[Tj3]

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??

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.

I am a Christian and I have a scientific background. I see no problem with the two co-existing at all.

[excon]

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

[Tj3]

Hello:
Well, I'm NOT a Christian, and I'm HAPPY with my great, great (and so on) grandfather being an APE.

I am sorry to hear that.

[excon]

I am sorry to hear that.

Hello again,

Well, there you go - perfect agreement between science and religion... Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

[RickJ]

APE:
Associate Pastor Emeritus

I'm happy to know that you have a good background, Excon :p

[Akoue]

I hear all you Christians kissing up to science, but you don't believe your ancestor was an APE

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.

[Tj3]

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.

My ancestors are all human. Your family tree and family re-unions must be interesting.

[Akoue]

My ancestors are all human. Your family tree and family re-unions must be interesting.

Hmm, Tom, approximately how old do you think the earth is? You can round to the nearest 100 million years, if you like.

[Tj3]

Hmm, Tom, approximately how old do you think the earth is? You can round to the nearest 100 million years, if you like.

I'll accept the Bible's position which says that it is in the range of 6000 years.

[asking]

The question I'd like to ask is: Can science and religion co-exist??

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.

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.

[asking]

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.

[Tj3]

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).

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.

It is important to remember that science is in the process of discovery and still learning about creation.

[Tj3]

There is no way to know from these numbers WHY good scientists tend not to believe. We only know that they don't.

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun

And many others...

[Akoue]

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- 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?

[Tj3]

I know that Newton, Kepler, and Boyle didn't believe the Bible to be literally true. Did the others?

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.

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?

[NeedKarma]

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?

[Tj3]

How would you know if they were christians or not?

Their testimonies.

[NeedKarma]

Their testimonies.

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.

[Akoue]

tell us what exactly you mean by "literally true".

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.

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?

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.

[asking]

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun

And many others.....

This is not stated as a question. Nor is it an argument. So I will simply acknowledge it as an inaccurate statement about myself.