God and science

Cant we all just get along?:rolleyes:

What is it that prevents the truth seekers from coming together?
Science in its truest sense seeks the truth! religion also also seeks the truth! so what gives?
We all know that both science and religion have, in the past and present, seriously gone off course for political or monetary gain, or other reasons not as apparent, but at their heart they both seek the same thing...Truth!
I realize that the unthinking rigidity in both disciplines get in the way, but, if both are honestly seeking the truth, what should prevent them from walking hand in hand to the same goal? Is it ego, stubborn pride...what??
Am I the only one who thinks that these diciplines are compatible?

Lets here what you think!

Sweet, first on! I believe that they are compatiable, but sometimes the personalities get in the way.

I think that there are a couple of reasons for this.

Reason one; People don't know how to disagree. When I was younger, and someone said something wrong, I wanted to point it out to them. If they disagreed, I'd get mad and argue (I even came to blows once over something trivial). As I got older and more mature, I became more civil, but I still got angry inside when people disagreed. Then one day, I realized that people who don't believe the same as I have every right to be wrong. If someone thinks that the world is flat, it won't change the fact that it's round. It doesn't hurt me for someone else to believe something that is wrong. Then, I stopped getting upset when people claimed to know something that they didn't.

Reason two; People have their self image attached to being right. If they're wrong, then they have to think less of themselves. I don't think any less of my friends and family when they make a mistake. I've made some pretty stupid mistakes in my time, and my family still loves me. Don't be afraid of being wrong, it happens to everyone.

People have a hard time with the three simple words "I don't know". People have a hard time distinguishing between know and bleieve. I always try to keep in mind that I actually know very little. There are lots of things that I believe pretty strongly, but things may happen that might change my mind. In fact, whenever someone says something that I think is absolute BS, I stop and ask myself, "do I know that that's wrong, or do I believe it's wrong? Why do I believe it? What would it take to change my mind?" It makes for a calmer discussion that way.

Edit; After reading my post, I see that I've gone pretty far off the ole' "God/Science" topic. Sorry. I guess I'm just pontificating about internet arguments in general.

I think you hit the nail right on the head

Science is searching for truth but reject spiritualism as either truth or a means to find it.

Each religion claims to have the truth.

Kind of a basic difference of opinion there.

Interestingly most of the highest level physicists, those on the very frontier of the search for truth believe in God, or at least that there is an intelligent creator.

So they do get along in some sense.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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."

:eek:

[shakes head] so sad.....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.:D

I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins a few months back. He is an entertaining read on this kind of subject and I would recommend him. Not saying I agree or disagree with it all but worth a read.

This is a flavour of his take and some of it pertinent to this - apologies for not spouting my own thoughts, just think it's worth listening to folk who have thought about it for a bit longer than I have! I am so used to referencing everything - don't have thoughts of my own anymore! However I should say that I do believe there are many unexplained things and I like it that way.


I want to end by returning to science. It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic.
At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents.
I suspect the reason is that most people, though not belonging to the "know-nothing" party, nevertheless have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution.

"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."

The condensation of matter from energy and subsequent formation of elementary particles, notably hydrogen, and the formation of stars (leading to higher elements) is not in violation of the 2nd law. This is particularly true given the expanding nature of the universe. It's like dissolving salt in boiling water and watching crystals grow as it cools. Crystal growing is the result of heat leaving the system to the surroundings, in doing so the air outside the jar is warmed and moves faster. The disorder lost in the process of crystalization is made up for in the movement of air molecules (gas). The 2nd law has never been disproved, if it were perpetual motion machines would exist and the human race wouldn't have to worry about and energy crisis, we could make machines that release more energy than they consume (including their construction). This is nonsense.

Please do not misunderstand, this is not intended as a personal attack, I'm just trying to clarify the 2nd law.
G

Gomez, thank you for the explanation but I still don't understand how elementary particles came together randomly to form something so complicated and wonderful as the human body. That's all I'm sayin'. But hey, to each his own.

For a long period of history, science and religion were very close to one and the same thing. Then the Church dug its heels in on geocentrism, and that might well have been the first real schism. Then Darwin came along and finished it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinmack

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.

---

I think you need to pull out your P Chem text for some review!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinmack

came together randomly to form something so complicated and wonderful as the human body.

---

There's your problem, and a very common misunderstanding. Evolution is NOT random quite the opposite. Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book devoted to correcting this misapprehension Climbing Mount Improbable. I've got an old copy I can send you if you PM me your address.

There are many opinions in this thread so far. Here is mine

Religion and science are not in conflict with each other. Intellect and faith are the two sides of a coin

The intellect plays a central role in religion. Indeed, the principle of submission to God, explicitly derived from the revelation, is considered essential for nurturing and developing the gift of intellect whose role in religion is elevated as an important facet of the faith.

Consonant with the role of the intellect is the responsibility of individual conscience. The role of the intellect has never been perceived within a confrontational mode of revelation versus reason.

Religion values intellect, logic and empirical experience. Religion and science are both endeavors to understand the mystery of God's creation.

Crossing the frontiers of knowledge through scientific and other endeavors, and facing up to the challenges of ethics posed by an evolving world is, thus, a requirement of faith.

This sounds like it's based on a shia islam approach, an interesting take. Not a religion I know much about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amyn

There are many opinions in this thread so far. Here is mine

Religion and science are not in conflict with each other. Intellect and faith are the two sides of a coin

The intellect plays a central role in religion. Indeed, the principle of submission to God, explicitly derived from the revelation, is considered essential for nurturing and developing the gift of intellect whose role in religion is elevated as an important facet of the faith.

Consonant with the role of the intellect is the responsibility of individual conscience. The role of the intellect has never been perceived within a confrontational mode of revelation versus reason.

Religion values intellect, logic and empirical experience. Religion and science are both endeavors to understand the mystery of God's creation.

Crossing the frontiers of knowledge through scientific and other endeavors, and facing up to the challenges of ethics posed by an evolving world is, thus, a requirement of faith.

---

If it is not random, then it must have been intentional... i.e. intelligent design.

In relation to the 2 not getting along. I don't quite get it, personally I am "religious" and read the Bible pretty much every day... and have yet to find anything that contradicts any proven scientific laws or evidence (last I heard Evolution was a theory, and there is still no actual proof of an evolutionairy process between 2 species.. adaptation within a species but the Bible itself actually proves that).

What bothers me is any scientific evidence that seems to point toward a God/creator is immediately rejected by the scientific community. It seems predetermined that a God CANNOT exist so anything that suggests it is wrong. For instance I enjoy reading Hawkings books, and in breif history of time he was discussing how his doctoral thesis was to "prove" the big-bang theory, which he did successfully. The problem was the initiation of the "big bang" required a singularity not explainable by existing scientific laws... the Catholic church (according to Hawking) immediately endorsed the big bang theory because it proved there had to be a God, in order for this singularity to occur. Hawkings agreed that in order for that explination to be true there had to be a God (or some supreme outside force), and therefore set about to disprove his own proof because it had to be wrong since it wasn't in line with his/scientific rules.

Now, that's all well and good, since I know anytime you work with anything the first check you do when done with something is say "does this make sense?". However Hawking also points out that there very well may be a God who just happened to design everything to abide by the rules we see now, which is what I believe. What doesn't make sense to me is that the big-bang was "proven" and now attemting to be disproven.

Anyway, my .02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbshriver

If it is not random, then it must have been intentional... i.e. intelligent design.

---

Well simply . . . no . . . it doesn't work like that. The trouble is it's not easily explainable in a sentence or two - you really need to read some stuff about evolution to avoid elementary (but common) misunderstandings like this.