Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Dawnofhope]

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.

This is a useful starting place. We have two apparently very different fields of human endeavour, science and religion. It is a difficult and perplexing comparison as you say, especially at first glance. Then on deeper reflection we see the two are not dissimilar. Both concern themselves with the nature of reality and truth. The best practitioners within science and religion draw on qualities and traditions from each other though they may not consciously identify as such.

 

[Salvador]

The first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo-habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo-habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Therefore, the first living breathing human being was never directly formed out of dirt/clay by God/Allah as the Bible/Quran falsely claims.

Former Christians and Ex-Muslims, who have this understanding of how humans precisely evolved , know the Biblical and Islamic tales of Creation are mythological rather than factual.


These myths are the made-up stories of ancient nomadic tribesmen rather than God's word.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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,

It already has.

Mindfulness therapy is a fusion of Buddhist meditative techniques along with cognitive Behavioural Therapy established by Aaron Beck.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and Zen meditation for depression, anxiety, pain, and psychological distress. - PubMed - NCBI

Mindfulness - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Does religion always involve the supernatural?

If so, it is always, not so much opposed to science,
but at odds with reality.

How or where would you draw the bright line distinciton
between religion and superstition, or, do you even do
that?

I can find no distinction, other than that religions
may constitute a subset under the general heading of
superstition.

A primary focus of religion is to cultivate moral behaviour and bring about love and unity between people. In the modern world there is a great deal of confusion about what religion is and what it isn't. That is why I post.

God’s purpose in sending His Prophets unto men is twofold. The first is to liberate the children of men from the darkness of ignorance and guide them to the light of true understanding. The second is to ensure the peace and tranquility of mankind, and provide all the means by which they can be established. – Baha’u’llah

 

[Dawnofhope]

The first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo-habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo-habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Therefore, the first living breathing human being was never directly formed out of dirt/clay by God/Allah as the Bible/Quran falsely claims.

Former Christians and Ex-Muslims, who have this understanding of how humans precisely evolved , know the Biblical and Islamic tales of Creation are mythological rather than factual.


These myths are the made-up stories of ancient nomadic tribesmen rather than God's word.

Many Christians would not see the story of creation in Genesis 1 has literal history and have the good sense to turn to science for such answers. One problem arises when fundamentalists interpret their sacred writings literally and ignore what science has conclusively proven. Although I don't have a lot of experience with Muslims they appear to fall into the same error just as much, if not more.

 

[Salvador]

Many Christians would not see the story of creation in Genesis 1 has literal history and have the good sense to turn to science for such answers. One problem arises when fundamentalists interpret their sacred writings literally and ignore what science has conclusively proven. Although I don't have a lot of experience with Muslims they appear to fall into the same error just as much, if not more.

As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: ( Luke 3:23-38 )

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

The Bible falsely claims there were only 77 generations between Christ and the first man; when people have indeed actually existed for thousands of generations, which proves the Bible and Christianity as being false.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of "original sin" is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather quite mythological.

 

[Dawnofhope]

As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: ( Luke 3:23-38 )

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

The Bible falsely claims there were only 77 generations between Christ and the first man; when people have indeed actually existed for thousands of generations, which proves the Bible and Christianity as being false.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of "original sin" is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather quite mythological.

The evidence that the earth is billions of years old and humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years is very strong. The belief that Adam was the first man (supposedly about six thousand years ago) is a good example of a belief that can be safely rejected in preference of science.

The doctrine of original sin IMHO is based on a misunderstanding of what the Apostle Paul said. No fair minded judge would punish a man for the crimes his father or grandfather committed let alone the alleged sins of Adam 77 generations beforehand.

That being said, I believe in the same God, Bible and Jesus as the Christians. I just don't take some of it literally including the first nine chapters of Genesis.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Fair enough!
The Bahai Manifestations of God pushed their own written messages before science, imo, which is why Bahais need to quote the Prophet's son, great grandson, Bahai leaders etc.....

The kind of approach from the Bahai prophets was not quite so clear, nor so harmonious:-
Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men.
(Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 56)
So...... book before sciences, there..... and:-

Should myriads of men of learning, versed in logic, in the science of grammar, in law, in jurisprudence and the like, turn away from the Book of God, they would still be pronounced unbelievers.
(The Báb, Selections from the Writings of the Báb, p. 104)
...and not too much leeway for the sxciences from the Bahai gateway, either.....


I'm just never impressed with Bahai claims.........

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

You are appropriating what society demands as the qualities of one religion or the other. Religions did not create/invent these. That is plagiarism. They existed much before religions came up. That is why Hinduism accepts 'dharma' as eternal (Sanatan).

 

[sealchan]

I'm starting to watch these YouTube videos of the Gifford Lectures given by Professor Peter Harrison that is highly relevant to this OP. He studies the understanding of the terms religion and science as they were understood historically. Very eye openning...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

That wasn't what I was trying to get at.

If, by rationally looking at evidence in a rigorous way (i.e. through a scientific approach), we conclude that we can't tell whether God exists or not, then it would be conflicting with the science to claim that God definitely does exist.

Maybe you can see my point better with an analogy: imagine that instead of the question "does God exist?", the question was "does substance X cause cancer?"

Say that after looking at the data, the scientific consensus is "while we can't rule out that X might cause cancer in some cases, we can find no link between X and cancer." Do you agree that it would be unscientific for someone to proclaim that X definitely does cause cancer?

 

[Valjean]

Science is constantly presented to me on forums like this just as I described it. Science is rational belief in the Bible is irrational. Study of science rational, study of the Bible irrational. Science ever changing religion never changing.

It might surprise you how rarely scientists think about the Bible in their work.

You can't say that it's a fact that Pluto is a planet one day and then the next say it isn't a planet without having been wrong at least half the time.

Do you understand why Pluto was originally called a planet, and why it's no longer considered one?
Remember, science is a research tool. It explores, it gathers new information. If it's not going to incorporate that information into our understanding of the world, why bother?
Science' description of the world is the Gold Standard. It's the best description of reality we have, given the most up-to-date facts.

We don't need science to tell us it's raining outside or that the grass is green.

But you do need it to tell you why the grass is green of why it rains. You need it to understand the chemistry and mechanics. You need it to develop useful technologies based on these.
Do you ever listen to weather forecasts?

I've repeated over and over to @Subduction Zone that science is guessing, speculative, conjecture and he constantly repeats that I don't know the meaning of these terms or science.

And we've repeatedly told you why you're wrong in this, yet, apparently, it goes in one ear and out the other.

This hypocrisy is idiotic at best.

This obtuseness is idiotic, at best.

Observation.

Of what?

I believe one day they will not have a choice.

I repeat the question: How would science come to such a conclusion? The best it can do is say God is unnecessary to explain the world we see.

A science minded atheist promotes science as incontrovertible evidence that there are no God(s), normally without having even a basic understanding of what a God is.

So a "science minded atheist" is a kind of huckster?
Atheists don't have to proffer evidence against God. Atheism is the epistemic defauld position. Theism is the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on the theists.

Scientifically illiterate atheists, though that isn't a term I would use, I would just use the common term atheists, don't care about science. Science minded non-atheists would be science minded theists; That is theists who promotes science as incontrovertible evidence that there are no God(s) normally without having even a basic understanding of what science or a God is. They follow the pack of wandering stupidity no matter if it's based from a laboratory or a church.

What is a God, then, in your opinion. Perhaps I've misinterpreted your meaning, here.

Not really. People seem to vastly overestimate the role of science proper in technological progress (although that's not to say it hasn't had a significant impact).

Technologies owe far more to people playing around with stuff in a process of trial and error than formal science.

People have been playing around with stuff for thousands of years, with little progress -- and occasionally negative progress -- till true scientific understanding allowed is to abandon trial-and-error and focus our research on predictable results.

Science comes from the mines of faith
It is a livelihood from God given to some people to help gets their needs
They have faith in God but many people deny faith

Science is a discipline that does its best to eliminate faith. Science deals with predictable, testable, falsifiable facts.
People have had faith for thousands of years, and it did little to improve their quality of life or understanding of the world.

GOD is full mercy

Yet man is full of vindictiveness and hatred. Odd.

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 ?

Did you not learn this in school? Hasn't science largely answered this question?
You imply that religion does answer these questions. It does not. Religion asserts an agent, it does not propose a mechanism, it does not explain How, it just says Who.

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

 

[Valjean]

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.

I think your conception of truth as usefulness isvery different from the usual understanding of the term.
True ideas can be useful, but so can untrue ones.

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

It does, and it should not. it's out of it's depth. It has no mechanism to distinguish fact from fable.
It has an embarrasing history of suppressing truth and promoting falsehood as fact.

Science is not actually any kind of method or procedure. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

And how did it arrive at these theories?
No, you're wrong here. Science is a methodology; a technique of collecting data and testing it.

No theory of science is in conflict with any religion.

But religion has been at war with science for two thousand years!

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

How could that be done?
The burden is on the theists.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How could that be done?
The burden is on the theists.

The burden of proof is upon each one of us to investigate the nature of reality and adhere to that truth. Its not my responsibility to convince you that God exists anymore than its your responsibility to convince me he doesn't. We each have one life we are responsible for, and one life alone.

 

[Valjean]

A primary focus of religion is to cultivate moral behaviour and bring about love and unity between people. In the modern world there is a great deal of confusion about what religion is and what it isn't. That is why I post.

And if religion would stick to this there would be little conflict with science, but when it starts treading on science' turf and making statements about mechanics and mechanisms it becomes problematic.
Don't take my word for it -- just ask Galileo.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That wasn't what I was trying to get at.

If, by rationally looking at evidence in a rigorous way (i.e. through a scientific approach), we conclude that we can't tell whether God exists or not, then it would be conflicting with the science to claim that God definitely does exist.

Maybe you can see my point better with an analogy: imagine that instead of the question "does God exist?", the question was "does substance X cause cancer?"

Say that after looking at the data, the scientific consensus is "while we can't rule out that X might cause cancer in some cases, we can find no link between X and cancer." Do you agree that it would be unscientific for someone to proclaim that X definitely does cause cancer?

Medical research is good when it comes to establishing is drug A is better than placebo or drug B. We can do double blinded randomised control trials, If we have a sufficient sample size and what we are measuring is easily quantifiable then its straight forward.

Unfortunately many of the questions we want answered about human behaviour are not so easy to answer and often practically impossible. For one thing we can't do randomised control trials, for another there are multiple factors we need to standardise for.

Research can be a powerful tool for answering some question and impotent for addressing others.

 

[Valjean]

The burden of proof is upon each one of us to investigate the nature of reality and adhere to that truth. Its not my responsibility to convince you that God exists anymore than its your responsibility to convince me he doesn't. We each have one life we are responsible for, and one life alone.

No. God is invisible and intangible. He can't be measured or tested.

I have no evidence for unicorns, thus, I am not proposing they exist. It is not my burden to prove they exist. It is assumed that a thing without evidence doesn't exist.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that a being with no evidence of his existence exists. You have the entire burden. This would be a problem, though, as religion is not an investigational modality. In fact, it has a history of actively opposing investigation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And if religion would stick to this there would be little conflict with science, but when it starts treading on science' turf and making statements about mechanics and mechanisms it becomes problematic.
Don't take my word for it -- just ask Galileo.

That will be difficult to ask Galileo lol. You are right of course. Science and religion both have a particular domain or sphere of reality. Religion can be a powerful instrument for positive personal change with the capacity to transform communities and even civilisations. Its influence is in the moral realm changing behaviours and attitudes. Science assists us in the physical realm. Both religious adherents and scientists can overstep their designated boundaries and make unsubstantiated claims that undermine the other.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are appropriating what society demands as the qualities of one religion or the other. Religions did not create/invent these. That is plagiarism. They existed much before religions came up. That is why Hinduism accepts 'dharma' as eternal (Sanatan).

The Sanatana Dharma always existed but manifested through sages and seers in every culture and eventually manifested through great teachers in your culture and mine. You can't plagiarise the eternal Dharma as it belongs to us all.

 

[ChristineM]

Fair enough!
...
I'm just never impressed with Bahai claims.........

Im never impressed with the majority of religious claims. Usually packed with confirmation bias and very little in the way of facts