What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

[HonestJoe]

Most religions also have their explanations of the creation and this part can easily be compared to modern cosmology so they are not separated in this matter.

Yes, but as typically unquestionable assertions of definitive truth though. Science is a means by which to reach the answers. Religions claim to be the answers. They are fundamentally different concepts.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

That, IMO, is a misleading question, mainly because it implies some sort of comparable starting point or direction.

Science is not meant to be believed. It is all about questioning and revising answers - albeit not in the chaotic, free-for-all way that some urban myths propose.

Religion, again IMO, is not meant to be believed either - at least not in the fields where it might clash with science. It is meant to be inspirational and practical, not fantastic and alienating.

 

[Native]

Yes, but as typically unquestionable assertions of definitive truth though. Science is a means by which to reach the answers. Religions claim to be the answers. They are fundamentally different concepts.

In modern cosmology there are lots of assertions and claims based on assumptions which are on the level of religious beliefs. But OK, other scientific departments have reached factual answers.

 

[exchemist]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

As some of the comments have pointed out, the thread title suggests a false antithesis between science and religion.

Science is a discipline for understanding how the physical world works, so that we can predict what to expect from it. Religion does not attempt to do this.

Religion provides a guide to help people live their lives, how to cope with good and bad fortune and the milestones of life, and how to relate to others: how to manage the experience of the human condition, if you like. Science has little or nothing to say on this subject.

In my view, one simply uses the toolkit appropriate to the job in hand.

 

[HonestJoe]

In modern cosmology there are lots of assertions and claims based on assumptions which are on the level of religious beliefs. But OK, in other scientific departments have reached factual answers.

Any assertions and assumptions in science are part of the process though and aren’t presented as unquestionable definitive answers (or shouldn’t be – you can’t account for bad scientists or people misrepresenting science). The fundamental distinction applies that science is a set of processes while a religion is a set of conclusions.

 

[exchemist]

Any assertions and assumptions in science are part of the process though and aren’t presented as unquestionable definitive answers (or shouldn’t be – you can’t account for bad scientists or people misrepresenting science). The fundamental distinction applies that science is a set of processes while a religion is a set of conclusions.

Not just processes. The key to science is building and testing predictive models of the physical world, by means of these processes.

 

[tempogain]

Science certainly is a process for finding knowledge, but such knowledge is a set of scientific conclusions. Religion also encompass processes by which conclusions are reached. Clearly the processes differ greatly, and they are probably fated to deliver conflicting conclusions at times. When conclusions conflict, science and religion are in conflict to that degree. They don't always conflict. Some conceptions of religion even seek to achieve harmony with scientific conclusions. I don't see any reason why they have to conflict. They only do when they do (and sometimes they do in fact). Science tells us what it does in its way (one of considerable demonstrated effectiveness applicable over our entire physical sphere of existence) and religion tells us what it can in its way (a much different way but one which many people accept for various reasons).

 

[Underhill]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

The problem is in the goals of each. Religion wants to answer the questions Science cannot. This sounds all well and good until you realize science is the search for truth, so answering all questions with faith is like saying you are going to be an athlete while laying on the couch all day. You can say that all day long, but you aren't going to be a very effective athlete.

One is a search for truth, the other is an acceptance that god gives us all the truth we need.

So can people believe both? Certainly. But the two are not compatible in any real sense.

With enough faith we would have no reason to search out answers. And as science ferrets out more answers, the need for religions 'answers' become less and less necessary.

 

[Underhill]

Most religions also have their explanations of the creation and this part can easily be compared to modern cosmology so they are not separated in this matter.

Sure, but one is based in faith, the other in reason. One is an acceptance that someone earlier said it, and you believe it is true. The other is an exhaustive search for truth using mountains of data and countless hours of study.

 

[atanu]

..
I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

My opinion only.

I do not think that religion's role is prediction. It primarily points to us the provisional-temporary nature of physical and mental objects on one side and spiritual nature of the reality that lasts all modifications on the other. Religion helps to overcome clinging to objects. Hinduism and Buddhism both teach that sensual perceptions are not the objective truths and also teach us practical methods to overcome the bondage to illusions.

Scientific enquiries, OTOH, cannot begin without presuming that the sensual objects are objectively real. Science and technology has helped us to drastically improve our physical aspects. But I do not think that it can help mankind to overcome the inevitable depression that awaits every ego. Because science presumes the mental-sensual objects to be real, it cannot, IMO, unravel the reality beneath the objects.

So, I believe that the religion and science have only partially overlapped magisteria (Ref: J Gould) and that both can function very well aligned in/for a wise person. Religion takes a top down route while science takes a bottom up route.

YMMV.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

Nothing wrong with believing in both as long as they don't contradict. However, the bible has numerous scientific errors in it. Biblical teachings are at odds with evolution, as well as modern cosmology, since their is an implicit assumption in the bible that the whole universe was created for the earth and the people on the earth, which is clearly incorrect due to the vastness of the universe that we know today. The bible also has more laughable errors, like the statement that insects have four legs, or that pi is equal to three.

 

[exchemist]

The problem is in the goals of each. Religion wants to answer the questions Science cannot. This sounds all well and good until you realize science is the search for truth, so answering all questions with faith is like saying you are going to be an athlete while laying on the couch all day. You can say that all day long, but you aren't going to be a very effective athlete.

One is a search for truth, the other is an acceptance that god gives us all the truth we need.

So can people believe both? Certainly. But the two are not compatible in any real sense.

With enough faith we would have no reason to search out answers. And as science ferrets out more answers, the need for religions 'answers' become less and less necessary.

Not sure about that. Science is really a search for ever-better predictive models, on the understanding that no model can ever be said definitively to be the truth.

And of course one can have "truth" in many different fields of enquiry. Those addressed by religion (the subjective world of human experience and relationships) tend not to be those addressed by science (the objectively perceivable world of nature, out there, as it were). So there is little overlap, it seems to me.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If you believe in a God then you probably believe that God made the laws of science. Therefore there is no problem believing both religion and science. The problem is that much of science is made up by people who refuse to believe in God. They look for answers that do not involve God. Science should allow for the possibility of God. Then there would be no problem believing both religion and science.

 

[exchemist]

If you believe in a God then you probably believe that God made the laws of science. Therefore there is no problem believing both religion and science. The problem is that much of science is made up by people who refuse to believe in God. They look for answers that do not involve God. Science should allow for the possibility of God. Then there would be no problem believing both religion and science.

I agree. Science does not ipso facto preclude the existence of God. However a fundamental feature of the scientific method of enquiry into nature is methodological naturalism. This means in effect that the scientist only considers explanations due to natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. This was a basic advance in the approach to the study of nature, when modern science got started after the Renaissance, that has served it extremely well. It is just part of the science toolkit for analysing nature.

Some, perhaps many, but by no means all, modern scientists have extended methodological naturalism into a complete worldview: metaphysical naturalism or philosophical materialism, asserting that the physical, observable natural world is all there is and therefore there is no God.

On the other hand many scientists do not extend naturalism in this way and are religious believers. There is no reason why they should not be.

 

[sealchan]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

Trying to reconcile what religions believe about cosmology with what science is discovering is too much of a one-sided process (science knows so, so much more...) that I don't see it as worthwhile for the most part.

But I do deeply believe in the value of cultivating a religious belief system and a scientific understanding as two complimentary ways of knowing truth. Science, at this point, is much more progressive and is transforming the world at an even increasing pace. So much so we are struggling to apply our values to this new and ever-changing world of online identities and cultural boundary lines disappearing.

Religion is not really keeping pace with the modern world...it remains glued to its ancient roots. We must look to our modern artists and authors to guide us forward. For example, I would say that the Matrix trilogy offers a modern alternative to the idea of Christ's crucifixion and sacrifice in an age where virtual reality and computer technology over-dominate our lives. Such movies show how spiritual-moral perspectives can continue to guide decisions and how spiritual awakening is still relevant.

 

[Underhill]

Not sure about that. Science is really a search for ever-better predictive models, on the understanding that no model can ever be said definitively to be the truth.

And of course one can have "truth" in many different fields of enquiry. Those addressed by religion (the subjective world of human experience and relationships) tend not to be those addressed by science (the objectively perceivable world of nature, out there, as it were). So there is little overlap, it seems to me.

As I said, you can believe whatever you like. But I do find it to be a problem if you are going to be a scientist or physicist. The bleeding edge of science and math are dealing with things that make the questions of god a serious distraction. It is too easy to simply run into a problem, seemingly beyond comprehension, and explain it away with God. We see it all the time. Einstein alluded to as much later in life. But our understanding is constantly evolving.

Evolution was one of those things that we thought was impossible to prove but made a kind of sense (I'm speaking of Darwin's time). Today most scientist believe the issue is largely settled as we can see evolution at the DNA level that confirms the mountains of other data on the subject. It would probably already be codified as law if not for the religious zealots out there. But 100+ years ago it was hard to go down that path because belief got in the way for many who might otherwise study the subject.

There in lies the problem. Sure you can believe in religion and say it works within the framework of science (or vice versa) but I find it hard to reconcile many disciplines within science with belief. The two approaches to problem solving are diametrically apposed to one another.

 

[tayla]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

The problem with the stories of revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths is that they can't be validated and they all contradict one another as well as contradicting science. I prefer to think of them as stores. Just because one of these stories tells the "why" for something, doesn't mean that's the real reason.

 

[exchemist]

As I said, you can believe whatever you like. But I do find it to be a problem if you are going to be a scientist or physicist. The bleeding edge of science and math are dealing with things that make the questions of god a serious distraction. It is too easy to simply run into a problem, seemingly beyond comprehension, and explain it away with God. We see it all the time. Einstein alluded to as much later in life. But our understanding is constantly evolving.

Evolution was one of those things that we thought was impossible to prove but made a kind of sense (I'm speaking of Darwin's time). Today most scientist believe the issue is largely settled as we can see evolution at the DNA level that confirms the mountains of other data on the subject. It would probably already be codified as law if not for the religious zealots out there. But 100+ years ago it was hard to go down that path because belief got in the way for many who might otherwise study the subject.

There in lies the problem. Sure you can believe in religion and say it works within the framework of science (or vice versa) but I find it hard to reconcile many disciplines within science with belief. The two approaches to problem solving are diametrically apposed to one another.

I don't think they are diametrically opposed. I would say they are orthogonal to each other.

 

[arthra]

Ronki asked:

What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

Baha'is believe there should be harmony between science and religion:

"Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1 “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.”2

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

Ronki asked:

’I'd like to know what the different religions predicted?

Baha'u'llah revealed that there would be creatures on other worlds whose number no man can calculate:

"As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Consider thy state when asleep. Verily, I say, this phenomenon is the most mysterious of the signs of God amongst men, were they to ponder it in their hearts. Behold how the thing which thou hast seen in thy dream is, after a considerable lapse of time, fully realized. Had the world in which thou didst find thyself in thy dream been identical with the world in which thou livest, it would have been necessary for the event occurring in that dream to have transpired in this world at the very moment of its occurrence. Were it so, you yourself would have borne witness unto it. This being not the case, however, it must necessarily follow that the world in which thou livest is different and apart from that which thou hast experienced in thy dream. This latter world hath neither beginning nor end. It would be true if thou wert to contend that this same world is, as decreed by the All-Glorious and Almighty God, within thy proper self and is wrapped up within thee. It would equally be true to maintain that thy spirit, having transcended the limitations of sleep and having stripped itself of all earthly attachment, hath, by the act of God, been made to traverse a realm which lieth hidden in the innermost reality of this world. Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured. We have refrained from dwelling upon this theme owing to the sorrow that hath encompassed Us from the actions of them that have been created through Our words, if ye be of them that will hearken unto Our Voice."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 151-153

This was before "exo-planets" were suggested.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

I see nothing 'wrong' with some unseen force creating the rules of the universe. I just haven't seen or heard of any verifiable evidence to support such a notion. I agree that the scientific method has by far been the best means we've found for reliably figuring out how the universe works, but again there's no evidence that religions have in any way found a reliable means of figuring out why