Can religion and science co-exist? Does one hinder the progress of the other? Copernicus and Galilei tried to make people see reason that one does not hinder the other. Did they succeed?
Copernicus: “it is an endeavor to seek truth in everything”
Galilei: "If we have these gifts from God (intellect, curious), why should we not use them and just let them sit"
They have always co-ex-isted as they do today and will do tomorrow. Neither ever had to justify the other.
Religion and science cannot co-exist. Religion involves believing stuff without evidence. Science is about believing the evidence. Science should be used to “cure” the world of religion, not co-exist with it, apart from treating the religious kindly until they are cured.
“I hope for a world in which everyone is rational and believes things only when there is evidence in favor of them... And does not believe things because of tradition, authority, scripture, revelation… but only because of evidence.” - Richard Dawkins, http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_a...state-vanguard
It looks like this is a duplicate thread.
I agree with cafolini. Science and religion do coexist. There is no problem with their coexistence.
In the other thread, mortalterror pointed out that the claim that they don't coexist was created in the 19th century by atheists. This "conflict thesis" is no longer widely supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
In that Wikipedia article is the following:
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White's and Draper's accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them". In a summary of the historiography of the Conflict Thesis, Colin Russell said that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship".
Gould's use of the word "myths" above is appropriate.
Last edited by YesNo; 10-16-2013 at 11:58 AM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Richard Dawkins, and others, have demolished Gould's "two magisteria" position. Religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. Dawkins writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.
Dawkins is no authority for me on anything, scientific or religious. His claims need evidence and your quote provides none.Originally Posted by mal4mac
I don't see any inherent conflict between religion and science. There have been and are differences between people both within and across each of these two legitimate areas of human activity, but overall there is no need to remove one to benefit the other. They both lead to truth and the good life.
There is, however, a heated conflict between atheism and theistic religions. That certainly exists. However, it is a 19th=century atheistic myth that there exists some sort of conflict between science and religion and somehow atheists are on the side of science. Considering how 20th century science demolished materialistic determinism, I don't see atheists on the side of science except as one other their delusions.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Can not co-exist?
Let me explain God in simple mathematics (without surpassing the laws of maths or science).
(I can also explain it using numerous different methodologies but I believe this extremely summarised and simplified explanation will be sufficient)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12……....…
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
But in truth……..
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number. In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".
Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1
"1" is the core of our mathematical numeric system. This is also the reason why binary system (the language of computers) is so successful.
What's so special about "1" is it is also complete
1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5x4=20
One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
There is also another restriction of the number (1)
That is because by itself can not do much.
It needs a medium or a language to communicate.
x, ÷ , √ , Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Example
3x2 =6
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 (E=mc2)
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)
Let me rephrase the question
from my brief explanation above what would be
1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????
It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute Infinity
∞
Something beyond all bounds and ends
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)
The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞
What so special about this equation?
It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞
It explains that we have the option I'd either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment "=" our good deeds out way our bad
1 + (+>-) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + (+<-) = - ∞
Hell
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+-)
__________________
Quote: “If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.”
So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________
Mathematics studies the (+ | – ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | – ) laws.
__________________
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily….
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | – ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________
Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(1=∞) Pantheist, the universe is God
(1= ∞) Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
1 + (+|-) = ∞ Christianity,
father 1 = ∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son
Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not,
nor is begotten
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
__________________
Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
I'm merely saying the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed
Science is evidence based, religion is not. The more rational they are, the less part irrational things will play in their life. So little children drop belief in such entities as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as they become more rational. When people become more rational, more scientific, they start dropping beliefs in such entities as Zeus and Yahweh, for which there is no good evidence. This is indicated by 97% of FRS not being religious, as reported in Dawkins, "the God Delusion".
They are both evidence based. You might as well say there is a conflict between science and literature or science and art. All of these human activities deserve respect and approach truth in their own ways.
The reason atheists pick on religion rather than literature or art is because they represent a competing set of religious opinions that are opposed to opinions offered by theistic religions. It is dishonest, if not irrational, to pit science against religion when what is at stake are missionaries promoting their different world views. Theists are no less rational than atheists. They are no less scientific than atheists.
Atheists present a spaghetti monster view of the universe. The entities that atheists use to caricature the Gods of theists don't exist, but neither does that spaghetti monster universe of materialistic atoms deterministically interacting. Because that spaghetti monster universe doesn't exist, I don't see the point of atheism. Why pay attention to a religion or metaphysics whose view of the universe has been scientifically falsified?
Here's a further question that makes me suspicious of atheists, especially people like Dawkins. Why does it bother atheists so much that other people believe differently than they do?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Science and religion can easily coexist. Being a Christian, none of my Catholic beliefs conflict with any scientific anything. Sadly, I think it is more the science community that has a problem with religion than the other way around. And why listen to Dawkins? He's a scientist, not a philosopher. He seems to me a bitter old man who's afraid to believe in something better. It's kind of sad. He's completely lost the child-like awe that opens up new perceptions.
I don't think science disproves religion, but even makes better arguments for it. It is strange, after all, how the world is so mathematically precise, and yet we believe that it was formed from some big accident. I mean, maybe, but one has to ask themselves why the earth came about so precise through such a random explosion, if that was the case.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
You accept things without sufficient evidence, scientists receive years of training which encourages them to not do this. I can't see how they can compartmentalise their life into an "evidence based" aspect and "tooth fairy" aspect without doing great damage to their psyche. Fortunately only 3% of them attempt this.
Scientists don't make any scientific arguments for God; that would be to explain a mystery ("origin of the Big bang") by a concept without experimental backing ("God"). Scientists aren't in the business of doing that. There are some speculative hypotheses that look very promising, and that have no need to involve fictional characters ("Multiverse").
Science and religion can't coexist they can only, perhaps, exist as two non-overlapping magisteria (to use Gould's phraseology.) Though I take Dawkin's view that we can drop, and would be best advised to drop, one of these magisteria.
Last edited by mal4mac; 10-18-2013 at 04:40 AM.
There is no need to follow Dawkins. There is also no need to drop either science or religion. It won't happen anyway. They are not at odds.
However, considering how science has discredited the materialistic determinism that grounds atheism, it might be rational and scientific to drop atheism as perhaps the least likely of any religion out there.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I dunno - American politics has become a religion to some people. Maybe we should dispense with politics, and revert to the sort of theocratic government which existed in the Sumerian city-states prior to the politico-military leadership which arose 4,500 years ago. Look at the advantages - a government controlled by God, who never spoke, except through His priests, who were part and parcel to the citizenry, and who generally invoked the will of the people, and beautiful temples instead of that hideous pseudo-neoclassical White House. Not only would "hitting the opposition with a Bill" cease completely, since laws would be written on clay tablets, but we could turn the Pentagon into a dynamite roller rink.
I'm not saying science has any business in talking about God. Science can only talk about material things. All I'm saying is that science and religion do not contradict. I live comfortably with both (like most other Christians) and have no problem at all. I don't have to drop neither. How about that?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
