Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[sayak83]

But useful doesn't necessarily correspond with true.
Utility is useful in choosing actions or political positions, but belief should be based on one's best perception of truth, regardless of its ramifications.

Abandoning an action or lifestyle is one thing, but shouldn't religious belief be based on absolute, epistemic Truth?
Absolute rubbish! No-one familiar with science believes this, religious or not.
Science is a best guess. It's never infallible, in fact, testing; trying to disprove one's hypotheses, is part of its methodology. Science' theories are always provisional
Where do you come up with this stuff? What do you base this on?
How would science come to such a conclusion? The best it can do is say God is unnecessary to explain the world we see.
And what the heck is a "science minded atheist?" How is one different from a scientifically illiterate atheist, or a science minded non-atheist?

Why this obsession with atheists, anyway?

I follow the stance of the Pragmatists who contend that truth is defined as that which is found to be most useful, or delivers the highest utility.

theories and models are to be judged primarily by their fruits and consequences, not by their origins or their relations to antecedent data or facts. The basic idea is presented metaphorically by James and Dewey, for whom scientific theories are instruments or tools for coping with reality. As Dewey emphasized, the utility of a theory is a matter of its problem-solving power; pragmatic coping must not be equated with what delivers emotional consolation or subjective comfort. What is essential is that theories pay their way in the long run—that they can be relied upon time and again to solve pressing problems and to clear up significant difficulties confronting inquirers. To the extent that a theory functions or “works” practically in this way, it makes sense to keep using it—though we must always allow for the possibility that it will eventually have to be replaced by some theory that works even better. (See Section 2b below, for more on fallibilism.)

https://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion deals with questions of value and meaning, science with fact and mechanics.
Their purviews don't usually overlap.

But you acknowledged immediately after this that religion often deals with questions of fact:

Science generally avoids pronouncements on meaning or value. Religion, on the other hand, frequently makes pronouncements on objective facts and mechanics -- and frequently falls on its face, but not before sometimes doing great harm.

 

[Augustus]

Religion and science are the same thing. The followers just pray to different gods.

Science =/= scientism

 

[j1i]

Religion gained people a kind of human aspect, which prompted them to develop ethically and environmentally friendly

Once religion began to lose its value in people's lives, they began to develop in a way that destroyed the green environment

Because I, as a believer, will consider evolution to be green, and I mean it is a development that takes into account the rights of creatures to live

Development is not selfish

States withdraw from nuclear treaties
A kind of selfishness and love of destruction

in quran is wrote
O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced.

Islam encourages people to be righteous
It is a real tool of excellence

Evolution is beautiful if accompanied by piety

 

[Nous]

I think when religion strays too far from science, it becomes dangerous.

Or at least a religion becomes rather silly when it is inconsistent with inarguable findings gotten by the scientific method.

But the same goes for metaphysical theses, which, as demonstrated at RF, lots of people who have no interest in religion are dedicated to such metaphysical theses.

 

[Quintessence]

I always have trouble understanding these types of questions when practicing sciences is a fundamentally religious endeavor on several levels. If you aren't religious about science - that is, if you aren't strongly devoted to the practice - you don't become a career scientist. If you aren't religious about science - that is, if you aren't interested in meaning and purpose - you don't become a career scientist either. If you aren't religious about science - that is, if you aren't interested in practicing rituals (aka, methods/experiments) to explore meaning and purpose - you also don't become a career scientist.

But folks don't like these comparisons, so I'll stop.

 

[Nakosis]

I see harmony between science and religion to come from the realm of Psychology.

If fact I see Buddha as an early psychologist. Buddhism does not require a belief in God but seems to provide the spiritual needs of the psyche. Unfortunately the focus of psychology seems a bit scattered. I suspect psychologists could learn a lot from the study of Buddhism,

 

[Aupmanyav]

If there is no Lord no Creator
Tell me how you came out of this life?
Where did you come from?
How did you create ?

'Out of this life' . You mean how I was born? Because of something that my father and mother did.
Long story or short? The short story is from the womb of my mother.
I created a son and a daughter in the same way as my father and mother did to create me. They created three of us.

I follow the stance of the Pragmatists who contend that truth is defined as that which is found to be most useful, or delivers the highest utility.

That, Sayak, is being a Munafiq (whatever is convenient to you). Truth is a little harsher.

O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced.

In that case, God should not have created Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because all through the ages they were the agents of destruction.

 

[atanu]

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” -- Dalai Lama XIV
I think when religion strays too far from science, it becomes dangerous.

Kurt Gödel, however showed once and for all that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. There are more things that are true than you can prove. So, 'if' and 'conclusively' are important qualifying words above. Did Dalai say that any of Buddha's teachings have been invalidated by science? In fact, many of Buddha's teachings cannot be tested scientifically from a third party locus, since Buddhism is primarily about meditation and its revelations -- even more so than in Hinduism.

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

Then what is Heart Sutra? I believe that Buddhism and Hinduism are about revealing of revelations that exist clouded under mental concepts.
...

I believe that spirituality and science are not in opposition ever, except in petty ways.

 

[WalterTrull]

Kurt Gödel, however showed once and for all that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.

Uhmm... isn't that in itself a theory of everything?

 

[atanu]

Uhmm... isn't that in itself a theory of everything?

Yeah it appears to be paradoxical. But Godel's logical proof is not paradoxical. It runs like: "....there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F....".

 

[Into the Night]

Or at least a religion becomes rather silly when it is inconsistent with inarguable findings gotten by the scientific method.

But the same goes for metaphysical theses, which, as demonstrated at RF, lots of people who have no interest in religion are dedicated to such metaphysical theses.

Science is not actually any kind of method or procedure. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science is in conflict with any religion. Science is agnostic. It simply doesn't consider any god or gods, or whether they exist or not. Science also has no proofs, since it is an open functional system. It therefore also cannot prove the whether any god or gods exist or not.

 

[Into the Night]

'Out of this life' . You mean how I was born? Because of something that my father and mother did.
Long story or short? The short story is from the womb of my mother.
I created a son and a daughter in the same way as my father and mother did to create me. They created three of us.That, Sayak, is being a Munafiq (whatever is convenient to you). Truth is a little harsher.In that case, God should not have created Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because all through the ages they were the agents of destruction.

God did not create any of these religions. Neither did Christ.

Man created these religions. Much of the destruction has been in the name of a god or gods, but no god or gods created any religion. Man does that. Such wars, as devastating as they are, often take the names of such god or gods in vain to justify their destruction.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yeah it appears to be paradoxical. But Godel's logical proof is not paradoxical. It runs like: "....there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F....".

I will refrain from jocularity concerning the language of F

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science is agnostic. It simply doesn't consider any god or gods, or whether they exist or not. Science also has no proofs, since it is an open functional system.

If science shows that what is credited to God does not require the existence of God, then it is proof.

Man created these religions. Much of the destruction has been in the name of a god or gods, but no god or gods created any religion. Man does that. Such wars, as devastating as they are, often take the names of such god or gods in vain to justify their destruction.

Whatever, see the result. Who else to blame but God? Did he not know what is going to happen?

 

[sealchan]

Science is a lot like swimming. You don't need religion to swim and there's not really any religion that makes you a better swimmer. If you want to swim and the best known way to do so is against some teaching, then you'll find it more difficult to be a good swimmer.

Religion should be much better in helping a person to make the effort to swim and to know where to swim to.

 

[sealchan]

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.

Religion provides the realm of possibility through story while science gives me the details about how to get things done.

 

[Nous]

Science is not actually any kind of method or procedure. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science is in conflict with any religion. Science is agnostic. It simply doesn't consider any god or gods, or whether they exist or not. Science also has no proofs, since it is an open functional system. It therefore also cannot prove the whether any god or gods exist or not.

Rigorous methods of empirical investigation can falsify certain falsifiable hypotheses, no? The phlogiston theory of combustible bodies has been sufficiently falsified, has it not?

Science also has no proofs . . .

Here is a proof of Noether's theorem:

Noether's Theorem: Its Explanation and Proof

 

[Dawnofhope]

"God exists."

Now provide research using established and validated scientific criteria that demonstrates conclusively that God doesn't exist.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I follow the stance of the Pragmatists who contend that truth is defined as that which is found to be most useful, or delivers the highest utility.

theories and models are to be judged primarily by their fruits and consequences, not by their origins or their relations to antecedent data or facts. The basic idea is presented metaphorically by James and Dewey, for whom scientific theories are instruments or tools for coping with reality. As Dewey emphasized, the utility of a theory is a matter of its problem-solving power; pragmatic coping must not be equated with what delivers emotional consolation or subjective comfort. What is essential is that theories pay their way in the long run—that they can be relied upon time and again to solve pressing problems and to clear up significant difficulties confronting inquirers. To the extent that a theory functions or “works” practically in this way, it makes sense to keep using it—though we must always allow for the possibility that it will eventually have to be replaced by some theory that works even better. (See Section 2b below, for more on fallibilism.)

https://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

This is an attractive approach to the philosophy of science We could become lost in a dazzling array of theories about what science is and what it isn't. What most of know is that science works our very communication through the medium of the internet in ample proof of that. What is also just as apparent is that religion works too. It encourages morals and values where people behave in a manner that is praiseworthy. If we are truthful, sincere, and compassionate people trust us and we can have the basis of relationships that endure. The stability of families is strengthened. We have cohesiveness in any organisation whether in business, recreation, government or organised religion if the proper principles are applied in a timely manner. That means wisdom which is the one of the fruits of any genuine religion.