Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Augustus]

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.

Sorry, but that's a complete myth. Trial and error/stochastic tinkering is as important as it ever was. Also, modern science developed at a similar time to the industrial revolution which was probably a more important factor in technological progress (and was driven by the trial and error of 'Gentleman inventors')

As an example of the way things often develop, the steam train is the kind of serendipitous, yet revolutionary invention that is typical of the process.

Trains were not invented by scientists to carry passengers, but by mining engineers to move coal. The first major railway was generally expected to move freight.

The first railway company didn't employ scientists to develop the train, but opened up a competition to the general public with a cash prize, and the winner was Rocket designed by Robert Stephenson.

People were so fascinated by the magnificent machine that won that they clamoured to be allowed to ride on the wagons of the first railway in Northern England. As it was so popular, people started to invest in railway companies which sprung up all over the Western world and its empires and revolutionised society, warfare, etc.

The jet engine wasn't invented by Physicists, but by engineers trying stuff out.

Much of the tech revolution was started by hobbyists and geeks in garages (Apple, Microsoft). The internet out of military comms network. Twitter was supposed to be for small groups of friends to send each other messages.

90% of medicines developed never reach the market, and the ones that do are often found to treat something they were never intended for (viagra is the best known example, but there are many more).

We aren't smart enough for an identify goal -> science -> winning process of invention most of the time.

 

[Augustus]

You can't plagiarise the eternal Dharma as it belongs to us all.

Never understood why many people think evolved culture can be 'plagiarised' like a student's essay.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Whether is pronounced by sages and seers or not, it will always remain the 'dharma'. Seers, sages and manifestations are not important. What is important is 'dharma'. Some try to own it.

 

[Looncall]

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.

Well, that's what one would expect seeing that religion is a scam, not a "way of knowing".

 

[Looncall]

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

Yet observation shows that religion operates in opposition to the two good outcomes that you list. What's with that?

 

[Nous]

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

I'd say you've given religion short shrift to a certain degree. I think religion sometimes provides people with new, expansive concepts that facilitate creative thinking. Maybe religion provides other helpful things. I haven't put much thought into this issue. I should be quiet.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Yet observation shows that religion operates in opposition to the two good outcomes that you list. What's with that?

Religion has been manipulated and bastarised as man does to many things.
Take clowns for example. They used to be for laughs etc. We have turned them into being monsters and bad guys. The movie "It" is a good example.

 

[Earthling]

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

It would not surprise me at all. I keep having to tell you that I'm talking about idiotic science minded atheists on forums like this, not scientists.

Do you understand why Pluto was originally called a planet, and why it's no longer considered one?

Don't care. The point is it was wrong, or it is now wrong. Can't have it both ways. Stop teaching bull**** to kids in school like its fact and they're stupid if they don't buy it. Stop saying **** about God when you don't know what the **** you are talking about. Sort out Pluto and then maybe you can learn colors, and then maybe God. As long as you don't want to teach that in school and **** it up like you did Pluto and monkeys turning into people.

 

[Earthling]

Well, that's what one would expect seeing that religion is a scam, not a "way of knowing".

Try reading it before responding . . . you'll get the hang of it.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Actually, science is a theory system. A fact is not a Universal Truth, and there is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Any statement about any god or gods is not falsifiable. Science simply doesn't go there.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science is actually just a set of falsiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. This is why science appears to explain phenomena. Religion also uses theories. It also explains phenomena. There is no fixed or rigid 'method' or 'procedure' to science.

So what is the difference between a scientific theory and any other? It is the test of falsifiability. This test requires the construction of a null hypothesis for a theory. It is the null hypothesis that is actually tested. That test must be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. Science uses conflicting evidence only. It has no interest in supporting evidence, since the theory itself is all the support it needs. It is always trying to disprove a theory. As long as the theory survives such tests, it is a scientific theory.

Religions are any circular argument that has arguments extending from it. That initial circular argument may itself be a theory. Such arguments by themselves are not a fallacy, but failing to recognize the circular nature of the argument is.

For example, the initial circular argument of Christianity is that Christ exists and He is who He says He is. ALL other arguments supporting Christianity stem from that initial argument.

All theories start out as circular arguments. It is the test of falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the point of a simple circular argument.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry, but that's a complete myth. Trial and error/stochastic tinkering is as important as it ever was. Also, modern science developed at a similar time to the industrial revolution which was probably a more important factor in technological progress (and was driven by the trial and error of 'Gentleman inventors')

As an example of the way things often develop, the steam train is the kind of serendipitous, yet revolutionary invention that is typical of the process.

Trains were not invented by scientists to carry passengers, but by mining engineers to move coal. The first major railway was generally expected to move freight.

The first railway company didn't employ scientists to develop the train, but opened up a competition to the general public with a cash prize, and the winner was Rocket designed by Robert Stephenson.

People were so fascinated by the magnificent machine that won that they clamoured to be allowed to ride on the wagons of the first railway in Northern England. As it was so popular, people started to invest in railway companies which sprung up all over the Western world and its empires and revolutionised society, warfare, etc.

The jet engine wasn't invented by Physicists, but by engineers trying stuff out.

Much of the tech revolution was started by hobbyists and geeks in garages (Apple, Microsoft). The internet out of military comms network. Twitter was supposed to be for small groups of friends to send each other messages.

90% of medicines developed never reach the market, and the ones that do are often found to treat something they were never intended for (viagra is the best known example, but there are many more).

We aren't smart enough for an identify goal -> science -> winning process of invention most of the time.

This is often a problem. There is a general confusion between engineering and science. Engineers generally use principles in science (usually physics), while a scientist creates and tests the theories themselves. Further, some engineers have created a new theory and tested it. That theory IS part of science. Some engineers are also scientists. Scientists often construct their own test equipment and instrumentation to test a theory of theirs. Scientists are also engineers.

Many people are more than one thing. Nothing prevents a scientist from being an engineer, an artist, a pilot, a commander, a soldier, a patriot, a devout believer in a religion, an agnostic, a home builder, a bomb maker, etc.

It is the act, not the profession, that make one a scientist or an engineer for a specific case.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science is not a study or a research. People study religion and they research religion as well.

Science is instead a set of falsifiable theories. Is it ever wrong? Certainly! A theory of science is never proven True nor ever taken as anything more than a theory. Once a theory is falsified, it is utterly destroyed. That theory no longer exists as a theory of any kind. Usually the result of the mess is a fallacy of some kind (which is an error in logic).

It used to be a theory of science that the Earth was the center of the universe. The theory of the terracentric system had been kicking around since Aristotle. So had the heliocentric theory. The supporting evidence was the apparent movement of everything around the Earth (with odd variations). Incredibly complicated clocks and models were constructed to represent this movement of the stars and planets (otherwise known in Greek as 'the wanderers'). The Moon and the Sun were simply considered planets.

What falsification occurred? Galileo pointed a telescope at Jupiter and saw moons going around Jupiter. That showed that Earth was NOT the center around which everything orbited. Galileo falsified the terracentric theory. It is no longer a theory of science.

This is how science actually works. A theory can be inspired by anything. It is nothing more than an explanatory argument. If you can make the theory falsifiable and test it at least once, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified. No theory is ever proven. Science uses no supporting evidence at all, only conflicting evidence.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When should science be chosen over religion?

When religions claim contradictory things.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Science is the art of swimming, Religion is the reason to swim.

So with both, one can dive into the Ocean for pearls of great price.

Regards Tony

 

[nPeace]

Actually, science is a theory system. A fact is not a Universal Truth, and there is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Science is actually just a set of falsiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. This is why science appears to explain phenomena. Religion also uses theories. It also explains phenomena. There is no fixed or rigid 'method' or 'procedure' to science.

Science uses conflicting evidence only. It has no interest in supporting evidence, since the theory itself is all the support it needs. It is always trying to disprove a theory. As long as the theory survives such tests, it is a scientific theory.

Do you have a source that states that please?
Does science not build on existing evidence?

Religions are any circular argument that has arguments extending from it. That initial circular argument may itself be a theory. Such arguments by themselves are not a fallacy, but failing to recognize the circular nature of the argument is.

For example, the initial circular argument of Christianity is that Christ exists and He is who He says He is. ALL other arguments supporting Christianity stem from that initial argument.

All theories start out as circular arguments. It is the test of falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the point of a simple circular argument.

Starting point:
In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
Of course science is limited to the scientific method, which doesn't include the supernatural, but if a hypothesis was proposed that aliens created the heavens and earth, that could work right?
So both can work, only the former would not be tested the same as the latter.

This starting point is not circular, is it? How so?

Science is not a study or a research. People study religion and they research religion as well.

Science is instead a set of falsifiable theories. Is it ever wrong? Certainly! A theory of science is never proven True nor ever taken as anything more than a theory. Once a theory is falsified, it is utterly destroyed. That theory no longer exists as a theory of any kind. Usually the result of the mess is a fallacy of some kind (which is an error in logic).

Do you have a source please?
Is this one correct?
What is science?

 

[Into the Night]

Science is the art of swimming, Religion is the reason to swim.

So with both, one can dive into the Ocean for pearls of great price.

Regards Tony

An interesting simile. I like it.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I was just wondering. If archaeologists dug up ruins with drawings of unicorns on walls and other artifacts, would you dismiss that as no evidence of unicorns?

 

[Jumi]

I was just wondering. If archaeologists dug up ruins with drawings of unicorns on walls and other artifacts, would you dismiss that as no evidence of unicorns?

There are plenty of drawings of mythical animals and statues, but no bones or other real evidence of them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

It could be considered that Religion is the reason for our knowledge.

We can consider if Science and Religion are in Harmony, what happened 200 years ago that sparked an increase in knowledge?

It was foretold long ago;

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Questions we can all ask if we choose to.

Regards Tony