Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

JimiTime · 25-02-2009 04:44PM #1

I've seen on a few threads, also on the last episode of 'Christianity:A History' programme, the position that religion and science are at loggerheads.

To me, this is the just a ridiculous position.
a) Because, 'religion' is too big a word. and
b) Science doesn't care about religion.

Certain 'scientists' may be at logger heads with 'certain religious views' or indeed the idea of religion as a whole. This does not however constitute as 'Science is at loggerheads with religion'.

We can talk about Galilleo etc, and build an arguement that because the religious authorities of the time felt threatened, they silenced him. However, this is still not 'religion is at loggerheads with science'. It has long since being established, that religious authorities(or any authority for that matter) abuse power, and feel more comfortable when they control the masses(no pun intended:)). Certain folk are now looking at 'religion' with disdain, and have decided its either religion or science, you can't have both. An absolute fallacy!

One can be wholly faithful, and wholly scientific at the same time. We can model and observe the natural world using scientific methods etc and not bring God into it at all if we so wish. We can also believe in God while doing this. It only becomes an issue when we say that science is the be all and end all. Now hold that view if you wish, but don't force that view on others. It doesn't have to be that way.

I know this is soap boxing a bit, but I just thought I'd put it out there. Its a bit of an answer to all the 'Now that you have left religion behind, you can open you eyes to the world of science' BS that does the rounds frequently in this forum.

AtomicHorror · 25-02-2009 05:06PM

In an ideal world you'd be quite correct. And I agree with you that, in principle, science doesn't really pay much heed to religion (certainly a nebulous field) and just proceeds with its business regardless. But in certain areas, some religions have taken it upon themselves to conflict with science and vice versa. In some cases this is on moral grounds, where scientifically-informed morality is at odds with religiously-informed morality. I would say this is inevitable and probably not so destructive. The debates tend to be philosophical rather than scientific, and they address the value of life and the nature of it.

But in other cases the conflict is much more fundamental. Where science has falsified the specific beliefs of some religions, those religions have sought to discredit science, right down to its core philosophies in some cases. That is a real and very serious cultural conflict which is gaining pace against a more general post-enlightenment background where the motto seems to have become that "all opinions are equally valid".

I think, sadly, that the conflict is very real. And I can't say for certain that science will prevail.

JimiTime · 25-02-2009 05:23PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In an ideal world you'd be quite correct. And I agree with you that, in principle, science doesn't really pay much heed to religion (certainly a nebulous field) and just proceeds with its business regardless. But in certain areas, some religions have taken it upon themselves to conflict with science and vice versa.

In black are the relevant words.

In some cases this is on moral grounds, where scientifically-informed morality is at odds with religiously-informed morality.

Not that I want to drag us off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean here? Could you give an example of this?

The debates tend to be philosophical rather than scientific, and they address the value of life and the nature of it.

If you mean something like abortion, well its 'all' philisophical no? There is no scientific stand on ethics of such things. Sure one can use scientific info to further certain arguements, but it certainly not 'science' speaking.

But in other cases the conflict is much more fundamental. Where science has falsified the specific beliefs of some religions, those religions have sought to discredit science, right down to its core philosophies in some cases.

Again, Important phrase in bold.

I think, sadly, that the conflict is very real. And I can't say for certain that science will prevail.

There is certain conflicts between certain religious folk and science. There is conflict between certain scientific folk and religion. There is not big conflict between the absolutely huge term 'Religion', and science.

darjeeling · 25-02-2009 05:34PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I've seen on a few threads, also on the last episode of 'Christianity:A History' programme, the position that religion and science are at loggerheads.

To me, this is the just a ridiculous position.
a) Because, 'religion' is too big a word. and
b) Science doesn't care about religion.

OK, but it has taken a very long time to get to the point where you can say this. The program you mentioned laid out the very real history of conflict and disagreement over the last four hundred years or so. Even now, I'm not convinced that religion and science sit easily alongside one another.

In medieval times, the church set up the great universities and encouraged them to research 'natural philosophy' (aka science), confident that the results would confirm church teaching. Back then, science and religion were united in the same grand enterprise. But from the late Renaissance came a parting of the ways, as science made discoveries that went against doctrine.

Nowadays, the churches have broadly adopted two different lines on science. The Creationist churches deny any scientific evidence contradicting a literal view of the Bible. This amounts to a rejection of most of modern science. The Catholic and Anglican and other churches instead put science to one side, and say that it doesn't really matter; living a good Christian life and finding salvation is what's important. While these more 'moderate' churches may not be in direct conflict with science, I don't really see them showing any enthusiasm for taking on what science has discovered and trying to assimilate it into their view of the universe and our place in it.
.

AtomicHorror · 25-02-2009 05:49PM

JimiTime wrote: »

In black are the relevant words.

Indeed. Faiths such as the Catholic Church have long since concluded that it's best to keep up with science, to move with the times. But I think the conflict with fundamentalism is on the rise.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not that I want to drag us off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean here? Could you give an example of this?

Abortion and embryonic stem cells.

JimiTime wrote: »

If you mean something like abortion, well its 'all' philisophical no? There is no scientific stand on ethics of such things. Sure one can use scientific info to further certain arguements, but it certainly not 'science' speaking.

As I said, scientifically-informed morality. From what we can observe, it is not rational to value an embryo as we value an adult human or child. This is a source of conflict that finds its roots in scientific investigation.

I really hope nobody runs with that actual debate in this thread. It never ends.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, Important phrase in bold.

Yeah, but what are we talking about? You want to make a case that there's no conflict between science and religion so long as you omit the religions where there is conflict? Like you've said, "religion" is a really big box full of things, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any religion that lacks at least some conflict with science.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is certain conflicts between certain religious folk and science. There is conflict between certain scientific folk and religion. There is not big conflict between the absolutely huge term 'Religion', and science.

I disagree. The two are bound to conflict because their fundamental philosophies contradict each other. The core tenet of science is "the universe is understandable to humans", of religion it is "the universe is understandable only to a point. Just look in the "losing faith" thread, where we have some fairly mainstream Christians confidently asserting the future limits of scientific knowledge.

JimiTime · 25-02-2009 05:56PM

darjeeling wrote: »

OK, but it has taken a very long time to get to the point where you can say this. The program you mentioned laid out the very real history of conflict and disagreement over the last four hundred years or so.

Indeed, and believe me, I'm delighted that those days are gone. For more than scientific reasons. The RCC when it held such power was an enemy of the people in more ways than science.

Even now, I'm not convinced that religion and science sit easily alongside one another.

Again though, that is only true of 'certain' religions or religious views.

In medieval times, the church set up the great universities and encouraged them to research 'natural philosophy' (aka science), confident that the results would confirm church teaching. Back then, science and religion were united in the same grand enterprise. But from the late Renaissance came a parting of the ways, as science made discoveries that went against doctrine.

Again, remember that we are dealing with a very powerful political force called the RCC. It is certainly 'a' religion, but its not 'religion' in its entirity.

Nowadays, the churches have broadly adopted two different lines on science. The Creationist churches deny any scientific evidence contradicting a literal view of the Bible.

Ok, so thats a specific. Creationists are at loggerheads with the area's of science that go against their doctrines.

This amounts to a rejection of most of modern science.

I can't truly comment on this. If its correct though, its still 'specifically' creationists. 'NOT' religion.

The Catholic and Anglican and other churches instead put science to one side, and say that it doesn't really matter; living a good Christian life and finding salvation is what's important.

Maybe they learned from old mistakes, and found that they are not scientific institutions.

While these more 'moderate' churches may not be in direct conflict between science, I don't really see them showing any enthusiasm for taking on what science has discovered and trying to assimilate it into their view of the universe and our place in it.

Why should they? Anyway, thats OT, its a completely different issue. The fact is, its not in conflict with.

darjeeling · 25-02-2009 06:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

darjeeling wrote: »

The Catholic and Anglican and other churches instead put science to one side, and say that it doesn't really matter; living a good Christian life and finding salvation is what's important.

Maybe they learned from old mistakes, and found that they are not scientific institutions.

I'm not saying they should be, but that they might pay more heed to science than they do.

JimiTime wrote: »

darjeeling wrote: »

While these more 'moderate' churches may not be in direct conflict with science, I don't really see them showing any enthusiasm for taking on what science has discovered and trying to assimilate it into their view of the universe and our place in it.

Why should they? Anyway, thats OT, its a completely different issue. The fact is, its not in conflict with.

Because if the mainstream churches regard science as 'OT', you get a bizarre disconnect between what kids are taught in science and what they hear in church (those that still go); two entirely different ways of looking at the world that simply talk past each other. How is that going to do anything towards reviving congregations?
.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 01:54AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I disagree. The two are bound to conflict because their fundamental philosophies contradict each other. The core tenet of science is "the universe is understandable to humans", of religion it is "the universe is understandable only to a point. Just look in the "losing faith" thread, where we have some fairly mainstream Christians confidently asserting the future limits of scientific knowledge.

People will be people though! There will be idiots, zealous idiots in all walks of life. For some reason, there are certain folk who wish to make science and religion into a conflict.

'Isn't this Rose amazing. God is certainly great.' This is not a scientific statement. However, it is not in conflict with science neither. As I said, the problem occurs when the scientific method is seen as the be all and end all.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 01:56AM

darjeeling wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be, but that they might pay more heed to science than they do.

Because if the mainstream churches regard science as 'OT', you get a bizarre disconnect between what kids are taught in science and what they hear in church (those that still go); two entirely different ways of looking at the world that simply talk past each other. How is that going to do anything towards reviving congregations?
.

Again though, this is a tangeant. This is still not 'Religion is at loggerheads with Science'

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 02:02AM

JimiTime wrote: »

People will be people though! There will be idiots, zealous idiots in all walks of life. For some reason, there are certain folk who wish to make science and religion into a conflict.

'Isn't this Rose amazing. God is certainly great.' This is not a scientific statement. However, it is not in conflict with science neither. As I said, the problem occurs when the scientific method is seen as the be all and end all.

Scientists think that it is the be all and end all. :pac: See the problem?

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 02:04AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Some Scientists think that it is the be all and end all. :pac: See the problem?

Indeed, but again, I highlight the important part:)

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 02:08AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, but again, I highlight the important part:)

Now you're just misrepresenting me!

I think we could safely say it's "most".

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 02:11AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Now you're just misrepresenting me!

I think we could safely say it's "most".

Sorry, I should have clarified I inserted the 'Some'. Maybe it is 'Most'. Point remains though.

darjeeling · 26-02-2009 02:22AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Again though, this is a tangeant. This is still not 'Religion is at loggerheads with Science'

And I still think you're taking too narrow a view. It's not enough for religion to move just enough to reassure itself that it's said nothing that conflicts with science. If religion ceases to be relevant, it will disappear, and part of staying relevant is engaging with what we're discovering about the world.

Every religion I can think of has its own creation myth. I think this shows we have a pretty basic yearning to know how we came to be here, and that we came up with explanations to satisfy this and incorporated them into our religions. Odd then that just when we're finding scientific explanations for our origins, our religious leaders either condemn them or treat them as unimportant - opposing or walking away.
.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 02:48AM

darjeeling wrote: »

And I still think you're taking too narrow a view. It's not enough for religion to move just enough to reassure itself that it's said nothing that conflicts with science. If religion ceases to be relevant, it will disappear, and part of staying relevant is engaging with what we're discovering about the world.

Every religion I can think of has its own creation myth. I think this shows we have a pretty basic yearning to know how we came to be here, and that we came up with explanations to satisfy this and incorporated them into our religions. Odd then that just when we're finding scientific explanations for our origins, our religious leaders either condemn them or treat them as unimportant - opposing or walking away.
.

Again though, thats a different issue. You can view it as odd, or believe that science is backing religion into a corner or whatever. The point still remains. I have no problem with someone saying that they believe science is showing them certain things which is making them think Religion is a crock etc. That is an opinion, fair enough. This reasoning crosses the line when it says that they are incompatible or at loggerheads. Scientific discovery has indeed left alot of religious organisations with egg on their face's, but again, 'Religion' is too broad a word. Scientific discovery undermined the RCC, and their professions of divine truth. I welcome that. It revealed alot. I will continue to welcome scientific discovery. What I don't welcome, is this breed of atheist scientist, insisting that one cannot be both faithful and scientific.

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 02:52AM

JimiTime wrote: »

What I don't welcome, is this breed of atheist scientist, insisting that one cannot be both faithful and scientific.

I know of many who do, but the scientist should be prepared to question everything. And that means that no answer is final. The scientist would respond to "God did it" with "how, specifically?".

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 03:00AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I know of many who do, but the scientist should be prepared to question everything. And that means that no answer is final. The scientist would respond to "God did it" with "how, specifically?".

Fine. No issue there.

philologos · 26-02-2009 11:13AM

AtomicHorror: I don't think that you are accurate in saying that pro-life isn't a scientifically informed position. Many who study these things are pro-life themselves. Infact there is a group Christians in Science (made up of Christian scientists) who are coming to my university to discuss bioethics, amongst other things. I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that it is irrational to be pro-life just because you disagree with it.

Zombrex · 26-02-2009 11:41AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Scientific discovery undermined the RCC, and their professions of divine truth. I welcome that. It revealed alot.

But isn't that just because you aren't Catholic?

Would you welcome science undermining something you believe from your religion, particularly if it was key to your faith?

Are you prepared to drop a key element of your faith if science determines to an accurate level that it isn't true? Has that ever happened? The story of the Flood for example?

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 12:01PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But isn't that just because you aren't Catholic?

Would you welcome science undermining something you believe from your religion, particularly if it was key to your faith?

Are you prepared to drop a key element of your faith if science determines to an accurate level that it isn't true? Has that ever happened? The story of the Flood for example?

TBH WN, this thread is not about me and my personal convictions, and to discuss them will go way OT IMO.

Smart Bug · 26-02-2009 12:47PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But isn't that just because you aren't Catholic?

Would you welcome science undermining something you believe from your religion, particularly if it was key to your faith?

Are you prepared to drop a key element of your faith if science determines to an accurate level that it isn't true? Has that ever happened? The story of the Flood for example?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Zombrex · 26-02-2009 12:48PM

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH WN, this thread is not about me and my personal convictions, and to discuss them will go way OT IMO.

Fair enough.

My point was simply that there is a difference between there being no conflict between science and religion and simply not coming across it yet.

darjeeling · 26-02-2009 01:29PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Again though, thats a different issue. You can view it as odd, or believe that science is backing religion into a corner or whatever. The point still remains. I have no problem with someone saying that they believe science is showing them certain things which is making them think Religion is a crock etc. That is an opinion, fair enough. This reasoning crosses the line when it says that they are incompatible or at loggerheads. Scientific discovery has indeed left alot of religious organisations with egg on their face's, but again, 'Religion' is too broad a word. Scientific discovery undermined the RCC, and their professions of divine truth. I welcome that. It revealed alot. I will continue to welcome scientific discovery. What I don't welcome, is this breed of atheist scientist, insisting that one cannot be both faithful and scientific.

I think we've been somewhat talking at cross purposes. You've repeatedly questioned whether science and religion 'are at loggerheads', and I've responded in terms of whether science and religious institutions are presently in disagreement (some cases, yes, some no). You've said this isn't what you mean, and have gone on to talk about the two being 'incompatible', which to me is a quite different thing to being 'at loggerheads'. So I think what you are really driving at is whether science and religion are inherently irreconcilable, never mind whether they are getting on OK or not at the moment.

Taking that on, don't all religions have a core set of beliefs to which no challenge will be allowed, whatever science says? In the case of Christianity, isn't there a central kernel of revealed 'truth' that cannot be overturned? If so, how could science - which questions everything - and Christianity be fully compatible? I know AtomicHorror has made essentially this point already, but I don't see that you've addressed it.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 02:38PM

darjeeling wrote: »

I think we've been somewhat talking at cross purposes. You've repeatedly questioned whether science and religion 'are at loggerheads', and I've responded in terms of whether science and religious institutions are presently in disagreement (some cases, yes, some no). You've said this isn't what you mean, and have gone on to talk about the two being 'incompatible', which to me is a quite different thing to being 'at loggerheads'. So I think what you are really driving at is whether science and religion are inherently irreconcilable, never mind whether they are getting on OK or not at the moment.

Taking that on, don't all religions have a core set of beliefs to which no challenge will be allowed, whatever science says? In the case of Christianity, isn't there a central kernel of revealed 'truth' that cannot be overturned? If so, how could science - which questions everything - and Christianity be fully compatible? I know AtomicHorror has made essentially this point already, but I don't see that you've addressed it.

All beliefs are challengable. If a scientist sets out to show something is against a doctrine, and sucessfully achieves it, then whatever the doctrine is must be assessed. Like Galilleo.

Zombrex · 26-02-2009 03:21PM

JimiTime wrote: »

All beliefs are challengable. If a scientist sets out to show something is against a doctrine, and sucessfully achieves it, then whatever the doctrine is must be assessed. Like Galilleo.

Yes but there was conflict with Galilleo.

The conflict arises because religion says it isn't wrong because it is claiming authority from a god, who can't be wrong.

The Bible says that all over the place, and has some choice passages saying that believers should never accept the word of men over the word of God, passages that get quoted all the time on Creationist websites.

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 03:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

AtomicHorror: I don't think that you are accurate in saying that pro-life isn't a scientifically informed position. Many who study these things are pro-life themselves. Infact there is a group Christians in Science (made up of Christian scientists) who are coming to my university to discuss bioethics, amongst other things. I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that it is irrational to be pro-life just because you disagree with it.

As I said, not interested in the debate over whether it's rational or irrational, correct or otherwise. I haven't said it is either, just that the knowledge gained by science offers no foundation for that value. But you've torpedoed your own point. Mostly, the scientists who don't consider embryos to have less value than human life (which is not to say it has no value) are those try to combine science and faith. Their morality is being informed by both movements, and we both know which of the two will win in the case of any conflict.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 03:55PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but there was conflict with Galilleo.

The conflict arises because religion says it isn't wrong because it is claiming authority from a god, who can't be wrong.

The Bible says that all over the place, and has some choice passages saying that believers should never accept the word of men over the word of God, passages that get quoted all the time on Creationist websites.

I'm not arguing that some religions can be in conflict. Its this blanket term 'Religion'.

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 03:58PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I said, not interested in the debate over whether it's rational or irrational, correct or otherwise. I haven't said it is either, just that the knowledge gained by science offers no foundation for that value. But you've torpedoed your own point. Mostly, the scientists who don't consider embryos to have less value than human life (which is not to say it has no value) are those try to combine science and faith. Their morality is being informed by both movements, and we both know which of the two will win in the case of any conflict.

How does science provide morality on this issue? Like you, I don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion etc. I'm just wondering how science can actually give a moral judgement in such a thing?

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 03:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not arguing that some religions can be in conflict. Its this blanket term 'Religion'.

But a common theme in "religions", the blanket term, is a tendency to hold some piece of old writing as infallible, to hold faith as a virtue and to hold the authority of some people as unquestionable. This is the antithesis of science.

Is there a religion that does not adhere to at least one of these principles?

JimiTime · 26-02-2009 04:07PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But a common theme in "religions", the blanket term, is a tendency to hold some piece of old writing as infallible, to hold faith as a virtue and to hold the authority of some people as unquestionable. This is the antithesis of science.

Is there a religion that does not adhere to at least one of these principles?

So you hold the view that religion and science are in conflict? I don't believe that the above is 'anti-science'. As i said before, its only when science and its methodology become the be all and end all, that there is a conflict. If faith etc interferes with science, like with creationism, then we have an issue. Someone can still remain faithful to the scientific method when dealing with science, but also not hold that the scientific method applies to every nuance of their life.

AtomicHorror · 26-02-2009 04:55PM

JimiTime wrote: »

How does science provide morality on this issue? Like you, I don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion etc. I'm just wondering how science can actually give a moral judgement in such a thing?

Well it informs our values. Some of our values seem to be essentially absolute. All cultures, on average, value human life and abhor human suffering. But we are hazy on how to apply that valuation in various unusual circumstances. Unsure of how a grown human differs from an embryo, or from a brain dead man, or even how humans differ from animals. Science allows us to see what observable differences exist and thus we can re-assess our values. These differences are objectively verifiable.

As I say, our value of human life itself is not up for negotiation, any more than we could rationally discard any other value or the emotions which make them relevant. But how we apply these values in the grey areas is another matter. Religions variously claim the existence of differences and expect this to be accepted on authority. No alternative valuations are acceptable.

Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

Comments