• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science and Religion are Not Compatible

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/So what about it? Is science the end all of knowledge, or can some things be explained through faith? In attempting to answer this question, you should realize that you are not going to be able to explain God in terms of science, and just as equally, you are not going to be able to explain science in terms of religion. Both areas are mutually exclusive from each other.

Discussion?
Science is the quest to understand what is.

Religion is the quest to understand what will be.

They complement. They do not conflict.

This is the order of things.
 
Science is the quest to understand what is.

Religion is the quest to understand what will be.

They complement. They do not conflict.

This is the order of things.

Just how does religion compliment science? What religious theory has the predictive value of say, evolution?

How is science not concerned with what will be?

What of the MANY issues where religious claims contradict what science has revealed to be true?

I don't think religion is the quest to understand what will be, I think its the organized response to the fear of death, the justification of dogmatic faith in ideas for which there is no evidence.
 
Here is where you lose me, its seems you've substituted "my faith says " with "my religion says" and that somehow if you test said claim, its no longer divine?!?
Not if you test it. Just if the test proves the result to be true, then it loses it's divinity.

here, let's see if it clears it up:

Let's suppose for a moment that God is a magician, and you are watching his card tricks. God finished a card trick in front of you, making a card disappear perhaps, and says "it is magic(or rather, a miracle)".

Now, you would say "BS". EVERYONE knows card tricks are just, card tricks. Further study proves that there are perfectly logical reasons why the card seems to "disappear". The magician may us a "sleight of hand" for instance. After this, the "magic trick" is no longer a "miracle" or some magical doing, but only a trick of the eyes, and nothing more.

However, if you find out that there is no reason why the card "disappeared", then the magician's claim of "it is magic" becomes that much more credible. He is either very very skilled, or truly does use magic.
 
Science is the quest to understand what is.

Religion is the quest to understand what will be.
Science is much better suited as a predictive tool. In fact, it is a cornerstone of scientific laws and theories to make predictions about yet to be observed circumstances as a means of testing a law or theory's validity.

They complement. They do not conflict.
Faith and religion are untrustworthy views of the world. A strong mind/will does not need faith or religion.
 
Faith and religion are untrustworthy views of the world. A strong mind/will does not need faith or religion.
They are not views of the world at all. They are views of Man.

Strength of mind or will is irrelevant. Faith and religion, much like death and taxes, is inevitable.
 
They are not views of the world at all. They are views of Man.
I agree that religions are created by man.

Strength of mind or will is irrelevant. Faith and religion, much like death and taxes, is inevitable.
Death is inevitable means no afterlife? Like taxes, religion is an artifact of human cultures. Neither is inevitable.
 
Last edited:
One is able to both trust and believe in science and have faith/religion...there's no way to say they're not compatable if people are able to hold both and practice both.
 
I agree that religions are created by man.
You say this, not I.

Death is inevitable means no afterlife?
I did not say one way or the other.

Like taxes, religion is an artifact of human cultures. Neither is inevitable.
The IRS would argue the tax matter with you...and win.

Culture is inevitable, therefore even if religion is but an artifact of culture, it remains inevitable.
 
Culture is inevitable, therefore even if religion is but an artifact of culture, it remains inevitable.
Culture is an artifact of human evolution. Neither is it inevitable.
 
I agree that religions are created by man.

So is science.

However...

Religion being created by man does not equate to "God", be it a specific god (like the Judeo-Christian "God"), a pantheon of gods, or simply a supernatural entity or energy being created by man.

For me personally, I find that religion is simply the mortal human mind attempting to grasp, explain, and connect with the immortal divine energy/entity that is felt within the world. It is akin to a small child trying to explain why stars shine in the sky or how the sun is powered; their head can not possibly fully comprehend all that goes into such things, but they experience it and feel it/see it none the less so they attempt to give an explanation of it.

I believe the mortal mind can not truly comprehend the immortal, the divine. Religion at its core is generally the manifestation of man attempting to explain or express it.
 
So is science.
Yes. Religion and science are both created by man. One is blind conjecture and untrustworthy. The other is logically induced explanations based on experimentation/observation and is trustworthy.

However...

Religion being created by man does not equate to "God", be it a specific god (like the Judeo-Christian "God"), a pantheon of gods, or simply a supernatural entity or energy being created by man.

For me personally, I find that religion is simply the mortal human mind attempting to grasp, explain, and connect with the immortal divine energy/entity that is felt within the world. It is akin to a small child trying to explain why stars shine in the sky or how the sun is powered; their head can not possibly fully comprehend all that goes into such things, but they experience it and feel it/see it none the less so they attempt to give an explanation of it.

I believe the mortal mind can not truly comprehend the immortal, the divine. Religion at its core is generally the manifestation of man attempting to explain or express it.
The concept of gods and anything divine is also created by man. There isn't evidence supporting the concepts so any assertion that these concepts reflect some type of reality is baseless. And when people do attempt to assert evidence, it comes across as a projection of something mundane by a hyper imagination or some type of drugged up hallucinatory trip. The human mind can be quite delusional.
 
Here is a link, on Discover Magazine's site, to one of the best discussions I have ever seen on the question of whether or not religion and science are compatible. I believe a discussion here of the same thing may be beneficial.

Religion and science, of course, are very different from each other. While science is based on suggesting a hypothesis, then examining the data and rejecting those hypotheses that fail the test, religion makes statements of fact that are not based on any measurable data. But should we just throw out religion? There are many things that science just doesn't know. Could something supernatural happen without science being able to detect it? For example, when you die you don't come back. You are dead. But the Bible says that Jesus came back to life after 3 days. According to science, this cannot be, based on hypotheses that have been tested again and again over time. But could there be another hypothesis that science has missed? Of course not. But faith is a funny thing. the word "supernatural" suggests something not natural, and as such, not in the realm of science.

So what about it? Is science the end all of knowledge, or can some things be explained through faith? In attempting to answer this question, you should realize that you are not going to be able to explain God in terms of science, and just as equally, you are not going to be able to explain science in terms of religion. Both areas are mutually exclusive from each other.

Discussion?

Not compatible you say? Then why is religion part of the science of sociology, I wonder.

How could many sciences come together to build a church?

Science doesn't offer an explanation as to how life original came to this planet, nor on how the big-bang happened, so if someone want's to *believe* "God did it", this is not contrary to science. It's simply not applicable.
 
Not if you test it. Just if the test proves the result to be true, then it loses it's divinity.

here, let's see if it clears it up:

Let's suppose for a moment that God is a magician, and you are watching his card tricks. God finished a card trick in front of you, making a card disappear perhaps, and says "it is magic(or rather, a miracle)".

Now, you would say "BS". EVERYONE knows card tricks are just, card tricks. Further study proves that there are perfectly logical reasons why the card seems to "disappear". The magician may us a "sleight of hand" for instance. After this, the "magic trick" is no longer a "miracle" or some magical doing, but only a trick of the eyes, and nothing more.

However, if you find out that there is no reason why the card "disappeared", then the magician's claim of "it is magic" becomes that much more credible. He is either very very skilled, or truly does use magic.

I really don't see how this is analogous.
 
One is able to both trust and believe in science and have faith/religion...there's no way to say they're not compatable if people are able to hold both and practice both.

Sure there is, its called compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. People can maintain contradictions, that is the whole reason why others are able to correct them with logic. Think of a creationist who denies evolution, yet uses the insulin derived from its study. Just because someone can hold two incompatible notions in their heads does not resolve the incompatibility, we can be quite illogical.

Just how are they compatible? How can faith in any way compliment the scientific process? What prophecies have any where near the predictive value as scientific theories like evolution?

And how can science benefit faith/religion, other than showing demonstrable falsehoods, moderating and modernizing the faith into cherry-picking the parts that aren't blatantly false or barbaric?

Faith is not scientific, and science is evidence based. The degree to which an alleged science is faith based, is the degree that it is unscientific. The degree to which a religion is based on observable, natural phenomena: is the degree that it is scientific and evidence based (rather than faith based) and verifiably true. I couldn't think of a greater incompatibility... no wait: Capitalism and Socialism.
 
Last edited:
One is able to both trust and believe in science and have faith/religion...there's no way to say they're not compatable if people are able to hold both and practice both.

Religion and science are totally incompatible in that science requires evidence in support of its positions. Religion requires only faith.

But here is where it becomes muddled. If you look at the book of Daniel, chapters 11 and 12, and correlate it with events in history, it accurately describes, in minute detail, the wars between the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt and the Selucids (kings of the North and South). The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago dates the writings 500 years before the events occurred. This cannot be explained by science, but yet, the writings are dated before the events, and accurately depict them. This is one reason that you cannot write off faith. There is no other way to explain some things, but is faith scientific? Absolutely not.
 
Not compatible you say? Then why is religion part of the science of sociology, I wonder.

Religion exists, and its effects on cultures have no correlation to their truth value.

How could many sciences come together to build a church?

Only one, engineering. Can faith tell you what kind of materials to use?

Science doesn't offer an explanation as to how life original came to this planet, nor on how the big-bang happened, so if someone want's to *believe* "God did it", this is not contrary to science. It's simply not applicable.

Actually, there are many theories to the origin of life on earth. One of which has a decent amount of evidence behind it: Panspermia.

And physicists also have competing theories on what causes universes, how many there are, etc... M Theory, BRANE theory, the white hole theory, etc...

You really need to catch up on your science. Google "Michio Kaku"
 
Last edited:
I really don't see how this is analogous.
If richard Dawkins tested the Great Flood to be accurate, he would say "It was completely natural and God played no part in it".

You get it yet?
 
One is able to both trust and believe in science and have faith/religion...there's no way to say they're not compatable if people are able to hold both and practice both.

That depends on interpretations of religion. Furthermore, Young Earth Creationists believe in Literal Genesis despite it contradicting essentially the whole of modern science yet enjoy the benefits of modern science. Ideologically, some religious interpretations and science are compatible. But contradictions never stopped anyone. There's this one YEC guy I occasionally talk to that's so out of his mind that he throw tantrums at people for pointing out how the products he uses every day contradict his belief in YEC and that his belief in YEC requires a liar God. Does he listen? No. But he still uses science's products. In practice they are compatible, but on an internal belief system, they sometimes are not.
 
One is able to both trust and believe in science and have faith/religion...there's no way to say they're not compatable if people are able to hold both and practice both.

By your reasoning, any and all systems of belief can be held , and practiced, compatibly. Based on that I'm guessing the OP interprets compatibility as something else.

If faith is used as the basis for the belief, it is incompatible with science, might be less confusing (and less marketable!) Some religions codify historical events, and even general observations of humanity, etc. These at some level probably were based on evidence...but once they become religious doctrine, to be believed based on the fact that it's stated...it becomes faith-based. Likewise in the scientific community, some things really are believed based solely on faith. It's not really science in those cases.

-Mach
 
Science doesn't offer an explanation as to how life original came to this planet, nor on how the big-bang happened, so if someone want's to *believe* "God did it", this is not contrary to science. It's simply not applicable.
A belief that is not science, is not science.
i.e. it's not consistent with science.
-> It's not compatible with science.

Look up the definition, I'm sure consistent will be there, and I'm sure the others are less relevant/meaningless.
 
A belief that is not science, is not science.
i.e. it's not consistent with science.
-> It's not compatible with science.

Look up the definition, I'm sure consistent will be there, and I'm sure the others are less relevant/meaningless.

You just repeated what I said...so...what are you saying?
 
Religion exists, and its effects on cultures have no correlation to their truth value.

Only one, engineering. Can faith tell you what kind of materials to use?

Actually, there are many theories to the origin of life on earth. One of which has a decent amount of evidence behind it: Panspermia.

And physicists also have competing theories on what causes universes, how many there are, etc... M Theory, BRANE theory, the white hole theory, etc...

You really need to catch up on your science. Google "Michio Kaku"

Wow, you just totally ignored my point.
 
Religion and science are totally incompatible in that science requires evidence in support of its positions. Religion requires only faith.

I think they are totally compatible because they speak to radically different things. I'm a physicist, and which physicists have the highest percentage of atheists than probably any other group, that's not 100%. I know many devout religious folk, my adviser is incredibly Catholic and one of the smartest scientists I've ever known. I've known Mormons, and Unitarians, and all flavors of Christianity represented in the scientific community. One of the professors in my grad school was a priest or whatever it's called in the Mormon church.

Religion and science are separate subjects. Gods have been defined to be outside the realm of science, and science seeks not to prove or disprove them (as that's an impossible task). You can be very scientific and very religious at the same time.
 
You can be very scientific and very religious at the same time.
True enough. Israel is filled with physicists.

Chuckle. IIRC some scientist or mathematician once declared: "If something is not explicitly forbidden by mathematics, then it surely exists somewhere in the universe".
 
Science is the search for truths based on facts.

Religion is the search for truths based on superstitions.


Currently they are highly incompatible, especially since the more knowledge we gain, the less "religion" seems plausible.

They could only be compatible if we were ever able to find proof of some form of God(s).

As a person raised under heavy religious indoctrination, even attending Christian schools, it's taken me many years to overcome much of the nuttiness that comes with any beliefs based on superstition and magic.

I'm not going to bash others beliefs, to each his own, but it is sad to see kids indoctrinated when they are too young to use their own reason and logic, and not free to make their own choices.

I highly recommend any/all of Richard Dawkins books and DVDs, since this is his specialty, and I've never seen him lose an argument. He makes the case that religion actually hurts society, I don't go that far, in fact I lean more towards Pascal's Wager, since I cannot prove there is no God.

I just finished a nice find on a torrent search:
PBS's "The Power of Myth series" with Joseph Campbell

I also recommend Skeptic Magazine, they tackle all forms of superstition.
 
Back
Top Bottom