 |
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.
That's a new one for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
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?
That God caused the big bang is certainly one of many valid *hypotheses*. He doesn't seem to have done anything since then, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
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
I see two opinions there. The first one goes to the initial post... and seems to agree with my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
... 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.
I disagree that science and religion are opposed. God created - science is the study of God's creation. Sometimes there may seem to be differences, but that is often because science is still making discoveries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelesh
I am a Christian and I have a scientific background. I see no problem with the two co-existing at all.
Hello:
Well, I'm NOT a Christian, and I'm HAPPY with my great, great (and so on) grandfather being an APE.
I hear all you Christians kissing up to science, but you don't believe your ancestor was an APE any more than I believe that I'm going to heaven.
excon
I am sorry to hear that.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, there you go - perfect agreement between science and religion... Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
APE:
Associate Pastor Emeritus
I'm happy to know that you have a good background, Excon :p
Oh, I think many of us are just fine with that. Although those ancestors weren't exactly apes: They were ancestors of both apes and humans, and they sure were ape-like. I'm fine with australopithecines in my family tree. They seem like a pretty cool bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
My ancestors are all human. Your family tree and family re-unions must be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Hmm, Tom, approximately how old do you think the earth is? You can round to the nearest 100 million years, if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'll accept the Bible's position which says that it is in the range of 6000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Yes. Science and religion can co-exist. They both exist in the world and have for thousands of years. They are not ends in themselves but different ways of grappling with questions and knowledge. They do, empirically, co-exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelesh
If you mean can they coexist in the same person's brain, the answer is also yes. They can and do.
However, some types of science and religion appear to be somewhat antithetical. For example, if you accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, that rules out considering or accepting truly vast regions of modern science, unless you are willing to accept considerable contradiction in what you choose to believe or not believe (in science).
On the other side of the aisle, biologists who study evolution and ecology are considerably less likely to be religious than other kinds of scientists. And, in every field of science, really good scientists are even less likely to believe in God and immortality than the average scientist (despite a few exceptions).
In a 1997 survey of acclaimed scientists -- members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- 65% of biological scientists (including large numbers of biochemists and molecular biologists) did not believe in God and 69% did not believe in immortality. Among NAS physical scientists, 79.0% did not believe in God and 76.3% rejected immortality. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers.
NAS biological scientists were the least likely to believe in God or immortality (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality).
Then physicists and astronomers (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Mathematicians were most likely to believe in God (14.3% believed in God, 15.0% in immortality).
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" July 23, 1998
So, while religion and science do co-exist as separate ways of pursuing knowledge and can co-exist in the minds of large numbers of people, being a literalist believer tends to preclude embracing science and being a really good scientist tends to preclude belief in God or immortality.
One way to understand these numbers is to consider that science is a deeply satisfying way of looking at the world and good scientists are less likely to crave another, more mystical way of viewing things.
Alternatively, perhaps people who believe in God and immortality have characteristics that make them less likely to fully commit themselves to science.
Or, possibly, it is the information in the science itself that discourages belief.
There is no way to know from these numbers WHY good scientists tend not to believe. We only know that they don't.
I am one of those people who is both a Christian and has a background in science, and I find no contradiction whatsoever between the two. I have run into people who fail to note that many conclusions that are currently held by some scientists are developed through their findings mixed with assumptions. There may be some contradictions that result from that, but more often than not, contradictions also result between those conclusions and new scientific findings as they come along.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
It is important to remember that science is in the process of discovery and still learning about creation.
So you would say that the following are not good scientists:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun
And many others...
I know that Newton, Kepler, and Boyle didn't believe the Bible to be literally true. Did the others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Odd that when asked you never tell us what exactly you mean by "literally true". The last time that we interacted on this, you skewed the meaning considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
But since we are not discussing that on here, let's get right to the point - are you saying that you are denying that these men were Christians?
How would you know if they were christians or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Their testimonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You were there? Considering that many christians attend church and rarely read the bible and so often we hear that someone isn't a "real" christian because they don't lead their life according to another christian's values it must be hard to discern who the real christians are. I don't know that many christians that adhere to the 6000 year old earth belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The way you read it. E.g. the earth is six thousand years old. The creation story is a literal descriptions of the events of the creation of the universe. Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard. That sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, there was considerable controversy in Newton's lifetime regarding the question whether he was a Christian. That controversy continues to this day. Many people think that if he was a Christian he was a heterodox Christian (an Arian, a pantheist, etc.) Read the General Scholium to the Principia and see what you think. Clarke's lectures are also interesting. And are Boyle's.Quote:
But since we are not discussing that on here, let's get right to the point - are you saying that you are denying that these men were Christians?
This is not stated as a question. Nor is it an argument. So I will simply acknowledge it as an inaccurate statement about myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM. |