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

[Unification]

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


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

Actually, never said that science does such. Said that "we" do such. One reason why the two are in conflict, the human mind creates delusions and assumes something that isn't there.

That's what this thread is about, two different constructors and two different constructions and how they are separated/conflicted. The constructors are in conflict, the constructions aren't in conflict. Science doesn't care, pick on, or judge religion and vice versa, It's the human that does.

 

[Unification]

But deities are also not considered to have a hand in on-going planetary formation, plate tectonics, photosynthesis, magnetism, hurricanes, the atomic construction of matter, and carbuncles, so why pick on evolution as necessarily needing guidance? Is there anything in the assumption that evolution is governed by a deity that would add to its validity?

Another problem on why the division, the human's assumption that all religion is about a deity and that "God" is automatically a deity. Everything is guided by forces.

 

[ak.yonathan]

I think that what is at the core of this conflict is a confusion about what is science and what is religion. Science is often seen as stating that religion is certainly false which is not the case. Religion is often seen as something that is dogmatic and immune from criticism, which shouldn't be the case. I personally think that religion can and should be put under the same scrutiny as science. With that said I don't think that there should be a conflict between them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?


.

Actually the more I think about it, Science has no actual conflict. It's pretty direct.

Religion in general seems to be having all the trouble in cases where scientific findings don't match the critera with folks having the trouble accepting facts.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?


.

It seems to be based on the precept that the natural world and the Biblical do not coincide.

 

[gnostic]

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

So you think it is better that some people should remain ignorant or uneducated simply because one don't (want to) believe in dinosaurs?

Sorry, but that's unacceptable, and encouraging ignorance over education.

The existence of fossils and other evidences showed that dinosaurs did live in a different era to the history of mankind. Those fossils are not going to go away because of some religious belief and their ignorant bigotry.

Dinosaurs are not something made up by scientists. Something that cannot be ignored any more than we ignore the sun, moon or the tides of the sea.

Dinosaurs, like the sun, moon and sea, should be understood with proper education to their nature and the mechanisms, not shunned because this or that person don't believe in them because of the religious superstitions.

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.

Believing in go beyond is nothing more than the byproducts of superstitions and ignorance, and of wild and delusional imagination of one who cannot distinguish delusions from reality.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Sure, people will always conflict because of matter of opinions.

But science only deal with reality.

Religion, especially for the belief in theism (the belief in the existence of deity or deities) is defying reality by favouring superstition and superstitious belief. Superstition is a belief in something that they don't understand, and try to attribute what they don't understand with non-existing invisible spirit(s). This superstition or belief is encouraging fear and ignorance, over education.

Don't get me wrong, scriptures are fascinating literature, but they portrayed times when superstitions and ignorance are encouraged.

That people still believe in these scriptures just show that some people are willing to believe in anything, including nonexistent creator God. How is believing in Allah is better than believing in older gods of the past?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science...To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design" (emphases added)
from the editor's introduction to
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.

 

[outhouse]

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science...To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design" (emphases added)
from the editor's introduction to
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.

While untestable, the odds of us being a one hit wonder is less plausible then one piece of many. The objection of not coming under the purvey of science, is not entirely correct unless evidence can be supplied that we are for some reason unique.

Fact is mathematically and scientifically since we originated from a singularity, and the universe is factually full of singularities, the odds of us being unique is very small and leaves unique as an indefensible hypothesis, other then an argument from ignorance.

 

[1AOA1]

It's worth noting that materialistic practice, a religion, calls itself science while at the same time promoting a science-religion disparity.

 

[leibowde84]

It's worth noting that materialistic practice, a religion, calls itself science while at the same time promoting a science-religion disparity.

Materialism is not a religion.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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 worst discord it mostly political (e.g. Global Warming Climate Change), with the everything is literal religionists, and the everything is relative socialists--which has become a de facto religion with just as little reliance on reason as any fundamentalist religion.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Materialism is not a religion.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

And when the religion is socialism, the superhuman controlling power is the State.

 

[leibowde84]

And when the religion is socialism, the superhuman controlling power is the State.

Socialism is not a religion, it is a form of government.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Socialism is not a religion, it is a form of government.

The parallels are undeniable, from the manipulation of the adherents to conformity, to the exploitation of mandatory compassion, regardless of context, by calling it an aspect of "love". Religion is a form of government, called theocracy. The only difference is the claimed source of their authority: God via its clergy, or the State via its bureaucrats.

 

[leibowde84]

The parallels are undeniable, from the manipulation of the adherents to conformity, to the exploitation of mandatory compassion, regardless of context, by calling it an aspect of "love". Religion is a form of government, called theocracy. The only difference is the claimed source of their authority: God via its clergy, or the State via its bureaucrats.

No, "religion" is not a form of government. A "theocracy" is a form of government based on religious beliefs/adherence, but that doesn't mean that "religion" is one on its own.

The three most common definitions of the term "religion" are as follows (from Merriam-Webster Online):
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

The latter seems to be the one you are utilizing, as it doesn't refer to any "God" or "gods" so I will address it specifically. Now, "socialism" is not an interest. One can be interested IN socialism, but socialism itself is a societal/governmental construct based upon certain interests. It is defined as "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies". Now, this is a very broad term, applicable to many current governments and doesn't go as far as say "communism" or "national socialism" (which basically has nothing to do with socialism as it exists today). To Marx, "socialism" was a stage of society transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. So, it is incorrect to equate it with communisim, especially examples of such from history, as it is not on the same level.

So, how can you consider such a broad term like socialism without a specific "interest" apart from a distrust of private businesses and a distain for unfair business practices as being a "religion"? The state is in no way "worshiped" in this context. Rather, it is trusted as a source of fairness. And, if you ask the common self-described socialist, they aren't going to profess a love of the State. They will point to the unfairness of our economy, inequality in the workplace, and a general distrust of private industries. Is this distrust of private industry what you would claim to be sufficient for deeming socialism a religion? Because, surely you understand that there aren't any deities associated with the social philosophy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And when the religion is socialism, the superhuman controlling power is the State.

Socialism is not a religion, it is a political/economic theory. And at least with the state there is the possibility of elections and there is more room for more people to make decisions, unlike a corporation where their is a lot of power but something only a few are allowed to make decisions for.

The parallels are undeniable, from the manipulation of the adherents to conformity, to the exploitation of mandatory compassion, regardless of context, by calling it an aspect of "love".

These things are not a part of socialism. And if you think Capitalism doesn't demand conformity, take another look. If you think Capitalism doesn't exploit compassion, take another look. And socialist don't call it "love," they call it compassion for your fellow human beings, and what is undeniable is that we are social animals and we prosper more when we work together and for the benefit of all, rather than just for ourselves.

Religion is a form of government, called theocracy.

Religion is religion. The state is the state. They are not interchangeable terms, but they are frequently mixed. A theocracy is not religion, but when the church (or other religious establishment) controls the state. It is the opposite of a secular state, in which there is no religion controlling the state.

 

[outhouse]

Fanaticism is a terrible thing embarrassing humanity.

 

[gnostic]

The core conflict between religion and science, is that religion required FAITH, in order for ones to believe in superstitions of god(s) and miracles. These miracles defy reality, and the power of the god, required us to accept God can do magic, using words and his will, just like incantation for witchcraft.

What sort of people would believe that light can be created just simply by saying "Let there be light"?

Someone who is superstitious. Someone who don't understand where light come from.

That some people actually believe that this can happen in this day and age, only demonstrate that people cannot think for themselves and still rely on believing in magic or miracle.

Superstitions can only exist because of person's ignorance, naivety, and fear.

Science is trying to do away the superstitions, by dispelling the myths. Explanations to nature can be found without believeing in gods, spirits, demons and talking animals.