Why can't science and god go together?

page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next » 196 total items

Cancel

:pacman:Science and religion are both ways of thinking but howcome lots of poeple who are very addicted to god disagree with science and the sci disagree with god?

And why dpes there arguments between them? :pacman:

merged: 05-08-2006 ~ 06:40pm
*And why does there arguments between them?*

"Giving up doesn't always mean you're weak. It just means that you are strong enough to let go."

shoujoboy

shoujoboy

Launching shoujoboy 2.0

Cancel

God and science will never go together. Science is all about proving and learning about all things that is being a human. Asking why, and then discovering the answer. This sometimes though answers questions or comes up with it's own conclusions or theories that contradict religion. When this happens, they will always clash. There are a lot of things in life you can question or discredit, but once you tread on someones religion, the fists fly. People who are convinced that humans are here because of divine creationism, will NEVER be convinced otherwise, even if indisputable evidence were to surface. I put much more into science because it is either proof in itself, or the pursuit of proof as opposed to God made it or wanted it that way.

Under construction. Who doesn't like plain text anyway?

  • May 08, 2006

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

Cancel

Because god and his fanclub don't tolerate anything that might jeopardise their monopoly on the "Ultimate Truth" (which is a fallacy, since truth can be subjective and entirely relative). Science recognizes its flaws and works to overcome them; religion blindly follows whatever some person wrote as a novel ages ago, whether it applies or not to modern times.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

RengekiShin

RengekiShin

-LoneRedWolf-

Cancel

Lol, nice arguement. But you can always go for both. Nobody said scientists can't be religious, or priests can't be scientific.

Signature
	Image

zazuge

Perv

Cancel

I don't think science and religion are opposites
Science isn't the Embodiment of Truth
what are we humains to know the absolute truth!
science is just a model for us to make it easier to understand and predict univers as whole (not only the physical one but all the system)

Belive me and DIE !

Cancel

hmm ya'all who think religion and science conflict automaticly look at spain (i think its 1250-1500) and the great discoveries made by jewish, christian and muslim scientists.
havin said taht at times religion has some bad a$$ fundamentalist leaders who's aims arent for scientific progress but rather self preservation.

and some scientists see people who believe in religion as backward and ignorant.

basicly the statement "why-cant-science-god-go-together" was funadamentally over simplified

be pessimistic so that youll never be disapointed and will live a happy life.

  • May 08, 2006
Cancel

Because science and religion are direct opposites. Science is real, it's backed up by evidence, and it gets results. Religion is just mindlessly believing in whatever the church tells you is true. Logic and reasoning are the worst enemies of religion.

  • May 08, 2006
Cancel

Although in general I agree with you Plunkies, it's not completely that way. There are a lot of things that science can't explain which gives a use for religion, but science is based on the scientific method, which means you have documented factual, almost always relocatable evidence to support what your believe. A feeling in your gut isn't enough to write a thesis on.

Many people, though, believe in both. This is because the brain is not completely logical. If it were completely logical, we would instantly dismiss anything that deals with paranormal as unscientific, but because we can choose the information we piece together, it allows a mix of science and religion in our belief. Some are just more... logical than others...

  • May 10, 2006
Cancel

What do you mean by "going together"? Someone can hold beliefs in their religion and still respect the fact that Science does much more accurately explain phenomenon than "faith" (which tends to be dead wrong, e.g. spontaneous generation).

Criteria for Scientific concepts:

Quote: -Consistent (internally and externally)
-Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
-Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
-Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
-Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
-Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
-Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
-Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)


Religions only fits "useful" possibly, and sometimes consistent (although this isn't true a lot of the time). So that's why religions, by definition, cannot "go together" with Science.

  • May 10, 2006

Archer79

Nerdly Ghost

Cancel

For a long time, there were pretty strong correlations between science and religion. ...Newton, Darwin, and many other prominent inventors & scientists were religious. ....Some even came to odds with the church over their discoveries, such as Copernicus. ...In many arenas in science there are debates about what the right soution is... ...That is, differing schools of thought...

When Hubble sent back images to NASA, it completely changed many concepts and ideas about space. ...There will always be these disputes. ...Philosophy may seek the truth, but, as it is conducted by flawed humans, sometimes based on flawed information, the truth can be heavily debated.

...But ultimately, the truth is out there. :D (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

  • May 10, 2006

CyberDragoon

The Prince of Nothing

Cancel

Science and religion can never go together simply by the definitions that define them. Science assumes that there is no supernatural diety changing the results of your experiment at all and all natural phenomena can be broken down to natural processes and events. Science claims that all knowledge can eventually be found through an empirical manner through use of observation and experiments. Religion assumes that there is a God and that He does everything somehow in a manner that is usually invisible to the human eye. Religious claims that all knowledge can eventually be found in a religious text of some sort (usually).

The fact that humans can both be religious AND scientific only attests to the contridictary nature of their minds. They can somehow have faith in observation and experimental analysis while at the same time can have faith in the unobservable and ineffable. Often many times in the past great scientists were also great religious men. I respect that. However, it's clear that even they believe in science's greater hold over reality than religion otherwise why would they believe in results and data that goes against their religions beliefs?

Religion has no use in explaining things science has yet to explain. For instance, in the past people saw lighting come down from the sky and strike a tree. They thought, "Oh it must be God's wrath against the tree." They couldn't explain why there was lightning so they just assumed God in his infinite wisdom decided that the tree was evil. After all God is this really powerful guy and he does things like that from time to time so it must be his doing. Now we understand that lighting is a natural phenomena related to the diffence in electric change of the ground and clouds. In essence it's like one giant static shock.

Now bigger questions are around such as "What is humanity's purpose in the universe?" or "Are we alone in this universe?" or "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" etc. Do you think religion would still have any more use now to answer those complex questions than it had back then when you asked your pastor, "Why does lighting strike?" Eventually there comes a point where the reply, "God did it cause he's trying to make you into a good boy." just doesn't cut it anymore.

What's silly is that the religious sometimes think that all scientists are actively out to undermine their belief system. This is sheer absurdity and paranoia. Why would an AIDS researcher go out of his or her way to bother a group of people just to show that their religion is illogical? Few would do that cause it's pointless. People will go on believing what they believe regardless of what anyone says. People have better things to do than to go around trying to convert people to the God of Science. Wouldn't it be weird if someone knocked on your door, tried to give you a free copy of Darwin's ideas on evolution, and started talking about Science's Great Plan for humanity's future? Makes door-to-door missionaries seem a bit odd now doesn't it?

The same goes the other way too. No person secure in their faith would bother going after science. There's simply no point. You will NEVER win. It would take a great era of ignorance and idiocy to do that. It's those that are insecure about the truth of their beliefs that go after conflicting answers. Science allows for the possiblity of a conflicting answer to be correct until it has been supported or refuted by experimental evidence.

Right now I'm wondering what are your thoughts on the Kansas Board of Education's controversy over inteligent design and evolution. Any thoughts?

And that's my two yen.

  • May 10, 2006

Archer79

Nerdly Ghost

Cancel

Those two yen should probably start another thread. (With regards to the School Board question that is...)

...But at the same time, it is reasonable for any philosophy to promote their perception of the truth more than another. ...And I believe that sectarian scientists are happy to use their dominance to obscure other views, such as those associated with religion.

...And no, a god is not a requirement to a religion.

  • May 11, 2006

CyberDragoon

The Prince of Nothing

Cancel

Quote by Archer79Those two yen should probably start another thread. (With regards to the School Board question that is...)

...But at the same time, it is reasonable for any philosophy to promote their perception of the truth more than another. ...And I believe that sectarian scientists are happy to use their dominance to obscure other views, such as those associated with religion.

...And no, a god is not a requirement to a religion.

Probably will start a thread but too lazy right now.


Stats from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html

I don't see how you can consider atheist scientists to be "dominant" after all the US is Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.) From this it looks like the majority of people are religious. I'd be more afraid of the religious conservatives in America than the scientists. Let's also think about the fact that all our presidents have a religion (Christian but one Catholic with JFK.) Let's not forget that there are NO atheist US Senators but one Unitarian in ND by the way. Do I need to bring in the religious stats for the US House of Representatives? And yet somehow you think that atheists are dominating society and destroying religious values? I think not. You're blaming your boots for the faults of your feet to quote someone.

How can they when all the lawmakers are religious? Perhaps the scientists invented some kind of mind control device that forces the politians to seperate Church and State. Maybe the founding fathers of the US Constitution were on to something when they decided to seperate Church and State. Perhaps they realized that by sticking the two together you'd end up with a failed system. Take a look at all the theocracies that exist now in the Middle East. They are failed societies filled with oppression.

Like I said scientists are not actively out to destroy religon.

Gee I always thought that you had to belive in a deity to follow a religion. Or at least some kind of supernatural being. The closest exception I can think of is Buddhism which believes there is this great thing called a Buddha who has reached enlightenment. What are your thoughts on the definition of religion then Archer?

And that's my two yen.

  • May 11, 2006

Tinbad

Tinbad

Cold Hearted

Cancel

Mainly the scientific law of Cause and Effect. If you apply it to te universe. It states that the universe should not exist. Thus existence it self is incomprehendale to humans, creating a need to believe in a religion.

Cancel

Quote by CyberDragoonHow can they when all the lawmakers are religious? Perhaps the scientists invented some kind of mind control device that forces the politians to seperate Church and State. Maybe the founding fathers of the US Constitution were on to something when they decided to seperate Church and State. Perhaps they realized that by sticking the two together you'd end up with a failed system. Take a look at all the theocracies that exist now in the Middle East. They are failed societies filled with oppression.


Or the fact that England's lack of this separation is one of the main causes for people leaving to the U.S. in the first place? =P

Quote by CyberDragoonGee I always thought that you had to belive in a deity to follow a religion. Or at least some kind of supernatural being. The closest exception I can think of is Buddhism which believes there is this great thing called a Buddha who has reached enlightenment.


No, just as there are theistic religions, there are atheistic ones. As you said, Buddhism is the only one I specifically know is atheistic. As long as no gods are involved then it is an atheistic religion. The reason there are so many theistic religions is probably because when you hold a belief in a god it kind of forces it to be a religions automatically since gods tend to be supernatural and a religions is: "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." (Dictionary.com)

Those who identify themselves as "atheists" tend to be irreligious (lacking religion), but it would be accurate for a Buddhist to identify themselves as an atheist since atheism the the broad term that defines all things that do not hold a belief in a god.

  • May 11, 2006
Cancel

In many cases, science and religion do agree.

Mene, mene, tekel, parsin

  • May 12, 2006
Cancel

I don't know...why can't they. God invented science...it's only people who don't understand one or the other who assume they can't co-exist. (Fundamentalists assuming that doubting cannot lead to greater faith, "scientific"-minded people who assume -- as an earlier poster did -- that religion is only"doing what you're told" rather than coming to a personal relationship with God without the intervention of anyone else, etc) As an actual scientist myself who atheists would consider to be religious, scientific inqury is a form of worship. I'm following in the footsteps of Einstein in that regard.

Just for the record, most people who claim to be "scientific" are not actually scientists. Sure, they've taken a few classes at university and perhaps read Discover every so often, but they aren't any more scientific than your average fundamentalist. And you'd be surprised just how much they take on blind faith rather than running the experiments themselves. I like to call it "slacktivist science".

  • May 12, 2006
Cancel

It makes me laugh to see people say that science and religion are opposites. People tend to mystify science just as much as religion these days. I think that people like that are just as fanatical in their views as anyone in organized religion. Just look at the words they typed. Black and white.
If we could see the world outside our human limitations and biases, we'd see that the TRUTH is that the spiritual and the phisical co-exist in a completely scientific way. Science is simply the method we use to understand our world. When we learn new truths, they become a part of our science. Look at all the things that are common knowledge now that were once regaurded as magic or fantasy. Magnetism, the roundness of the earth, flying, and many many more.
Can a god exist in a scientific universe? YES! A god would HAVE to follow the rules of science to exist at all. Our knowledge of our world is very shallow and still very young.
Keep an open mind, and don't look foolish. You don't want anyone making fun of your views a thousand years in the future, because no one mocks a person open to all possiblities ;)

  • May 12, 2006

Archer79

Nerdly Ghost

Cancel

Quote by CyberDragoonGee I always thought that you had to belive in a deity to follow a religion. Or at least some kind of supernatural being. The closest exception I can think of is Buddhism which believes there is this great thing called a Buddha who has reached enlightenment. What are your thoughts on the definition of religion then Archer?

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" ...According to a definition from www.m-w.com

...On a side note, after I get more than 1000 of your yen, I would like to actually receive them. ;-)

On a more pertinent facet, who would you say has controls of the schools then? ...When Prayer is discouraged within their doors, and the only premise for creation taught is Darwinistic evolution. ...A theory that the creator himself disavowed, and has had numerous facts revealed that contradict the textbooks, such as common attributes between forming fetuses, etc... ...To me, it would at least make sense to present a balanced approach, where all 'could have beens' are addressed. ...However, it is not permitted. ...No religious/historic beliefs are permitted other than those of Evolution.

But then, perhaps spirituality will be more precious to those oppressed. ...So as these trends continue, perhaps good things will happen. The Catholic church believes itself to be indefectible. ...Or, it believes that due to its founding in Peter by Christ, that it will last to see the prophecies of the end-times uncorrupted. ...Of course, that says nothing of us sinners who dwell within it, right?

I'd offer cents, but well... ...I guess I must be poor, or unwilling... ...who knows. XD

  • May 12, 2006

CyberDragoon

The Prince of Nothing

Cancel

As for the comments on Buddhism and God here is some text I got off this site.

"Here is what the late Dr. Suzuki, one of the greatest teachers of Zen Buddhism, says about his concept of God: "If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in the world and the world in God.

Since Buddhism in general does not believe in a personal God or divine being, it does not have worship, praying, or praising of a divine being. It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, heavenly hope, or final judgment. Buddhism is, therefore, more of a moral philosophy, an ethical way of life.

Professor Kraemer describes the Buddhist system as "a non-theistic ethical discipline, a system of self training, anthropocentric, stressing ethics and mind-culture to the exclusion of theology."

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on Buddhism. It you look at the basic tenets of Buddhism it's basically a 8 step plan to stop suffering in life. There's more to it of course.

Quote by EntropicForceGod invented science...

Asumming there is a God. Also you comment that many "scientific" people don't do the experiments themselves. First off it would be impossible given the amount of resources and time the average person has. There would be almost no way you'd be able to repeat something like decades of AIDS research in your garage. It's not practical. It'd be nice if you could but unlikely to happen. Second the scientific method has Peer Review where other scientists around the world can check the work. They make sure that the results correspond with the experiment. I'm not sure if this example applies to this but remember that cloned human scandal with that guy in Korea? He was eventually found out and busted. It shows that the scientific community has a way of checking the work that is being produced. Because of this I can feel fairly safe if I read something in a scholarly journal that that's how the experiment went and those were the results achieved. Unless you are going to say that peer review does not work. It could happen but I doubt it greatly.

On another note Einstein was not religious. He clearly said he was an agonostic. Check this site for more info.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43."

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216."

As you can see Einstein clearly is not religious. Einstein's position on God is often mixed up because he mentions God many times. For instance, he refers to God when he talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the famous "God does not play with dice" quote that many people refer to when talking about Einstein's religious convictions. However, there is a great deal of evidence pointing to his agnostism.

Quote by squallkicksYES! A god would HAVE to follow the rules of science to exist at all.

If a God is all-powerful he'd be able to make the impossible possible. He'd would be able to make a completely perfect cube perfectly spherical at the same time. This is illogical and cannot work within the bounds of science and logic. That would have to mean God would have to be NOT all-powerful. Does that still mean he is a God? Well that depends on your definitions of God and divinity.

Also I think everyone should be open to all possibilities. However, you have to realize that not all things are equally possible. Take for instance the Flying Spagetti Monster. It's POSSIBLE that he exists. After all he is supposed to be invisible to all human methods of detection so he COULD exist. However, is he as likely to exist as something like invisible gnomes in your ears that help you keep your balance. An open mind is good but a naive one isn't.

Quote: Archer79]On a more pertinent facet, who would you say has controls of the schools then? ...When Prayer is discouraged within their doors, and the only premise for creation taught is Darwinistic evolution. ...A theory that the creator himself disavowed, and has had numerous facts revealed that contradict the textbooks, such as common attributes between forming fetuses, etc... ...To me, it would at least make sense to present a balanced approach, where all 'could have beens' are addressed. ...However, it is not permitted. ...No religious/historic beliefs are permitted other than those of Evolution.

Ah but you see the reason prayer is discouraged is due to the seperation of Church and State. US law requires that no religion can be endorsed in any way by the government. Allowing prayer would go agaisnt that. However, that only applies to public schools. In a private school you can pray all you want so long as you can convince the school officials to let you.

Darwinistic evolution simply has the most evidence in its favor and is the strongest scientific theory on life so that's why it is taught. While it is true that Darwin himself doubted his own work he did so because he could not find the many "intermediate species" that his theory predicted. He could not find the so-called missing links between species in the fossil record. However, since then many have been found. Also the fossil record does not hold all the dead life forms that have ever existed. Only a small fraction of life forms can be and have been preserved as fossils. I find it admirable that he could doubt his own work. It's the scientific method in action. Since his time much much more evidence has been found to support his ideas. A lot of this about evolution and creatoinism has already been discussed so look up the Evolution versus Creationism thread. It kinda died a while ago but it used to be really active.

Anyways this balanced approach is impossible. After all there are thousands of differing religious/mythical/historic ideas on life etc. If you teach the Christian view you'd have to teach the [insert random religion] views on it as well. There's simply not enough time in a school year (a year of biology that is) to learn all that. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you can't teach religion in school at all. I'm all for having religous studies as an elective in school. You just can't teach religion in a SCIENCE classroom. You can only teach SCIENCE. To teach religion as science would be something immensly foolish because the facts are very clear. Religion is NOT science. Creationism is NOT science. Even if you assume it is Evolution still has a greater body of evidence supporting it.

Again like I said all this about evolution and creationism has been discussed to death already and I don't really feel like having to repeat all the same stuff.

On another side note 111 Japanese yen = 1 US dollar. Meaning after I give you 1000 yen you'd only have $9. That would take around 500 posts. Well patience is a virtue you know?

And that's my two yen and an end to a very long-winded post. Sorry for the length I'm bored.

  • May 12, 2006

ear145

ear145

Amazed art-fan

Cancel

.... it all depends on your view of God. If you believe there is an omnipotent (all powerful) God (or god, or whatever), then he COULD have made the world so that science & him could fit together.

However, if you don't believe in God, then you won't belive in religion, and so (obviously) you won't think that science will go well with it at all.

Ah well. Thanks for the interesting read!

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein
Signature
	Image

  • May 12, 2006
Cancel

They can, some top scientist do believe in God amazingly enough, as rare as they are.

Simply I think there is a lot of ignorance towards this sort of thing, people of one religion can't accept things from other religions, aethiests won't believe anything religious, religious people criticise the scientifically inclined for their igonorance of a greater significance and so on. Personally while I might be of one religion, I don't go and spit all over everyone elses.

  • May 12, 2006
Cancel

Well human are creation of god, and science is part of humans.. should go together. Problem is that science seems to prove some things in religion to be otherwise, like how universum born and so on :) And real question goes, how big part of religions are made by purely by humans? what is the truth and what not?

  • May 12, 2006
Cancel

Quote by CyberDragoon

Ah but you see the reason prayer is discouraged is due to the seperation of Church and State. US law requires that no religion can be endorsed in any way by the government. Allowing prayer would go agaisnt that. However, that only applies to public schools. In a private school you can pray all you want so long as you can convince the school officials to let you.

Darwinistic evolution simply has the most evidence in its favor and is the strongest scientific theory on life so that's why it is taught. While it is true that Darwin himself doubted his own work he did so because he could not find the many "intermediate species" that his theory predicted. He could not find the so-called missing links between species in the fossil record. However, since then many have been found. Also the fossil record does not hold all the dead life forms that have ever existed. Only a small fraction of life forms can be and have been preserved as fossils. I find it admirable that he could doubt his own work. It's the scientific method in action. Since his time much much more evidence has been found to support his ideas. A lot of this about evolution and creatoinism has already been discussed so look up the Evolution versus Creationism thread. It kinda died a while ago but it used to be really active.

Ive been trying to keep out of these kind of topics lately, but I guess I can't. :(

Anyway I agree with you that here, the seperation of Church and State is needed and so thats why prayer is discouraged. (Thats why public prayer is not allowed? - I don't live in the United States, so Im not too sure.)

About the Darwinistic evolution part, I think you'd need to re-check that. Although (in my opinion) Darwin's theory was a good idea, are you sure the most recent fossils tell us that Darwinism is correct? The fossils from the Cambrian Explosion should have gotten Darwin's theory wrong. (By the way, the Cambrian Explosion is a geological period that approximately began 540 million years ago. This period in time had a sudden appearance of many animal phyla that are still alive today, as opposed to Darwin's gradual divergence theory.) Anyway its not only the fossil evidence that goes against Darwinism (but I don't want to elaborate further, its getting out of point :/)

Personally, I believe god and science can go together. Science is the search for how things work and basically, the truth.. and so we should keep our minds open to any possibility.

Guess thats enough.. I have no intention of getting into debates.. x_x

  • May 12, 2006

page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next » 196 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.