Science and Religion are Not Compatible

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, has recently published a book called Why Evolution is True, and started up a blog of the same name. He’s come out swinging in the science/religion debates, taking a hard line against “accomodationism” — the rhetorical strategy on the part of some pro-science people and organizations to paper over conflicts between science and religion so that religious believers can be more comfortable accepting the truth of evolution and other scientific ideas. Chris Mooney and others have taken up the other side, while Russell Blackford and others have supported Coyne, and since electrons are free there have been an awful lot of blog posts.

Source Link: blogs.discovermagazine.com...

I've always believed Religion and Science were not a perfect marriage. Throughout my pursuit in higher education it was very clear that they don't mix, as a perosn who had attended church services and then would return to the lab at school things simply didn't make scence, when working on a project of a scientific value with a religious mind it simply caused everybody at the table to get slammed against a wall of distraction and confusion. I enjoyed this article and hope that members do as well.

Depends on how you interpret your religion.

If you sit and take every word from some book as indisputable fact sure you'll have conflict. Same goes for science. Not time-tested things like the laws of thermodynamics but this pop-science crap like "climate change."

I'm saddened to hear so many people live these absolutely literal lives. Their day to day existence must be nothing but one contradiction after another with layers upon layers of lies and rationalizations just to cope.

Science and Religion go vey well together. If they are both looked at with an open mindness and both sides get rid of their egos.

It is like a marriage that is failing because both sides blame the other one for the problems. The marriage could be saved if both sides put their egos aside and have an adult conversation.

Why couldn't have God made everything and Evolution take over and make improvements as imes have changed?

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.


Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind

To understand the universe is to understand god.

- Albert Einstein

reply to post by jd140


I tend to agree with you. Quite honestly, I have never understood the squabble between Creationists and Evolutionists. It has never made sense to me. To me, it's like two children fighting over a damned ball.

Originally posted by jd140
Science and Religion go vey well together. If they are both looked at with an open mindness and both sides get rid of their egos.

It is like a marriage that is failing because both sides blame the other one for the problems. The marriage could be saved if both sides put their egos aside and have an adult conversation.

Why couldn't have God made everything and Evolution take over and make improvements as imes have changed?

Indeed. People repeatedly believe it HAS to be one OR the other, when it is fully possible with both.
Personally, I believe "Something" together with Evolution was combined with arriving 'gods' that took the halfly evolved Man and made that Man in THEIR image.

Originally posted by jd140
Why couldn't have God made everything and Evolution take over and make improvements as imes have changed?

i'll go one step further,
every system that we understand in the universe is constantly changing, from the relative positions of galaxies to the composition of stars to the charge of atomic particles, the universe is one dynamic system inside another inside another all the way down from top to bottom and they're all interacting and changing each other.

any god who created this universe is clearly a fan of dynamic systems.

if life is gods greatest creation then the dynamism and adaptability of life seems to be self suggestive. he couldn't possibly have created it as a static, unchanging entity.

Originally posted by jd140
Science and Religion go vey well together. If they are both looked at with an open mindness and both sides get rid of their egos.

It is like a marriage that is failing because both sides blame the other one for the problems. The marriage could be saved if both sides put their egos aside and have an adult conversation.

Why couldn't have God made everything and Evolution take over and make improvements as imes have changed?

Where does it end? The first myths about the origin of mankind were completely wrong, some of the more ridiculous ones -- such as Adam and Eve still being embraced today.

Moreover, the "religious right" thinks it has moral authority to tell people how they should live, what they should be allowed to do, and that there is a divine hand at play in the universe.

How much ground does religious mythology have to lose before you accept that the WHOLE THING is a load of $#*@? Why are all the claims made by holy books refuted time and time again, yet people still want to take an ethics lesson from these books.

How long will religion be used as a tool to solve problems?
Every time a new discovery is made in science, religion's razor becomes more dull, unable to cut where it once penetrated deep into the core of contemporary thought.

Times are changing, and religion is finding itself on the fast track to being exposed for what it is -- superstition and mythology which has no place in the 21st century.

reply to post by Nightchild


Let's look at it like plants. Both those plants have similar but different root systems (the beginning of each respective species) but those roots came from a common seed (the beginning of all life).

All life has a common ancestor. Breaking down "god" into scientific terms is what we are supposed to be doing at this point. The written word should not be held at face value and I'd like to think that a universal consciousness would take pride in one of its individual manifestations becoming aware of the greater whole.

Each side leads to different exclusions of parts of the right answer.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]

reply to post by Kaytagg


doesn't it depend on what place you put religion and as thisguyrightthere said, weather you take it as indisputable fact.

clearly, the whole thing isn't $#*@, you shouldn't kill people seems like a good idea, you shouldn't steal....some of it is utter $#*@ but you hae to be as careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you do of not letting the child drown in it.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
How much ground does religious mythology have to lose before you accept that the WHOLE THING is a load of $#*@? Why are all the claims made by holy books refuted time and time again, yet people still want to take an ethics lesson from these books.

How long will religion be used as a tool to solve problems?

There is a reason Roman and Greek and other myths are still told, read and taught. They teach plenty of lessons, offer solutions to problems, have cultural significance, and very simply they are art.

Whether or not Zeus is sitting on some cloud training a lightning bolt on your rear is not the point.

reply to post by Rams59lb


Hi,

Think those before have made some good points. From my experience (limited!) the more I read about quantum physics and cosmology the more I see a melding of religion, biology, psychology, chemistry and all the other 'gies'. There are some lucid thinkers who are starting to move beyond their particular fields (in science) and are starting to think laterally. Maybe the other 'partner' needs to do the same?

I firmly believe that as we learn (and understand) the more fundamental and obvious things will become. Maybe there are too many man-made trappings on both sides?

Peace!



[edit on 24-6-2009 by The Wave]

in 2000 years our actual science will be remembered as "religion"

and scientific tools as "sacred objects"


in the end its all the same

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Kaytagg

 

doesn't it depend on what place you put religion and as thisguyrightthere said, weather you take it as indisputable fact.

clearly, the whole thing isn't $#*@, you shouldn't kill people seems like a good idea, you shouldn't steal....some of it is utter $#*@ but you hae to be as careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you do of not letting the child drown in it.

You need religion to tell you not to kill or steal? The former rule largely ignored by a lot of Christians, by the way. How do you explain the death penalty? How do you explain America's war's of aggression, lead by the republican religious christian right, no less.

Don't you think the world might be a better place if we simply use our own brains and common sense, rather than an antiquated book of legends and myth to solve our ethical, social, and scientific dilemmas?

Originally posted by Eitimzevinten
reply to post by Nightchild

 

Let's look at it like plants. Both those plants have similar but different root systems (the beginning of each respective species) but those roots came from a common seed (the beginning of all life).

All life has a common ancestor. Breaking down "god" into scientific terms is what we are supposed to be doing at this point. The written word should not be held at face value and I'd like to think that a universal consciousness would take pride in one of its individual manifestations becoming aware of the greater whole.

Each side leads to different exclusions of parts of the right answer.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]

Well, new species arrising from hybridisation comes to be all the time.
And regarding 'God', it all depends on exactly what 'God' is. Or
rather; what the CREATOR of "modern" Man is. It's really nothing odd or "impossible" at all with the concept of a bunch of arriving astronauts that decides to stay for a good while, and then gives rise to a new species by crossbreeding.

Nor does this exclude an existence of a "Divine consciousness.

reply to post by The Wave


Thank you "Wave" for your post. I honestly have to say that I was simply sharing how confusing it was as a youth obtaining an education and dealing with "Teachers/Professors" teaching science and then hearing my Pastors teaching religion as an answer to everything. I am a very spiritual person and find that all of the points/postings made in this thread are very well thoughtout, well stated and leaves it open for good discusion of members.

Originally posted by ozzraven
in 2000 years our actual science will be remembered as "religion"

and scientific tools as "sacred objects"


in the end its all the same

Yeah, and the Biotechnology will be forgotten too, but will still be found scribbled down in big books, describing various procedures going; "'And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh...'"

reply to post by Kaytagg


You are one of those I was referring to in my post. Excusing your behavior by pointing fingers.

Its always the religious ones who have it wrong. They are trying to tell everyone how to run our lives.

You forget about the scientist who develop viruses that can end all human life on earth. Talk about running our lives, eh.

Bad people on both sides. Its not the fault of only one side.

When you say "religion", I assume you are actually referring to the Bible.
If this is the case then I would have to say, "sorry to disappoint you but the two actually can work together".

Just one small item out of many I can quickly point out is our diet.
Why is Science just now discovering that many of the foods disccused in the Bible are actually essential for good health?

...also the foods the Bible mentions to avoid, Science can explain why they are detrimental.

reply to post by Nightchild


I'm not saying the idea of us being hybrids isn't plausible, I'm focusing more on the origin of all life and consciousness not just our own. We're just a drop in the pond especially when you run the numbers concerning every galaxy in the universe (a number I don't think we have full comprehension of just yet).

I'm defining "god" as an origin for all life not just our written word "gods" pertaining to just our origin. A lot of (and increasing) evidence suggests they are exactly what you have stated earlier.