What is at the core of the science/religion conflict?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Mythological literalism and theological exclusivism. I reject both.

 

[RedDragon94]

Science and religion have always found themselves in conflict with each other. A state of discord or at least perception that still exists today.

source
​

So why such conflict, and where does the fault lie?


.

The fault lies with both parties, they're both closed minded.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

That's not random either, it is a certainty.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Parsimony]

When a long-held belief supported by a religious group is challenged by new scientific findings, then you have a conflict.

 

[paarsurrey]

I actually know someone that thinks this way. She doesn't believe that dinosaurs ever existed and that satan planted the bones to fool Christians.

That is because that is the heart of the matter. I am not joking, nor did I intend any sense of irony. This entire thing about denying creationism is today (maybe not 100 years ago but today) all about the belief that Satan has conspired to fool people using Evolution. This is what the 'Creation scientists' say when they make the circuit visiting churches and giving short demonstrations. They insist that Evolution undermines the Bible, faith, goodness and causes people to do evil things.
That being said, there are some people who do not believe in Satan but still believe in creationism. Its just that they are such a very tiny percentage that I don't think they even measure on the scale. In general opposition to science is opposition that sees scientific results as part of an evil conspiracy.

I don't know as to why some people insist that every scientific concept is a must to be believed by an ordinary person. Only the persons interested in a field have to accept everything in that field, if they like.
I do believe that dinosaurs did occupy earth at a point of time, but it is not essential for one to believe in them.
It is not a question of bread and butter for one.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

When a long-held belief supported by a religious group is challenged by new scientific findings, then you have a conflict.

Even then there is no real conflict, it is a misunderstanding people needs to educated with.
Regards

 

[Skwim]

The fault lies with both parties, they're both closed minded.

Okay, the religious party I can readily see; however, in what way is science deliberately closed minded and at fault? How could science benefit from incorporating religious aspects into its operations? (I assume this is what you have in mind.) And why would this somehow quell the conflict between the two?

 

[Parsimony]

Even then there is no real conflict, it is a misunderstanding people needs to educated with.
Regards

It's still a conflict of views.

 

[Father Heathen]

The conflict lies with people who believe that their religion is infallible, therefore dismissing anything that conflicts with it, regardless of evidence. Another aspect of the conflict is that when someone rejects a scientific notion, they usually have a very poor understanding of said notion to begin with.

 

[Father Heathen]

The fault lies with both parties, they're both closed minded.

But science by its very nature is objective. If it ceased to be objective it would cease to be science.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But science by its very nature is objective. If it ceased to be objective it would cease to be science.

That goes back to the argument. 'Creation scientists' argue that Evolution isn't objective and that it is a conspiracy. Basically they attack the moral character instead of the data.

 

[Skwim]

What is at the core of the science/religion conflict?

There is no real conflict between science and religion. It is just a wrong understanding of both.
Regards

Do you mean that a wrong understanding of both can't result in conflict?

 

[RedDragon94]

in what way is science deliberately closed minded and at fault?

They fail to see that the religious tales are allegory for what actually happened.

 

[RedDragon94]

But science by its very nature is objective. If it ceased to be objective it would cease to be science.

It's objective because they say it is?

 

[George-ananda]

What is at the core of the science/religion conflict?

Old school belief that the Bible is to be taken literally has certainly been one cause.

And science's oftentimes attitude that anything we can't study scientifically should be held as superstition is another cause.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps the earliest known conflict between science and religion occurred in ancient Babylon in what is present-day Iraq. The priests had taught that lunar eclipses were caused by the restlessness of the gods. They were considered evil omens that were directed against -- and threatened the lives of -- their kings. Then, local astronomers discovered the 18 year and 11.3 day (223 synodic month) interval between lunar eclipses. This suggested that the eclipses had natural cause. The discovery did not affect the superstitious beliefs of the priests; they still regarded eclipses as a time of great danger to their kings. However, armed with an accurate prediction of the next eclipse, they were able to substitute a temporary king during the interval around the eclipse, thus giving protection to the real king. The substitute was killed afterwards, so that omen was always fulfilled.
source​

Cool. Never heard about that one before. Nice info.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree with you.
Just a wrong understanding of the phenomenon.
It is just like saying a glass of water with water to its half level. One could say that the glass is half full of water as could one say that the glass is half empty. It is a misconception.
Regards

Or, it's like this. There's a glass of water. The scientist says, "It's a container made out of silica filled with a liquid of the chemical compound H2O." The non-scientist says, "It's water that quenches my thirst," and then he lifts the glass and drinks it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you mean that a wrong understanding of both can't result in conflict?

Difference of opinion is but human, it is never a point of conflict. Conflict occurs when one or both sides pitch against the other, and resort to ridicule and deride one another.
Humans are not complete, there is always a room to learn both in science and religion. It is wrong to expect that the common man or the man in the street would everything in religion and or science. They would only feel convenient to learn the essential not supposed to be scholars in any of them or both of them.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think science would wast their time arguing with religion, its mostly religion that finds the arguments, because science doesn't fit in with their beliefs, that doesn't mean science is arguing, it means religion or most of religion is still living in the past and won't allow themselves to move away from their ignorance of past belifs .

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think science would wast their time arguing with religion, its mostly religion that finds the arguments, because science doesn't fit in with their beliefs, that doesn't mean science is arguing, it means religion or most of religion is still living in the past and won't allow themselves to move away from their ignorance of past belifs .

Science only come up with problems in hand, they are not supposed to go beyond that, so science would not and need not argue with religion. The knowledge of new findings of science should be imparted to the common man / ordinary man in day to day language, not in the technical and complicated language used in science so that they could understand things, most of the problem would be solved.
Regards