If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
science vs religious
- Thread starter sanjaysah
- Start date
Boyd
Member
I'm not sure if the definitions that you gave are correct. While I agree with the conclusion, I do not think the way the definitions are framed are necessary.
Science and theology often deal with different questions. While there can be some meaningful overlap, there does not need to be confrontation.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Thing is though, some religions do speak of facts, some of which are in conflict with the findings of science. It's an unfortunate choice, but there you are.
Religion is not known for being a rational undertaking. Compared to science it's more of a feel-good, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants operation. 
Last edited:
Jesus said what he taught and what is taught in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis to Malachi) is the truth. Truth is facts, that which is real and not made up stories.(John 8:31,32,45 and John 17:17) The implication is, I believe, there must be just one true religion that is based on historical facts, and all other religions are false, even those claiming to follow the Bible. It also implies the one true religion would be in harmony with scientific facts (not unproven and speculative theories masquerading as science. The theory of evolution is a prime example.)
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science
Citing sources is helpful.
Einstein should have been smacked for using religion as a synonym for ethics.
Citing sources is helpful.
Einstein should have been smacked for using religion as a synonym for ethics.
I think science and religion DO work in the same domain, and are in conflict. Religion does not only try to answer ethical or spiritual questions, but also questions about:
- how did the Universe come into existence?
- how did humanity come into existence?
- are we or the world around us designed by an intelligent being?
- do we have an important purpose for the Universe, or should we focus on our purposes for each other?
- are we special in the Universe, or are we beings living on a rock somewhere in the darkness of space?
- does a being exist in the Universe that is powerful enough to grant wishes, listen to prayers, or alter physical objects or forces, or do miracles, or guide us through our lives?
All these questions can in principle be answered by science. These are factual questions - ie. either a God exists or it doesn't. Either we are the result of intelligent design, or we aren't.
Religions regularly make bold claims about all of these questions, and when they do, they are in conflict with science. It is a conflict, because where science is dynamic and updates our knowledge when new data is available, religion is static and would rather deny hard evidence than alter belief.
- how did the Universe come into existence?
- how did humanity come into existence?
- are we or the world around us designed by an intelligent being?
- do we have an important purpose for the Universe, or should we focus on our purposes for each other?
- are we special in the Universe, or are we beings living on a rock somewhere in the darkness of space?
- does a being exist in the Universe that is powerful enough to grant wishes, listen to prayers, or alter physical objects or forces, or do miracles, or guide us through our lives?
All these questions can in principle be answered by science. These are factual questions - ie. either a God exists or it doesn't. Either we are the result of intelligent design, or we aren't.
Religions regularly make bold claims about all of these questions, and when they do, they are in conflict with science. It is a conflict, because where science is dynamic and updates our knowledge when new data is available, religion is static and would rather deny hard evidence than alter belief.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
The problem with this sort of schema is that defining religion as something which deals primarily with ethical imperatives and values is simply an inaccurate description of religion, historically. Religion is not *just* or even *primarily* about ethics or values- a substantial portion of what religion consists in are truth-claims; claims about what is the case, what the facts are, how the world is. All religions make truth-claims, and some more than others. Moreover, for most religions, their ethics and values depend on their truth-claims; for instance, Christian ethics depends on certain facts about God, his nature, and his ethical decrees. If these truth-claims are false, then the ethics collapses, the way a house collapses without a foundation.
Thus, models like Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria" and the "independence hypothesis" in comparative religion, fail descriptively, because they do not adequately capture crucial aspects of religion and its historical relationship with science. Perhaps they could be prescriptive models, but maybe not; an ethics with no factual basis would appear to be arbitrary, and if religion is purely an ethical enterprise, it would seem to suffer a devastating loss of dimension.
Adept
Member
You are describing philosophy, not religion.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
What do you mean by "what should be?" The whole purpose of science is to predict future outcomes based on facts. How do you say religon deals only with evalutaions of human thought and action? As I understand religion it cares little to nothing for human thought, only gods thoughts, and the actions he dictates. 'Cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts?' What about 'there is a heaven,' 'there are gods chosen,' and 'heaven is for gods chosen?" Or how about 'there is a hell,' 'god hates you,' and 'god sends those he hates to hell?'
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Many of us disagree:
Science explains the HOW of things, whereas religion explains Who and why.
Properly viewed, they are very much in harmony and compliment each other very nicely!
Each needs the other, and indeed, one of the worst mistakes one can make is trying to use one in the place of the other: Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition and witch-burning.
But taken together, they explain things quite well!
Peace,
Bruce
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Many of us disagree:
Science explains the HOW of things, whereas religion explains Who and why.
Properly viewed, they are very much in harmony and compliment each other very nicely!
Each needs the other, and indeed, one of the worst mistakes one can make is trying to use one in the place of the other: Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition and witch-burning.
But taken together, they explain things quite well!
Peace,
Bruce
Or, religion makes up those questions and pretends to answer them.
Yes, but science has already shown us through the "how"-questions, that the "who" and "why" are meaningless questions to even ask.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Many of us disagree:
Science explains the HOW of things, whereas religion explains Who and why.
Properly viewed, they are very much in harmony and compliment each other very nicely!
Each needs the other, and indeed, one of the worst mistakes one can make is trying to use one in the place of the other: Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition and witch-burning.
But taken together, they explain things quite well!
Peace,
Bruce
I think you are off a bit. The how and why are different aspects of the same thing. Animals (including humans) fuel all their metabolic needs by oxidation of glucose. Why, because this is the most efficient means to do so. Jesus saves (if one believes) by substituting his blood for ours. Why, because out blood is not good enough, because he loves us, etc. There is no validity to the idea that science does not answer WHY questions or religion does not answer HOW questions.
The difference between religion and science has nothing to do with the subject matter or types of questions they address. Though each may have their favorite subjects, either sticks its fingers wherever it pleases.
Both ask how old the Earth is. Science says around 4.5 billion years, religon (Abrahamic) says around 4.5 thousand years. Both ask about the origion of the various species on Earth. Science says evolution, religion says created as is. Both ask WHY there is suffering in the world. Science phrases the question in terms of competition for limited resources by organisms with unlimited reproductive potential, religion addresses the question in terms of either punishment (if it's folk you don't like suffering) or tests (if it's folk you do like suffering).
The primary difference between the two is THE STANDARD OF TRUTH each uses. Science measures the truth of a fact using observation and repeatability. Religion uses authority and revelation.
Science is a means to valid knowledge. And I agree that empirical knowledge is inorganic, uncaring, relentless, and unbiased. I agree that science alone does not constitute life view. But it is not and was never meant to. The other difference between science and relgion is that the purpose of science is TO DEVELOP AND USE A STANDARD OF TRUTH that provides knowledge that is demonstrable, repeatable, and consistent with observation. That's why it's good at what it does.
Science and relgion are not incompatible because they try to teach us about different things, or because they are two different choices of a world view. They are incompatible because our observational based standard of truth debunks so much of the authoritative revelation based standard of truth.
The purpose of religion is to EFFECT, CONTROL, OR REQUIRE BEHAVIOR based on a set of beliefs. The only allusion to knowledge thereof consisting of appeal to revalation and authority. Search for truth and meaning has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. You are told what is true and how to behave. The why is unquestionable, the how is irrleivent.
Those who believe that religion is a search for how to live are to at least be applauded because they seem to realize the actual revelation and authority can't be 100% right.
E.g. people who belive the Earth is aournd 4 or 5 thousand years old believe what they are told through the revelation. Those who belive it's around 4.5 billion years old but ask questions about what genesis really means, or say it's symoblic or has someother meaning, at least know enough to know the revelation is not literally correct. But if it's not what good is it? You can spend 2 billion lifetimes contemplating this message and get 2 billion different interpretations. Introspective? Yes. Reliable?
LOL, sorry for the rant.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Many thanks for this very clear exposition.
My counter-rant (LOL) would be that you rant about what I would call 'old-time' religion (particularly 'old-time' Abrahamic religions) and Young Earth Creationist types. You are attacking a Straw Man.
There is nothing in western science that contradicts any of my eastern beliefs or more liberal forms of Christianity. I think the big difference today between religion and science is that many scientifically-minded types are attached to the idea that only the physical realm is real. My study of so-called 'paranormal' phenomena tells me there's something dramatically incomplete in that 'scientific-mindset'. My eastern spiritual teachers talk about reality beyond the physical and provide IMO a more reasonable view of the universe than anything materialistic science can present.
Hence we need science AND religious/spiritual teachers and there's no contradiction between good science and good spiritual teachings.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I agree regarding the mindset that only the physical realm is real. I also agree that science is not sufficient to guide an individual through a good life. But I disagree that there is anything required from beyond the physical reality.
The term spiritual has so much baggage tied to it that it is difficult to know just what you mean by spiritual teachings. If a person knows themself, through introspection and compassion, and can relate to their students, what else is required to be a 'spititual' leader?
I think you're saying we can guide ourselves through a good life without believing anything above the physical exists. That may be true for many. However the question all men ask is 'is there (or is there not) anything beyond this physical existence'. My study of the various things including so-called 'paranormal' things leads me to believe there probably is.
Whether it's required or not is not the only question. Does it exist is the question all men want answered.
I'll answer from my Hindu perspective. Spiritual teachers have knowledge of things above the physical and teach their students about living best according to this understanding. The best teachers know these truths from direct experience not from others.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
And no proof should be asked for, because the teachers say so.
However, Buddha says something different: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." (Wikipedia)
Last edited:
What did you mean by this comment in relation to my post? I also use evidence (my study of paranormal things) in forming my own opinion of the universe instead of 'blind' acceptance of a teaching. Something wrong with that approach??
Who is the 'monk' in that quote?