God and science

[JMS]

Cant we all just get along?

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!

[custommartini]

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

[joesixpack]

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.

[heliguy]

I think you hit the nail right on the head

[Wildtim]

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.

[wopmanfixit]

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.

[thebigspendur]

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.

[Berticus]

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.

[LX_Emergency]

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.

[mischievous]

Cant we all just get along?

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!

When God shows up and says, "Here I am!" that's when science and faith will get along.
How can Faith claim it knows Truth? The religious might answer that question by saying, "Because God says so." That, however, doesn't prove anything.
And there's your very simple answer, that's why they will never get along.
Who claims to have the truth? What would you say if you were born in India, Saudi Arabia, or Africa? Your version might be very different from your current one.
The wonderful arguments presented on this thread like Occams Razor, Pascal's Wager, Intelligent Design, etc..., have proven nothing. And that's my point.
Science, when not a theory but a fact, offers proof with no argument possible. Falsifiability makes it so.
Until the "Unseen" become seen, there can be no coexistance, unless, of course, you believe it possible.