Reasons for the conflict between religion and science.

[andrewcellini]

Depending on your view, religion could either be a different theory to describe the univers or could be contained within the Standard Theory. Maybe God is not really what we think. In the Bible, I believe, it says something vaguely like, 'God is in all things, and in all things is intelligence'. Einstein's experiment showed that two certain particles 'know' each other's spin when produced, no matter where they are, right? This is a kind of intelligence. Could God be a description of quantum information/the laws of physics?

that is an incredible stretch, and i don't think the creators of these stories and characters had "quantum information" or "the laws of physics" in mind at all.

[MigL]

Why are we comparing a belief system to an information system ?

Are we gonna compare apples to oranges next ?

 

Religion has its benefits. It makes believers feel good about themselves and gives their lives meaning and purpose.

Sciense has its purpose. The understanding of reality and the world around us.

 

It is only when you try to analize one with the 'tools' of the other that you run into conflicts.

[iNow]

^ Except that's little more than the nonoverlapping magisteria position, and it' should be obvious to most sincere and earnest observers that the magisteria do, in fact, rather frequently overlap in some quite important ways.

[Eise]

Why are we comparing a belief system to an information system ?

Are we gonna compare apples to oranges next ?

 

Religion has its benefits. It makes believers feel good about themselves and gives their lives meaning and purpose.

Sciense has its purpose. The understanding of reality and the world around us.

 

It is only when you try to analize one with the 'tools' of the other that you run into conflicts.

 

That's just not true. Theoretically it is possible to have a religion that is not based on truths about the world, practically most religions are based on supposed truths (creationism, a God that leads the people of Israel through the desert, the flooding and the ark, reincarnation etc).

 

What you describe supposes a quite enlightened way of seeing one's own religion. There is even an abbreviation for it: NOMA.

 

(Just saw that iNow also referred to NOMA...)

Edited October 3, 2014 by Eise

[studiot]

Well I support MigL.

Following this I note that all have taken a very narrow view of the substance and purposes of Religion.

 

Mig has widened it out a little, but IMHO still not far enough.

[Eise]

I would say he has narrowed it: to only those religions that have no problem with any worldly truth.

 

Only Buddhism à la Dalai Lama comes into my mind. He once said that if science discovers that a certain Buddhist dogma is in conflict with science, then the Buddhists must give it up. How many of these kind of religions do you know? A very broad spectrum?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Eise

[studiot]

 

I would say he has narrowed it: to only those religions that have no problem with any worldly truth.

 

Only Buddhism à la Dalai Lama comes into my mind. He once said that if science discovers that a certain Buddhist dogma is in conflict with science, then the Buddhists must give it up. How many of these kind of religions do you know? A very broad spectrum?

 

 

I don't follow the relevance to either what mig said or what I said.

 

To find the reasons for conflict (the originalOP) you need to list out the substance and purpose of both and look for common areas of coverage.

 

You can only find conflict in these common areas, since each one is silent about the area it does not cover (by definition).

 

So what do you consider these common areas to be?

 

Both disciplines compass large areas that are not common to the other and so far the discussion has centered on these.

[Eise]

To find the reasons for conflict (the originalOP) you need to list out the substance and purpose of both and look for common areas of coverage.

 

The OP:

 

It's so peculiar that there has always been a lot of conflict between religion and science. Why do you guys think that is?

 

What else did I do in my posting?

[studiot]

 

What else did I do in my posting?

 

That's just not true. Theoretically it is possible to have a religion that is not based on truths about the world, practically most religions are based on supposed truths (creationism, a God that leads the people of Israel through the desert, the flooding and the ark, reincarnation etc).

 

 

You are discussing the area of non overlap.

[Eise]

What? The truth of God making the world in 7 days does not overlap the big bang theory?

 

Wow.

[studiot]

The existence, actions, motivations and powers of deities is not a matter for Science.

 

Oh, and by the way, what is Truth?

Edited October 3, 2014 by studiot

[/backslash/]

Although the ancient peoples did not understand the laws of physics, they did observe their effects.

[Eise]

The existence, actions, motivations and powers of deities is not a matter for Science.

 

So you believe in the creation story (literally) and in big bang at the same time? Is that possible?

 

And when I say that I saw Thor yesterday making thunder and lightning there is no conflict with science? In the end it is a deity, and science has nothing to say about that. Not even that I am lying, it does not belong to science's domain.

[s1eep]

God is egotistical art; as you keep saying, it's something beautiful you believe in; but think about how much cowardice lies in becoming a God-believer, every time I get into debate, I hide behind God thinking that you will go to hell, after you have died; not actually doing anything, not causing any productive movement bar from spreading my, again, art, and having others treat it as what the art expresses, some invisible human-akin being in the and beyond, probably more accurately what's believed, the fabric of the universe.

Edited October 3, 2014 by s1eep

[studiot]

 

So you believe in the creation story (literally) and in big bang at the same time? Is that possible?

 

 

 

Do you mean is it possible for some person to believe simultaneuosly in Genesis and the Big Bang?

 

Yes I think some individuals do just that.

 

Or do you mean do I personally .... ?

 

Actually I find both about equally unsatisfactory.

 

But then I asked what is truth and since you did not answer consider this.

 

Truth is what I believe. It is true because I believe it and therefore it is a tautology.

[/backslash/]

I also don't like the Big Bang theory or the 'mystical deity creation' theory much. Neither of them have very strong supporting arguments.

[MigL]

You did NOT see Thor yesterday making thunder and lightning ,Eise, but you may certainly believe that you saw him.

A belief may be termed a subjective 'truth' as opposed to an objective truth

An objective truth may be analised using the 'tools' of science, but a belief system cannot be analized scientifically ( and vice versa),

They are based on different paradigms.

 

That would be like saying 'I believe the colour yellow is the most pleasing', and trying to analise that scientifically

Edited October 4, 2014 by MigL

[iNow]

a belief system cannot be analized scientifically

Except, yes it can, especially when those beliefs so often relate to things that occur in or impact the real world.

 

That would be like saying 'I believe the colour yellow is the most pleasing', and trying to analise that scientifically

Well, we can actually do that, too. We measure your pleasure response in the brain while you're being shown various colors. Some colors will trigger responses of greater magnitude and scope.

[Eise]

You did NOT see Thor yesterday making thunder and lightning ,Eise, but you may certainly believe that you saw him.

 

The only reason you know that, is because from science you know that it isn't Thor.

 

A creationist takes the word of the bible literally. Why otherwise do you think that creationists combat evolution? They even call their beliefs 'creationist science', or 'intelligent design'. Again: your vision on religion makes religion and science to two excluding domains of ... Yeah of what? Knowledge? Do creationists know that the earth was created as described in the bible? Do they call this subjective truth? Of course not. And that is why there is a conflict between science and religion.

 

I also hate this idea of 'subjective truth'. It might be true that people believe that the earth was created in seven days. Surely most of those people really think it is true. But it just isn't true, full stop. It is just creating intellectual fog when one says that something is a 'subjective truth' when we just mean he is authentic in his expression of what he believes to be true.

 

Don't take me wrong, I have nothing against religion in general, or people referring to their inner feelings as motivation for what they like or do. But only in the 'enlightened sense' that you are taking as presupposition. Fact however is that many religionists don't have this enlightened view on religion, and so their truths will collide with the 'real' truths of science again and again.

 

Exactly as iNow says:

 

Except, yes it can, especially when those beliefs so often relate to things that occur in or impact the real world.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Eise

[studiot]

 

I also don't like the Big Bang theory or the 'mystical deity creation' theory much. Neither of them have very strong supporting arguments.

 

 

 

I consider it to be in very poor form to give someone, especially an enthusiastic new member, a negative rep point for this post.

 

There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind.

 

So I have added +1 to reverse it.

 

Further I repeat my comment about the narrow view taken on religion, which is still not being addressed.

 

 

Well I support MigL.

Following this I note that all have taken a very narrow view of the substance and purposes of Religion.

 

Mig has widened it out a little, but IMHO still not far enough.

 

Edited October 4, 2014 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I consider it to be in very poor form to give someone, especially an enthusiastic new member, a negative rep point for this post.

 

There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind.

 

So I have added +1 to reverse it.

 

Further I repeat my comment about the narrow view taken on religion, which is still not being addressed.

 

What?

You say "There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind." in respect of someone saying there's no strong evidence for the big bang?

 

That claim looks arrogant and closed minded to me.

[Eise]

Further I repeat my comment about the narrow view taken on religion, which is still not being addressed.

 

I did here.

 

If you want to extend the meaning of 'religion' to encompass all of strong subjective feelings, beliefs; of art and all kind of rituals; of every worldview; then you are stretching the meaning of the word pretty far.

 

And it will still not contain the domains where both religion and science have something to see, and the ideas collide. And that was the question of the OP about: 'Reasons for the conflict between religion and science', not the reason why religion and science must not necessarily collide.

[studiot]

 

What?

You say "There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind." in respect of someone saying there's no strong evidence for the big bang?

 

That claim looks arrogant and closed minded to me.

 

 

1) The use of the phrase 'there's no strong evidence' suggests to me that should such strong evidence appear the speaker would be prepared to consider or even accept it.

 

That demonstrates the lack of closed mindedness, and arrogance.

[s1eep]

We can say that all the words applied to God aren't God-exclusive and can be easily applied to abstract concepts in nature.

God is just feeding of imagination and nature; whatever truths or beauties lie in the God-related holy books, are most certainly not only God's.

 

I will let you know...

There are other against arguments for some of the things achieved through science, or how scientists view the world.

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[MigL]

Very well Eise, then I suggest the OP is poorly worded ( since you like to use the OP to beat Studiot with ).

One might as well ask about sources of conflict between the Hatfields and McCoys.

 

There is only one source of conflict and it is ignorance ( willful or otherwise ).

Science provides us with an undestanding of the workings of the universe.

Religion provides us ( believers actually, as I don't care for it ) with our reason for being, a purpose if you will.

 

To move past the ignorance you need to realise that science cannot provide our purpose for being, while religion cannot provide an understanding of the universe. Or would you like to try ?

 

Incidentally iNow, I may find the colour yellow most pleasing today, but after some conditioning I may find the colour purple most pleasing next week. This can also be measured by the brain'sresponse. Does that mean a 'truth' can change from day to day ? Or is there some validity to the concept of subjective truths ( unverifiable beliefs ) and objective truths ( quantifiable, unalterable information ).