daylae:

However,i think some of the conflict has developed because of false or unprovable assertions originating from both sides.

daylae:

. . . .
On the other hand,scientists are at fault when they teach as fact the unprovable theory that life evolved from inanimate matter independent of God. They ridicule religious faith as unscientific.
Is it possible,then,to reconcile science and religion? Is science and true religion complementing each other,rather than contradict each other?

thehomer:

Religious faith is unscientific. This is a fact.

JeSoul:

Unscientific: Not adhering to the principles of science
You can re-write that quote. "Scientific faith/reasoning is unreligious" and it would make just about the same amount of sense.

JeSoul:

Dude, religion has nothing to do with science - and vice versa. They both address drastically different aspects of the human experience. The sooner champions of 'scientific reasoning' (and religious supremacy) bring themselves to this fact, the sooner this superficial, imagined conflict can blow away.

JeSoul:

Gbam left right and center.
. . . .

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.

JeSoul:

And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

JeSoul:

Science should focus on what science can ascertain and quit commenting on matters far beyond its scope and reach - and likewise to religion.

thehomer:

Yes but we generally hold scientific facts to a higher standard.

I suspect this is a form of the non-overlapping magesteria claim. I consider this to be false. e.g consider the origin of humans. One religion and its text claims humans were moulded from soil, another claims he was made from a clot but science says he evolved. Which of these is correct?

thehomer:

Why should scientists not make such statements? Do they not have opinions to express? I think they are as qualified as anyone to make such statements. Why should only religious people be able to say whatever they want about God? Humans have opinions and many humans like to express said opinions. Besides, opinions of religious people on this matter is no more valid than that of scientists on this same issue.

Yes I agree that they definitely shoot themselves in the foot on such matters except in some cases where they may actually have the required knowledge in the field. In such a case, I think they should try to be honest in what the express.

Science as a field does focus on what can be determined using a certain set of tools.

JeSoul:

 And my dear Homer, religion is not meant to be 'held to any standard' other than that of each person's personal persuations. As long as the practice of one's religion does not infringe on another human's rights, its their business what standards they deem appropriate unto themselves.

JeSoul:

^This is another case of 'science' attempting to stick its nose in places it does not belong.

JeSoul:

And I would maintain that to a scientist - it is irrelevant! Because his/her business is not to prove/disprove religious claims or beliefs but rather to independently and objectively analyze the physical evidence - not religious persuations. Sticking the nose again

JeSoul:

---

A scientist can definitely express his opinion on matters other than science. However, he ceases to be a 'scientist' when he is commenting on matters outside of the scientific scope - of which religion is. I may be an analytical chemist, but I don't hold any authority when I step outside my lab and into the mechanic's shop insisting that my theoretical or systematic approach must somehow apply to how he chooses to change the oil in the car. He is the expert in his field and I am not. Apples and mangoes dude. Apples and mangoes.

JeSoul:

On that I am with you. We could all use more honesty from all sides of the issues.
Can you please explain what you mean here? thanks.

JeSoul:

Gbam left right and center.

Honestly, I don't think our aim should be trying to 'reconcile science with religion'. In my understanding, Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Its aim is to understand the physical world all around us through observation and experimentation. Religion is also a kind of quest for knowledge -spiritual knowledge, a journey to understand the heart and soul and deeper purpose of life. And trying to apply one quest in the place of the other is what leads to the 'conflict' we see all around us.

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.



Let's not forget the fact that we have scientists who believe the is a God hehind the perfect theory of creation,so also we have christians who seek the knowledge of science.


And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!


Quite true. We human can try to know how things came to exist,but we cant tell the "why." we even get confused about the "how"


Scie

daylae:

Let's not forget the fact that we have scientists who believe the is a God hehind the perfect theory of creation,so also we have christians who seek the knowledge of science.

thehomer:

Ok. And when they do infringe on other peoples rights?

I don't get what science has to do with my post.

It's not irrelevant to one who is also an educator. In which case, the religious opinion may make it difficult for the educator to pass the message across.

Yes I agree. But the main point I'm making is that when it comes to religious issues, scientists have as much import as religious people.

I mean tools like logical reasoning, reliance on good evidence, healthy skepticism etc.

Krayola:

IMO many religionists do not dismiss just the main sciences. . .but other academic disciplines that provide evidence against religious claims.

They embrace archaeology when it supports the slightest biblical detail and dismiss the tonnes of archaeological evidence that cast doubt on biblical claims.

They dismiss scholars from the humanities, historians and anthropologists and so on, and what they tell us, based on tedious pain-staking research, about ancient cultures, how they lived, and evolved; and embrace claims made by unknown ancient writers as authoritative on these historical (not necessarily theological)  claims.

They dismiss obvious similarities between their beliefs and previously existing beliefs that share similar and in many cases identical theological details (e.g.  Virgin births or other miraculous births where common to ancient myths and were just symbolic way of saying "this is special child destined for greatness". Xtian: No. Those are fake. . Mary's own was real!! I saw it in a dream. The evidence you have was planted by the devil  Ok. Low blow. .  No vex ). Now, we can never prove that Mary was not a virgin, but how do we ignore/dismiss all the other pre-Christian virgin birth stories?

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is not just science that popular religion is in "conflict" with, but knowledge as we know it.

Krayola:

haha ok

We can never prove that Mary was not a virgin. Fine. DO you at least agree that based on the evidence we have Mary was not the only virgin to have had a child? That Jesus' birth, while out of the ordinary, was far from unique, and that  his alleged deeds were also quite commonplace in the ancient world? That is if we assume that ancient religious stories record history accurately.

JeSoul:


  Haha! Oga, I have zero problem agreeing with the current evidence we have today - on whatever issue it may be. So if the historical community doesn't think anything unique or special about the story of Jesus, that is fine with me. Honestly. And that is because it has absolutely zero impact on how I choose to live my life.

Oga, me I am not afraid of scientific discovery or entertaining all kinds of theories or performing a litmus test of my beliefs - to me, it is good, because it will either help break away beliefs that are shallow - or strenghten that which is true.

JeSoul:

True. And I am one of such people  

 If TB Joshua is doing his thing on tv, he's not infringing on anyone's rights. If the suicide bomber wants to jihad his way to paradise by taking others lives, that is infringement. If Catholic doctrine forbids the use of condoms and the faithfuls decide to follow it, there is no infringement going on. If northern states want to impose their sharia law on the entire country of diverse religions - that is infringement. Live and let live.

JeSoul:

I meant what I've been saying all along - 'science' or you under the insistence of scientific standards, should not be concerned with what religious beliefs people choose to hold.

JeSoul:

This is mixing issues Homer. You're now crossing over into the world of academics - but still . . . an educators job is to educate - not convert. However steeped the students mind might be in their beliefs (and whether these beliefs are wrong or right) - its not his job to change their minds, his job is to simple teach and the students will decide for themselves.

JeSoul:

Good. And in the realm of religion all opinions are equal because they are opinions! A scientist cannot claim his perspective on God is superior or carries more weight than joe the plumber simply because he happens to have a phD in molecular biology.

JeSoul:

Believe it or not, for many of us of faith, our faith is based on these very same 'tools' - its just that the application of these tools, and the issue on which they are applied - are different from what science knows.

JeSoul:

For instance. I believe in God. Why? Because I have had experiences and something in my heart and spirit that cannot be measured and quantified testifies with a sure certainty that I unfortunately cannot prove to you, that God is indeed real. Do circumstances cause me to waver in faith sometimes? yes. Are there many unanswered questions? hell yes. But in spite of the chinks in the structure, the foundation remains sure - and hence I continue to believe.

'Logical reasoning' - what my heart confirms

JeSoul:

'Good evidence' - my experiences

JeSoul:

'Healthy skepticism' - my occasional doubts and struggles and unanswered questions.

JeSoul:

Now where we would all be at fault, would be to assume that any of the above I have just described is supposed to be the business of anybody other than me. Religion, faith is meant to be a personal thing, a private walk - one that is not subject to be judged by the standards of others - much less others using a scale that is totally unrelated to the issue being measured - which is what 'science' attempts to do with 'religion' and vice versa.

JeSoul:

  Your beef about people of faith dismissing any scientific ideas or discoveries that may contradict their beliefs - while embracing any that may agree with them - is totally and completely legitimate and seconded.

I repeat to you what I said to Homer: why does any 'scientist' need to "prove" that Mary was or was not a virgin? What relevance does this have to the scientific world? Is science supposed to be in the business of scouring over religious texts in the hopes to dismiss beliefs as 'irrational'?

daylae:

Forgive me if am still maintaining that both science and religion do honestly complement each other. Have you ever wonder if God is a scientist himself?

daylae:

The myriad phasets of creation, and yet its coforming complexity and diversity still imply true basic and noble principles of science. I think what science is trying to do is to satisfy our curiosity,and also igninite the creative minds God gave us,by giving us insights into the physical universe. The problem started when we begin to mix facts with theories,and also seeing religion as a way of escaping rational and indepth thinking.

Some may claim that all the workings of the universe can be explained by rational analysis,leaving no room for devine wisdom and faith,which is the basis of religion,but there is no incompatability between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth.

daylae:

Science shows that God exists.

daylae:

I also know that many people in the fields of science and religion are not comfortable with the attempt to comprehend reality by looking to both science and religion;that science deals with the measurable, while religion deals with the immeasurable. This is quite true,b
ut religion without knowledge is easily misconstrued;

daylae:

while knowledge without religion is sheer limitation.

daylae:

Science without religion is lame,religion without science is blind.

thehomer:

No. But he may be a mathematician because science is a quest for knowledge and an entity that already knows everything can no longer quest for knowledge.


It is fitting to have say that science is a quest for knowledge,however,you should also know that science involves a
way of knowing,it is not the only
source of knowledge.


Have you met or do you actually know someone who claims this about the working of the universe? I ask because quantum theory which has a lot of statistical basis somehow denies this. But, divine wisdom and faith really have no part to play in the workings of the universe (not humans). I think one seeks but the other has decided its truth and tries to fit whatever it can to this decided truth.


Yeah,because of our curiosity, we'll always seek. But there is a limit to our comprehension,lest we wallow in further confusion.

Really? Where?


Science shows that there is an entity behind the master piece of creation. It is left for individual to believe. . And that's where faith comes in.

Huh? Can you please explain what you mean here?


Science deals with our five adaptive senses in relating to the word around us;but religion deals even further. It transcends all carnal understandings.

Please let me know the limitations those without religion face.

A carnal being is not a spiritual person. As losg as there is a interlock between the physical and the spiritual,a carnal being is sure limited.


How is science without religion lame?

What's the essence of knowledge when it has no meanings and purpose of reality. Religion answers the question of "why" things came to exist,but science is just trying to know how. Which should take the most priority?

daylae:

It is fitting to have say that science is a quest for knowledge,however,you should also know that science involves a
way of knowing,it is not the only
source of knowledge.

daylae:

Yeah,because of our curiosity, we'll always seek. But there is a limit to our comprehension,lest we wallow in further confusion.

daylae:

Science shows that there is an entity behind the master piece of creation. It is left for individual to believe. . And that's where faith comes in.

daylae:

Science deals with our five adaptive senses in relating to the word around us;but religion deals even further. It transcends all carnal understandings.

daylae:

A carnal being is not a spiritual person. As losg as there is a interlock between the physical and the spiritual,a carnal being is sure limited.

daylae:

What's the essence of knowledge when it has no meanings and purpose of reality. Religion answers the question of "why" things came to exist,but science is just trying to know how. Which should take the most priority?

thehomer:

Science is not a source of knowledge it is simply the best ways of acquiring knowledge about the universe. I never said it was the only way of knowing.


I'd say such a person is mistaken.

Then i take it you're a perfect being yourself.


I say science does not show this. If it did, belief would have no part to play because we would simply know this and act accordingly. I think you need to clearly demonstrate this master-creator as discovered by science.


Well,i don't agree with science when it says the world was created by chance(big bang); i'll rather believe creation all centered to one entity,cus mere chance would have brought about certain inconsistences.

This I disagree with on various levels. Humans have and use more than five senses. There are also the senses of temperature, balance, proprioception, pain and some other internal senses in addition to the five commonly mentioned.

All these still boils down to our five primitive senses. Without them we cannot function here


You are also simply claiming that religion deals with something more. I think you need to demonstrate this assumption.

You can't demonstrate this by mere classroom theory and analysis;and that's the problem. Religion deals with the essence of creation and the relationship to a creator.


The assertions made here need to be demonstrated.

The spiritual is the basis all realities. A carnal being solely rely on the physical;but a person who knows that there is more to the physical takes both advantages.


No religion does not answer this question. It simply asserts God. If I said the purpose of reality was a Quijibo does that answer anything? Science is the best way that we have of knowing about our universe so I'd give it priority over religion.

Religion actually answer the question. Only that you want to know everthing about a creator . . .

Neither can the pastor nor the pope claim their revelation is superior.

Then I guess I should also mention that the tools should be properly used.

Logical reasoning is not necessarily what is confirmed by the heart. This is why the study of logical fallacies that easily fool the heart is studied. To avoid such errors in reasoning.

We know from experiments that personal experience does not often provide good evidence. Some of the obvious refutations include illusions and hallucinations

Ok. But the skepticism is not just directed to unanswered questions but also to answered questions and to new information that may affect previously held beliefs and concepts.

It becomes other people's business if practicing your religion in some ways causes or worsens harm.

It is fitting to have say that science is a quest for knowledge,however,you should also know that science involves a way of knowing,it is not the only source of knowledge

mrmayor:

@Jasoul,
I agree with the first bolded.


Science is not conflict with the bible because some Scientist choose to be but because its in conflict with Evidence Available. Classic example is we know that 46 Chromosomes required to produce a baby vs Virgin Birth.

JeSoul:

Gbam left right and center.

Honestly, I don't think our aim should be trying to 'reconcile science with religion'. In my understanding, Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Its aim is to understand the physical world all around us through observation and experimentation. Religion is also a kind of quest for knowledge -spiritual knowledge, a journey to understand the heart and soul and deeper purpose of life. And trying to apply one quest in the place of the other is what leads to the 'conflict' we see all around us.

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.

And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

Science should focus on what science can ascertain and quit commenting on matters far beyond its scope and reach - and likewise to religion.

daylae:

Then i take it you're a perfect being yourself.

daylae:

Well,i don't agree with science when it says the world was created by chance(big bang); i'll rather believe creation all centered to one entity,cus mere chance would have brought about certain inconsistences.

daylae:

All these still boils down to our five primitive senses. Without them we cannot function here

daylae:

You can't demonstrate this by mere classroom theory and analysis;and that's the problem. Religion deals with the essence of creation and the relationship to a creator.

daylae:

The spiritual is the basis all realities. A carnal being solely rely on the physical;but a person who knows that there is more to the physical takes both advantages.

daylae:

Religion actually answer the question. Only that you want to know everthing about a creator . . .

daylae:

If you do agree like you said that science is not the only way of knowing,then you can as well do me a favour by telling me other ways,if not religion.

daylae:

And if you're saying science is the best way of understanding our universe,then can science prove or disprove any moral or aesthetic proposition. There is no scientific reason to love one's neihgbour or to respect human life. . . To argue that nothing exist which cannot be prove scientifically is the crudest of errors,which will eliminate everything we value in life.

daylae:

The fact is that,you will hardly find one ammong the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.

daylae:

And talking about proving the existence of the entity behind creation,you should note that we cannot prove this through the use of a microscope,telescope,or other scientific instruments. . . Think of a potter and a vase that he has formed. No ammount of examination of the vase itself can give an answer as to why he was made. For that,we must ask the potter himself. But the more we cogitate these without accepting that there are things that actually surpasses human comprehensions,we'll continue to wobble in further confusion.