Science says one thing and religion another... There are several conflicts like the theory of evolution for example. Religion needs faith in what is unseen and science needs facts, evidence and proofs. The question I'd like to ask is: Can science and religion co-exist?

Science and religion are opposites... science is rational, religion is belief(no proof required).

They can exist in the same cultlure as long as those who have belief in a religion don't confuse their belief with fact.

They're not opposites at all.

I laugh:

"Religion needs faith in what is unseen and science needs facts, evidence and proofs. "

Hmmm. Something out of nothing? That's what we're taught. Where is the evidence and/or proof of that??

Not only is there no evidence or proof, but it is a blatant contradiction of what the scientists themselves teach, which is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Admittedly, many show they are brainwashed on both sides.

It's true, as RickJ says, that there's lots of brainwashing on both sides. An awful lot of the supposed conflict between science and religion is manufactured, ginned up by people on one side or the other for polemical purposes.

I'd just like to point out that science and religion do co-exist, and have for centuries. The only real conflict that I can see is between a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, or the claim at, e.g. Psalm 104.5 that the earth does not move, and the discoveries of modern science. But--and here I'm thinking about Judaism and Christianity in particular, not all religion in general--biblical literalism is a recent fad that has been adhered to by a relatively small minority. The Bible doesn't even interpret itself literally.

Keep in mind that many crucial scientific advances have been the work of deeply religious people (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Gassendi, Leibniz, Newton, Mendel, to name just a few). One can readily be both a thoughful and devout believer and a fan of science.

Yep.

I am a rabid Christian myself... and also a lover and firm believer in sciences.

There is no fundamental conflict between them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

a rabid Christian

---

That's a new one for me.

I'm stealing it.

No need to steal it. If it fits, wear it with my blessing ;)

Many thanks. But now I feel bad. I didn't get you anything.

Am a Christian too and I love science... Am a student and I prefer having direct and sharp answers than having to read book where most of what is written is 'useless'.
Progress in science has brought forward many things and has established laws, rules and concepts.. But religious bodies will never accept everything that science bring forward, for example:
-Cloning / Genetic Engineering
- Euthanasia
- Theory of Evolution
- The earth itself and the rest of the universe; were they
Created or did they evolve naturally?

Science evaluating religion:
3 examples are:
- Can one assess the will of God through prayer, or is God not
Communicating?
- Speaking in tongues; is it the language of angels, or
Meaningless gibberish?
- Can prayer cure diseases and disorders, or speed people's
Recovery?

As a Christian, I believe in God, with whom we can talk (communicate), I believe that speaking in tongue is speaking to God, and I believe in prayer and the power of the blood (healing)... BUT does science believe in the 3 example I listed above..

In religion there is science. In science, is there religion?

I don't see how Science can address or answer either of the first two...

As for the third, Science can contemplate upon it but not answer it directly.

Many doctors have witnessed "unexplainable" cures... but what the cause of the cure is cannot always be answered.

... and EVEN IF the cause was prayer, there's no proof that can be "seen"... so neither the Theist nor the Scientist can say with certainty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Something out of nothing?

---

Rick, I am ashamed of you, I have rebutted this when it comes up many many times. Where in science does it teach this? It doesn't, I promise you.

I do agree that science any religion are not opposites at all, both are quests for truth.

Sorry if I've missed something, so please help and clarify:

Where did all of the stuff of our Universe come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Sorry if I've missed something, so please help and clarify:

Where did all of the stuff of our Universe come from?

---

We don't have enough (or any?) evidence to say. At some point in the past (~13 billion years ago), it was a dense point of energy.

I agree.
Should you and I not agree, then, that to theorize that a greater being put it into place is as theoretically possible as any other theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

I agree.
Should you and I not agree that to theorize that a greater being put it into place is as theoretically possible as any other theory?

---

That God caused the big bang is certainly one of many valid *hypotheses*. He doesn't seem to have done anything since then, though.

All those 'scientific facts' haven't been proven their just guesses or theories... religion is just faith... and I'm more of a faith person then scientific... God has done many things since everything was created... well that's what I believe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

That God caused the big bang is certainly one of many valid *hypotheses*. He doesn't seem to have done anything since then, though.

---

I see two opinions there. The first one goes to the initial post... and seems to agree with my position.

... and the second one is another subject altogether :)

SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE OPPOSITE. :)

Knowledge in religion comes from *revelation*. Religion is sustained by *belief* not fact.

Knowledge in science comes from testing using the *Scientific Method*. Facts are accumulated over time, knowledge grows.

Quit kidding yourselves.

Cordially, Mary Sue :)

All knowledge is belief. It is justified true belief. Facts are also beliefs: they are beliefs that are held to be true (on the strength of empirical evidence in the case of science or on the strength of reason alone in the case of facts of mathematics or logic). The belief-fact dichotomy is not dichotomy at all, and so it won't leverage any meaningful account of the difference between science and religion.

This isn't to say that there is no distinction, just that it has to be sought elsewhere.

That said, I agree that facts are accumulated over time and the knowledge grows. But this is true outside of science as well. Take mathematics and history for examples.

So then, just to clarify, would you say that any knowledge that does not come by testing using the "Scientific Method" should be considered as "opposite" of Science?

"Opposite" is not a word that can describe the relationship between Science and Religion.

I don't see it as much different than saying Apples and Oranges are opposites.