Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Dawnofhope]

I dont see how there can be real harmony, the two are diametrically opposed in their ethos. All that is likely is tolerance of each other.

Would you give me an example of one more ideas or beliefs were science and religion contradict please.

 

[stvdv]

If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion?

Religion is a belief system, Science is a fact system. As long as Religion is not a fact you better stick to science for practicle stuff IMHO

Spoiler: Some common sense ideas from my favorite Scripture the Yoga Vasista (don't read if you can't let go God idea or are allergic to other scriptures)

The lazy man is worse than a donkey. One should never yield to laziness but strive to attain liberation, seeing that life is ebbing away every moment. Every day one must think of the impermanent body and struggle to conquer the animal nature. He must take recourse to association with good and virtuous people. One should not revel in the filth known as sense-pleasures, even as a worm revels in pus. By good deeds, good will return to you; by bad deeds, bad will return. Nowhere is there any God, fortune or fate. One who ignores his present ability for self-effort for fear of his past bad actions, might as well fear his own two arms, thinking them dangling vipers.

One who thinks that fate or God is directing him, is brainless and the goddess of fortune abandons him. Hence, by self-effort, discrimination, good association and study of the scriptures, acquire wisdom. Then realize that self-effort will end — in the direct realization of the truth. But ignoring, or going against the traditional injunctions, will not work. One should not try to create a gemstone from an ordinary pebble. Those who do not believe in the long practiced and experienced truths of the wise, but depend upon God, luck or destiny, are fools called the "living dead." If lazy dullness, this dreadful source of evil, were not found on this earth, who would ever be illiterate or poor? It is because lazy ones rely, life after life, on God or fortune that this earth is full of people who live like animals, miserable and poverty-stricken.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Lots of Hindus incorporate Jesus in their worship and frequently go to Dargah's of Sufi saints and mystics. You should read up on the Bauls of Bengal.
Baul - Wikipedia

I hadn't heard of this group before but that's the beauty of RF to have ideas challenged and expand knowledge. I imagine the Bauls are not a particularly mainstream group. I have encountered a suprising amount of negative comment about Abrahamic faiths from Hindus on RF and wonder if it would be difficult in India for members of a Hindu family to convert to an Abrahamic Faith. That's why I made the comment.

Psychiatry is not yet a science. Its a science wannabe...like economics.

I was a psychiatry intern for 7 years. Psychiatry does have a strong scientific basis in regards treatments but can on occasion have an inferiority complex compared to other medical specialties. Perhaps that's is why there's such a dogmatic approach and rejection of anything out of the mainstream.

Economics is an area that has always interested me and is perhaps just as much about human behaviour as psychiatry should be.

Any and every historical advancement happened somewhere and spread to other parts of the globe from there. Agriculture, Iron-working, domestication of horse, mathematics...you name it. Thus it is expected that people located geograpically closer to the center of the new innovation will master it first, before other groups further away adopts and masters it.

When I investigated the Islamic Golden age I was suprised at how much knowledge had been derived from Indian culture as well as the Greeks, Chinese and Persians.

Science is just like that in all respects. Here the current rankings in terms of scientific output. US, having the largest R&D budjet, still tops the list...but China is 2nd, Japan 5th and India 9th...which is excellent considering when India and China got their indepenence from colonization don't you think?
SJR - International Science Ranking

It is heartening to see India makng such progress with socioeconominc development. My comment wasn't to disparage India but to provide some balance.

 

[ChristineM]

Would you give me an example of one more ideas or beliefs were science and religion contradict please.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

The definitions themselves are contradictory.

 

[ChristineM]

Would you give me an example of one more ideas or beliefs were science and religion contradict please.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

The definitions themselves are contradictory.

 

[Altfish]

So a science minded atheist will rule out religion, even though religion can rely on those things as well.

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

Modern science didn't really start until (about) 1700, so yes many moons ago religion was the font of all knowledge. In fact the likes of priests were probably the only people in a village who could read and write.
But, what has religion added in the last 200-years to our knowledge? Has it brought us computers, modern transport systems, medicines, etc., etc. No, it has only tried to hold back human's advancement.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, they really are two different ways of investigating the nature of existence. So I see no problem in the fact that they might clash occasionally. Science is no more the 'fountain of truth' than religion is. And either of them is capable of encouraging self-delusion. However, too much disharmony and disunity can destroy us as individuals and as a society. So that when we do encounter clashes between the two, we should specifically try to avoid becoming entrenched in either one of them. As long as we maintain possession of our own open mind, we'll be OK with having opposing views of truth and reality being presented to us.

And what has religion added in recent times?
Science doesn't claim to be the 'fountain of truth' but it does advance human endeavours. Without science you wouldn't be having this discussion on your computer. Medicines that keep us well, what has religion added in the last 100-years?
I'm driving 150-miles this afternoon, how did religion help that happen?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The question in the heading and the question in the poll are different.

I would have answered 'Yes' to the heading question, but I answered 'This poll doesn't reflect my thinking' .

Thank you for pointing that out. I had really intended the former, not the latter for my poll. I agree with your response.

 

[sayak83]

I hadn't heard of this group before but that's the beauty of RF to have ideas challenged and expand knowledge. I imagine the Bauls are not a particularly mainstream group. I have encountered a suprising amount of negative comment about Abrahamic faiths from Hindus on RF and wonder if it would be difficult in India for members of a Hindu family to convert to an Abrahamic Faith. That's why I made the comment.



I was a psychiatry intern for 7 years. Psychiatry does have a strong scientific basis in regards treatments but can on occasion have an inferiority complex compared to other medical specialties. Perhaps that's is why there's such a dogmatic approach and rejection of anything out of the mainstream.

Economics is an area that has always interested me and is perhaps just as much about human behaviour as psychiatry should be.



When I investigated the Islamic Golden age I was suprised at how much knowledge had been derived from Indian culture as well as the Greeks, Chinese and Persians.



It is heartening to see India makng such progress with socioeconominc development. My comment wasn't to disparage India but to provide some balance.

Sufi Islam and Islamic mystics are well regarded and popular in India and South Asia in general. Unfortunately the Wahabi and Salafi Islamic groups persecute them. Since we value the Sufi traditions, we are hostile to Islamic groups that are hostile to it. Similarly we are much more open to mystical traditions of Christianity and more hostile to Bible thumping literalist ones.
Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them?
But this division runs within Hinduism as well...between open mystical, meditative and devotional traditions and those who take a narrow caste-ist or ethnic/nationalistic Hindu approach. Thus for me, the opposition is to a certain mode of religiosity that I find to be a cause for increasing suffering in the world, regardless of the "label" within which that specific religiosity manifests itself.

 

[Marcion]

There should preferably be harmony between spiritual ideology and science. This is often not the case in most so-called religions where dogma (and irrationality in general) rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you give me an example of one more ideas or beliefs were science and religion contradict please.

"God exists."

 

[Valjean]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion?

We should follow the evidence and accept the conclusion with the strongest empirical support.

Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong.

If you frame it as 'abandoning truth' you've already made your decision.

For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

Which, it seems to me, would lead to a pretty chaotic and unpredictable world.

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough

-- Abdul Baha

I'm skeptical. They seem more mashed together by circumstance than intertwined.
Two wings? That implies similarity in form and function. They are not. They're more like a wing and a toaster.

So where does the balance lie for you?

I generally follow the evidence.

It certainly appears that Hindus, Buddhists and scientists are unattached to their beliefs. But how far does that really go? Is a Hindu free to incorporate Abrahamic like monotheism into some of their other traditions or would be be social pressures against such unholy mingling?

LOL -- 'Popular' Hinduism can be intensely conservative and fearful of change: Women barred from entering Hindu temple in India’s Kerala state - France 24

In regards scientific advancement hasn't it largely been Christians and Jews that have been the innovators in science since the enlightenment?

Yes -- but in spite of religious traditions. I think there were other, cultural factors in play.

I have encountered a suprising amount of negative comment about Abrahamic faiths from Hindus on RF and wonder if it would be difficult in India for members of a Hindu family to convert to an Abrahamic Faith.

Christian crackdown: 271 charged with trying to convert Hindus and worshipping DEVIL

Economics is an area that has always interested me and is perhaps just as much about human behaviour as psychiatry should be.

I think maybe it's these, rather than religion and science, that are intertwined.

 

[Earthling]

Not so.
1 Not all scientists are atheist.

I didn't imply otherwise. I was commenting specifically on science minded atheists. Every atheist I personally know are just as dismissive and unimpressed with science as they are with religion. Most atheists I've come across on the Internet in forums like these are science minded atheists; the former are passive. Uninterested in speaking out. The latter are outspoken. That has been my personal experience. Most people I know (or have known) in real life are atheists. Family, friends, coworkers in the past.

2 each atheist is an individual. The majority understand science is absolutely changeable by its very nature of continues evaluation, experimentation, observation.
3 unlike religion that is dogmatic unchanging.

Religion is always changing. If you doubt this just do a quick study on the history of Taoism or Christianity.

But you confirmation bias is understood.

Y'all are so adorable when you pick up on a catch phrase and repeat it as if you were newly programmed with it or it was relevant.

 

[nPeace]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

I used to have mistaken views about science, and it took me some time to really appreciate what science really is. I think this is common. Many also are mistaken about religion.

What is religion?
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Religion then, is a form, or way or worship, directed to a supreme being. There are many forms of worship.

What is science?
Science:
Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

In basic terms, Science is a methodology - a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity
Science is used to gather knowledge. It's an ongoing study.

So we can ask...
Can anyone do science?
Does science have all knowledge?
Can we have knowledge that science doesn't have.
Do we gather knowledge, experiment, observe, and study?

Scientific Methodology
Most people mistakenly believe that the scientific method is only used in the practice of science. This is untrue – people use the scientific method all the time to solve common, everyday problems.

With the above in mind, science is limited. It is not the ultimate path to truth.

Should science be chosen over religion?
Today, science says A is true, Tomorrow they say A is false and B is true. The next day they say b is also false, and C is true...

So what happens when the knowledge gathered and observed leads to a wrong conclusion. Should religion adjust their belief to fit science?

What does that say about that religion?
On what foundation is that religion based?
Is it not fickle - based not on the truth of God, it claims to have, but based on ideologies of men.

Ephesians 4:11-16
11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.

Ephesians 2:20-22
20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11 For no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 each one’s work will be shown for what it is, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire, and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one has built. 14 If anyone’s work that he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward; 15 if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved; yet, if so, it will be as through fire.

Conclusion
I believe, no matter what the science says, those who follow what they consider to be the word of God, stick to the word of God, They adjust their understanding where they find it may not be in line with God's word.
However, I find that true science always tend to line up with God's word, because God's word is true.
That's my experience, and view.

 

[nPeace]

Science relies on fact, experimentation and investigation. Most of religion is based on revelation.

A lot of science is not based on fact. Some religions are based on experimentation and investigation, and in some cases fact.

 

[nPeace]

I think that's true enough of Abrahamic religions, but I wouldn't say Buddhism, for instance, relies on revelation.

"Think" sounds good.

 

[Altfish]

A lot of science is not based on fact.

Then it is not science.
Perhaps you could give an example.

Some religions are based on experimentation and investigation, and in some cases fact.

Please give me an example

 

[wellwisher]

The way I found harmony between science and religion is science is about the hardware or matter side of reality, while religion is more about the software or spiritual side of reality. Both are part of the whole. The spiritual side is connected to the brain software behind human perception.

For example, science is not self sufficient when it comes to the funding needed to do science. In fact, science is very much beholden to government and business, to name a few benefactors. Those who control the purse strings are often not scientists. A lot of politicians are lawyers. This has an impact on science.

This means that the moneyman often gets to decide where science will explore, and how much they will explore. This has an impact on the scientists who do science. Song and dance and salesmanship can become as important, as science talent, in terms of getting funding to do science. This who kiss butt the best can become the leaders. This inner dynamics of the human personality is the software side of the science equation. Is truth the only motivation? If truth is unpopular what will you do?

For example, science funding for manmade global warming has been impacted by politics. If you do not go along with the program, you are publicly labelled as a denier and funding will be harder to get. If you go along, the gravy train has gravy for you. This skews what will be published and therefore skews the overall conclusions from the sum of publications. Each individual project can be good science. But the sum can be made lopsided in terms of full science objectivity.

Science is supposed to be objective, opened minded and let the data decide, which means all ideas need to be addressed. However, politics can get involved, since this controls the money flow, and if you want the money, you will need to tow the company line and help stack the publication data base. If you go along, this gives your benefactors the preponderance of data.

Religion is about self awareness and having a conscience that can be true to the truth of science, which is more than data stacking along political or money lines. Sometime one has to take a stand that is not popular, to do justice to the truth of science. This stand comes from the software side.

In 2004, a team of scientists discovered that the iron core of the earth spins faster than the crust of the earth. This discovery set everything we thought we knew about the earth, on its head. However, science is not yet accommodating the needed changes. There is a lot that would need to be done. This change is also not taken into account in terms of climate change. The viscoelastic friction of the outer core and outer mantel, as the core spins faster, means a lot of heat is being generated, that is not part of any earth or climate science computer model.

What we have been witnessing is the power of politics and money to suppress this new truth and direct science to a political objective. Many scientists are showing themselves to be mercenaries. Science is a way to earn a living so the needs of a career can impact what one is willing to do for the cause. Science without religion has no conscience, but it will fight any fight, in a scientific way, if the money is there.

As another example, human sexuality is a place where science and religion differ. They are both true but under different conditions. Religion is true under natural conditions, where there are no artificial prosthesis to prevent, protect and treat for disease. If big money pays for science to develop medicines and prosthesis to prevent , protect and treat for sexual diseases, than even unnatural behavior becomes viable. Medicine and science allows us to compensate for the cause and affect of diseases. However, calling unnatural, natural, while using artificial to prop it up an illusion, is where science lies to itself. If science and religion were on the same page, you do both, without lying to oneself to protect a career.

Most main religions embrace science in terms of its search for truth in nature. However, religion is also aware that scientists are humans and the funding of science is impacted by other humans who have agendas that may depart from that search for truth. The political approach of science, toward religion; atheism, is part of the wage that science needs to pay its benefactors, who have other motivations beyond truth. If you can discredit religion and throw out the baby with the bathwater, science becomes a tool to manufacturer alternate reality for money and power.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't imply otherwise. I was commenting specifically on science minded atheists. Every atheist I personally know are just as dismissive and unimpressed with science as they are with religion. Most atheists I've come across on the Internet in forums like these are science minded atheists; the former are passive. Uninterested in speaking out. The latter are outspoken. That has been my personal experience. Most people I know (or have known) in real life are atheists. Family, friends, coworkers in the past.



Religion is always changing. If you doubt this just do a quick study on the history of Taoism or Christianity.



Y'all are so adorable when you pick up on a catch phrase and repeat it as if you were newly programmed with it or it was relevant.

Ok, so you know a few atheist and hence speak for them.

The bible is between 1650 and 2600 years old, the only changes are translation errors, copying errors and dumbing down for the hard of understanding. Otherwise the beliefs are essentially the same now as 2+ millennia ago.

What? No argument to that age old catch phrase? Perhaps it is more accurate than you imagine

 

[nPeace]

Then it is not science.
Perhaps you could give an example.


Please give me an example

Science is a study. Is it ever wrong? Is it ever right? When?
In some religions there is examination, and experimentation, and consideration of what facts are. See my post here. Hope it helps.