Can Religion and Science get on?

[pharmacol]

What are your views on this topic?

 

But does science and religion have to be at war?

[YT2095]

Science largely Ignores Religion.

it`s actualy the Other way around, Religion can`t get on with Science for the most part.

[pharmacol]

why do you think that is?

[Phi for All]

But does science and religion have to be at war?

There's no reason why they have to be, for the same reason you don't use a hammer to paint your fence. Scientific method is used only for observable phenomena in the natural universe, and religious and spiritual matters are, by definition, unobservable and supernatural. Science is the wrong tool to use with religion.

[YT2095]

why do you think that is?

 

I have no idea why Religion is like this, but it seems to be mostly about Power and Myths and Control.

Science destroys these Myths with evidence.

those "in Power" don`t like that because it undermines their foothold with the masses and their control over them.

and so Science is to be attacked by these gullible puppets on the say so of the ones in Power, the religious leaders.

 

Science on the other hand doesn`t give a damn about religion, it simply seeks Truth.

 

ergo; Conflict.

[Martin]

I have no idea why Religion is like this, but it seems to be mostly about Power and Myths and Control.

Science destroys these Myths with evidence.

those "in Power" don`t like that because it undermines their foothold with the masses and their control over them.

and so Science is to be attacked by these gullible puppets on the say so of the ones in Power, the religious leaders.

 

Science on the other hand doesn`t give a damn about religion, it simply seeks Truth.

 

ergo; Conflict.

 

that looks to me like an insightful description. and it leads to a paradoxical conclusion that the UK system is better than the US system (for avoiding conflict)

 

in the US we have a free market of religion, anyone with charisma can start his own church, we have new churches setting up for business in shopping malls. people try new STYLES of teaching and worship even while they call themselves by conventional denomination names. we have media churches. and so-called mega-churches. the Leaders are very creative like corporate CEO because success depends on how you do in the "market"

 

the Leaders sense a threat to authority coming from science and also they simply need an outside Enemy to get unity and emotional charge. secular Liberals are a good enemy and also science (people telling you what to believe) is a good enemy.

==============

 

But look at the UK. They have local county COMMITTEEs mandated by government---it is a kind of semi-half-hearted establishment of religion. These committees have religious leaders like Pastor Priest Rabi Mullah. they all have to come together and sit and talk about what children should be taught about religion in the school.

This is actually a CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND AVOIDANCE technique which I believe promotes religious stability and discourages creative freemarket religious change. It probably reduces the tendency to attack science.

 

I remember talking to a UK woman who is the chairperson of the official religion committee somewhere around Hastings in south of england. She was extremely cultivated and sensible about science. She had an oldfashioned name like "Daphne" like in a 1930s detective novel. I immediately adored her.

==============

 

So, paradoxically, in the US we have this wonderful clause in our Consitution that separates church and state and forbids government from messing with religion-------but in the UK they have this ancient pre 1600 tradition of established church, softened and eroded by time, and implemented by Daphnes.

Look who has more anti-science guys and conflict. So it makes one wonder.

[JohnF]

Religion requires faith. The ability to have faith has given us an evolutionary advantage. Because we can have faith religion is bound to occur. As long we can have faith there will be religion. Science ignores religion because religion is based on faith alone which is not observable. Religious people attacking science just don't understand that religion requires no proof and is therefore safe from attack. There is no reason for science and religion to attack each other; they have no common ground.

[Phi for All]

Religion requires faith. The ability to have faith has given us an evolutionary advantage. Because we can have faith religion is bound to occur. As long we can have faith there will be religion. Science ignores religion because religion is based on faith alone which is not observable. Religious people attacking science just don't understand that religion requires no proof and is therefore safe from attack. There is no reason for science and religion to attack each other; they have no common ground.

Well said. You can't use one to disprove the other. They are at opposite ends of the knowledge spectrum.

[john5746]

IF Religion is at a different corner of the spectrum, it is because science has pushed it there. IMO, religious belief arouse from man's attempt to understand and control his environment.

 

Religion assumes an intelligent agent, then tries to appease that agent to get the desired result. Science assumes no intelligent intervention in existing rules, then tries to discover the rules and use them to get the desired result. They do come from two different starting points, but they collide and have been colliding for some time.

 

While the overall question as to the starting point cannot be proven, many of the resulting claims can be tested. As science wins the battles, the testable claims diminish. One reason why you don't see many God-men taken seriously today.

 

With all that said, some religions get along better with science than others, so religion and science can get along fine.

[Martin]

Religion requires faith. The ability to have faith has given us an evolutionary advantage. Because we can have faith religion is bound to occur. As long we can have faith there will be religion. Science ignores religion because religion is based on faith alone which is not observable. Religious people attacking science just don't understand that religion requires no proof and is therefore safe from attack. There is no reason for science and religion to attack each other; they have no common ground.

 

If a religion were just a set of isolated individuals all of whom had Faith in a certain something or other, then your analysis would make sense. Religious people who happened to be hostile to science could be said to "just not understand" that they don't need to be hostile.

 

The publication of scientific findings would pose no threat to the religion because all these isolated individuals would have Faith, unshakable by empirical evidence.

 

What YT has pointed to is the existence basically of alpha males, dominant individuals who have religious Authority, often based on a certain view of the origins and functioning of the universe, and on specially designated Text.

 

The Leaders of a religion have special interests and motivations having to do with being leaders and they may feel that publications of science finding undermine text or threaten authority. Or they may simply have an interest in encouraging hostility to science----because focusing flock hostility and mistrust on Them outside helps to define Us the faithful.

 

Within the heart of an isolated individual there may be no necessary conflict between science and religion----as you suggest.

 

But in society, and in history, there has often been conflict.

What I would suggest the guy do, who asked the question, is to try to determine what kind of societies and what historical periods have had MORE conflict, and what kind of societies and historical periods have had LESS.

 

The conflict is an observed fact that IMHO isn't constructive to try to plaster over.

 

the most constructive thing I've seen is Daphne's committee. I forget what it was called. Every county has one. Basically they DOMESTICATE religious leaders. In exchange for being recognized as such and getting to sit on council with other recognized religious leaders, you agree to some standards of civilized behavior---like not disturbing the peace with apocalyptic hate messages and sowing mistrust of legitimate science. So they have a committee of tame religious leaders who are beneficial rather than harmful to society, and among them they decide what the children should be told in school (which because it is something the whole committee can agree on is probably fairly general and even a bit tedious). What a beautiful system.

[pharmacol]

Well one can not put every religion into the same basket.

 

For instance Islam does not have a problem with scientific facts (facts not theories). There are many scientific facts mentioned in verses of the Quran and saying of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and many of these facts have only been discovered in the 20 th century or late 19th century

 

Infact that is why Scientific learning advanced so much in the Muslim Spain

[JohnF]

Well one can not put every religion into the same basket.

 

I took the OP to be about religion, not religious groups. Religion is a thing, it is an organised belief in an unproveable doctrine.

 

Religious groups are no different to other groups; territorial groups (nations), ethnic groups, football and baseball supporters, etc. Groups quite often fall in to conflict with each other. This has always been true and will continue to be; it occurs in the animal world too. There are always going to be people who use religion to forward their own personal agenda, people that twist the ideas of a religion to suit their own purpose or use it as a reason to attack another group.

 

Religion is an important part of the natural selection process. All past societies of a significant size have demonstrated the use of religion. Without religion societies would have remained small. Religion gives a large group of people a common goal to work towards, a common reason to obey the rules.

 

To some extent even science can be considered a religion. A significant number of people believe science holds the answers; they have faith in science. They do not understand how or why things work but look to the scientists as the priests that can answer their questions; they have faith in the scientists. Although science can demonstrate proof of what is taught, that proof can only be demonstrated to those with the ability to understand. For those that can not understand they are left with belief in an unproveable explanation; unproveable to them that is.

[Royston]

Well one can not put every religion into the same basket.

 

True, but I think the issue is more with the authorities of different religions, rather than religion itself. If a certain sect has an interpretation that is directly contradicted by a scientific discovery, the authorities of that sect have the choice to cater for the discovery, or attack the discovery through fear that it will compromise the popularity of that sect. Now, this shouldn't be a problem...interpretations of religious text are changing all the time, even for a religious super power such as Catholicism (which has plenty to lose...religion holds a lot of political clout), the Pope catered for evolution. So really, it's just the authorities that should act responsibly with such discrepancies, if they choose to attack science, then A. they don't understand science or B. there is reputation or popularity at stake.

 

For instance Islam does not have a problem with scientific facts (facts not theories).

 

From scientific theories come scientific facts...'a theory' and a 'scientific theory' are very different things.

[woelen]

A problem with many scientists (not science, but scientists) is that they claim to have TRUTH, and that only they have TRUTH and no one else. That is a big misconception. Science reveals truth, only about a part of the world around us, but much more remains unexplainable, unknowable and will ever remain so.

 

So, yes, I agree that science is a powerfool tool in revealing truth, but at the same time I also think that we should not overestimate the power of that truth, truth is just a small subset of TRUTH.

 

Right now we live in a demystified society, where science is our new religion, and many people run behind the priests of that religion, without even understanding most of what those priests are telling them. How will society look after a few centuries, maybe it will be full of mysticism? Our society will collapse, just as any society did in the past. Maybe we will see that happen, otherwise our children, grandchildren or grand-grandchildren will see that happen, and in the new upcoming society people will look at the poor few leftover scientists who think science has exclusive access to TRUTH, in a similar way that many people nowadays look at the minority of religious people.

[Phi for All]

I think science could get along well with religion (ignoring it mostly) if it weren't for the literal 6-day creation many religions insist on. Science could remain skeptical (admitting there is a slight possibility) about a higher power who uses It's own physical laws to start the universe and with the awe-inspiring patience to wait billions of years for It's creation to reach the present stage of development. Science has no way of measuring a higher power that can create the universe with It's will in six 24-hour days, complete with fabricated evidence which measures as millions of years old.

 

Many creationists think evolution is trying to displace their god as the Creator and it's difficult to dissuade them. Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created but that's not what most creation "scientists" tell the faithful. So it seems like a combination of misinterpretation and misinformation may keep science and religion feuding.

 

I've often thought I should try to write a television show where the two main characters were a scientist and a creationist. It would have to be mostly fluff and titters but I could have some nice heated debates nestled nicely in between so I could at least clean the slate of all the false bits on both sides. Call it, "Let There Be Laughs!" or something cute to make it popular.

[YT2095]

I have No problems of reconciliation my "higher Power(s)" and Science, in fact quite the inverse, the more I learn from Science the closer I get to my "Higher Power(s)".

 

Nature and the Lab is my Church.

[Phi for All]

I have No problems of reconciliation my "higher Power(s)" and Science, in fact quite the inverse, the more I learn from Science the closer I get to my "Higher Power(s)".

 

Nature and the Lab is my Church.

Zen Chemistry isn't for everyone. Or is it Wichemistry?

[Pangloss]

Well one can not put every religion into the same basket.

 

For instance Islam does not have a problem with scientific facts (facts not theories). There are many scientific facts mentioned in verses of the Quran and saying of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and many of these facts have only been discovered in the 20 th century or late 19th century

 

Infact that is why Scientific learning advanced so much in the Muslim Spain

 

I disagree. Islam has exactly the same level of difficulty with modern science as any other religion does. It's just not a trumpet cause for its followers at the moment, the way it is with many Christians.

 

There are Islamic leaders who believe in Creationism, for example. The Wikipedia has a write-up on the subject here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism

 

Christian opposition to science is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. Historically, sometimes religious cultures support science, sometimes they peacefully coexist with it, sometimes they oppose it. The precise reglion in question is irrelevent.

[Phi for All]

Well one can not put every religion into the same basket.

And it seems as though one can't put all Muslims in one basket. The 9000 denominations of Christianity wouldn't all fit in one either.

 

But we should be careful here. Discussion of specific religions isn't what we want, even here in General Discussion.

 

Let me ask, would you like to see the Philosophy / Religion sub-forum return to SFN? Theology Forums is not as popular as we thought it would be. If it returned it would be a sub-forum you wouldn't even see unless you joined it specifically and agreed to it's parameters of discussion. It wouldn't be available to anyone who didn't have a good posting record in the main sub-forums. All the normal rules would still apply and fallacious arguments would be more closely scrutinized, but otherwise it would be much like Theology Forums.

 

I don't mean to hijack this thread but it seems like a perfect topic to bring this up. I'll split the thread if pharmacol feels his intent has been thwarted.

[JohnF]

I would like to see the Philosophy / Religion sub-forum return, but that's because I'm too damned lazy to sign up for another forum; I assume that if I was allowed to participate my current log-in would be sufficient.

 

It would be good to get this thread back on track though because the subject of religion, rather than religious groups, is quite interesting and shouldn't need to be a cause for animosity.

 

To that end I think science needs religion in so far as it needs faith. Without faith our knowledge won't progress as fast as it does. Religion quite often provides a set of moral rules that science needs to be aware of. Such rules could come from other places but a religious origin is quite beneficial.

 

Religion I find takes on the responsibility of answering the questions science can't answer. Whether these questions are valid or not is unimportant. What is important is that they are being asked and people want answers. Once science moves another step forward, religion can take up the new unanswered questions that occur as a result.

[YT2095]

I do NOT wanna see it here again EVER!!!!

 

it`s nothing but Spam on what is Now a good Science site, stop being so bloody lazy! I`m sure if you had Anything "Important" to say you would make the effort to Click the link!

 

since this is NOT the case then you have nothing of Importance to say and just want to Prove my point that it`s SPAM!

[JohnF]

I do NOT wanna see it here again EVER!!!!

 

it`s nothing but Spam on what is Now a good Science site, stop being so bloody lazy! I`m sure if you had Anything "Important" to say you would make the effort to Click the link!

 

since this is NOT the case then you have nothing of Importance to say and just want to Prove my point that it`s SPAM!

 

So are you saying you do not like the idea then?

Or do I detect a hidden enthusiasm for it?

[Phi for All]

I do NOT wanna see it here again EVER!!!!

 

it`s nothing but Spam on what is Now a good Science site, stop being so bloody lazy! I`m sure if you had Anything "Important" to say you would make the effort to Click the link!

 

since this is NOT the case then you have nothing of Importance to say and just want to Prove my point that it`s SPAM!

I think it's fantastic that some people have worked through their personal philosophy and spirituality and are at peace with it. Mine is, like a lot of things in my life, ongoing and adapting. I don't think I'll ever get tired of talking to other "seekers".

 

It's the people who are convinced they have the "truth" of it that tend to rant and rave about how dumb the rest of us are. I think these are the closed-minded spammers YT is talking about. There is a civil way to discuss issues between science and religion if people don't allow themselves to be polarized.

[Pangloss]

Don't mince words, YT! Tell us what you really feel!

 

[Martin]

Don't mince words, YT! Tell us what you really feel!

 

 

I feel I should report this post for exceeding the merriment limit.

But I'll let it pass this time