The reason for the conflict between science and religion is historically apparent.
It is helpful to go back to a time when there was no such conflict. Science was the philosophy of understanding reality where reality included God (or gods).
It is apparent in the ancient philosopher's treatment of the great questions of truth. Such mental exercises tried to use what is "known" in order to surmise what is not yet known. It was also mentioned that every premise is flawed- that every axiomatic "given" is determined by an observer with a particular perspective, but we do the best that we can.
But in every case, the God or gods were never questioned as to their existence.
Galileo wasn't the first time that observation seemed to go against "known" premises, but it was perhaps the most famous. Even in his case, there was no intent to question the existence of a god, and he said so himself. The Church wasn't really as harsh as some say either- almost, but not quite. They wished to see his proof, to also observe what he was proposing before allowing him to go about telling others about it. Things were very different then, and the Church was, after all, the government in every practical way.
Fast foreword to Darwin. Here was a description of the speciation of the planet that went against even the ancient philosophers' "known" reality. But, like the church, science would withhold acceptance of these ideas until they had been also observed. Still- there was no real divide between science and religion. That comes later. But it was what one might call an "important event" in the process that led to what we have today.
Fast foreword to Piltdown Man. Science was convinced by their (remember this from above?) "use what is "known" in order to surmise what is not yet known" ideology that man evolved from an ape ancestor to modern man by first developing a superior brain.
This is important! What science was doing at the time was that they were relying on their own beliefs about things, and were looking for proofs of those beliefs in reality in support of those beliefs!
So they went looking for a fossil that was ape-like, but that had a larger brain.
The scientific method as it exists today had not yet been adopted. Interestingly, Intelligent Design scientists use this exact method! (But that's another post)
So some shyster made up a "fossil" that met the criteria. He found fame and fortune.
Here's the sad part- In South Africa, another scientist had discovered fossils that showed that man had evolved, not by virtue of a larger brain at first, but by the simple, yet all-important ability to stand upright. This man never got credit for his discovery because of the biased nature of what was expected.
One day, someone thought about the problem and decided to actually test the Piltdown Man fossils. They were found to be incredibly ridiculous forgeries almost immediately!
Thanks to many scientific philosophers, like Karl Popper, the scientific method we have today was born. Karl Popper insisted in no predetermined expectation and falsification of every scientific theory. The idea was finally developed that the process of science is NOT to determine what is true, but to try and prove false every idea in science. This is why the scientific definition of "theory" is what it is. I might want to scientifically proclaim that my hair is brown, but I can only say that it is a theory subject to further review. That's the best I can do.
In almost every science vs religion debate I have ever read, the religious point to occurrences in science that were totally mistaken because of the bias of the scientists faith. But all occurred before the scientific method was established.
It is now quite impossible for any scientific idea to gain any kind of credibility without millions of other scientists trying to disprove it. Evolution is no different. the discovery of DNA could have falsified evolution. There have been so many discoveries since Darwin that could easily have falsified evolution in just about every scientific discipline we have, and yet, each discovery only supports it.
Is science willing to call evolution "truth"? After all of the mountains of evidence in favor, personally they probably are. But they will not use that language in their papers, because their papers must remain scientific.
So what caused the rift between religion and science?
What caused the problem between the church and Galileo? The church had a preconceived notion about the solar system, and evidence to the contrary was presented, and shown to be true.
It is the scientific method that makes any attack against the claims of science absolutely bullet-proof. It was not developed in order to fight against religion or any such nonsense as that. It was developed in order to insure the integrity of discovery.
If certain religious interpretations of what God has done are found to be false, as has happened many times over and has never happened the other way, then these scientific observations aren't to blame, nor is God.
God cannot have had anything against the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. He could NOT have. The earth DOES revolve around the sun, and if God made it that way, He can only be pleased that human beings know it.
The religious that were so vehement about the fact that the earth is the center of the solar system were NOT defending their God, or their religion. They were defending their own interpretation.
In closing (finally) there is no divide between science and religion except that some religious people have decided that there is somehow something wrong with the way God made things. Formerly, they had something against not having the earth in the center of the universe. God seems to have disagreed that that was a problem.
k
It is helpful to go back to a time when there was no such conflict. Science was the philosophy of understanding reality where reality included God (or gods).
It is apparent in the ancient philosopher's treatment of the great questions of truth. Such mental exercises tried to use what is "known" in order to surmise what is not yet known. It was also mentioned that every premise is flawed- that every axiomatic "given" is determined by an observer with a particular perspective, but we do the best that we can.
But in every case, the God or gods were never questioned as to their existence.Galileo wasn't the first time that observation seemed to go against "known" premises, but it was perhaps the most famous. Even in his case, there was no intent to question the existence of a god, and he said so himself. The Church wasn't really as harsh as some say either- almost, but not quite. They wished to see his proof, to also observe what he was proposing before allowing him to go about telling others about it. Things were very different then, and the Church was, after all, the government in every practical way.
Fast foreword to Darwin. Here was a description of the speciation of the planet that went against even the ancient philosophers' "known" reality. But, like the church, science would withhold acceptance of these ideas until they had been also observed. Still- there was no real divide between science and religion. That comes later. But it was what one might call an "important event" in the process that led to what we have today.
Fast foreword to Piltdown Man. Science was convinced by their (remember this from above?) "use what is "known" in order to surmise what is not yet known" ideology that man evolved from an ape ancestor to modern man by first developing a superior brain.
This is important! What science was doing at the time was that they were relying on their own beliefs about things, and were looking for proofs of those beliefs in reality in support of those beliefs!
So they went looking for a fossil that was ape-like, but that had a larger brain.
The scientific method as it exists today had not yet been adopted. Interestingly, Intelligent Design scientists use this exact method! (But that's another post)
So some shyster made up a "fossil" that met the criteria. He found fame and fortune.
Here's the sad part- In South Africa, another scientist had discovered fossils that showed that man had evolved, not by virtue of a larger brain at first, but by the simple, yet all-important ability to stand upright. This man never got credit for his discovery because of the biased nature of what was expected.
One day, someone thought about the problem and decided to actually test the Piltdown Man fossils. They were found to be incredibly ridiculous forgeries almost immediately!
Thanks to many scientific philosophers, like Karl Popper, the scientific method we have today was born. Karl Popper insisted in no predetermined expectation and falsification of every scientific theory. The idea was finally developed that the process of science is NOT to determine what is true, but to try and prove false every idea in science. This is why the scientific definition of "theory" is what it is. I might want to scientifically proclaim that my hair is brown, but I can only say that it is a theory subject to further review. That's the best I can do.
In almost every science vs religion debate I have ever read, the religious point to occurrences in science that were totally mistaken because of the bias of the scientists faith. But all occurred before the scientific method was established.
It is now quite impossible for any scientific idea to gain any kind of credibility without millions of other scientists trying to disprove it. Evolution is no different. the discovery of DNA could have falsified evolution. There have been so many discoveries since Darwin that could easily have falsified evolution in just about every scientific discipline we have, and yet, each discovery only supports it.
Is science willing to call evolution "truth"? After all of the mountains of evidence in favor, personally they probably are. But they will not use that language in their papers, because their papers must remain scientific.
So what caused the rift between religion and science?
What caused the problem between the church and Galileo? The church had a preconceived notion about the solar system, and evidence to the contrary was presented, and shown to be true.
It is the scientific method that makes any attack against the claims of science absolutely bullet-proof. It was not developed in order to fight against religion or any such nonsense as that. It was developed in order to insure the integrity of discovery.
If certain religious interpretations of what God has done are found to be false, as has happened many times over and has never happened the other way, then these scientific observations aren't to blame, nor is God.
God cannot have had anything against the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. He could NOT have. The earth DOES revolve around the sun, and if God made it that way, He can only be pleased that human beings know it.
The religious that were so vehement about the fact that the earth is the center of the solar system were NOT defending their God, or their religion. They were defending their own interpretation.
In closing (finally) there is no divide between science and religion except that some religious people have decided that there is somehow something wrong with the way God made things. Formerly, they had something against not having the earth in the center of the universe. God seems to have disagreed that that was a problem.
k
