What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

[ChristineM]

The Pope also has............... the Popemobile!
View attachment 21321

With bullet proof glass formulated by science.

 

[exchemist]

With bullet proof glass formulated by science.

He also has an astronomical observatory, at Castel Gandolfo.

(I know, I know, don't ask me how Gandalf gets into this.)

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Similar in description only, in science there is no faith in magic

 

[ChristineM]

He also has an astronomical observatory, at Castel Gandolfo.

(I know, I know, don't ask me how Gandalf gets into this.)

Seen it, Gandalf has not been there for years.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Everyone believes in both science and god. Wrong or right.

But religion doesn't tell anyone anything. It can't talk.

Hardly - I have degrees of belief in all sorts of areas of science - in God I have a big question mark.

 

[Underhill]

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

While that notion is appealing, I don't think it's accurate. One is a search for truth, the other is acceptance, through blind faith, that god gave us the truth. Faith based versus science based. The two could not be any more different.

 

[exchemist]

While that notion is appealing, I don't think it's accurate. One is a search for truth, the other is acceptance, through blind faith, that god gave us the truth. Faith based versus science based. The two could not be any more different.

Different, certainly. I say orthogonal because it seems to me the "truths" involved are quite different, with practically no overlap. One concerns the external, objective, inanimate world and the other the interior subjective experience of humanity and what people call the "spirit".

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Hardly - I have degrees of belief in all sorts of areas of science - in God I have a big question mark.

No beliefs regarding god.

yeah, sure.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No beliefs regarding god.

yeah, sure.

Your favourite I believe.

 

[Underhill]

Different, certainly. I say orthogonal because it seems to me the "truths" involved are quite different, with practically no overlap. One concerns the external, objective, inanimate world and the other the interior subjective experience of humanity and what people call the "spirit".

More and more things that were once considered ephemeral are now being studied in the realms of advanced math and physics.

 

[gnostic]

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.

The only reason why in the last 150 years, scientists to include God as part of explanation to the study of nature, is because science required evidences, not faith in beliefs (in god or gods).

Evidences, are part of observation. You can observe or detect evidence, you can measure evidence. And if you have numbers of evidences, then you can determine if the explanation is likely or not likely to occur (hence using statistics and probability).

Evidences provide objective mean to test any hypothesis.

You cannot detect, measure, quantify or test god, so modern science leave out god altogether, since he cannot be part of the evidences.

With religion, if you want to believe in god, then all it required is “faith” in such a belief. Faith don’t required evidences, just convictions in your belief.

To me such belief in god creating nature or creating the natural world, is simply superstition.

 

[zaahru]

i think the problem with believing both, science and religion, is that science contradicts religion

 

[zaahru]

As long as you can differentiate between science and religion there's nothing wrong on a personal level.

What's wrong between sciences and religion is whenever religion is put on equal terms with science. Religion is just not science and science is not a religion.


Religion is based on a belief and Science is based on proof and evidence

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Can you name one thing that came into existence all by itself? A car or computer or other device had a designer and builder. But something much more complicated than a car or computer - a living creature - came into existence all by itself??? The evidence is that something as complicated as a ling creature - which science has never produced - also requires a designer and builder. The fact that you cannot see or touch that designer and builder does not make it any less necessary. Science only wants to deal with things it can see and touch. Religion accepts that there are some things that cannot be seeen or touched.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Can you name one thing that came into existence all by itself? A car or computer or other device had a designer and builder. But something much more complicated than a car or computer - a living creature - came into existence all by itself??? The evidence is that something as complicated as a ling creature - which science has never produced - also requires a designer and builder. The fact that you cannot see or touch that designer and builder does not make it any less necessary. Science only wants to deal with things it can see and touch. Religion accepts that there are some things that cannot be seeen or touched.

I think you will have to have a good knowledge of science to accept that this might be the case. Do you have such? If not, then you might have to just accept it on faith, just as much as you accept your religious beliefs on faith. The behaviour of people can usually be explained by psychological processes, their experiences, and what they are born with, but these too might appear to be inexplicable to those lacking any knowledge of these. Knowledge tends to help in most respects.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I agree completely. Knowledge helps in almost every respect. But science rejects knowledge of God because they cannot see or touch God. But this knowledgs of God is the most important knowledge and explains much of what science tries to figure out. Where and how did the first living creature appear? Science guesses maybe some pond scum somehow came to life. They have no real proof and have never been able to recreate the conditions needed. But they refuse the knowledge that someone far greater than science might have had a hand in it. Science thinks man is the greatest thing in the universe but religion knows there is a greater power. Yes, knowledge. And that knowledge does not always have to have something that can be seen or touched.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree completely. Knowledge helps in almost every respect. But science rejects knowledge of God because they cannot see or touch God. But this knowledgs of God is the most important knowledge and explains much of what science tries to figure out. Where and how did the first living creature appear? Science guesses maybe some pond scum somehow came to life. They have no real proof and have never been able to recreate the conditions needed. But they refuse the knowledge that someone far greater than science might have had a hand in it. Science thinks man is the greatest thing in the universe but religion knows there is a greater power. Yes, knowledge. And that knowledge does not always have to have something that can be seen or touched.

I don't think you can attribute such things to science - would never say such, even if it had a collective voice. Science is there to provide answers to many questions - and many don't even ask these questions anyway. Just as many are not that bothered with a designer being behind mankind when there are simpler explanations - like evolution. I'm afraid there are too many different religions, for me, to accept a God is obviously the creator. Could have done a much better job if so - not notice all the conflict that religions bring? Did you see this - not an example of life forming, but an example of things appearing to be designed but not:

Shaped by design?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Can you name one thing that came into existence all by itself? A car or computer or other device had a designer and builder. But something much more complicated than a car or computer - a living creature - came into existence all by itself???

I don't know about you, but I have parents. I didn't come into existence all by myself. It was also an entirely natural process, no builder involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you name one thing that came into existence all by itself? A car or computer or other device had a designer and builder. But something much more complicated than a car or computer - a living creature - came into existence all by itself??? The evidence is that something as complicated as a ling creature - which science has never produced - also requires a designer and builder. The fact that you cannot see or touch that designer and builder does not make it any less necessary. Science only wants to deal with things it can see and touch. Religion accepts that there are some things that cannot be seeen or touched.

What do you mean "all by itself"? If you mean with an intelligent force behind it I can list countless examples, And you and I would be included as examples. Basing your argument on things that you know were made by an intelligence and ignoring those that were made without an intelligence behind it is a Special Pleading Fallacy.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Serious question. Please help me understand by naming a few of those things that were made without an intelllgence behind them. Are you saying you and I were made without an intelligence behind it? Sorry but I think more of myself than that. Just because you cannot see or feel the creative force does not mean it does not exist. The basic problem with science.