Science Vs. Religion

Overblood

"E pur si muove!!!"

Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it. Only relatively recently has the Vatican decided to concede and accept that it has been wrong innumerable times in it's attitude towards science.

With the recent news of the in-house synthesis of RNA, the church must accept a sideline position in the world and watch as science chips away at the mysteries of the universe, searching for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.

All the while, religion clings to a few tethers of it's comfort blanket.

Religion has arrogantly and ignorantly described many phenomena as god's unalterable doing, but when science discovers how the "phenomenon" really works and reveals it as a simple, elegant, god-less, natural explanation, the church, after much trepidation, steals it as it's own; an example of how great their god really is. He's able to wrangle the laws of the universe to guide evolution! Wow!

We are eventually left with a god of the gaps, or with the recent RNA discovery, the god of the gap: the beginning of the universe.

god is nowhere to be found.

If we ever discover how the universe was formed, religion will pounce on it from it's ready position and claim it as the workings of their god, whatever it may be. If we discover that the universe was created by a giant unicorn/turtle hybrid with four arses, that is proven to have always been there, the religious will come to a consensus that god must have put it there. But does anyone care?

Science Vs. Religion gives about 50 million results in a Google search, but is there such a thing? We can even explain religion in terms of social darwinism. The purpose of religion can be winnowed down to a paragraph in a biology textbook. Religion is just a thing. There is nothing divine about it.

Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?

Rev Hellfire

Overblood wrote: »

Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?

I think most people can happily separate the two. By their very definitions they are separate one deals with the provable, the other with the unprovable.

Religion and science only come into conflict on two fronts that I can see, firstly where religious people attempt suppress scientific fact to the advancement of their own beliefs. I would like to believe this comes more from a lack of education than outright malice. I think we can all agree this is wrong.

The second front where there is conflict is with philosophy (ethics) which does have a valid opinion and can and should in certain circumstances impose limits to the application of science.


That's my view on the matter.

robindch

John Updike, who died in January was a regular contributor to the New Yorker which published the following from a longer piece he did in 1985 about the relationship between non-scientists and the discoveries of the modern age:

John Updike wrote:

The non-scientist's relation to modern science is basically craven: we look to its discoveries and technology to save us from disease, to give us a faster ride and a softer life, and at the same time we shrink from what it has to tell us of our perilous and insignificant place in the cosmos. Not that threats to our safety and significance were absent from the pre-scientific world, or that arguments against a God-bestowed human grandeur were lacking before Darwin. But our century's revelations of unthinkable largeness and unimaginable smallness, of abysmal stretches of geological time when we were nothing, of supernumerary galaxies and indeterminate subatomic behavior, of a kind of mad mathematical violence at the heart of matter have scorched us deeper than we know.

I think he's right up to a point in implying that (creationists and other fantasists aside) it's no longer intellectually acceptable to believe most of what the world's various churches delivered as "Truth" about the physical world. With the recent disciplines of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, I suspect in a century or two, it will be similarly unacceptable to believe the "Truths" delivered by the world's churches concerning the mental world.

It's certainly the job of outfits like the Templeton Foundation to make it seem like there is a dialog taking place, and that religion is still sitting at the top table. But it isn't and the people who run religions know this. The religions will continue to evolve to provide new false answers to difficult questions to people who can't discriminate, but as I said, it seems likely that ultimately, it will become as unacceptable to believe something like the duality of the spirit as it is currently to think that the earth is flat.

Mickeroo

Overblood wrote: »

With the recent news of the in-house synthesis of RNA, the church must accept a sideline position in the world and watch as science chips away at the mysteries of the universe, searching for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.

THe answer is 42, but what the hell is the question!?!?!?!

O'Coonassa

Overblood wrote: »

Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it.

Not so far as I can see. Most of the greatest scientists have been religious. Maybe you're confusing the organised state religions with religion itself.

Podge_irl

Religion is an unscientific ideal. It's untestable and unprovable and as such is outside the purview of science.

The problems arise when scientific progress is suppressed as it contradicts religious teachings (which is not the same as contradicting religion itself). Thankfully I don't think this happens to any great extent anymore.

Mickeroo

Podge_irl wrote: »

Religion is an unscientific ideal. It's untestable and unprovable and as such is outside the purview of science.

An unscientific ideal...outside the purview of science.....this is true of any fantasy.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Religion is definitely the enemy of science, it has nothing to offer and can only oppose scientific progress.

The dichotomy can probably be shown most explicitly when we look at the concept of 'faith'. For a religious person, faith is the ultimate virtue, when you ask them why they believe, it always boils down to them having faith. If you ever get into an argument with a religious person and you ask them how they can logically hold a certain position, when it is clearly, from a rational perspective, a much less likely position to hold than one derived from rational scientific enquiry, they will smugly retort that they have their faith and that is all they need.

Yet, what is faith? it's merely believing something is true because they believe it is true. It's merely packaging peoples hopes and illogical superstitions into a word that they can then exalt. To a scientist, faith is the greatest sin of all, to believe in a conclusion that does not follow from an experiment for no reason other than that you hope it to be true, it is anathema to the scientific method.

Overblood

Podge_irl wrote: »

The problems arise when scientific progress is suppressed as it contradicts religious teachings (which is not the same as contradicting religion itself). Thankfully I don't think this happens to any great extent anymore.

What about the Embryonic Stem Cell issue? The Vatican doesn't agree with it, but are they supressing the progress of stem cell research in any way?

It personally wouldn't bother me if cloned embryos were to farmed for stem cells, sci-fi style.

Black Swan

Overblood wrote: »

Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

There is a problem with dichotomies, in that they are an oversimplification and distortion of reality when viewing the natural world (see Jacques Derrida, et al)?

Overblood wrote: »

Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?

Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma? Ironically, there were some exceptions, especially in the early discoveries that pertained to genetics?

"Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?

Podge_irl

Overblood wrote: »

What about the Embryonic Stem Cell issue? The Vatican doesn't agree with it, but are they supressing the progress of stem cell research in any way?

It personally wouldn't bother me if cloned embryos were to farmed for stem cells, sci-fi style.

Well it still happens of course, just not to anywhere near the same extent (I'm also approaching this from a physicist's point of view where the church's influence is now pretty much non-existent). I wouldn't frame the stem cell issue as a purely religion versus science debate though, so while the I'm sure the vatican have influence on the lack of research in the area they wouldn't be the only reason.

Ultimately I think the church as a whole has a lot less influence to impede scientific progress than it clearly used to. The problem now is more individuals and lawmakers who impede progress due to their religious beliefs. It would be quite the assumption that they would be in favour of certain things if they weren't religous though. People, and politicians in particular, have a rather unique way of reasoning that I generally don't understand.

Mickeroo

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma? Ironically, there were some exceptions, especially in the early discoveries that pertained to genetics?

"Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?

I was reading about mendel quite recently,he pretty much discovered the gene and nobody took any notice, I think somebody may have tried to steal the credit a few decades later, which is pretty much par the course in scientific discoveries. Someone makes a break through, gets ignored, somebody then tries to steal the credit and then the original discoverer gets recognised. It's quite ridiculous how often this happens!

I reckon the church didnt care what he was doing because they probably dont pay that much attention to what the monks get up to in the monasteries. I believe he was a monk not a priest?

Húrin

In these debates, the religious typically say that religion is in harmony with science. The non-religious say that religion is simply not science. The anti-religious say that religion is the enemy of science. See a pattern here?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma?

No, historically the Catholic church and many other western institutions have encouraged science because science is a western belief system.

"Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?

The head of the human genome project is a Christian. Why should genetics be against Christianity?

Could it not be more likely that Europe's Christian background paved the way for science? That it why it developed here and not elsewhere. That is not religious revisionism, but the opinion of many secular historians.

The reason why Galileo is brought up with metronomic regularity as an "example" of "Christianity suppressing science" is because he is one of the few examples available of this. He is the exception not the rule. In reality, "Christianity" was a lot more complicated and scientists were usually either tolerated, supported, and religious themselves.

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

The reason why Galileo is brought up with metronomic regularity as an "example" of "Christianity suppressing science" is because he is one of the few examples available of this. He is the exception not the rule. In reality, "Christianity" was a lot more complicated and scientists were usually either tolerated, supported, and religious themselves.

until they discovered something that contradicted long held and cherished beliefs.

Húrin

Galvasean wrote: »

until they discovered something that contradicted long held and cherished beliefs.

So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

Oh I certainly would agree that Christianity aided science to a point. Sure Gregor Mendel was both one of the forefathers of modern science and also a priest.
However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).

2Scoops

Science is merely a way of observing reality. Observable reality and religion are what are at loggerheads, not science and religion.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

Nail on the head

There is great over lap between the desire to understand that leads people to religion and that leads people to science. It is not really surprising that religious people have discovered great things in the realm of science.

But then that was never the point, as I'm sure Hurin knows quite well since this has been discussed at length before.

When someone says religion restricts science it is not a defence to say that religion can inspire science because the restriction of science is far worse than any benefits of religious wonder bring. Humans are naturally curious anyway, it is one of the reasons we are religious in the first place. Given that we would be curious about the world anyway there is no excuse for the religious meddling in science.

It is like saying that homoeopathy is a good thing, and shouldn't be criticised, because it encourages people who believe in it with a desire to be healthy. Which is true, the point of it is how they go about that and the problems they face when homoeopathy clashes with serious illness and modern medicine. Homoeopathy may have inspired thousands of people with the desire to teach it and help people, but that ignores what they are teaching.

I was reading a few weeks ago that the former head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins is started to promote bad science in the realm of physics (something he is not that versed in) in an effort to demonstrate that God can be in the mysteries of quantum physics. This would some what demonstrate the point.

Religion may have inspired Collins to get into biology, it may have inspired him during his time with the HGP. But, unfortunately, it also seems to be also inspiring this nonsense.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christianity did indeed broadly foster science.

Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?

Mickeroo

robindch wrote: »

Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?

I know genes and the big bang were all discovered(for want of a better word) by clergymen, maybe thats what they're referring to? There's probably other examples too, as to whether their research was encouraged or not i dont know.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?

I don't know if you could use the word unprejudiced but they have funded and encouraged people in history to practice science, like the Templeton foundation. So they have supported it with a bias towards wanting to prove what they already believe

Just making the point that it's not as simple as science vs. religion. They're only opposed when science uncovers an inconvenient truth

Naz_st

Science in its broadest sense, that being simply the pursuit of knowledge, is not at loggerheads with Religion. But Science when used in its more normal sense incorporates the concept of the Scientific Method, a fundamental axiom for scientific progress and critical thinking. I think there is a dichotomy here since the very concepts of the scientific method (e.g. observability, measurability, falsifiability, testability, predictive quality, theory improvement and replacement, confirmability, peer review) are fundamentally antithetical to the basic concept of Theistic Religion (e.g. conformity, absolute truth, infallibility, faith). There's just no getting around it.

That doesn't mean that all scientists should be atheists, they simply need not apply their scientific thinking to their religious beliefs. The degree to which that requires mental gymnastics is based on what religious beliefs they have: evidently Deism requires a lot less mental contortion than Creationism! Up until quite recently this approach could be more easily justified since it was implicitly arguable that the two domains deal with essentially different things. For example, you could say that science deals with the workings and constitution of the observable and physical universe, and Religion with spiritual meaning and ethical coherence. The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put this type of thinking quite succinctly when he described the two concepts of science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria" in that they fundamentally deal with different things.

However, the problem with that thinking these days is that science is advancing into areas that have been historically left in the domain of Religion: the psychology of religion, the evolutionary need for religion, "spiritual" experiences and the biochemistry of the human brain, abiogenesis, the moment of creation, the evolution of morals, etc. With Scientific knowledge marching ever on, with the core concepts of the scientific method as its battering ram, it seems that the scientific "magisteria" is slowly consuming the religious one.

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know if you could use the word unprejudiced but they have funded and encouraged people in history to practice science, like the Templeton foundation.

Er, anything I've read about the Templeton Foundation has given me the impression that they're interested in making religion look good by wooing the support of science/scientists in their favour. If someone came out tomorrow and published a paper on why evolution makes no sense without God they'd probably be a prime Templeton candidate, not because it's good science but because it suits their pro-religion agenda.

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Er, anything I've read about the Templeton Foundation has given me the impression that they're interested in making religion look good by wooing the support of science/scientists in their favour. If someone came out tomorrow and published a paper on why evolution makes no sense without God they'd probably be a prime Templeton candidate, not because it's good science but because it suits their pro-religion agenda.

That's what I've read about them too. My point was that they support science but with a bias towards "scientists" who make claims supporting religion. I'm just saying that religion is not against science in all its forms, they're very much for science that supports the conclusions that they've already drawn

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's what I've read about them too. My point was that they support science but with a bias towards "scientists" who make claims supporting religion. I'm just saying that religion is not against science in all its forms, they're very much for science that supports the conclusions that they've already drawn

The bit I've highlighted is the very definition of what is not science.

marko91

of course god exists, he is a ancient times david blaine;)...god walks on water pfftt david blaine levitates:p

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

The bit I've highlighted is the very definition of what is not science.

Okay, people are reading far too much into what I'm saying here. I am not saying that there is no conflict between religion and science or that religious institutions support the scientific method, I'm just saying that the church does not completely reject science before giving it a chance. I'm trying to counter Hurin's argument that religion broadly fosters science with the response "they do until science comes up with something religion doesn't like"

Which is why in my first post I said:

The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

If they were actually supporting science in an unbiased way then the results of a scientific study would be accepted whether they agreed with religious teachings or not. They try to use science to strength an already held position, not to find out if the currently held position is actually true because they already "know" it's true

The thinking can be summed up in this cartoon:

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Okay, people are reading far too much into what I'm saying here. I am not saying that there is no conflict between religion and science or that religious institutions support the scientific method, I'm just saying that the church does not completely reject science before giving it a chance. I'm trying to counter Hurin's argument that religion broadly fosters science with the response "they do until science comes up with something religion doesn't like"

Which is why in my first post I said:

The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

Hey, i said practically the same thing:

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh I certainly would agree that Christianity aided science to a point. Sure Gregor Mendel was both one of the forefathers of modern science and also a priest.
However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).

darjeeling

Húrin wrote: »

So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

As I understand it, Christianity received a hefty dose of Greek neoplatonism at its inception, and this influenced the thinking of people such as Augustine.

Later, Aristotle's philosophy and science, maintained and developed in the Islamic world by scholars such as Averroes, was returned to Christendom around the 13th century and incorporated into Christianity by Aquinas et al (not without oppostion from some clergy), helping spark the Renaissance. This gave a platform on which science could be developed, latterly by people reacting against Aristotle's teachings - Francis Bacon, for example, who pointed the way to the modern scientific method.

In the light of this - albeit crude - narrative, does it make sense to say that Christianity supported or opposed science? If the ancient Greek tradition had been able to continue uninterrupted within Europe, would science have progressed faster here? Food for idle thought.

Húrin

Galvasean wrote: »

However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).

Christianity is not "just as likely" to suppress science. There are insufficient examples for you to credibly argue this. Copernicus also wrote that the sun was the centre of the local system but was not bothered by the church.

Christianity has never opposed the observation that the earth is a sphere because this observation predates Christianity. The idea that medieval Europeans believed the earth to be flat is a Victorian myth.

In 1859 western Christianity had become diverse like it is today. Some churches accepted Darwin's theory and some did not. In the 5th century St Augustine himself wrote that the Genesis creation account should not be taken literally. The idea that Christians before Darwin were all young earth creationists is another myth.

No church refutes the fact of stem cell research, but some dispute its ethics. Different thing entirely.

----

Without Christianity modern science would not exist. Just as many atheists think the universe popped into existence without a cause, many of you seem to think the same thing happened with modern science.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

Hold on, so how does this demonstrate that Christianity has always opposed rational enquiry? How do you square the fact that Christianity fostered science with the claim that the two are fundamentally opposed?

2Scoops wrote: »

Science is merely a way of observing reality. Observable reality and religion are what are at loggerheads, not science and religion.

The majority of people who have ever lived have not found religion to be at loggerheads with observable reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head

There is great over lap between the desire to understand that leads people to religion and that leads people to science. It is not really surprising that religious people have discovered great things in the realm of science.

But then that was never the point, as I'm sure Hurin knows quite well since this has been discussed at length before.

If you read some of Overblood's opening lines, that is the point:

Overblood wrote: »

"E pur si muove!!!"

Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it. Only relatively recently has the Vatican decided to concede and accept that it has been wrong innumerable times in it's attitude towards science. .....
Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?

Whether belief in Christianity is a restriction on scientific inquiry is a different discussion altogether. I doubt that many, if any humans have no beliefs that could conceivably restrict honest inquiry.