Hello my lovelies! I've been hearing things recently about science and religon being at war... I just wanted to ask if its actually true.As they think scientists believe the world started with the big bang and the evulution theory is how us humans were created.Whereas people who are a follower of a religon believe something compeltely different. When someone asked me I was like well everyone has their different perspective of how they veiw the world and we should respect it not argue with each other.

Science and religion have ALWAYS been at war.

(I've moved this question from Academic Advising to something more fitting.)

I've been hearing things recently about science and religon being at war... I just wanted to ask if its actually true.

You've only been hearing about it recently? This has been going on for ages. Galileo, was tried by the Spanish Inquisition on the 15th Century for his views on astronomy. (Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)) John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution in TN in 1925 in the famous Monkey Trial. (Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial))

And these are just two famous examples. This fight goes on today, though I do believe there are more people willing compromise then in previous times.

Even though you are only 14 or 15, I'm surprised that this topic hasn't been revealed to you before. But you are handling it well. Arguing origins of life can be so futile!

Where they are at war is in areas where the church believes in temperance of science. Such is the case with science making announcements like finding the god particle. But also science and religion go hand in hand at times. There are many sciences and there is much to be understood. Quite frankly nobody really knows how we got to be where we are and the origins we were created from.

It was the media who named the Higgs boson the God particle. Not science, not religion.

It was the media who named the Higgs boson the God particle. Not science, not religion.

This is correct.

It was the media who named the Higgs boson the God particle. Not science, not religion.

Very good point... I still believe 100% that science and God go hand in hand. It's what one man says against another that confuses everybody.

It was the media who named the Higgs boson the God particle. Not science, not religion.

Yes but it also has been adopted by science since its creation.

Yes but it also has been adopted by science since its creation.

Not quite. The Higgs Boson was first postulated by Peter Higgs back in 1964, and commonly became called "Higgs Boson" in the 70's. The nick name "God Particle" was introduced 20 years later by the author of a popular book (who was, ironically, a famous scientist), but most scientists would say the nickname was designed to sell books and is inappropriate . Rest assured that the term is not used in scientific discussions.

But back to the OP's question. I do believe that some scientists are at war with religion, and some people of faith are at war with science. But in general we should recognize that God created all of nature, and science is the dispassionate study of nature, so science is about studying God's creation. The techniques used by scientists are much different than the philosophical approaches that predate the Rennasisance and the formulation of the scientific method but the goal is the same. Some of the greatest scientists have themselves been quite religous individuals, and often it has been religous institutions that have contributed greatly to the advancement of science. People talk about the Catholic Church and the persecuation of Galileo (FYI, it was NOT the Spanish Inquisition!), but the astronomical observatory built at the Vatican (of all places) in the time after Galileo was instrumental in helping us understand our place in the cosmos. Another example - the contributions of religous organizations to the advancement of the science of medicine is unquestioned. So no - there is no need for a "war" between science and religion.

I think you need to understand that some great minds like Einstein have come to the conclusion that science doesn't have all the answers. It is not a war so much as it is different perspectives on the same set of facts. God didn't give us much detail when he said he created it all, and science has been trying to fill in the details, but as Einstein said " I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details".

Science thinks the universe was created about 14 Billion years ago. The Scriptures would suggest a shorter timeframe, at least for part of creation. I do have a question, though, If man has been around as long as science thinks, what caused the explosion in knowledge in the past six thousand years. I think the reality is we don't understand time and because we don't, we see a conflict between science and religion. The use of the word day has caused a great deal of this contention, but as the Scripture says, with God; a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day

I notice that as the sciences get into the most obscure and complicated areas such as quantum theory and physics in general, there is still variety in religious and non religious beliefs, but more respect for each other. They don't waste their days fighting with each other. They argue plenty about their theories, and that's a good thing.

I marvel constantly at how much and yet how little we know about life, about our planet, about the universe, about time, about the microscopic and the astronomically huge. I have room for those who see God in the magical mystery and awesomeness of it all, and room for those who don't. As long as no one feels compelled to tell me which group I have to join.

Okay thanks you guys!

I object to thinking of myself as evolved pond scum, or an evolved ape. That all life on earth has certain characterics in common says as much about creation as it does about evolution. Science and religion are two different perspectives, science deals with detail and attempts to both understand the how and to duplicate it. Religion deals with the why and the big picture. without religion there would be no morality. Conflict exists because of human ego

As Einstein said
I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the detail

without religion there would be no morality.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1511255_590384011049306_765236252_n.jpg

a completely humanistic point of view, man has learned a little in the last six thousand years, but most of it is tolerance, not morality. If you haven't noticed society is becoming more corrupt, and this coincides with the movement away from "religion". The checks and balances are slowly being removed and certain thngs are now considered acceptable which were once anathema

Society may be more corrupt where you are but not where I am. Being part of a religion certainly does not make one less corrupt, I think we had seen that over and over. I think the changes have more to do with worshiping wealth, and that transcends religiosity.

Religion, at least my religion, has warned against worshiping wealth. Wealth is a corrupting force, but there are no less poorer people just more wealthy people.

the degeneration in society I speak of is the tendency to violence and lack of compassion, religion keeps such tendencies in check, as well as the general moral degeneration. Things are acceptable today that were not acceptable in earlier eras. this has paralleled the rise of secularisation and a fall off in religious adherence. When you start from a low base it is difficult to measure falling values. All of this was foretold so no surprises

Well if you could show me an example of a current country/society that is following religious adherence to your standards and therefore lacks any violence or moral degeneration then you may have a point. As I mentioned where I live we don't see the kind of degeneration that you speak of and we're quite secular (or at least people keep their religiosity to themselves).

Like I mentioned before, if reading a book or being part of a religious sect is the only thing keeping you from performing degenerate acts then you have bigger problems.

Most of the violence and wars are in the name of some god or another, and some worship the lesser dark gods as well, so religion carried to extremes can produce as much chaos, conflict, and suffering as no religion. Some need religion more than others, and it's a personal choice but no way to govern a society made up of many religions or sects of the same religion. How many successful theocracies can you name?

Not suggesting society be run as a theocracy, the power in such a system corrupts just as much as secular power, but there is a place for a moderating voice

I can go with common sense balancing the religious fervor that prevents us from celebrating difference with the space to believe whatever you believe. We aren't at the point of mutual respect as a race obviously.

All these things come down to your view on religious matters. There can be only one truth, and while there are different perspectives, there are also differences which means that not all perspectives have equal value. Race doesn't come into it, although certain races appear to be more open to particular religious views than others. The difficulties are, as you know, at the fringes where fundamentalism spills into warfare.

If you are saying that as a race we don't respect other religious views, I would say the problem extends far beyond religion, nor is it confined to the caucasian. Go to other parts of the world and see how much you are respected

Extremism is not confined to any one area of the world. Nor the reaction to it. Being willing to die for your beliefs is vastly different than killing in the name of whatever god you worship.

Basicly tal we are not called to die for our beliefs, at least most of us are not and anyone who thinks we are is a nutcase. Just about all our problems stem from misintrepretation of the message. I personally am fed up with the manipulation that results from laying a heavy revy on people with a few well chosen verses

I looked through the tread and thought I might give a better response, we'll see. In my estimation there is no conflict between religion and science. What conflict there is comes from ignorance, a sense of self importance, or chaos and disorder.

God created the cosmos, the heavens, earth, and everything contained therein. This creation is the product of His will. All there is, or all there will ever be, in the cosmos comes from nothing other than His Will. Everything whatsoever is made ‘real’ or ‘true’ in the decrees of His order. This order is called the Laws of God, i.e. Divine Law. Divine Laws include the supernatural and as well as the natural worlds, both, are a reality however only the natural reality is material. The material world is in harmony with the laws of God simply because He created it. And the laws of the material world are said to follow a subset of laws called the laws we call physics. These laws are no less 'Truth' as any other Divine Law. The cosmos was declared to be good in Scripture hence the physical laws as are good. These laws are generally thought of as being fixed, interacting with those underlying precepts of humanity as man exists within the real and material world. These Natural Laws are "nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, I, 92)

Adam and his decedents were given "dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth"[Genesis 1:26], therefore it is incumbent on us to observe and utilize how God intended His creation to work. More simply, the laws of physics observe the order in His creation and in doing so we fulfill our fiduciary obligation in maintaining a dominion over the whole of the earth.

I just recently wrote in another thread, truth functions within the intellect acting in the processes of knowing, weighing and dissecting both the essence and the attributes of a thing. We know that truth is desirable in knowledge as good is desirable in nature, thus we see truth is convertible with knowledge, as good is convertible with nature; “so the true adds relation to the [human] intellect.” Consequently, any supposition that seeks truth adds weight to the idea that the proposition is good and true. Of course greatest of good is found in God’s act of intellect; as a result it follows “not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.” Truth of the physical world mirrors the Divine truth and since God is one, we can conclude that there is one truth and that truth is immutable and eternal in all reality including the physical world [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa I, 16].

We also know that evil exists insofar as things are deficient of good and contrary to good [Cf. Aquinas, On Evil (p. 63). Kindle Edition]. Accordingly to distort or break the laws of physics creates disorder and chaos, a privation of order in God’s physical world. To shut the door on the reality, or to turn out the lights, in the observance of the cosmos invites not only ignorance but evil; in much the same way that where a vincible ignorance becomes sin in moral law. Deliberately turning our back on God’s truth more often than not to substitute our own relativistic truth wherein we substitute our will for God’s.

Therefore, to see conflict between God’s Divine Laws and the laws of science is disordered, it misses the point of truth and reality which brings us closer to the will of God. In some small way we can say the laws of science is to know God on an earthly or material level. Any faith that impedes the knowledge of God is a dead faith failing a living enhancement of our knowledge of God. Knowing any truth, whether supernatural or natural, assuming it is revealed, is an object of our love of God. Concluding, to retreat in the face of a conquerable ignorance is evil, perhaps sin, resulting from a disordered view of truth failing our fiduciary dominion over His creation on earth.


JoeT

Any faith that impedes the knowledge of God is a dead faith failing a living enhancement of our knowledge of God.
\
a good point, there has been a great deal of this over the centuries and some may continue to this day