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

[psychoslice]

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

The common man can know whatever they want about science, that is if they study it, the same with religion, many religions sound complicated to those who don't understand that particular religion, and again if you want to know more about that religion, then study it.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's objective because they say it is?

No, because it's part of the process and wouldn't work without it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science and religion have always found themselves in conflict with each other.

Science emerged largely because of religion.
“The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since – “cast in tablets of stone from everlasting to everlasting” was the poetic way that Wheeler put it (Wheeler , 1989 ). In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe. No matter how extreme a physical state may be in terms of energy or violence, the laws change not a jot. It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe.
Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order...
Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired.”
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.). Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.
(see also Galileo and the Origin of Science)

 

[paarsurrey]

Science emerged largely because of religion.
“The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since – “cast in tablets of stone from everlasting to everlasting” was the poetic way that Wheeler put it (Wheeler , 1989 ). In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe. No matter how extreme a physical state may be in terms of energy or violence, the laws change not a jot. It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe.
Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order...
Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired.”
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.). Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.
(see also Galileo and the Origin of Science)

Is it the latest from science?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The common man can know whatever they want about science, that is if they study it, the same with religion, many religions sound complicated to those who don't understand that particular religion, and again if you want to know more about that religion, then study it.

There is no harm in studying science, if one likes it, however it is not essential because it is only one aspect of life and not whole of life.
Regards

 

[RedDragon94]

No, because it's part of the process and wouldn't work without it.

I don't think that scientists can talk about how the universe began then, you have to observe things in order for them to be scientific facts. Not that I doubt evolution, but I just don't see how Darwin's theory isn't actually philosophy instead of scientific fact.

 

[Nietzsche]

I don't think that scientists can talk about how the universe began then, you have to observe things in order for them to be scientific facts.

Because of the way light works, we actually can see the earliest bits of the universe. When we look up at the sky we're seeing a photograph of an age long since gone by. You find the furthest point and you've found the first moments of the universe.

Now clearly we can't see anything past that, because there would be literally nothing to see, but we can see the first moments. Time is ****ing weird.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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?


.

I don't think science and religion are always or necessarily in conflict. Certainly, modern science finds itself in conflict with some versions of Christianity, Islam, and other religions, but by no means all of them--and not even all sciences.

Be that as it may, however, I think what we call a conflict between science and religion is a conflict over control of resources, of society and its wealth and power. "The fault" lies in that some humans are motivated by acquiring and achieving power and wealth and domination over others, and see their system as a way to achieve that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Suppose that you limited 'Science' discussions to discussions about technology, avoiding discussing ideas about cosmology and origins. You would still have groups such as the Amish who oppose using any modern technology, since they feel it is from Satan. In fact not only would have still have those groups, but those groups would increase in number and become more influential. They would do so, because there would be no basis, no reason for the appearance of new technology. Technology creates change, and people who don't understand changes perceive them to be evil sometimes.

Maybe that is just 'Western' culture though? Suppose that there were no Christianity, and you are in pre-Christian times. You'd still have the Romans and ancient Greeks. They feared technology and considered technically capable people to be evil.

Ok, so what about Muslim countries? Do they perceive technology as evil? Sometimes they do. Yes, sometimes they also perceive technology to be from Satan, so even Muslims are not immune to this tendency.

Go farther away from our culture going all the way to Japan. Japan was divided into classes based upon the technology that people worked with. What did Japan consider to be evil? It considered change to be evil. In other words the problem existed there, too.

Now think about Africa. What does the culture there think about 'Science' and technology? They think the same things. Some groups there think that technology and science are threatening and evil.

It is because the technology forces a change, and that change is sometimes not always good for everyone. Some people get hurt when things change, so people think change comes from Satan.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Suppose that you limited 'Science' discussions to discussions about technology, avoiding discussing ideas about cosmology and origins. You would still have groups such as the Amish who oppose using any modern technology, since they feel it is from Satan. In fact not only would have still have those groups, but those groups would increase in number and become more influential. They would do so, because there would be no basis, no reason for the appearance of new technology. Technology creates change, and people who don't understand changes perceive them to be evil sometimes.

Maybe that is just 'Western' culture though? Suppose that there were no Christianity, and you are in pre-Christian times. You'd still have the Romans and ancient Greeks. They feared technology and considered technically capable people to be evil.

Ok, so what about Muslim countries? Do they perceive technology as evil? Sometimes they do. Yes, sometimes they also perceive technology to be from Satan, so even Muslims are not immune to this tendency.

Go farther away from our culture going all the way to Japan. Japan was divided into classes based upon the technology that people worked with. What did Japan consider to be evil? It considered change to be evil. In other words the problem existed there, too.

Now think about Africa. What does the culture there think about 'Science' and technology? They think the same things. Some groups there think that technology and science are threatening and evil.

It is because the technology forces a change, and that change is sometimes not always good for everyone. Some people get hurt when things change, so people think change comes from Satan.

While that is sometimes true, it's also true that at various times and places in Japan, India, Africa and elsewhere there were times and societies that embraced new knowledge, learning, and science, sometimes at the behest of religion (Islam in the middle ages, for example--from which Europe borrowed at the beginning of the Renaissance).

 

[Skwim]

I think what we call a conflict between science and religion is a conflict over control of resources, of society and its wealth and power.

Then I think you should consider the famous conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo. And the current conflict between creationism and evolution. And the current conflict between the nature of homosexuality.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Then I think you should consider the famous conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo. And the current conflict between creationism and evolution. And the current conflict between the nature of homosexuality.

Yes? All are conflicts about who gets to define what is important in society, and thus who gets the benefits of being in control of who gets what.

 

[Skwim]

Yes? All are conflicts about who gets to define what is important in society, and thus who gets the benefits of being in control of who gets what.

Can't agree. The conflict is only about who is right. While science couldn't care less what religion says about subjects A, B, and C, religion gets quite disturbed about what science says about them; principally because it fears loosing its influence over its followers.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Can't agree. The conflict is only about who is right. While science couldn't care less what religion says about subjects A, B, and C, religion gets quite disturbed about what science says about them; principally because it fears loosing its influence over its followers.

You don't see anything political or economic in the question about who is right? There are no ramifications for a Church or a group who supports secular interpretations of reality, if they win or lose in a public conflict?

Religion is sometimes useful in politics. Science is sometimes useful in politics. It frankly doesn't matter which is right, if the purpose is to win the election (or the revolution) and get to control the political and economic decisions of a nation--politicians and their backers will use whichever best serves their interests.

 

[psychoslice]

There is no harm in studying science, if one likes it, however it is not essential because it is only one aspect of life and not whole of life.
Regards

Yes of course, I was directing what I said to those who think science tries to hide behind their jargon, as also some relgions.

 

[Skwim]

You don't see anything political or economic in the question about who is right? There are no ramifications for a Church or a group who supports secular interpretations of reality, if they win or lose in a public conflict?

Religion is sometimes useful in politics. Science is sometimes useful in politics. It frankly doesn't matter which is right, if the purpose is to win the election (or the revolution) and get to control the political and economic decisions of a nation--politicians and their backers will use whichever best serves their interests.

Not caring about who may be right, the consequences of any position, or the use of either, only the crux of the conflict: addressing the question of the OP

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

All else is beside the point.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Not caring about who may be right, the consequences of any position, or the use of either, only the crux of the conflict: addressing the question of the OP

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

All else is beside the point.

Okay, I am saying that I think that control of society and resources is at the core of the science/religion conflict. I think that people who are motivated by a desire for power are not all that concerned with the truth, unless it will translate into additional power for them.

I responded to the OP.

You obviously have a different idea about what is at the core of the conflict. Goody for you. Glad you think it's all about The Truth. I disagree; it's about power.

 

[Quintessence]

Okay, I am saying that I think that control of society and resources is at the core of the science/religion conflict. I think that people who are motivated by a desire for power are not all that concerned with the truth, unless it will translate into additional power for them.

This is actually a fairly interesting take on it that I hadn't much considered before. I would probably name something different, but in terms of how it functionally plays out in human cultures and societies, what you point out here may well be what is central. Or perhaps, to frame it a bit differently, about survival (including persistence of a tradition or way of life based on certain values), of which power is simply one means to that ends.

 

[Unification]

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?


.

Why such conflict.... because we have a compulsion to be the mind police of others. To blame, judge, and pick on the negatives of science, or to blame, judge, and pick on the negatives of religion without seeing/being aware to the negatives of both and seeing the positives of both. Both are commonly misperceived in ways. Really, it comes down to the positives and negatives within the human.

The fault lies within the human, neither science or religion.

The human creates.

 

[Skwim]

Why such conflict.... because we have a compulsion to be the mind police of others. To blame, judge, and pick on the negatives of science, or to blame, judge, and pick on the negatives of religion without seeing/being aware to the negatives of both and seeing the positives of both. Both are commonly misperceived in ways. Really, it comes down to the positives and negatives within the human.

Actually, science doesn't really care about, pick on, or judge religion, as long as religion doesn't interfere with it.

The fault lies within the human, neither science or religion.

But both science and religion are human constructs, so you can't separate the constructions from the constructors.