Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are science and religion in conflict
01-12-2010, 12:12 AM
Post: #1
Are science and religion in conflict
Hello,
I think Science and religion can stregthen each other, for example, Evolution theory and creation theory can go hand in hand. While Christian accounts give the outline of how God created the world, science tells exactly how it was done.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein.

mini sd
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 10:01 AM
Post: #2
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
Science and religion do not necessarily have to be in conflict. But the only way this happens is if religion is subordinate to truth, which is a situation you rarely find in any religion.

Consider. Science requires a dedication to truth. Yes, you make a hypothesis, but a good scientist is willing to accept proof that his hypothesis is wrong just as much as he is willing to accept proof that his hypothesis is correct. Ideas are rigorously tested, and the ultimate goal is figuring out the truth. Science is about truth, ultimately. Not capital-T meaning of life truth, but lower-case t "things that actually exist" truth.

Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with faith. Truth is not important, but dogma is. While science tries to work from the facts and explain the facts, altering its theories to best fit new facts, religion starts with the conclusion. Christianity has the Bible, Islam has the Quran, etc., etc. These are considered immutable and infallible, and thus anything that contradicts them are wrong. There is no possibility to revise theories in religion, as there is in science.

Throughout history this has caused conflict. The discovery of the New World was met with church resistance, because the church believed that was the location of the Garden of Eden. The heliocentric theory resulted in imprisonment and forced recanting because church dogma said otherwise. Even now there are powerful forces in both Christianity and Islam trying to suppress the science of evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmogony because they interpret it as contrary to the Bible.

You can find a god that fits science, and fits the truth as we understand it. But very few people are willing to do that. Most who have a dedication to the truth realize that a god is unlikely. Those who have a god rarely have a dedication to the truth, at least not greater than their dedication to their fairy-tale.

Thus, conflict.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 11:28 AM
Post: #3
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
(01-12-2010 10:01 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Throughout history this has caused conflict. The discovery of the New World was met with church resistance, because the church believed that was the location of the Garden of Eden. The heliocentric theory resulted in imprisonment and forced recanting because church dogma said otherwise.


The Columbus thing is an old wives tales. The Galileo thing is not that simple, but quite instructive.

Columbus met resistance from various educated people who were challenged his estimate of the size of the world. (Yes, they knew the world was round, not flat.) Erastothenes had calculated the circumference of the world to be about 252,000 stadia or nearly 25,000 miles (assuming the Egyptian stadion). Columbus used Ptolemy's estimate of 180,000 stadia (calculation unknown) and also seems to have just plain cheated in low-balling the size of a stadion, giving a circumference of around 10,000 miles. This would have put India in potential reach.

Even those who believed in a literal surviving Garden of Eden did not think it was across the ocean but in the Middle East just as the Bible implied.

The story of Galileo is not just complicated. It is weird. The Catholic Church had no official position on the shape of the cosmos. Contenders were the Ptolemaic geocentric system, the Copernican heliocentric system and the Tychonian hybrid system. It was that last that was best supported by the observations of the time and the Copernican system has some serious problems with it. One of these, the proliferation of epicycles, took Kepler and Newton to resolve many years later. And another, the absence of detectable stellar parallax, was not resolved for centuries.

Along came Galileo with his telescope showing everyone who would hold still the wonders of the heavens and how Copernicus was definitely right. This included a Cardinal who let Galileo give ‘telescope parties’ in his garden. But the Lutherans were making noise about how anything but geocentrism contradicted the Bible. And Galileo was dropping hints that maybe they were right. And a newly emerging atheist movement in Italy was championing heliocentrism because they wanted to contradict the Bible. Recall that, despite lip service, the Catholic Church was not all that big on using the Bible. However, a number of churchmen were agreeing with the Lutherans in order to oppose the atheists. (Sound familiar?)

The Inquisition told Galileo that he could only talk about Copernicanism as an unproven hypothesis. He complied with this for a number of years, while living off a pension given him by the Pope to advance his scientific discoveries, by the way. Then he asked the Pope for permission to write an unbiased book on the several competing theories. Permission was granted. But Galileo was anything but unbiased. His book, written in the form of a dialogue, pushed Copernicanism very hard at the expense of other positions. He even took quotes from the Pope and put them in the mouth of one of his characters (named Simplicius!) and then ridiculed them.

This time the Inquisition was out for blood. The churchmen who sided with a Biblical interpretation of the cosmos won out and Galileo was tried and convicted on ‘suspicion of heresy’. He was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life to keep him from publishing anything else. Despite lurid tales told, there was no torture involved, and he spent the time during the trial in an apartment in the Papal Palace and not in a dank prison. The worst that happened was that he had to endure the humiliation of recanting on his knees before the court and his scientific career was over.

(01-12-2010 10:01 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Even now there are powerful forces in both Christianity and Islam trying to suppress the science of evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmogony because they interpret it as contrary to the Bible.

This IS true. And it comes from belief in a literal, inerrant Word of God interpretation of a Holy Book. This was also the cause of the bad outcome of the Galileo affair as well.

In this context, let us consider the words of Church Father Augustine

Quote: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Post: #4
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
I should have clarified. The Church did not believe the world was flat, nor did they try to imprison people for the discovery of the New World. But the Church's legends and myths about the Garden of Eden and other mystical geography did cause a lot of confusion, and the church's position on the New World took over a century to solidify.

And keep in mind I'm not criticizing Christianity. I'm criticizing religious thought, that is, holding to a dogma rather than truth. Political ideologies also hinder scientific progress, as do most any ideology.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2010 10:05 AM by Charles Die Hammern.)
Post: #5
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
I inclined am to agree, the fly has a six legged disbelief the window is there but the mind cannot accept it simply because the window cannot be seen by the fly which effectively is the atheist argument. We mutually agree science dose not always clash with religion and by religion I take it you do mean the existence of God the Father creator of the universe, coincidently but in no way a coincidence I have not long been reading the Mind Of God, by Paul Davies, a part of a group of scientists who believe in the existence of God, it is the same principal which St Paul taught in his letter to the Corinthians, that all knowledge is predestined for the use of man since before the ages, in Paul Davies Book the Mind Of God he goes onto say though we may randomly find the answers to equations or solve many great scientific solution of the physical world and there is defiantly a blue print to all the quantum physics, meta physics, mathematical realms ect of the and in universe right back to the big bang, none of the atheist scientific theories disproves the existence of God.
According Richard Dawkins who says that only a complicated God could create such a complicated world and as God teaches a some what simple faith then God could not have created the such a complex universe however I say that the creator simplifies natures creations so we can better understand part of the great immensity of the universe that we can through many means one of them is random discovery (a man who works out a great mathematical solution just by opening a bubble gum rapper) this dose not mean to say all is random by discovery of man’s genius, so effectively not all scientific knowledge clash’s with religion just the atheist minds with their arbitrary view unlike the Christian Isaac Newton who did believe in the existence of the Father Almighty whilst still practicing science where by Eintein supported a atheist view, though there are many sceintists who have opposing views to religion but as we believe there is a blue print to all scientific solutions made by God which will reveal it's self either randomly or by direct solution through experiments these will only serve to prove the existence of God, on the opposite side of the Christian science is also Islamic science whom I am sure you will find by reading extenuate the same religious scientific teachings on the origin of fundamental basis.
On the subject of arbitrary existence as most atheists like to believe they are solely right, just look at Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal ( which may I say the 1st part of the equational math I worked before even seeing it , (>h/2) then on to all of the basic teaching Glory to God) anyway this specifies an changing shift in the universe (See the Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principal) which is not subject to the arbitrary atheist doctrine, that fact is this universe in the complexity of the creations in multitude do present may questions but non of these disprove the perpetuation and existence of god.
Glory to God may his word cleans the world and bring about the kingdom of Heaven.
MI SDM Leeds England.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 01:25 PM
Post: #6
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
Very nice job of swiping the worst arguments from the last day of posts. You can see my responses to all those arguments in the original threads you took them from.

Here, let me simply summarize. Your analogies are false, you do not understand Dawkins' argument, Davies theories are wrong (Parousia actually answered that one, rather than myself,) Newton studied the occult and was never a good Christian, Einstein was actually a deist, and creation is not supported by any scientific study known to modern science.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2010 02:55 PM by itsnotme.)
Post: #7
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
Actually science and the bible account of creation get along just fine.
The problem is that scienctists and the bible some times have a problem. (that's an itsnotme quote) Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 02:59 PM
Post: #8
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
(01-13-2010 02:54 PM)itsnotme Wrote:  Actually science and the bible account of creation get along just fine.
The problem is that scienctists and the bible some times have a problem. (that's an itsnotme quote) Smile

Hi and welcome. Smile

Care to elaborate on that idea? It is intriguingly different from the usual ones.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 03:12 PM
Post: #9
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
And may I recommend, before you post, to read back to some of the previous threads on this list where we have debated the "science" of creationism. I'll spoil the ending: There isn't any. If you have a different perspective, though, I'd love to hear it. Hearing different ideas is how we learn.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2010, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2010 03:23 PM by itsnotme.)
Post: #10
RE: Are science and religion in conflict
(01-13-2010 02:59 PM)Parousia Wrote:  
(01-13-2010 02:54 PM)itsnotme Wrote:  Actually science and the bible account of creation get along just fine.
The problem is that scienctists and the bible some times have a problem. (that's an itsnotme quote) Smile

Hi and welcome. Smile

Care to elaborate on that idea? It is intriguingly different from the usual ones.
Hi
Yes I find this is really the problem. If you look into what scientists actually know and have proof for, you will see that there is nothing in science that conflicts with the the bible.
If you ask a scientist , how life started they don't know. They have theories, they say if this happened and then that happened, life could have started on it's own. But they can't say that is what happened. They can't explain how DNA got into a cell, with it's heredity included.
As for evolution, scientists have never seen it happen, and the fossil record doesn't show a link, between man and any other animal. If you actually get into the step by step , process that evolution is supposed to have taken, evolution falls apart.
Also, the evidence that all of us have is that life comes from life, there is no evidence for anything else. So for scientists to say life came from non life, is for them to go beyond science and the evidence to come to that conclusion.
Now the science is there it is a constant, but scientific interpretation is another thing.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  isnt science the same as religion? BuddhaThaSnake 89 5,598 08-24-2014 12:42 PM
Last Post: Spiny Norman
  Science and Religion are both true miyono-suke 84 5,017 06-01-2014 08:46 AM
Last Post: Spiny Norman
  The Biggest Difference between Science and Religion QuestionMark 24 1,912 04-02-2014 08:20 AM
Last Post: Herminator
  Science/Religion Analogy QuestionMark 3 770 03-30-2014 09:42 AM
Last Post: Scientist
  Science & Religion - Same Thing Different Timeline nabeelfarooqui98 5 776 03-21-2014 11:04 AM
Last Post: Aviara
  Science is not religion.... but why not make it one? StarStuff 16 1,891 03-06-2014 04:53 AM
Last Post: Spiny Norman
  Ghosts, spirits, religion and science ! hellboykl 4 741 02-22-2014 06:38 AM
Last Post: Herminator
  Controversies between religion and science. Leosnake 72 8,893 02-15-2014 12:26 PM
Last Post: Leosnake
  SCIENCE AND RELIGION avatar 31 6,293 09-21-2013 03:30 PM
Last Post: Vagabond
  Theory of Evolution: Science not Religion. Achrelos 82 5,538 09-01-2013 08:50 PM
Last Post: davek121



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)