Thread: God and science

I think they can get along famously.

The main clashing point is God creating everything versus some sort of high impact/heat/pressure system. My thought is, why can't they both be right? From my understanding, God is a very rules oriented entity. He likes things to follow certain rules and interact in a certain way. Why can't he have created everything in the universe, left it with rules that allow a certain amount of evolution, and let us go? We observe those rules every day through science and continued research. Just because we don't see the rulemaker doesn't mean he ain't there.

Originally Posted by ForestryProf

Science and Religion...both seek the truth...why can't we all just get along...

Interesting question(s)...some interesting opinions thus far.

My take on the subject, but first let me lay out some personal biases (something that I believe is too rarely done--both in the name of science and religion):
1) I am a scientist...have a BS, MS, and PhD in various aspects of forestry; I work as a teaching faculty member and as a researcher.
2) I am religious. Many years ago, I spent 4 years studying to be a Roman Catholic Priest. Left not because I didn't believe, but my desire to become a priest conflicted with my desire to be a husband and father.
3) Currently regularly attend a Lutheran Church with my wife and daughter.
4) I see absolutely no incompatibality between science and religion.

That said, where I find that we get into difficulties is when we try to mix the two. At its most basic, science seeks to explain our world around us based on repeatable, verifyable observation. Logic, reasoning, and analysis are integral in the process.

Religion on the other hand, if you strip everything else away, has at its core...faith. A belief in something that cannot by its very nature be proven. Thus, religion is outside the realm of proof...outside the realm of science.

Where we get into trouble (historically and currently) is when we try to mix the two. For instance, when the church persecuted scientists because their inquiries into the nature of the world and the cosmos was at odds with the accepted dogma. Likewise the current insistance that 'creationism' be taught as science in school...

It is not possible to argue against religion (anything that is known to be true based on faith rather than tangible evidence), using science, logic, or reasoning. Because the belief is not based on evidence, but on faith, than evidence will do little to change the individual's position.

Just another data point,
Ed

Ed that was very well said. I think a big problem, as someone stated earlier, is that people don't know how to disagree. I've had numerous debates with individuals in a philosophy class, and for the most part we just talked "past" each other.

I think Religion and Science are VERY compatible.

And here's why:

Religion seeks out explanations as to WHY we're here. We simply want to know what our purpose in life is and we use religion as a way of finding that out.

Science seeks out explanations as to HOW we were put here. Science never tries to figure out why we're alive...merely how it happened. Science seeks no motivations...merely methods.

So as long as religious leaders don't go around claiming to know HOW God created stuff.......and scientists don't go around claiming things as "it was all an accident/random chance" (for which they have no proof either) then I think they mix perfectly.

I'm a mormon...and our churchleaders are always telling us to go and find knowledge at the BEST sources......

You don't ask a protestant about catholics.....you don't ask a priest about physics, you don't ask a scientist about the meaning of life.

You ask the experts on what they're experts on.....THAT's the best sources.

As for the whole 6.000 years thing. Carbon dating claims that it's been millions of years....genetics claims that everyone has a common ancestor about 6.000 years ago (look up mitochondrial Eve in Wikipedia.. It's not all on Wikipedia but recent studies have shown that it WAS 6.000 years ago. Not 140.000 like wikipedia claims, the researchers were as surprised about that as anyone.).

So there's more sides to the debate than just one.

And as long as the two fields of science and religion don't try to do each others work....I think we'll be fine.

I too think they should get along. But they don't. Personally I think the reason is power and control - both religion and science are vying for the same prize: power and control.

Note that I'm making a distinction between the institution and the individual - on an individualistic level, I think religion and science do get along, at least in western cultures.

James.

It prolly depends on your religion. The rest of this post concerns MY experiences. So don't get offended and tell me that not every religion is like this. I know. /disclaimer


With the religion I grew up with (and subsequently abandoned) critical thought was borderline heresy, and not taking everything in the KJV Bible literally was regarded as a sin. (yes, I'm being serious) I was, as a CHILD, told on many occasions that if I continued to ask such impertinent questions, ("mommy, why are dinosaur bones millions of years old if the earth is only a few thousand years old?") I would be sent to Hell to suffer for all eternity because I was disrespecting God.


So, with my experience, I am going to have to say that religion and science are hilariously/disturbingly incompatible. Your mileage may (and hopefully will) vary.

Yeah, that kind of religion WOULD be horribly incompatible.

Originally Posted by jockeys

It prolly depends on your religion. The rest of this post concerns MY experiences. So don't get offended and tell me that not every religion is like this. I know. /disclaimer


With the religion I grew up with (and subsequently abandoned) critical thought was borderline heresy, and not taking everything in the KJV Bible literally was regarded as a sin. (yes, I'm being serious) I was, as a CHILD, told on many occasions that if I continued to ask such impertinent questions, ("mommy, why are dinosaur bones millions of years old if the earth is only a few thousand years old?") I would be sent to Hell to suffer for all eternity because I was disrespecting God.


So, with my experience, I am going to have to say that religion and science are hilariously/disturbingly incompatible. Your mileage may (and hopefully will) vary.

I am afraid that this is all to common with many well intentioned teachings, whether it be science, religion or what have you!
What starts off as a way to instruct for the better often times ends up as a way to control instead!We then throw out the baby with the bath water! Sad.

I agree that they can get along just fine. I'm with Prof. and James. I think historically religion has had great power and being accustomed to it isn't giving it up easily. Perhaps a modern view on religion is to provide purpose in life or spiritual guidance, but you will quickly notice that's not how it's been. In the past when people died (sometimes in masses) it was not due to infections, but because God wanted to punish them and it was considered godless heresy to seek explanations of how the world works outside of religion. That's just how it was.

I would disagree with Mark that religion and science are seeking the truth. It is not the same kind of truth they are seeking. The definition of truth in science is experimental reproducibility and predictive power. Religion asks people to unreservedly believe in absolute truth, the one that God only knows and the only way you can know it too is check with God.

As far as the best physicists being believers, I don't think that's true. Newton and Einstein were, but Feynman wasn't. Most of the creators of modern physics were not either. It's a matter of time and culture. The person who discovered phase coherence in superconductors believes in aliens, ghosts and paranormal phenomena...

I don't even know what to say about a person believing in God just because the laws of physics turned out not to be what they expected. And as far as I know the same laws that can predict the behavior of subatomic particles can predict the one of a baseball or a black hole.

I think any scientist would have no problems whatsoever with all physical laws being created by God, for those who prefer a personification of something that may or may not have happened. The same way they could have been created by the primordial Frog, Razor, etc., either way it is just a matter of belief without any proof.

I'll not that many people find their ethics and purpose in life outside of a great plan that God has for them. Others find it in God. Either way if you really separate the domains of religion and science there isn't anything to argue about.

The goal of 'truth' might be the same, but the methods differ. First the definition of that word is different for science and religion and I agree with Alex and think 'how' and 'why' are good enough to explain simply what that difference is. Religions claim to have all the 'why' answers you should ever need and there is no room for scepticism, because there is no tolerance of descent. The sciences thrive on scepticism for precision, clarification and wonder to provide the 'how' answers. In my observations, the more individuals follow one path, the less able they are likely to be to agree on anything related to the other. I guess I'm siding with Ed on that. I will disagree (by inference) with Alex on one point though. As an actor and an ardent student of human nature, I am interested in everyone's opinion about why we are all here because everyone alive has as viable an answer as anyone else. The older, wiser and more widely educated people are, the better their answers are likely to be. I have become a strong proponent of the path of reason, the path of light. As a result I am frequently frustrated by the dark irrationality of religious faith and deeply infuriating to its proponents as well I am sure.

X

Originally Posted by xman

The goal of 'truth' might be the same, but the methods differ. First the definition of that word is different for science and religion and I agree with Alex and think 'how' and 'why' are good enough to explain simply what that difference is. Religions claim to have all the 'why' answers you should ever need and there is no room for scepticism, because there is no tolerance of descent. The sciences thrive on scepticism for precision, clarification and wonder to provide the 'how' answers. In my observations, the more individuals follow one path, the less able they are likely to be to agree on anything related to the other. I guess I'm siding with Ed on that. I will disagree (by inference) with Alex on one point though. As an actor and an ardent student of human nature, I am interested in everyone's opinion about why we are all here because everyone alive has as viable an answer as anyone else. The older, wiser and more widely educated people are, the better their answers are likely to be. I have become a strong proponent of the path of reason, the path of light. As a result I am frequently frustrated by the dark irrationality of religious faith and deeply infuriating to its proponents as well I am sure.

X

I don't think that's disagreeing with me at all. Like I said the only difference between science and religion (in my book and HUGELY oversimplified) is HOW and WHY.

But I also believe that no-one has all the answer....but that we can find more answers by learning and searching for them. This is both true in science and in the way I experience religion. Also I believe that every religion has certain qualities that I could use.

I try to keep an open mind about everything and ponder things much before I dismiss them.....but I also try to question things as much as possible. There are many quotes that I've heard from my churchleaders (local ones mostly) that I disagree with....and I never hesitate to tell them.

So it might be a personal thing. But as far as I can tell, Religion and Science are complimentary. They fill in the gaps.

(So X, although it might seem like I'm always disagreeing with the "science" aspect....I'm just questioning it as much as the religion aspect. I just don't accept something as "fact" because someone says it is. Especially not if I've not looked into all sides of the debate.)