By Alessandro Speciale Religion News Service VATICAN CITY (RNS) Nearly four centuries after the Roman Catholic Church branded Galileo Galilei a heretic for positing that...
A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University. The study, conducted over five...
While some people think of science and religion as being inherently in conflict, I think it's because they tend to define "religion" as "blind acceptance and complete certainty about silly, superstitious fantasies."
A recently published large-scale survey finds that for the vast majority of American university students, there simply is no conflict between science and religion.
As we bring this debate closer to the ground, in fact, and expose it to the plain light of the everyday, the suggestion that science and religion are incompatible makes no sense at all.
A study has just come out that argues that analytical thinking weakens religious belief, while at the same time, intuitive thinking may strengthen religious feelings. So what does this mean for religion today?
How would creationists react if someone were to suggest that the survival of the soul after death, far from being ruled out by the theory of natural selection, might actually be predicted as a consequence of that theory?
The hope is that we don't become so wedded to a given belief that we insulate ourselves from introspection and a willingness to say "I was wrong" when warranted by the facts.
The 21st century will be seen as humanity's rite of passage. We're growing up as a species, going through the very same process we've all gone through individually. Our biggest challenge? Idolatry of the written word.
Asking if science and religion are compatible is to make a subtle false equivalency. Science does not seek to reconcile itself with religion. It is religion that seeks to relieve its doubts by proving matters of faith with science. The better question is whether nor not religion can be contained to keep it from imposing itself into areas outside of religion.
raker: Asking if science and religion are compatible is to make
I believe that essentially we are missing a missing link between science and religion, and this is philosophical ideas, such as Anaxagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. When it comes to the Universe, the universe is made up of LOGOS; which are formulas, concepts, information,and IDEAS. Ideas cannot exist on their own: they are the actions of a mind. Minds can only think information (blueprint), it cannot initiate a universe. So it can only be concluded that the universe was made by an ACTING mind, or referred as a "World-soul". Soul explains concept and act, but not will; Will= Intentions. Origin of the universe demands a knowing, willing, acting initiator: a person: GOD
mrobinson16: I believe that essentially we are missing a missing link
Religion doesn't have to prove God, as God proves himself without help from religion or science. Science is not in contradiction with God or the Bible, or vice versa. Only those who do not realize that science is God's gift to know him and all he created better, will deny science. Also, time wise bible time is not literal time, as one day is to God a thousand years in his realm. Science and the six days of creation, not necessarily incompatible. The dumbest notion in the universe of ideas is that it all came from nothing, that the laws of the universe just all created themselves, that the DNA, which is like a mini factory, is an accident. That is truly delusional.
Katherine_Appello: Religion doesn't have to prove God, as God proves himself
If it took 6000 years to create one planet, then it must have taken
300,000,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 x 6000 years to create the universe, which is longer than the history of the universe.
So god would have had to make the planet in *less* time, not more time. A few nanoseconds per solar system, and that would still be cutting it close.
dschiff: If it took 6000 years to create one planet, then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Also, DNA is just the code. Ribosomes from your rough endoplasmic reticulum and your smooth endoplasmic reticulum are your factory's that produce products, amino acids and lipids respectively. Maybe you are the delusional one.
xxxskier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Also, DNA is just the code. Ribosomes from your
If christianity cannot even explain the firmament inside of existing physical law, then I see no reason for science to accept their claims. Scientists can prove what they say. Religion cant.
Phuntanon: If christianity cannot even explain the firmament inside of existing
As any good scientists will tell you there are many things cannot be proven. The scientific method can only illustrate simillar outcomes and improve the support of a hypothesis.
edog48: As any good scientists will tell you there are many
Dawkins has a favorite story about a science professor he had in college. The professor had come up with a theory in his field of research and it had been accepted. When he presented the theory a student raised his hand and countered with a logical approach to disproving it. He came up and thanked the man humbled because after decades he had finally met the man who could improve upon his life's work.
When religious people encounter a dissenting opinion, they become stubborn and rigid. It has driven man to some his most heinous acts. The inquisition was a bloody attempt at doing that. Also, the mass genocide of the Aztecs can be blamed on the Spanish wanting to spread the gospel. If history is any indicator youre on the same side as stalin and hitler only your end of it has the larger death count. Yet according to your beliefs, you're on the side of righteousness. Your deity is all powerful the embodiment of love yet perfectly willing to allow hell to exist. Is that your idea of love? What about Jesus words Eph 6:5 telling slaves to follow their master's orders. How would they leave if they had to obey? If this is what you believe you're not moral and since you're bound to assure your belief in the bible, I'd have to assume that you are immoral.
Phuntanon: Dawkins has a favorite story about a science professor he
Do you mean mathematical proof? Well, of course science can't do that! It has no axioms! The real world, in contract with the "world" of mathematical concepts, does no come preloaded with axioms, you have to rely on empirical data to learn about the world. This notion of proof is special to mathematics.
Do you mean prove with absolute certainty? Well, then there is nearly nothing that can be proven in that way. Even mathematical proofs are often long and nuanced, so much so that the most clever mathematical proof tends to be less than 100% certain. When it comes to studying reality, one is dependent on an analysis of empirical data and that at best gives you knowledge up to certain degrees of certainty and error.
I think it is foolish to take proof in casual conversation to mean either of the two things above. Rather, a proof is something that explains to someone else how you know something is true and provides some conceptual insight as to why it seems to be true. You could provide a mathematical proof to explain why a mathematical theorem is true. But you could equally well provide evidence and scientific analysis to explain why some fact in physics or biology or whatever is true. In that sense science can prove things.
Science can explain why scientists think their claims are true. Religion can't explain why its claims are true.
Dan_Jighter: Well, what do you mean by "prove"? Do you mean
I am willing to concede that religious practices are useful and beneficial, prayer, contemplation, self inquiry, meditation, community sharing and the like can enrich and support a meaningful life. And if religion stopped there it would be a blessing indeed; however, the Abrahamic faiths of Muslim, Christianity, and Jewish flavors now go on to purport to know that there is some super cosmic extra-universe creature capable of creating the known universe by will alone, a creation billions and billions of any measurement one chooses and that some small infinitesimal speck of dirt in some out of the way location within that creation has some sort of special relationship with that creator and further that some sub sect of human creatures can speak for this cosmic entity and claim some special knowledge of that thing with the right understanding of the proper, correct, and only way such a being is to be worshiped, and what human rituals are needed to properly get this God's magnificence to translate the end of a human existence into some sort of eternal adoration of the God's perfection! And never mind this God was all over the place some 2-3000 years ago, but can't be bothered to show up when we could put him on TV to ensure that everyone truly had the opportunity of such wisdom! LOL, if religions, especially the Christian variety were not so absurd, no one would give them a second thought!
chaotician1: I am willing to concede that religious practices are useful
Maybe we're all on an existential journey. Life informs us soon enough that the "I in the mind" is not the power unto itself that it seems at first blush. The power comes from beyond. If you have to get technical just consider that God is the brain's version of the underlying mechanism of life that reveals itself to us as our irrational desires and feelings and SENSE of right and wrong. It's not what creates the body, but what has created, through a process of eons of evolution, the "I in the mind" and the immaterial consciousness that is my life. To lend it agency is merely to understand it. That's why "religious practices" are "beneficial". They work, whether they are the "truth" or not. Belief in God is first and foremost irrational, as is life.
thunk: Maybe we're all on an existential journey. Life informs us
Her opening statement about creation filled with "wonder and amazement" gives away the game. The universe is not filled with wonder and amazement; only its human observers are. And it is this "wonder and amazement" that partially contributes to the nonsense of religion that conflicts with science..
The universe consists of the particles and forces. Science makes knowledge claims that conform to the attributes of that universe. Moreover the knowledge claims of each branch of science not only cohere together, but also cohere with knowledge claims of other branches of science.
Most religious claims of knowledge through revelation do NOT conform to the attributes of the universe (the world is NOT a flat circular land mass floating on water as described in Genesis). In addition, the knowledge claims winthin each religious tradition do not cohere (that is why there are the two creation stories to which the good reverend alludes.) And the knowlege claims of the different religions do not cohere with each other.
"Wonder and amazement," i.e, religion, do not substitute for science.
secularsquare: Her opening statement about creation filled with "wonder and amazement"
The bible never says the world was flat. The Bible actually teaches a spherical shape for the earth. In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere). Also, in Luke 17:34–36 Christ's Second Coming is portrayed as occurring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities — which means a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.
sowlow8: The bible never says the world was flat. The Bible
It is difficult to conclude exactly what is meant by "the circle of the earth," since the bible authors say so little about their understanding of cosmology. Of course, as a believer in divine revelation, you interpret the text through your modern understanding of cosmology.
A similar ambiguity surrounds the word "earth." Most Christians when they read the Genesis creation stories today interpret it to mean "planet" when it really only means "land" or "soil." So Isaiah may only be referring to the appearance of the earth as a circular (not spherical) flat land mass.
Jesus said many paradoxical things, expecially about his second coming. But since he missed his coming anyway (Matt.16:27-28/2Thess. 1:6-10) I cannot really address that particular point.
secularsquare: Thanks for your response. It is difficult to conclude exactly
Scientists are filled with wonder and amazement too. Most explorers are.
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man."
grappler1987: Scientists are filled with wonder and amazement too. Most explorers
Emotions are important. For most of us the most memorable experiences of our lives involve emotion: love,joy, sorrow, etc.
And you are right that mystery wonder etc, "engendered religion.
Religion may give meaning to one's experiences of mystery, wonder, etc., but it does not mean that a divine being exists or that he has communicated anything to us.
secularsquare: Emotions are important. For most of us the most memorable
Which is why religions have fallen by the wayside over the millennium while science marches on. Had their ever been one true god who created everything and knew past, present and future then it would be so evident from then till today that there would have neither been a need for priests or scientists.
jim73co: Which is why religions have fallen by the wayside over
We humans are a loose, cooperative, social bonding animal, held together by kinship, tribe, city, state and religion. We do embrace the idea of humanity to our fellow man and can empathize and send help even when are far off people are swamped by a natural disaster. But we also believe at our most base instinct in survival of the fittest and in panic will climb over almost any body to reach a fire exit to save ourselves in a burning building. It's just a built in part of our nature that has allowed us to survive and propagate our species these last few 100,000 years.
jim73co: We humans are a loose, cooperative, social bonding animal, held
Loading comments… 
Posted: 04/10/2012 7:43 am