Religion and Science (Do They Mix)

[Captain Falcon]

Well.. anyway I removed the post if its any reconciliation..... I didn't know I would end up posting anyway... lol... well sorry about that, my bad.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Captain Falcon
Did not know it was against rules

[Sisyphus]

Well, this thread is a landmine. Religion discussion is actually against the rules on this forum (there used to be a philosophy and religion subforum, but it was shut down for being too hot). I'll just give the standard, politically correct response:

 

Science and religion do not mix, nor is there any reason they should interfere with one another. They are "different questions."

[swansont]

Indeed. The first hint of delving into an actual discussion of religion, or the wisdom of believing it, will bring a lock to the thread.

 

They aren't really compatible. There are few questions where it would be appropriate to draw upon both for an answer.

[Phi for All]

Do religion and science mix? I believe they can, but there's never been any evidence of it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Basically, science asks "How can we predict stuff?" and religion asks "How can I live a according to my religion?". There may be some overlap, and that overlap could be harmonious or contradictory, but it is entirely coincidential.

[Severian]

Science and religion mix fairly well in my life.

[Pangloss]

It's a free country.

[qlue]

Seek for knowledge, even if you must go as far as china.

When someone says that it's like this or like that, ask for proof.

[YT2095]

both work perfectly together for me also.

[CharonY]

Unless you learn to compartmentalize it might be slightly tricky if you are a biologist and follow a religion that involves creation of life. I assume that most physicists or chemist would not have any problems, though.

[gcol]

Can they mix? Sort of. Many people say they can. About as well as oil and water.

[Mr Skeptic]

Can they mix? Sort of. Many people say they can. About as well as oil and water.

 

You mean like mayonnaise? But doesn't that require something extra to allow them to mix?

[Gilded]

This is like asking if bread and soap mix. They're there, but they don't really have that much to do with eachother so there's very little overlapping.

 

...unless you like to eat sandwiches while showering.

 

(????)

[gcol]

I mentioned oil and water to avoid being overtly controversial. People are free to draw their own inferences. The correct mixing of mayonnaise I believe is rather skilful and requires miuch practice. Best to buy it in a supermarket and not enquire too closely as to method and ingredients, perhaps. All hail the mighty Heinz.

[iNow]

Mayonnaise is made using eggs, oils, and an acid (like lemon juice or vinegar). Water is not generally part of the process until you begin the cleanup.

[big314mp]

It's funny that this thread got hijacked by mayonnaise, of all things.

 

In any case:

 

IMHO, you only really run into problems when you try to mix the two. Things like creation science undercut public trust in science, and promote backwards thinking. Using science to disprove religion is a bit disingenuous (provided said religion is harmless of course).

 

If I was witty enough, I'd tie that back to mayonnaise with some pithy quote.

 

I'll have to settle for using esoteric and obtuse language.

[ChemSiddiqui]

religion and science mix perfectly in my opinion and I don't think this question would simply put a lock to this thread just because it concerns religion...no way in my opinion it won't!

[Phi for All]

Using science to disprove religion is a bit disingenuous (provided said religion is harmless of course).

 

If I was witty enough, I'd tie that back to mayonnaise with some pithy quote.

Faith mayo may not be the answer, but science asks a different question.

[ydoaPs]

...unless you like to eat sandwiches while showering.

Genius!

[foodchain]

Its to easy to come across negative in a debate like this. For instance could I replace religion with any specific religion? What about any particular science?

 

Then of course you have the idea that conflict does exist in the issue, such as the controversy somewhat in public education in the united states.

 

I mean if you want to say something supernatural exists and science cant explain it yet, sure I don't think you get much of an argument there simply because whats to argue, thats like saying science does not know everything. Yet in other arenas certain followers of specific religions will actively try to “stop” science altogether because science does not offer any evidence to support a belief in something.

 

It may seem mundane but at one point in the history of the earth it was almost heresy to say the earth was not the center of the universe, yet in modern day America an issue like evolution can still be attacked in a very similar way. So I guess my question is how do you deal with that really in any manner that could be productive with an issue so tense to so many, or how do you keep such civil.

 

Science I think is limited in this regard because basically what can you say in the name of science that would be backed by science that is not all science like and science?

 

In context to arguments put forward by any particular religious group what are the parts of that argument, I think in that you find that science could never really offer a full response to any question that could even include all aspects of some religious argument really.

 

To me the real issue I take somewhat a great offense to is that a particular religious argument could actually be enforced by governmental law on public educational systems. Thats basically the government mandating that you must learn about creation, personally I find that wrong on many levels. Mostly because it would be saying to youth then that the all powerful adult world thinks this about science and overall thinks this about reality. In that I think science basically becomes lost for whatever purpose it had. Lastly this is why I think science in any culture would probably tend to do best with a secular plural community.

[padren]

Science is a process by which we come to a consensus on models that can describe aspects of how the universe behaves. It intentionally doesn't touch topics that lack evidence that can be compared for the purpose of coming to such a consensus.

 

Faith is deeply personal, and is outside the realm of what the scientific method is for.

 

This is one of the key reasons topics end up in pseudoscience and their proponents feel dejected - it's not that science says "Bigfoot" doesn't exist, it's that science is unconcerned with questions that lack credible evidence to investigate. Therefore, you can have an unscientific conversation about Bigfoot, and some scientists may even suggest such a creature exists, but they do not suggest their view is based on hard science.

 

In the same way, science isn't at odds with religion, it just doesn't apply to the investigation of exceptionally personal experiences.

 

The closest this comes to conflict, is when a religion has an explanation for something observed, such as "the earth exists and thus was created" and science has a theoretical explanation for the same thing that conflicts with the other explanation. Even then science isn't "refuting" the religious explanation, just proposing another one that can be backed up with scientific data that meets the criteria of a scientific theory, for the benefit of people who prefer that approach to understanding those aspects of the world.

[npts2020]

Science is compatable with some religions. For example, the Dali Lama is very interested in science and many Buddhists are very good at the scientific method as are some other religious people. The only religion that science is not compatible with is the dogmatic one that claims to be the only truth (even outside spiritual matters) regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Science in itself is comprised of various different philosophical ideas and theories, so it is going to have some similarity with the philosophical positions of any religion you care to choose from.

 

Most people don't have a problem in believing both their religions and the scientific method.

 

The problem comes from the small minority (e.g. the fundamentalists) of people who insist on shoving their religious beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's why religions, in particular Christianity and Islam, tend to get a bad rap these days.

[john5746]

Science in itself is comprised of various different philosophical ideas and theories, so it is going to have some similarity with the philosophical positions of any religion you care to choose from.

 

I think religion may have more in common with the marines than science.

 

Most people don't have a problem in believing both their religions and the scientific method.

 

Most scientists yes, but most people? not so sure about that one.

 

The problem comes from the small minority (e.g. the fundamentalists) of people who insist on shoving their religious beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's why religions, in particular Christianity and Islam, tend to get a bad rap these days.

 

Understated the issue in a big way. We are not talking just about the "God hates fags" crowd or the suicide bombers, but the people who stake their personal relationship with a deity in direct conflict with any scientific knowledge. This would be at least half or even the majority.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

I think religion may have more in common with the marines than science.

 

If your talking about faith, then no, there is no similarity there.

 

But all religions and all of the related denominations are mostly comprised of many different philosophies and assumptions, some of which are similar to scientific thought. Buddhism and Confucianism, and ancient Greek religions, for example, does incorporate empiricism. Modern science itself was started out of the desire to understand so-called miracles, so it is not entirely unrelated.

 

Note that I'm talking about purely philosophical standpoints, not necessarily the methodology itself or its reliability; all I'm showing is that you can pull out any similarity from religions with scientific thought.

 

 

The reason religion is not science, is because their assumptions are all unverifiable and untestable, not because of any philosophical stances associated with them. But I'm sure you already know this.

 

 

Most scientists yes, but most people? not so sure about that one.

 

You'd be surprised actually. Most people tend to believe that their deities were involved, in some form or another, with any of the things we have discovered, without rejecting the scientific theory itself.

 

What ends up happening most of the time, though, is that they are often lumped together with creationists, therefore there is the perception that anybody who believes in God must also believe in any of the ridiculous events outlined in the Genesis. You should take those statistics with a grain of salt.

 

 

Understated the issue in a big way. We are not talking just about the "God hates fags" crowd or the suicide bombers, but the people who stake their personal relationship with a deity in direct conflict with any scientific knowledge. This would be at least half or even the majority.

 

The people who are suicide bombers or the "God hates fags" crowds all fall under this category, it was implied in my original post. There was no understatement. As it turns out though, not all the people trying to force religion down everybody's throats necessarily have a conflict with scientific knowledge, but these groups are far less well known.

 

 

All religions, of course, are illogical to begin with. It has already been proven that in order to be religious, you have to rely on pure faith. Since you cannot verify the existence of deities, or use logic or reason. Religion is inherently irrational. That ultimately is the primary conflict between them.

Edited October 22, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots