Where do Science and Religion agree?

[Falvlun]

As much as any other person, certainly. But not at all due to the fact that its activity is so directly grounded on science.

In other words, science tells us how to build the safety device, but it is morality/our humanity that tells us that we should be building safety devices in the first place.

EDIT:
That said, I understand Peacewise's point. This is a case where religion and science can cooperate, even if they are not necessarily saying the same things.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, that I quite agree with. Purpose and morality are not at all anathema to science, and we do indeed should include those considerations. But I would describe that as a complementation more than a cooperation; to my mind cooperation implies more of a common ground.

 

[TechTed]

I would say that science and religion both agree that we truly understand very little about the universe we inhabit.

 

[Peacewise]

There is a psychological need for survival, this concept is within science and provides one motivation for the engineers requirement to consider safety.
The golden rule asks a person to consider others safety for we consider our own.
To me this reveals that psychology and religion agree that we should be considerate of the survival.
Hence science and religion agree, when applying a reductionist approach the moral of the golden rule is reduced back to psychology and social science.

To reduce the concept of safety to be outside of engineering, is part of a reductionist system and in my opinion that may be part of the reason why a person may not be willing to accept that engineering requires a consideration of safety of others.

Fair enough a person can be reductionist and this is a highly worthwhile for understanding the universe, however there is also a holistic approach to understanding in which the emphasis is upon the whole concept, or in this case emphasis upon the whole process of engineering. It is truth that an engineer must consider safety in their projects, and that therefore in a holistic view point that consideration of safety is engineering.

engineering
// (say enjuh'nearring)
noun 1. the art or science of making practical application of the knowledge of pure sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
2. the action, work, or profession of an engineer.
3. skilful or artful contrivance; manoeuvring.

The definition provided by Macquarie dictionary agrees that engineering is a science (or art) and implies that it is not a 'pure science' like physics, chemistry, biology.

Please do strive to find where science and religion agree. So far it seems to me that there are currently two concepts that stand in the way of agreement between science and religion - the first a strictly reductionist approach and the second in defining what is science to the 'pure sciences' or the hard sciences. Therefore my suggestion is that a holistic approach may find more agreement and that also a focus upon the 'non pure' sciences may also find more agreement.

That said...
If anyone wants to have a go at the challenge of finding ONE agreement between biology and religion then I'd be interested in seeing that discussion... intuition suggest again that the golden rule will be useful.

 

[Thief]

How about...the void?

The Old Testament makes only a quick mention of it.

But when you consider the reduction of the universe (one word),
to a portion so small there can be no secondary point....

That's what I see....
No light, no shadow... no sound, no echo...nothing....void.

 

[Peacewise]

Please elaborate Thief, I agree with the concept that the void is within religion and science yet I don't follow your discussion.

 

[Thief]

Please elaborate Thief, I agree with the concept that the void is within religion and science yet I don't follow your discussion.

In this case, religion got the jump on science.
Moses is given credit to writing the book of Genesis.
But how would an old man leading a wandering tribal group,
know anything about....the beginning of all things...genesis?

It is believed he had some 'Inside Information'.

In recent days I've seen another science documentary on the development of elements, and the big bang idea.

I do find it amusing how science goes on about it's theories and speculations,
as if the laboratory came first.

Sure, the dialog of Genesis is out of order. Some things are shown before others,
and we don't believe it to be that way.
But Genesis was more a claim...made by God....that He is God...and He is the source of all things...
the Creator.

Genesis was handed down in a very 'literal' manner.
And many people call it 'poetry' for the means of delivery.
It's not a science documentary.

But it wasn't meant to be.

 

[Skeptisch]

Where do Science and Religion agree?

Mostly they agree to disagree! The stumbling bloc is scientific evidence.

 

[niceguy]

Science and religion can agree a lot. A problem arise however if a religions founders include science into religious dogma and then clings to these dogma even when science moved on.

To have a dogma saying "listen to science" works well but to take actual scientific knowledge and append to the religion cause problems later on. A classic example: A certain type of food are forbidden. When this was added as a dogma that food was dangerous due to risk of infection but today we got refridgeration and other ways to keep food safe to eat, still the old dogma stand and we may have an unnecessary food crisis just because people refuse to eat "unclean" food.

 

[Rhizomatic]

It seems kind of silly to assume that "religion" is some kind of singular entity that can be compared to science; it isn't. I could say: religion agrees with science because it says that you shouldn't base your beliefs on faith, because that's what Buddhism and Thelema generally teach, but it's hardly what a Pentecostal might tell you. Contemporary neuroscience presents an incredibly strong case that mind/body dualism is false, which LaVeyan Satanism (generally) agrees with but some Buddhists and Thelemites do not. "Religion" is an incredibly diverse field of constantly changing beliefs, actions, attitudes, and opinions; it's not a static list of statements that can be checked for (non)compliance with the scientific method.

 

[Peacewise]

Thank you for that balanced approach Rhizomatic. I do not assume nor ask others to assume that religion is some kind of singular entity. What I request is that those who seek to discuss within this thread select only those things where religion agrees with science or vice versa. So for example, if Buddhism and Thelema generally teach that one should not base beliefs on faith and science agrees with this, then discuss that agreement.
If on the other hand a Pentecostal generally teaches that one should base beliefs on faith and science does not agree with this, then do not discuss that disagreement between those two within this thread.

Please feel free to discuss any specific or general agreements between religion and science, either specific religions and points within them and specific sciences and points within them or as general concepts, or indeed in any other form of agreement that you can discover between these two fields.

The thread is a challenge to find agreement.