and science as long as people put up barriers between the two. Personally, I believe that by studying sciences, we can see something of the nature of Allah, as the world around us is full of His signs. It is our responsibility to look for and contemplate upon them, in order to understand Allah.

Istafighullah if I am in error.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Religion is way more complex than that. It's not based on statements of reality; it's core base actually lies in communal rituals, and thus is rooted in behavior, not reality-claims.

Don't forget that even Plato recommended removing epics, the primary source of information about the Gods in Greek religion at the time, from his Ideal State.

I, myself, regard mythology as a form of art, not literal history, and I think a lot of religious people feel the same way.

I agree with everything you say. But I'm not a believer. Do you really think the most common, mainstream form of religious belief is that sophisticated and nuanced?

I don't think the majority of Catholics would say that transubstantiation or the Resurrection are mere symbols. I couldn't imagine the majority of Muslims would profess belief that the Koran is just a helpful guide for the soul, or that the Prophet was just a kind of author. Believers do talk about surviving their physical deaths in a consistently literal sort of way.

-Nato

 

[Me Myself]

religion and science are not inherently incompatible.

Science does have findings that may contradict religious affirmations, but then the thing would be that the findings of science are in contradiction with specific religious affirmations (be they few or most).

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree with everything you say. But I'm not a believer. Do you really think the most common, mainstream form of religious belief is that sophisticated and nuanced?

I don't think the majority of Catholics would say that transubstantiation or the Resurrection are mere symbols. I couldn't imagine the majority of Muslims would profess belief that the Koran is just a helpful guide for the soul, or that the Prophet was just a kind of author. Believers do talk about surviving their physical deaths in a consistently literal sort of way.

-Nato

That doesn't make such things the source of religion. Most people just don't have time to move beyond the surface elements.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let’s not forget, good old Albert also said this:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein

Einstein was very clearly not an atheist though. He did believe in a "god." It wasn't any sort of personal god, or the Judeo-Christian god, but he did believe in a god from a pantheist or panenthiest (I don't remember which) perspective. Many even consider him a father of quantum mysticism.

And in his “the Grand Design” Hawking says that science can explain the universe, and that we don't need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing or why the laws of nature are what they are.

The full quote I posted is that science does not prove or disprove god, rather it has made him unnecessary. But the main focus for this debate is that science does not prove or disprove the existence of god. Yes it does disprove many stories and certain aspects of certain gods, but there are also many aspects of god that science doesn't disprove, such as the view that god caused the big bang to happen.
But ultimately, as of now, anything beyond the beginning of this universe is nothing more than speculation, and there will always be unanswered questions of what lies beyond our current knowledge and understanding. I also agree with Einstein that humans aren't well equipped to perceive or understand the universe.

 

[Skeptisch]

Einstein was very clearly not an atheist though. He did believe in a "god." It wasn't any sort of personal god, or the Judeo-Christian god, but he did believe in a god from a pantheist or panenthiest (I don't remember which) perspective.

You may be right but he is being misquoted rather frequently.

Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a “delusion,” one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. “No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Einstein: ‘God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses’ | Disinformation

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

That doesn't make such things the source of religion. Most people just don't have time to move beyond the surface elements.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "source." Do you mean the historical origins of religion? Or the spiritual core of faith itself?

I think it's a little presumptuous to dismiss the way the vast majority of believers define religion just because it's insufficiently esoteric for our liking. What I said in my post still stands: mainstream believers talk about God as a real being, and the afterlife as an evidently real place. They talk about events being God's will, and they make claims that things wouldn't be the way they are (either in the universe, the history of life on Earth, or in human society) if God didn't intend for them to. They talk about the impossibility of finding meaning or living ethically without belief in some sort of God.

If you consider these concepts, held by literally billions of people on Earth, some sort of perversion or misrepresentation of religion, at least admit that it's not nonbelievers who are doing the misrepresenting.

-Nato

 

[Skeptisch]

If you consider these concepts, held by literally billions of people on Earth, some sort of perversion or misrepresentation of religion, at least admit that it's not nonbelievers who are doing the misrepresenting.

The astrophysicist Carl Sagan who wrote “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, feels:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”

 

[davidthegreek]

What is your guys opinion on the compatibility of science and religion?

Religion studies Who created the Universe and its Laws.
Science studies How they were made.
Both of these are important.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Religion studies Who created the Universe and its Laws.
Science studies How they were made.
Both of these are important.

And supposing the how doesn't involve a who?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "source." Do you mean the historical origins of religion? Or the spiritual core of faith itself?

I think it's a little presumptuous to dismiss the way the vast majority of believers define religion just because it's insufficiently esoteric for our liking. What I said in my post still stands: mainstream believers talk about God as a real being, and the afterlife as an evidently real place. They talk about events being God's will, and they make claims that things wouldn't be the way they are (either in the universe, the history of life on Earth, or in human society) if God didn't intend for them to. They talk about the impossibility of finding meaning or living ethically without belief in some sort of God.

If you consider these concepts, held by literally billions of people on Earth, some sort of perversion or misrepresentation of religion, at least admit that it's not nonbelievers who are doing the misrepresenting.

-Nato

It's not a "perversion"; it's an expression. I'm not talking about a historical origin, but rather the psychology that allows religion as a behavior to continue.

I, too, am a believer in Gods, many as real beings. I, too, believe that nothing can happen outside Mother Kali's Will. These surface aspects of religion are still part of it: beliefs about reality that may or may not be true(though, for me, they're more interpretations of reality). But the inward parts of religion are present in those aspects, even if most believers are unaware of them. Most people are completely unaware of why we build societies, form bonds, etc., yet we continue to do so for the same reason that our ancient ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago.

 

[Willamena]

Religion studies Who created the Universe and its Laws.

Once you've determined Who, how much studying do you have to do?

 

[Riverwolf]

The astrophysicist Carl Sagan who wrote “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, feels:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”

Very well-said, that was.

I really need to read that book.

 

[George-ananda]

What is your guys opinion on the compatibility of science and religion?

I fully believe in science and Advaita Vedanta (non-dual Hinduism) and I find them perfectly compatible.

 

[Skeptisch]

I really need to read that book.

You will love this brutally honest book.

In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

TSN: Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark

 

[Skeptisch]

Personally, I believe that by studying sciences, we can see something of the nature of Allah, as the world around us is full of His signs. It is our responsibility to look for and contemplate upon them, in order to understand Allah.

Do you think studying sciences will help us understand the Bible or the Koran, especially those verses that many of us find illogical, unreasonable, violent and barbaric?