Thread: God and science

wow, Richard and Ed in one post, after all that time! I should turn something over

hi guys!


Nenad

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

Excellent differentiation. As an example of the extremism some people will got to in order to be right, rather than treat religion and science as different disciplines, when I was teaching in the Army in Texas, doing volunteer work in the local HS by teaching Basic Russian, the host instructor (ex-Air Force Intel Russian Linguist) was chatting with me about the challenges he faced as a science teacher. He highlighted instances where parents contacted him to complain that he was using fossils in the classroom as teaching aides. Want to guess why they were upset? These parents told him that they were upset, and I quote: "Didn't he know that the fossils were put in the ground by Satan to confuse the faithful."

[shakes head] so sad.....

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

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.

My bad inference then.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

(So X, although it might seem like I'm always disagreeing with the "science" aspect....

I've never thought that about you Alex. I know how reasonable you are and appreciate it greatly.

X

Religion is a relic from a previous era when controlling the masses was important for supreme leaders. "Be good or you go to hell..." etc. It kept the masses in line and gave them something to believe in while they eked out an existence working the land, usually to the benefit of those spouting such rhetoric. I truly believe it kept many a peasant happy. The fact that such a large percentage of the worlds population subscribes to some sort of religion today is an indication that as far as we've come we still have a long way to go as a race, things really haven't gotten much better on a global scale.

Why cant science and religion get along well? Most likely history.... recall Galileo spent the latter years of his life under house arrest because he said the earth wasn't the center of the universe! Maybe scientists are holding a grudge? Last time I checked the Catholic church was still telling astronomers what questions they should and shouldn't be asking! (I forget which book I read this in, most likely one of the following).
Before The Beginning By Martin Rees
The Inflationary Universe By Allan H. Guth
A Brief History of Time By Stephen Hawking
I found this rather shocking and it saddened me to discover that this was case, all the above were published in the 1990's (Galileo faced his persecution in the 1600's). Odd eh, >300 years and not much has changed here either.

To each his own, but I'd be surprised if either side will ever give an inch and concede to working with the other.

Just my thoughts,
G

Originally Posted by gomez

Last time I checked the Catholic church was still telling astronomers what questions they should and shouldn't be asking!
G

As a ex-catholic I can tell you what the Bible says and what the catholic church says are usually at odds. As a man of faith I respect your right to believe how you choose, but as a friend of mine put it "I'd rather believe there is a God and find out there isn't, than believe there is no God and find out there is"

Basically what it boils down to is power and religion's (religions with a central focus on god) inability to change through the times. Religion has always had this struggle for power whether it was against the church, starting with Charlemagne, or against science, starting more recently since the Renasaince.

It doesn't stem from Theocracy, when religion was used to as a means to govern people. To my knowledge that was never really a strong governmental model in Europe. Sure there have been influences such as a the Mandate of Heaven, Devine Right of Kings, centralizing countries, or used it as sort of a model. However, there has always been a power struggle between the church and state that has just kept getting worse and worse. Most notable start was when King Charlemagne was deemed the king of the Holy Roman Empire by the pope, and his retaliation was deeming the Pope the pope. The issue ceased slightly during the Medieval times. During that time religion was the only hope for the people. It didn't stop completely though. In the last crusade, some Kings banded together to prove their loyalty to god. They succeeded, but the ruler they were saving had a heart attack and in frustration they pillaged the very kingdom they were suppose to save and raped all the women.

Getting out of the Medieval times and into the Renasaince, the model shifted from the man and his relations to god to the man and how he may contribute to society. Around the same era, you have people starting to question authority. John Calvin provoked people's thoughts so much that he uninentionally made a new religion, and Martin Luther's exile and led to more questioning forming a new church. Then there was King Henry VIII's issue with his wives. The church was being undermined on every front at this point.

Literature didn't help this situation out at all. As science progressed, literature conjured up horror stories of humans tampering with nature; creating freaks such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or Frankenstein.

On the extreme ends, the church really set itself up for its own faults by its own shiftlessness. While the times changed, the church MUST stay constant. You cannot simply say a supreme being exists, get proven wrong, and then say while it was wrong, it's still a supreme being.

In a more practical sense, science and god can, and does, co-exist. Majority of the world believe in a god, yet we still try to progress in science. But that comes from the basis of religion, which is faith.

I see religion as a way to be happier in this life. It's not just a goal for the next for me. I find it sad that so many people see religion only as something that gives a vain hope for something in the next life that needs to be traded for by complete obediance in this one.

I don't experience religion like that AT all.

Originally Posted by xman

My bad inference then.


I've never thought that about you Alex. I know how reasonable you are and appreciate it greatly.

X

No problem X. And Thank you. That's very kind of you to say.

This is a really interesting post so far.

I think science and religion can totally be compatible. But, humans caught up in emotions sometimes aren't.

I am personally Christian but also like science. Who said the Earth had to be only 6000 years old? Did God create Adam as a baby or a man? My point is, He created him with AGE. Why couldn't he have made the world 180 billion years old? Hmmm. questions to ponder.

One of my biggest problems with some scientists is that they don't follow their own rules. Ex: The Big Bang. One explosion, created everything right? What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says everything tends towards disorder? An explosion would not become more orderly over time but less orderly. Sometimes I think it takes more Faith to believe in some of the scientific explanations than the religious ones.

On the other hand, why couldn't God use evolution as a means of making new species. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Sorry if I got a bit preachy back there.