I often times hear people say I am religious but see how science works. Meaning that they think science and religion are compatible. I am not entirely convinced they are. I think often times their conclusions might be compatible, but that is only by chance.

Science is a search for the truth about natural phenomanon. It uses empirical experiments with observation. We start out knowing nothing and through science we can attempt to find the truth, but we must understand that we never have the truth, only an approximation of the truth.

Religion on the other hand, gives one the truth. The diety, or the book of your choice, tells one what is the truth. Truths such as a god exists, and so on. There isn't any room for debate here. If you prescribe to the religion, then you assume it is true.

There are completely backwards from one another. One starts with nothing, the other starts with everything. How can anyone say these are compatible. Many times, there outcome will agree on the same level but not through the same method.

Because of this I have a hard time understanding how one can call themselves a religious scientist. If they think science is so wrong that the riligion needs to trump it, why do they put any stock into science in the first place?

Perhaps you should look at how Catholic dogma can embrace the book of Genesis but can also endorse evolution and the big bang as a valid scientific theory.

Science is a method by which we attempt to understand the physical world.

Religion/spirituality is a method by which we attempt to understand the world, which may not be entirely physical.

I don't personally see a conflict.

I also think you're unfairly lumping all religious belief into one category. I consider that I have religious/spiritual beliefs, but I don't pretend that they are "the Truth" for the entire seen and unseen universe.

Whether one excepts one or both depends on their view point. Ludi’s example shows how one can accept both. On the other side of the coin though if someone needs to be shown proof before accepting something then the idea of adhering to a specific religion on the basis of faith would be incompatible.

Science offers us a way of describing and predicting the world around us. Though when we decide to accept a given scientific theory again depends on the burden of proof we as an individual need. Some scientific questions like how the universe was created, and will it continue to expand or will it ultimately contract are still up for debate.

Because of this I have a hard time understanding how one can call themselves a religious scientist. If they think science is so wrong that the riligion needs to trump it, why do they put any stock into science in the first place? Many people who adhere to whatever religion do not mix the two. Some people simply believe in a higher power, and still accept scientific theory.

Science is about testing theories to discover fact; religion is about faith. It's when people use religion in an attempt to "disprove" science that the two cannot coexist. Not everyone who believes in "god" imagines he snapped his fingers and the world appeared, and that this all took place just a few thousands years ago. It's actually quite common for people to believe evolution, and the natural, scientific order of things, is all a part of a grand plan. In the mind of a true believer, it is not necessary to prove the existence of god. That's why it is called faith.

The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake.
- H.L. Mencken

Faith is like wine: it's healthy in small amounts and it makes you feel good, but if it controls your life, you're screwed.

There's only a conflict if you are a fundamentalist. For instance, if you take the Book of Genesis completely literally (which makes no logical sense at all), then it's incompatible with the theory of evolution.

If you take the creation story in Genesis (actually it's told twice in two different ways, because it too evolved from more ancient creation myths) as symbolic or as a metaphor, then it's completely compatible with the theory of evolution. One day can be symbolic of a million years or more, right? The order in which God created everything even more or less follows the order of how we evolved.

Many people see the Bible (or other religious text) as divinely inspired and as offering great insight into why we are here and how to live a good life, but they don't see it as the literal word of God or as a guide book to follow to the letter. For those people, religion and science are quite compatible.

Science can explain a lot, but it can't explain how everything started to begin with and it can't entirely explain slippery concepts like morality. That's where spirituality takes over for some people.

Religion on the other hand, gives one the truth. The diety, or the book of your choice, tells one what is the truth. Truths such as a god exists, and so on. There isn't any room for debate here. If you prescribe to the religion, then you assume it is true.


Just to add, this is a very narrow definition of religion. Someone can consider themselves to be religious and not slavishly adhere to a certain dogma.

>>We start out knowing nothing and through science we can attempt to find the truth, but we must understand that we never have the truth, only an approximation of the truth.>>

Science does not start out with nothing. Rather, it starts out with certain epistemological assumptions, such as that there are discrete entities in the world, that these entities have a definite existence outside of the observer-observed interaction (quantum mechanics is beginning to stretch this), and that these entities are set in causal relations with one another. In other words, science begins with its own faith. Also, many scientists appear to forget that they cannot discern the truth.

>>Religion on the other hand, gives one the truth. The diety, or the book of your choice, tells one what is the truth. Truths such as a god exists, and so on. There isn't any room for debate here. If you prescribe to the religion, then you assume it is true.>>

Many times, the irreligious (such as you and I) forget that fervent belief depends on religious experience, experience you and I have not had, in addition to faith. Religious people actually KNOW god, in addition to assuming him/her/it/whatever.

>>Because of this I have a hard time understanding how one can call themselves a religious scientist. >>

I think that most often, religious and scientific questions occupy different domains. The questions of intelligent design or god's very existence, for example, are non-scientific, that is, not subject to empirical disconfirmation. One could face the same set of observations and hold the same body of theory (evolution is most pertinent), and it still wouldn't matter whether one did or did not believe in god or intelligent design.

>>Science is a method by which we attempt to understand the physical world.

Religion/spirituality is a method by which we attempt to understand the world, which may not be entirely physical.>>

hmmm...I think this phrasing of the issue presupposes a hard physical/spiritual split...I'm not quite comfortable with that.

>>Science is about testing theories to discover fact>>

Actually, science is about testing theories against given facts to see whether we may continue to hold them tentatively. (sorry to be a stickler)

ebola

>>Science is a method by which we attempt to understand the physical world.

Religion/spirituality is a method by which we attempt to understand the world, which may not be entirely physical.>>

hmmm...I think this phrasing of the issue presupposes a hard physical/spiritual split...I'm not quite comfortable with that.ebola


Really? I don't see it presupposing such a thing. However, as I understand it, science does not deal with any non-physical aspects of the world.

It depends what religion you are talking about. By your post, I'm assuming you mean Christianity. Not all religious beliefs are incompatible with science.


My desk calendar had a quote from Albert Einstein on it "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind". I like that.

I guess I'm wondering what Einstein actually meant by that. What he meant by "lame."

>>Really? I don't see it presupposing such a thing. However, as I understand it, science does not deal with any non-physical aspects of the world.>>

well...I guess the question is, what do we mean by "physical"?
Is it a type of substance, or just a way of interpreting the "isness"?

ebola

Many times, the irreligious (such as you and I) forget that fervent belief depends on religious experience, experience you and I have not had, in addition to faith. Religious people actually KNOW god, in addition to assuming him/her/it/whatever.


Not necessarily. I was devoutly Christian for the first half of my life and I never "knew" God. I don't think my experience was unusual.

I've had a much more profound experience of "knowing" (a deity(?)) after losing my faith.

>>Really? I don't see it presupposing such a thing. However, as I understand it, science does not deal with any non-physical aspects of the world.>>

well...I guess the question is, what do we mean by "physical"?
Is it a type of substance, or just a way of interpreting the "isness"?

ebola


Yes, well, "physical" is maybe not the best word. "Potentially measureable properties" might be better.

Not have way.

I think the isness that science interprets seems to be somewhat different than the isness that spirituality interprets. Science doesn't seem to deal with interpreting God, for instance. Unless you call God "isness." But at least according to Christian theology, God is separate from the "isness" that science seems to be attempting to interpret, what would be called "Creation."

re: the dichotomy of science vs. religion and philosophy, some would of course argue that philosophy can be (and some of it should be) not only a science but the "strictest" science there is.

The existance of God cannot be proven or disroven. Science is all relative to our perception of the universe. Therefore, although science is proven to be true, there is too much that is beyond our means of intelligence and understanding.

I say, take a little bit of both and come to your own conclusions.

Some might, but I'd probably say "pflllff!"

I'm not all that impressed with philosophy as a "science."

Therefore, although science is proven to be true, there is too much that is beyond our means of intelligence and understanding.



I'm not sure what that means - "science is proven to be true."

Can you explain?

I'm not all that impressed with philosophy as a "science."Could you expand on that? How do you define 'science' in a wide sense (which doesn't include only the natural sciences, for example)? And, most interestingly, how do you define 'philosophy'? ;)

Meaning, most science has been proven to be true. Evolution is a theory, I believe, that has not been proven. However, much of science IS. I am not taking science's side...I am just saying that being "all or nothing" in terms of religion or science is not, imo, the right way to go about assessing ones view. I believe that starting with a blank slate...a state of mind pretty much cleared...and taking in what science has to say and what many religious texts and experts say, is the best way to come to a personal conclusion.

Yes, I realize I am using science in an extremely broad term. But, science in any kind has some kind of factual nature to it. Therefore, in a world where no one knows the answers to the big questions in life, science seems like the only somewhat narrow gateway to some answers. :\

Meaning, most science has been proven to be true. Evolution is a theory, I believe, that has not been proven.


Hmm. I'd say the theory of evolution is one of the bits of science that has the most evidence to support it!

>>
Not necessarily. I was devoutly Christian for the first half of my life and I never "knew" God. I don't think my experience was unusual.>>

hmmm...just wondering then, what kept you devout? And, yeah, I was noting a tendency, not an iron-clad rule.

>>But at least according to Christian theology, God is separate from the "isness" that science seems to be attempting to interpret, what would be called "Creation.">>

Heh...I don't like this interpretation of Christianity (nor do I like the way in which it lends credence to the spirit/matter split). But then again, that's likely why I'm not a Xian.

>>Science would be the foundation of a great house>>

As I have argued, science depends on a body of philosophical presuppositions to serve as its underpinnings. The nature of these presuppositions as assumed is most clear in the social sciences.

>>some would of course argue that philosophy can be (and some of it should be) not only a science but the "strictest" science there is.>>

They failed.

>>Meaning, most science has been proven to be true. Evolution is a theory, I believe, that has not been proven. However, much of science IS.>>

As a scientist in training, I disagree. Science lacks the mechanisms to prove its theoretical conclusions. It can, however, lend support to them, sometimes with astounding reliability.



ebola

Could you expand on that?


Probably not, at least not right now. :)