Are science and religion incompatible?

I have a lot of questions...

I am going to go at this from a Christian standpoint because that is my personal faith, but I am in no way disregarding other faiths.

Being a Christian, I believe that God created everything, but that in no way stops me from asking how we came into being; God did not expound on '...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...'. Maybe it is from my finite knowledge of other's religious beliefs, but I don't see other theists saying that because God created us that we should stop searching for how He created us.

Are there not many Christian scientists that are still pursuing the 'how' of things that can be explained by empirical evidence? Just because they believe that God did it, does that mean that they are no longer qualified to ask how?

As far as Intelligent Design, is that disregarding the 'how'? Are ID proponents stopping the search for 'how'? I have read a lot on ID, and have not seen a comment that we should stop all scientific research. Is that what is implied with ID? I understand that ID smacks in the face of evolution, but is that such a bad thing?

Think about Einstein. He postulated that Newton's law was incorrect, and then went on to prove his point. Further, it has now been proved scientifically that Einstein was incorrect in the assumption that light has a constant speed which throws off some of his theories. Does this mean that all of his work was wrong? Do people think that those who postulated, then proved this were wrong to do so since these theories were held as absolutes for so long?

Isn't ID trying to postulate a theory, then trying to prove it? If we can disregard the thought that an intelligent designer had a hand in the 'how', isn't that bigotry in full bloom?

Is quantum mechanics bad because it says that there are variables that are undefinable? Do the scientists in this field no longer search for those variables, or do they claim at this point they have no known way to define these, but continue the search?

The whole idea that two photons that are a finite distance away from each other are affected by the other with no possible way to interact (as far as our science now defines such) smacks in the face of knowing with surety that humans have a way to empirically define our surroundings. By all means, we should continue the search for the 'how', but this should not stunt our view of the un-empirical either, should it?

This leads to the title of the thread. Why do some believe that science and religion are not compatible?

religion and science are not incompatable if you believe your own eyes and data, unfortunately the religious nutcases ignore the data and try to impose their backwards doctrines on the masses.

I believe that God made everything and I also believe that destroying what he made is inconsistant with what God is. My faith in God is no less than any religious person but I do not subscribe to some antiquated theory (religions) and never will. Religions are all wrong, every last one of them or there must be a hundred Gods out there all with incompatable goals, it's crazy when you look at the big picture as we are destroying ourselves and religion gives some kind of creedence to the destruction. Religion allows people to become lazy, they just follow what their leaders suggest. Was there a mass exodus from the 700 Club when Pat Robertson advocated cold-blooded murder? No and there is your proof that religious people are blind and ignorant. Hello, the very same Bible that Robertson is so the expert on says thou shall not murder. Somehow you religious people just ignore the obvious proof that you are being lied to by hucksters. It's a shame.

A lot of your questions seem to come from the misconception that science is largely a product. There is a body of knowledge gained from science that is also referred to as Science, but primarily science is a method of discovery and proof. Without the method, there would be no result. Furthermore, science tends to ask its questions based on previous discoveries, not on a perceived end product that is outside the realm of its available knowledge.

Religion doesn't have a strict empirical method of discovery and as far as the body of knowledge is concerned, it is forumlated backwards from Science. It offers the answers first and then it is up to the practitioner to ask the right questions that will lead to that answer.

They are not compatible methods of discovery, nor should they be forced to be because the synthesis of the two does injustice to both. That doesn't mean you can't possess a religion and practice science, but they are separate things and you should not blend the two methods even if the bodies of knowledge correlate (lots of things in the world correlate, but correlation does not equal causality).

Science does not offer emotional support or guidance for people who need it.
Religion does not offer a method of discovery that leads to advanced technology, medicine, or any of the other amenities that improve physical existence.

They are both incompatible, but that doesn't mean there's not room in our universe for both of them.

Yes. They are.

I've concluded that this is may be a difficult topic for many people because of the way their brains are wired. It is not scientific, but it does have the gentle advantage of explaining why otherwise intelligent persons simply cannot "get it" - no matter how it is explained.

Yes, and to be fair, I suppose it explains why I cannot understand how "faith" can be enough to create elaborate metaphorical stories that are then taken with deadly seriousness - when there are so many demonstrable alternatives.

So I do not expect the following statement to mean much to a lot of people - although it is the total and fully-satisfactory answer to the question that Kurgan raises:

Science and religion are not incompatible. Scientific methods of understanding and religious methods of understanding are. You cannot mix one with the other and arrive in a sustained scientific and religious truth. You cannot believe partly in one, and partly in the other. You can, however, accept science as method, and religion as belief, and shape the context of your own life -physical and immaterial - accordingly.

Your enjoyment of apples, in other words, does not preclude your enjoyment of oranges. One may give you nutrients, and the other may give you gas, but you can enjoy both.

But, by definition, you can not ignore the data (or lack thereof) in science. I have to ask, are there no Christian scientists that non-theists would agree are ethical in their data reporting?

While I certainly understand your point, I would ask that you judge each person on their own merits. I feel much as you do with regard to organized religion. The main problem with organized religion is that power corrupts, and there must always be a leader of said body, hence someone with power who most likely will be corrupted.

The Bible speaks for itself, and if some people (like the followers of Robertson from what you say) can't take the time to open up the Bible and see what it has to say, then you can pretty much discount them as authorities on the Bible. But that does not mean that there are not those out there that do adhere to what Jesus had to say.

That being said, I really have no idea of what the 700 club espouses. But, if they are claiming that murder is a good thing or needed, I can not see that as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

But that is quite off-topic for this thread

to clarify my point that R and S are not incompatible. Look at history. Plenty of inventors and scientists have been religious.

Here stems one of my problems with pulling science completely away from religion.

Scientific method uses both observation and reasoning. Then tries to prove a hypotheses by repetitive experimentation.

What is reasoning, but deriving a conclusion from a preconceived notion.

So, in my mind anyway, there is still a bias one way or another.

What I argue (and it looks like Seth too) is that they are incompatible with each other but not with the people who possess them.

Religion and Science each have their own needs, religion seeks to find the right questions, science seeks the right answers, but it may be that the person who looks to both Religion and Science needs both for different aspects of their lives.

Correct, but you forgot my point that " science tends to ask its questions based on previous discoveries." Religion does not have directly observable and repeatable discoveries on which to base its preconceived notions. They are very different methodologies.

I suppose if someone wants to begin stripping away differences and only focus on similarities, that person can argue that anything is an analog to something else. But that doesn't make it true.

I never claimed to be wired properly

I am not sure I understand you here (or maybe I just disagree). I do believe that God created us, but I also believe He is the one who created the systems that we as humans are discovering scientifically. I think that there are a lot of Christian scientists that are out to find the 'how' without discounting that God had some role in it. Further, from what I have read of late, there are a lot of non-theists (previously atheists) that are wondering not only the 'how', but the 'what' of what they can not define scientifically. They do continue on with their studies though with the hope of empirical evidence of what they hypothesize.

But theists DO have something besides their faith to base things on.

If I say that the world is 2,000 years old, I would have an uphill climb. But, I can point to current dating methods that are non-conclusive to prove my point. For instance, for something to be an empirically observed measuring stick, it would have to work in ALL cases. Many of the ways we scientifically measure age do not measure up to this standard. Further, there is an assumption that said measurements have the exact same forces acting upon them now as they always have. By this, have I not used deductive reasoning? Would this not be scientific in nature? Does this mean that now when I say, "I propose that my religious beliefs have not been proven false", that I am making a bad guess.

If I go on to prove that radioactive levels, atmospheric pressure, ect have changed significantly, are my conclusions wrong because they are formulated with a religious bias?

Yes, science and religion are incompatible.

~Ulrika~

The vast majority of scientists of virtually every scientific field believe in God, so it would appear that they are compatible.

Science and religion are fine, as long as they don't start to try to deal with overlapping subjects.

When religion tries to deal with scientific aspects of the physical world, it tends to get tripped up. But it can still provide guidance in terms of spiritual aspects of existence... Because, at some level, science always breaks down.

What peeves me is when religious people try to use pseudo science, rather than simply sticking to faith.

Saying you believe in God based on faith is fine. Saying you believe in God based on scientific evidence, is silly.. because no such evidence exists.

link?

If you go on to prove that radioactive levels, atmospheric pressure, etc have changed significantly, what methodology are you using for your proof?

If someone is religious that uses science, or if that person uses science to defeat a scientist, that doesn't make religion and science the same thing. The tool is not the same as the man that uses it. I am having trouble understanding why this is problematic.

If they are scientists, however, they are not allowing their religious beliefs to be a factor in their "finding out the how". They are strictly adhering to a scientific method that neither counts nor discounts a causal point of origin such as "God", and they are not determining the scope of the research nor methods used nor outcomes generated through a religious bias - or any other.

In other words - God is absolutely not in the equation and has nothing to do with a scientist's work, even if he/she is a Christian - unless the following message shows up in the experiment (metaphorically speaking), and is fully and completely and materially verifiable: "I am God. I created this closed system called the universe, my existence does not violate causality or quantum probabilities, and here's why: [information follows]."

There's really no room for debate here - any other method used or empirical regimen followed, and the scientist is no longer a scientist, and what is being practised is not science, but the polemics of a belief system. Nor is there room for an argument about how the universe itself must, both emperically and prima facie, indicate intelligent design - because Aristotelian logic is not the basis for science.

On the other hand, if a Christian scientist does, in fact, receive such a material, verifiable message - say embedded in pi calculated out to the thirty-sixth power - he/she has every right to be intellectually excited and feel religiously fulfilled.

And I'm sorry, Kurgan - that's the best I can do.



And this is not science, either.

Actually, I think I'll just retract that claim.. The links regarding most of that stuff tend to deal with particular aspects of religion, such as creationism, and are put out by whacko sources.

Thanks for fixing that, Seth.

I think the root of the science/reliqion dichotomy can be traced back to one unlikely person: Saint Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas defined two kinds of truth. One kind of truth is truth that can be attained by reason, the other kind of truth is the truth that cannot be attained by reason alone, and must be revealed by God.

Facts and discoveries made by science is an example of the first kind of truth. However, Aquinas believed that certain other truths can be attained by reason as well. Mathematical truths, Moral truths, the fact that there is a God. Aquinas believed that these are also truths that can be attained by our intellects. Truth that can be attained by reason alone is the domain of Philosophy (Science and Math can be thought of as a branch of Philosophy).

However, Aquinas believed that there are truths that cannot be attained by reason alone. The mystery of the Holy Trinity, for example. The study of these revealed truths are the domain of Theology. Thus theologists start from the position of "here's the truths I believe has been revealed by God (or through the process of Enlightenement), what are the implications of these truths?"

Now, sometimes, Theological reasoning (religion) and Philosophical reasoning (science) come to different conclusions. The famous case, of course, is when Galileo asserted that the world was not the center of the universe.

So, er, I'm rambling. What is the point here?

Whether we try to find truth from the scientific perspective, or the religious perspective, we are all trying to find truth.

Heh... Thomas Aquinas was the king of logical error.

I think I'm probably on the same page with Seth, so maybe it will help if I boil that down:

The bias of science is to identify causal relationships in observable systems. God is outside that scope and is a non-issue, to be neither proved nor disproved.

The agenda of a person using science is another matter.

Does that help?

Religion and science are incompatible only when they arrive at different but solid conclusions on any given subject.

This happens all the time.

Yep.

I will be quite for a bit now, thank you all for contributing, and yes, I do agree with you.

Maybe we can talk about agendas next.

I think both science and religion have a lot of curiosity in common.