science vs religion. is it really a fight?

[Dylandrako]

I would like to see what peoples opinions on religion and science. I was raised for 15 years in a christian house, at which point I was taught to believe the various things that religion has taught me. However after these 15 years i left my home and my church to go serve in the military where my religious beliefs faded and i more looked at the world in a more "logical" manor, this being if you can explain it then its real. since getting out ive thought back on this again and again and have come to the idea that it is no longer science OR religion, but rather science AND religion, in the sense that science is mearly a way for poeple to explain how the "inexplainable", religion, happens.

 

i would like feedback on this thought process and see what exactly other people this of this. both good and bad.

[Delta1212]

Science and religion are both attempts to answer humanity's questions about the world around us, but science shows its work.

[Phi for All]

When you say "religion", which one do you mean?

[ACG52]

When you say "religion", which one do you mean?

Does it really matter?

[Dylandrako]

I mean all main stream religions. Christianity, catholicism, jewdism, muslum, ext. No one in particular, however I would like to keep the topic strictly to the one god religions if possible.

[John Cuthber]

I try to believe what the evidence says.

That seems to tally better with science but even it gets things dubious at times.

[ajb]

I know scientists who are religious, so the two can coincide at a personal level. And as already stated, both are attempts to understand the world we live in. However, science requires some logic and evidence. Religion is just blind faith.

 

The biggest problem is when superstitions and dogma override the evidence. Now, not that every human decision needs to be based on 'cold facts', but it is very detrimental to the human species (and the world at large) when religious arguments get in the way of progress.

 

For example, the catholic church's condom ban probabily did not help the prevention of the spread of AIDS.

 

Then we of course have all the troubles in the Middle East which are base on a strict interpretation of a particular religion.

[Strange]

Based on what ajb said, there is only a conflict if the religious choose to create one. This is not necessary and I'm sure the majority of religious people don't see any conflict.

[fiveworlds]

I would like to see what peoples opinions on religion and science. I was raised for 15 years in a christian house, at which point I was taught to believe the various things that religion has taught me. However after these 15 years i left my home and my church to go serve in the military where my religious beliefs faded and i more looked at the world in a more "logical" manor, this being if you can explain it then its real. since getting out ive thought back on this again and again and have come to the idea that it is no longer science OR religion, but rather science AND religion, in the sense that science is mearly a way for poeple to explain how the "inexplainable", religion, happens.

 

As I see it science is quite literally how things work if somebody religious is against science they simply don't understand science and haven't really given much thought to it. You simply can't get away from doing science but you can argue with bad science

[Greg H.]

The conflict arises when scientific findings run counter to long held religious beliefs that people are unwilling to let go of. Geo-centrism in the middle ages and evolutionary theory in the last hundred years, for example.

 

The issue is religious belief are a form of prejudice - it is a preconceived notion that a particular set of religious teachings are correct. To paraphrase Sydney Smith

 

 

Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned in, and it cannot be reasoned out.

[MonDie]

I mean all main stream religions. Christianity, catholicism, jewdism, muslum, ext. No one in particular, however I would like to keep the topic strictly to the one god religions if possible.

 

i.e. the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity (including Catholicism) and Islam.

Transcribe "angels" instead of "gods" and tada monotheism! Bantu religion and IMO some Hinduism variants might be considered monotheistic by those standards.

 

This is just my personal speculation.

Religion isn't clearly defined, but more important is how we define a scientific person, how much leeway we give. For example, is science something you do or something you believe, and what is believing? One might argue that faith and scientific reasoning have different functions. For example, science can illuminate the consequences of one's actions, while faith might provide some sort of subjective, emotional or "spiritual" support. However there is no room for faith unless you narrow the scope of science, e.g. by limiting it to the knowable or the ethical.

Edited June 24, 2015 by MonDie

[1x0]

Religion is philosophy of science. The Goal is similar as they both observe the same system. They have different approach.

 

As religion so science has it´s difficulties to observe the system from different point of views.

 

Religion is about the philosophic approach to consciousness. Science can not neglect the fact that consciousness is present in the observed physical reality.

[Moontanman]

Is it really a fight? Only if a toddler going against Mike Tyson is a fight...

[Dylandrako]

Transcribe "angels" instead of "gods" and tada monotheism!

I was actually trying to think of that word. "Monotheism" thank you.

 

And I never actually thought of science as being a sort of faith needed for it. Then again everything in life that we do has some level of faith so I guess it's just that I wasn't thinking of it at the time. In that sense then it could almost go to the point where science itself is a sort of "religion" as well. Very thought provoking thank you.

[Wolfhnd]

Many people feel that faith based systems are undesirable. It's not just a question of religion vs science but of ideologies of all descriptions that are based on faith. Faith basically mean believing in something you cannot prove to be reliable.

 

Science is a system based on evidence and many non scientific endeavors are labeled as science for example political science. Whether or not you believe some field is a science depends on how rigorous your standards for evidence are. I would argue that there is a danger in setting the standard too high.

 

Many people in the 21st century have set their standards for evidence high enough that religion cannot be part of their personal belief system. The success of hard science at answering fundamental questions has certainly played a part in this trend toward the rejection of religion. As I hinted at earlier though the problem is what you consider science to be. If it is simply any evidence based belief system then we probably can get along well without religion or philosophy.

 

Philosophy is however a little tricker as it is not as well defined as religion. Some scientist would like to reduce human to machines incapable of free will or meaningful morality. As Daniel Dennett has pointed out their position is a bit premature. The practical aspects of free will and morality have not been killed off by science. We are moral agents as are all social animals and our membership in a "society" insures that we will always have behavioral flexibility sufficient to insure that the exercise of free will has consequences.

[TheDivineFool]

In essence there is no science vs religion. Early scientists believed science was about understanding god's work - the universe and its laws.

 

Unfortunately this friendship didn't last very long as evolution and geology contradicted Biblical creation stories.

 

So, now religion and science don't agree.

[MonDie]

Is it really a fight? Only if a toddler going against Mike Tyson is a fight...

 

... The toddler forces Tyson to forfeit.

[fiveworlds]

So, now religion and science don't agree.

 

But it isn't really a science of evolution per se for something to be scientifically accurate it needs to be of a certain standard with thousands of replicate experiments as evidence. At the moment there has been little in the way of experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Experimental_evolutionto validate the theory beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to say I don't believe evolution happened I would imagine it did. One of the principle arguments in Darwin's theory was these birds on different islands adapting different beaks to better survive on each of the islands. To actually prove his hypothesis Darwin would have had to take birds from each island onto a different one of the islands and observe how long it took their beaks to adapt and he would have had to do this experiment multiple times with each set of birds. For all we know there may have been one bird common to all the islands but there may also have been birds native to each island which the common bird was able to breed with. Thus producing breeds that were a mix of birds. So if we take Darwin's idea if I take a white people and put them in the desert under the sun they will turn black as an adaptation to survive in the sun. Now one thing I can think of is the doors on old houses here have grown progressively throughout the centuries to accommodate taller and taller people. Which is in contrast to Mendel's genetics idea where things breed and produce new variants. But Mendel's idea was never against Christianity because of the intention of humanity being gardeners. We were essentially to keep the garden in check and that involves pruning the bad and fostering the good

Edited June 24, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Prometheus]

I can imagine early religion being a sign human development. Imagine a river regularly flooding. By linking this with some sort of river god, it implies the people have a concept of causation - the river god causes the river to flood so best keep the god happy. And while we knew no better, this was as good an answer as any.

 

But now we know better, thanks largely to the scientific method, so we can do away with this aspect of religion, and actually improve our lives.

 

Not to say religion has nothing to say on topics concerning humanity. One would have thought religious people would be happy with the rise of science, it means religions need no longer concern themselves with how the universe came into existence and such and can focus on the really important stuff, like how to live a happy life and lessen the suffering of others (not that we necessarliy need religion for that ).

[MonDie]

But it isn't really a science of evolution per se for something to be scientifically accurate it needs to be of a certain standard with thousands of replicate experiments as evidence. At the moment there has been little in the way of experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Experimental_evolutionto validate the theory beyond all reasonable doubt. [...]

 

There have been many experiments based on evolutionary premises or even flat out demonstrating that the mechanisms exist. Darwin wasn't perfect, but he was approximately right beyond a doubt. Evolution doesn't negate the divine, but some stubborn Christians couldn't accept that their infallible pope made a boo-boo, or feared that a doubting society would descend into chaos, etc.

[John Cuthber]

 

There have been many experiments based on evolutionary premises or even flat out demonstrating that the mechanisms exist. Darwin wasn't perfect, but he was approximately right beyond a doubt. Evolution doesn't negate the divine, but some stubborn Christians couldn't accept that their infallible pope made a boo-boo, or feared that a doubting society would descend into chaos, etc.

In fairness to the Pope (not something I say very often) they ditched the "anti evolution" idea a couple of decades ago

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/world/pope-bolsters-church-s-support-for-scientific-view-of-evolution.html

Albeit that the evidence had ditched it about 2 centuries ago.

[MonDie]

In fairness to the Pope (not something I say very often) they ditched the "anti evolution" idea a couple of decades ago

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/world/pope-bolsters-church-s-support-for-scientific-view-of-evolution.html

Albeit that the evidence had ditched it about 2 centuries ago.

 

Oddly enough, I vaguely recall reading long long ago that either Buddhism or the Upanishads has a myth about life starting in the water and moving onto land, and that this is taken as consistent with the science.

Edited June 26, 2015 by MonDie

[s1eep]

It's not, they are not opposite to each other. Science and Philosophy maybe, Religion is the intruding third-party that acts like a Philosophy.

[Prometheus]

Oddly enough, I vaguely recall reading long long ago that either Buddhism or the Upanishads has a myth about life starting in the water and moving onto land, and that this is taken as consistent with the science.

Buddhism itself has no creation stories, it is one of the questions the Buddha refused to answer (though it's usually inferred he knew the answer), although cultural creation myths have been added later. Maybe it was one of these or the Upanishads.

 

There was also a Greek school of thought which believed that animals developed from lower forms of animals, I'll try to find it when I'm home next.

[Strange]

But it isn't really a science of evolution per se for something to be scientifically accurate it needs to be of a certain standard with thousands of replicate experiments as evidence. At the moment there has been little in the way of experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Experimental_evolutionto validate the theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

This is a typical anti-science argument: "if you can't do it in a lab, it isn't proved". Apart from the rather obvious fact that many branches of science are unable to do reproduce things in lab experiments, nothing is ever "proved" in science anyway.

 

Not to say I don't believe evolution happened I would imagine it did.

 

Not only is it pretty obvious it did happen, it is also visibly happening now.

 

 

Now one thing I can think of is the doors on old houses here have grown progressively throughout the centuries to accommodate taller and taller people.

 

That is due to diet and nutrition, not evolution.