Can Religion and Science Co-exist?

yuno44907

You can create a new religion but if science discover something, you need to edit your holy book.

Evidence

JacobHawkins said:

Religion vs Science is a heavily debated topic in modern society. Science seeks to explain the word around us based on observations, logic, evidence and intense study. On the other hand, religion is generally the belief system of a higher power, which serves as an explanation for the world as well. Can science and religion both be compatible with each other? Instead of one being right, can both be right? Well done to anyone that can convince me of their arguments. Tip: I'm not looking for short answers. Please show effort.

noun

noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

faith

fāTH/

noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

If you accept the above definition of "Religion" and "faith" (which is universally accepted, except by a few) that religion is about
#1  complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and #2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, then we have to ask what exactly is our understanding of science? In other words, "who" is interpreting our understanding of what is, and what is not considered science, .. and who or what do humans consider "super human, or God"?

here is one god:



Authority on science:

http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/events/2016/intelligence/statement.html


here is science "based on observations, logic, evidence and intense study"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pope-francis-big-bang-scientists-vatican-catholic-church-realise-discuss-evolution-physics-space-a7725706.html


Is observing CGI generated cartoon images of artist rendered planets to come up with the solution that all humanity must travel to Mars by 2050 or whatever considered science?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/elon-musk-spacex-exploring-mars-planets-space-science/

The superhuman god on earth, the vicar of Christ says that NASA can do it. Do we consider this science knowing that our Earth is flat under a Dome?

Evidence

yuno44907 said:

You can create a new religion but if science discover something, you need to edit your holy book.

Is that why both the Big Bang story and the evolution story been so often edited, then re-edited, revised, corrected and so on?
Both NASA and CERN has created new religions, proselytized by actors, and wana-be scientists.

PowerPikachu21

Ignoring people trying to say science/religion is wrong, everyone's entitled to opinions. Science only comes up with possible theories for the explanation of the world, and theists claim God must be the answer, though it's not necessarily the case. The battle of Big Bang vs Creationism is probably the only area where both sides are trying to get the right answer, but the only way to know for certain is to time travel, which is incredibly difficult if not impossible. I don't mind most theists as long as they don't force beliefs, but we can get along. We could co-exist with our opinions.

Evidence

PowerPikachu21 said:

Ignoring people trying to say science/religion is wrong, everyone's entitled to opinions. Science only comes up with possible theories for the explanation of the world, and theists claim God must be the answer, though it's not necessarily the case. The battle of Big Bang vs Creationism is probably the only area where both sides are trying to get the right answer, but the only way to know for certain is to time travel, which is incredibly difficult if not impossible. I don't mind most theists as long as they don't force beliefs, but we can get along. We could co-exist with our opinions.

Science/religion IS wrong, if done by the same organization!

As you said that: "Science only comes up with possible theories for the explanation of the world" and as you can see, it was the Catholic Jesuits who came up with the supposed "scientific explanation of the world", .. the Big Bang, and put globes into the classrooms! And now, officially backing up the Evolution falsely labeled "theory" also. And lookie here in the above video, .. who is it that is also claiming your: "God must be the answer"?
Yep, it's none other than the first (and may be the last) Jesuit Pope.
"They" the most powerful Religion on Earth control both the;God must be the answer AND the scientific theory part.

So now our question should be: "Whatcha talking about; .. what science, .. which God/gods?"



Religion created God/gods are not our Creator, and neither is Religion created science, real science.

So it's hard to vote on this since "yes, they both can coexist" as we can clearly see that they do, .. and "it just wouldn't work/make sense", .. not from a non-religious perspective.

Now we can see why the Catholic created Christian Religion baptizes babies, to seal us into that Religion. The rest will be taught in the Jesuit-run Public Schools.

Blank

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Assuming a given religion is the 'truth,' in that it correlates to reality, it would also be scientifically verifiable to some degree. If a religion and science do not conflict, then they are perfectly capable of coexisting.

Evidence

Blank said:

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Assuming a given religion is the 'truth,' in that it correlates to reality, it would also be scientifically verifiable to some degree. If a religion and science do not conflict, then they are perfectly capable of coexisting.

A Religion that worships god/gods and other superhuman powers and principalities, deities/demons does not, and cannot correlate to reality. In other words, no organized Religion can give us the whole truth, I mean it's a Religion right? Based on "blind faith, .. faith without evidence, which is the opposite of what science means.

As we can see from historical evidence, and from todays news that this Religions beliefs, and their version of science does not conflict, why would it? (see Vatican News EWTN, The Catholic News Network, CNA etc. )

And since this 'Religion' been around for 1,700 years, and being the most powerful religion on Earth lead by none other than Lucifer himself (through divination) we have to be really careful about accepting any science coming from, or approved by them.

yuno44907

Science is . They dont even talk about Earths weakening magnetic field and change in wind. And why scandanavians magical but endonesians are moron.

Science is in hands of a few rich people.
@Evidence

Vaulk

Religion and Science can both co-exist under specific guidelines.  These guidelines are actually within the scope of both sides and the fact that Science and Religion are in a persistent contest with one another is an example of what happens when two fields of study cross over with one another when they should have remained in their perspective lanes.

Religion is the study and worship of the supernatural.

Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

What the above two statements SHOULD tell you is that Science has nothing to do with Religion and Vice a Versa.  Question: If you're studying the physical and natural world using the Scientific Method...how would you ever cross over into a battle with theism or creationism?  Answer: You shouldn't.  This would be like studying Astrophysics and ending up in a debate over Economics in the process...makes no sense right?

The scientific method requires observation, one cannot observe the creation of the World.  The Scientific method requires measurement, one cannot measure any of the variables that existed at the time of the creation of the World...if for any reason simply because Scientists cannot seem to agree when that even was.  The Scientific Method requires experimentation...and since we cannot observe or measure the variables that were present at the time of the creation of the World...we have no way of even beginning to experiment to attempt to replicate anything.  Now that being said, Scientific Theory requires testing, theories that cannot be tested for any reason (Mostly due to unobservable rammifications) CANNOT qualify as "Scientific Theory".  So now it's just a theory and has no Scientific Basis.  Which means we've successfully eliminated Science from the theory of how the World came to be.  Man I love Science!

Now Science and Religion can Co-exist peacefully without contradicting one another.  We just need to work on this whole Evolution ridiculousness.  I mean c'mon, even the Father of Evolutionary Thought conceded solidly that the fossil record would have to include innumerable transitional fossils to even begin to prove evolution.  To date we haven't found a single fossil that the Scientific Community can agree is transitional and the ones that are in the light for argument are so incredibly weak as far as evidence goes.  You'd expect literally millions of different transitional fossils to be in the earth if we were to believe that all creatures truly evolved from another base form.  Sadly this isn't the case.

Oh well.

SilverishGoldNova

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Evidence

@Vaulk Religion and Science can both co-exist under specific guidelines.  These guidelines are actually within the scope of both sides and the fact that Science and Religion are in a persistent contest with one another is an example of what happens when two fields of study cross over with one another when they should have remained in their perspective lanes.

Religion is the study and worship of the supernatural.

I agree, that is what Religion is! But, .. do you know what, or whom the religious study and worship in the "supernatural"? Or how one communicates with beings who reside in the supernatural realm?
The reason I'm mentioning this is that "Religion" has nothing to do with our Creator, the Infinite "I Am", and even though some Religions use the Bible to lure in their victims, they will hide God, the God of the Bible, our Infinite Creator from them.

Vaulk said: Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

What the above two statements SHOULD tell you is that Science has nothing to do with Religion and Vice a Versa.

Except when Religion takes over science, as has the Constantine created Catholic Religion, .. then science becomes the property of the Church.
The BB story came from a Catholic Jesuit Priest.

Vaulk - Question: If you're studying the physical and natural world using the Scientific Method...how would you ever cross over into a battle with theism or creationism?  Answer: You shouldn't.  This would be like studying Astrophysics and ending up in a debate over Economics in the process...makes no sense right?

How else would you find evidence for the One True and Only Creator God except studying the physical and natural world using the Scientific Method?
The other method, you could just accept one of the tens of thousands of gods created by all them Religions in the world.

There is a very big difference between organized Religion, and being religious, .. like being religious about the teachings of Christ for instance, like; visiting the widows and the orphans.

Vaulk - The scientific method requires observation, one cannot observe the creation of the World.

True, but it takes a scientific mind to determine if the world was created, or like a Religious Priest claims that it just popped out of nothing, .. right?
A Religion governed mind will tend to accept any story how the world came to be, .. which is why we have all these BB-Evolution Believers. What is even more amazing is that they don't even realize that their beliefs are from organized Religion, which expects them to just "believe" without any actual scientific evidence of something popping out of nothing, .. or as you said "evidence of speciation".

Vaulk - The Scientific method requires measurement, one cannot measure any of the variables that existed at the time of the creation of the World...if for any reason simply because Scientists cannot seem to agree when that even was.  The Scientific Method requires experimentation...and since we cannot observe or measure the variables that were present at the time of the creation of the World...we have no way of even beginning to experiment to attempt to replicate anything.  Now that being said, Scientific Theory requires testing, theories that cannot be tested for any reason (Mostly due to unobservable rammifications) CANNOT qualify as "Scientific Theory".  So now it's just a theory and has no Scientific Basis.  Which means we've successfully eliminated Science from the theory of how the World came to be.  Man I love Science!

I think the Flat Earthers do a lot of scientific work to prove that the Earth was created and did not come from the fake Sci-Fientific claim like the Big Bang.
I love science too, the more I understand about our world, about us humans, the more evidence I find for God our Infinite Creator.

Vaulk - Now Science and Religion can Co-exist peacefully without contradicting one another.
We just need to work on this whole Evolution ridiculousness.  I mean c'mon, even the Father of Evolutionary Thought conceded solidly that the fossil record would have to include innumerable transitional fossils to even begin to prove evolution.  To date we haven't found a single fossil that the Scientific Community can agree is transitional and the ones that are in the light for argument are so incredibly weak as far as evidence goes.  You'd expect literally millions of different transitional fossils to be in the earth if we were to believe that all creatures truly evolved from another base form.  Sadly this isn't the case.

Oh well.

Erfisflat

By using science, that is, testable, repeatable, scalable experimentation, we can deduce that the big bang theory is pseudoscience simply by dissecting a basic axiom that must be true in order for that theory to be feasible. The shape of the earth. If the earth is the flat center of everything we know, then there is no way that we are products of a magical "creating" explosion. So with science, we can prove that creationism is more likely than it's counterpart in the dichotomy. 

Goldtop

The OP uses the phrase, "serves as an explanation" to show the validity of a concept. This is pretty accurate. So, the question has to be put out there, "What explanations has Religion provided that serve us?"

Vaulk

@Goldtop,

Answer: That the world was created by an all-powerful being and set into motion with life and that we as Humans cannot possibly fathom a majority of what that entails.  Moreover, the way that it serves us is that the belief and worship in God is the fundamental principle to our Human Rights in the United States.  If you've ever exercised any of the freedoms outlined in our Constitution, you owe it to yourself to go see how our forefathers cemented those freedoms within the first three Human Rights: Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

<Spoiler Alert>

Our forefathers officially acknowledged that they're God Given Rights and used that to justify why they cannot be taken away (Unalienable).

Mike

For those of faith there is a common thread found across the rich diversity of religions throughout the ages, that is, the belief in some Deity, a “Creator,” created the universe and everything in it, including the physical laws of nature. With this induction, the physical laws of nature is the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God’s handwriting.

On the other hand, man is known to be fallible, prudent caution is served when studying man’s written scriptures about the Divine. One may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets—and, in some cases, God help us all resulting in “Death, Tyranny, or the pursuit of Failure” going against the “Golden Rule,” an outgrowth of “unalienable Rights” (aka the constructal law). The discovery of God’s handwriting embraces religious reformation, however, not all reformations evolve at the same rate.

I see understanding the laws of nature being a uniting factor taking us further from the “Dark Ages.” Whether these laws of nature were created by God or not, is a debate between the claims of the faithful and the faithless. In the case of a deist such as Thomas Jefferson for example, he stated “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence. Relative to such men of faith, religion and science can co-exist. 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: False

@Vaulk said:  We haven't found a single fossil that the Scientific Community can agree is transitional

Many transitional fossils have been found. Transitional fossils are fossils that show the intermediate stages of evolution between different species. They provide evidence for the process of evolution and help to fill in the gaps in the fossil record.  Some examples:

• Tiktaalik, which is a fish with characteristics of both fish and amphibians
• Archaeopteryx, which is a bird with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs. 

• Ambulocetus: This is an extinct mammal that lived around 49 million years ago. It had both land and aquatic adaptations, such as webbed feet and a tail suitable for swimming.

• Ichthyostega: This is an extinct amphibian that lived around 365 million years ago. It had both fish-like and amphibian-like characteristics, such as fins and scales, and four legs with toes.

• Sinosauropteryx: This is an extinct dinosaur that lived around 125 million years ago. It had feathers, which are a characteristic of birds, and a long tail, which is a characteristic of dinosaurs. 

• Australopithecus: This is an extinct hominid that lived around 2.8 to 4 million years ago. It had a combination of ape-like and human-like characteristics, such as a large brain and the ability to walk upright. 

The above examples of transitional fossils are well-established and widely accepted by the scientific community as evidence of evolution.

MayCaesar

It depends on what you mean by something being "right". Is it possible, in principle, that our Universe was created by some weird creature the properties of which do not map onto anything we know? Sure. Yet even if that is the case... Even if that creature exhibits all the properties described in one of the religious books... And EVEN if that book was actually written by that creature or by humans following the telepathic dictates of that creature... Religion still will not be right in terms of methodology: it will have arrived at the right conclusion through wrong reasoning.

Science, on the other hand, if done correctly, is always right in the sense of justifying all claims through logic and reason. Science is always incomplete, and as new data is accumulated and processed, our models of the Universe improve. If there is indeed such a creature that we could call "god" for the sake of the argument, then science will eventually discover this creature and describe its properties - while religion has no corrective mechanisms, no methods allowing its followers to improve their understanding of the Universe, therefore anything it states has to be taken on "faith", and the problems with it are obvious and endless.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Yes

Religion and science can coexist. In fact, modern science started in western Christian civilization.

Swolliw

@Pepsiguy

In fact, modern science started in western Christian civilization.

And in fact, from then on, it didn't take long before it became impossible for the two to coexist since it was science that completely turned upside down the myths, lies, exaggerations and sheer idiocy of religion. For example,, the absurd notion that the universe and life were only 6000 years old and the un believable story of Noah's Ark.

Nomenclature

@Pepsiguy

Religion and science can coexist. In fact, modern science started in western Christian civilization.

Are you even for real? The Christians literally tortured and killed the people who used science to question their religious beliefs. Galileo had to stand trial in the 17th century and lie that he'd never even considered that the Earth might orbit the Sun just to stop the Catholic Church from putting him to death.

John_C_87

And...........
Science is still a type of religion...
The argument of Galileo is over the improper legislation of laws and acts of science not the argument science is not a faith-based ideology.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

And...........
Science is still a type of religion...
The argument of Galileo is over the improper legislation of laws and acts of science not the argument science is not a faith-based ideology.

Science is absolutely not a type of religion. It's based on probability, not faith.

You are right that science is a form of ideology, but there's one important difference which separates science from all the other forms of ideology. 

Science is the one and only ideology which is self-correcting. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
Yes, science is a type of religion and that is the main cause behind the idea religion should have the athority to run science and science feels it should run religion. This isn't over if the two are not connected or not it is a argument of who is to be in charge of who...and who controls the money...

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Science is the one and only ideology which is self-correcting.  

After people die..After lots of people most often die.....yes...sure self-correcting, science is.yes, yes, young Jedi...after death, yes, science is different it is, not like religions corrections made on people after death. No...

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: They ARE Co-Existing

@JacobHawkins
Science and religion differ in their concerns and methodology. Science investigates the natural world and limits itself to the empirical, that which can be observed and measured. On the other hand, religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural and concerns itself with the supernatural

John_C_87

Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.
Science | Definition, Disciplines, & Facts | Britannica

Mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects.
Mathematics | Definition, History, & Importance | Britannica

Not to pick on wording but notice how the defintion of sceince is described as the system of physical world, phenomena, unbiased observatioin and systematic experimentation, not the system of physical world, phenomena, unbiased observatioin and unbiased moral systematic experimentation?

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

Science and religion differ in their concerns and methodology. Science investigates the natural world and limits itself to the empirical, that which can be observed and measured. On the other hand, religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural and concerns itself with the supernatural

Pi is supported by scientific empirical evidence but is also disproven by empirical evidence in mathematics. What is known by science is very few religions are ever Identical.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold
Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

What is sure.....This is a very low bar to set on faith of right........

dallased25

Only in perpetual hypocrisy. There are certainly scientists who are christian and have "reconciled" their faith with science....but they really haven't. The difference is that they have rationalized things from the bible and reinterpreted them to fit their own narrative. For example, a scientist methodologically has to assume naturalism when conducting experiments or looking at data. This is necessary, because you can only test the natural and the only results you can quantify are natural. So assuming super natural at any juncture wouldn't be scientific, because you would immediately not be able to get any data or test anything. So when a biologist for example, says that Evolutionary Theory is a scientific fact, but that they believe that god is behind it, they are immediately exposing their hypocrisy. One view is based upon scientific inquiry, evidence, knowledge, facts, tests, etc....while the other jumps into the exact opposite. They are polar opposites. It's as ridiculous as an electrical engineer who knows how currents work and how to generate them, but saying "But I think Thor ultimately is responsible for the generation of electricity." 

21CenturyIconoclast

@Mike

YOUR QUOTE: "Relative to such men of faith, religion and science can co-exist."

In just one area of total mankind, how can the primitive religion of Christianity co-exist with science, where science says that man is millions of years old, and the Christian Bible says that man is approximately 6000 years old?! 

This is of course barring that the universe is also approximately 6000 years old in the 2 contradicting Creation narratives, and elsewhere within the Bible, the earth is told to be flat and has four corners and sits on a foundation which directly goes against science as well.