Thread: God and science

I remember reading a story about a physicist who said that he was an atheist before he started studying sub-atomic particles, but now believes in God. The fact that sub-atomic particles don't adhere to the rules of nomal physics, or more accuratly the way they do act is what converted him. I don't know much about it other than that when you get below the atomic level the rules go out the window.

We think we are living in modern times and we are all very smart and so when something happens we can't explain we look for mystical or religious reasons to explain it. A long time ago people were burned at the stake for saying the Earth is not at the center of the cosmos or the Earth revolves around the Sun or the world was round for that matter. Maybe a couple hundred years from now people will look back and think how ignorant we were now. So what does this have to do with science and religion? its all a matter of perspective.

When faced with compexity religion has always opted for the simple approach that it had to have been created or made in such a fasion by God. Science is evidence based, theories are tested and re tested and dropped in the face of counter evidence. The two paths have little in common. I would rather have a solution based of a factual analysis than on mythology.

It is a matter of perspective. Not too long ago, I was reminded (I forget by what) of the doublethought wrought by my Christian culture away from school and my secular education, perhaps along with my love of nature shows on PBS as long as I can remember.

What I mean is the conflict of information between the two. Some examples (kept as brief as possible):

My parents biught a children's picture book of Bible stories, and on the page depicting the plague of frogs, there are a few frogs painted 'standing up' against the base of Pharo's throne. My sister and I immediately understood this to be a sign of evolution (we were children, but evolution was being thrown around a lot for kids our age) from frogs to people.

An example I do not remember specifically, something about ancient history, and also understanding that the Church taught the earth is only about six thousand years old. There were several statements of "Oh. So that was *before* God created the earth!" with such certaintly that it made perfect sense to our young minds.

More on topic, I have no idea how consistent this is. But considering some attempts a few have made to explain how both (the Christian) religion and science can both be right, have all ended with even more feverish dispute.

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

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.

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."