Thread: God and science

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.

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.)

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

hi guys!


Nenad

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

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.

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.