Sciences vs. Religion

[mkotova]

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"

[chris_eriksson]

Science and religion can co-exist. The problem comes in misinterpretations of either.

[krishna_lit]

I love these lines from Dan Brown's ANGELS & DEMONS book "Science and religion are not enemies! There are simply two things where science is just too young to understand."

Well, that explains a lot.

[cacian]

yes one feeds from the other. take one out and the other means nothing.

[Calidore]

I love these lines from Dan Brown's ANGELS & DEMONS book "Science and religion are not enemies! There are simply two things where science is just too young to understand."

Well, that explains a lot.

Good grief, is that actually a word-for-word quote from a published novel?

[cafolini]

They have always co-ex-isted as they do today and will do tomorrow. Neither ever had to justify the other.

[Volya]

Good grief, is that actually a word-for-word quote from a published novel?

I believe it's actually 'Science and religion are not enemies, there are simply some things that science is too young to understand'

[cacian]

I believe it's actually 'Science and religion are not enemies, there are simply some things that science is too young to understand'

or that religion is too old and dated to be understood and science therefore lags behind not knowing what to do.

[Nick Capozzoli]

or that religion is too old and dated to be understood and science therefore lags behind not knowing what to do.

That is an interesting way to look at it, though I'm not sure why science should have a problem understanding religion just because it is "old." Doesn't science deal with varying degrees of success, with very old things (like the origins of the universe and life)? If you think of "science" (derived from a Latin verb, scire) as "knowing and understanding the world), then this activity could also describe a purpose served by religion. Certainly early humans, having developed the capacity to reason, employed that capacity to explain for themselves what the world is and how the world works. And this reasoning ability served useful purposes that allowed humans to successfully interact with their world and survive.

What we call "religion" or "religious thinking" came much earlier in human evolution than what we today call "science." But you could argue that both activities derive from the same human psychological substrate and drive to "make sense" of the world. Indeed, nearly all religions have "creation stories" to explain how the world came to be, and also have various stories to account for natural phenomena (e.g. Zeus throwing thunderbolts, Haephaestus's forge blowing off sparks in erupting volcanos (his latin equivalent was Vulcan), etc.).

The main difference is that the explanations ("stories") of modern science involve (or should involve) "verifiability," which is to say that they should be allowed to be subject to tests of their "truth." These tests are what we call "experiments," which basically involve in various ways comparing our explanatory "stories" with our experience of the world. Both "experiment" and "experience" share etymology. Religion as we understand it today doesn't allow for such "testing." Science gives primacy to human reason and experience. It, like religion, is driven by a human need to have psychologically satisfying "explanations," but unlike religion, it allows its explanations to be uncertain and always subject to testing and revision. Religion, on the other hand, demands what we call "belief" in its explanations, and generally doesn't allow for questioning or testing of its ideas. Because of this, one can see that religion offers believers a greater degree of "certainty" that could be considered more "comforting" than science to those who want a final sense of certainty.

It's hard to say when in the recorded history of human civilization that "science" began to distinguish itself from "religion." For Western Civilization, I think that the separation began with the ancient Greek mathematicians/physicists, though the distinction occurred much earlier in prehistory. Certainly we can see people thinking "scientifically" about the world in, for example, the experimentation that led Eratosthenes to calculate the circumference of the earth with great accuracy. He was able to do so by assuming that the world corresponded in some way to mathematical (geometrical) ideas, and he was intelligent enough to figure out a simple experiment to test that correspondence. In many ways this was not very different from what Einstein did two millennia later when he proposed a mathematical explanation of the world that was tested and (for the time being) confirmed by astronomical observations of stars during a solar eclipse.

The difference between religious and scientific thinking has nothing to do with "logical reasoning." There is a long history of complex "logical reasoning" by religious thinkers. Thomas Aquinas employed logic in an effort to prove the existence of God based on basic assumptions about Nature. The "physics" of Aristotle is for the most part an attempt to describe nature by the application of assumed a priori physical principles. Aristotle came to a lot of conclusions about things, such as how a falling body should behave, based on "logical" extrapolations from these assumptions (in modern terminology "hypotheses"). Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas were "scientists" in that they did not really allow any way for their hypotheses to be tested by experiment. They were certainly capable of thinking logically. But they were by no means "scientists."

Religion itself is, contrary to some popular belief, not inimical to rationality. Some of the greatest religious thinkers have been master logicians. Aquinas would serve as a great example for Christians. In Judaism we have the example of Talmudic scholarship, which to my mind represents the most extensive and intensive recorded effort of religious thinkers to apply human reason to religious behavior. These scholars were (and are to this day) basically concerned with logically interpreting the "meaning" of the Torah scriptures and determining how they should be applied to guide our life in the world. But however much religious thinkers may value human reason, they do not allow for the testing of and potential "falsification" of the religious hypotheses.

[MorpheusSandman]

Depends on what you mean by "co-exist." In the literal sense they DO co-exist as we have both science and religion in the modern world. If you mean are they compatible with each other, that depends on specifics. Most religions make some scientific claims about how reality works, and most of these claims have already been debunked by science. So, eg, a literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, etc. Most religions are what might be termed "culture dumps," mass collections of how certain people at a certain time thought about everything from politics to morality to cosmology. None of those things are immune to progression, and progression (not just scientific) have, indeed, made a huge amount of religion obsolete. A good article on this subject in general: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions...ondisprovable/

[mal4mac]

Religion and science do coexist fairly well in modern liberal democracies, don't they? As long as religious people can't impose their beliefs on others, there is no reason for liberal, atheist, scientists not to coexist happily with religious people. Even Dawkins coexists happily with Christians; that is, he doesn't drum up a lynch mob to impose his views on them, he just has a good argument with them. Christian influence still interrupts valuable scientific progress, now and again, e.g., Bush banning stem cell research. But, even then, religion & science seem to be co-existing fairly well, in general, in the USA (and even better in Europe!)

[cacian]

the other thing to think about is this:
whilst science and religion may or may not co exist they still are part of the daily grind. the question could we live without them?
and if not why not?
science goes beyond what is considered the norms because it thinks it can. in a lab it makes and bakes but also burns. the purpose of science is to lurk behind nature to see if it can copy it. copycat style.
religion packs morals to hound the individual and gives him sins to think about and the more it brags on about wrongs and the more wrong it gets.

Copernicus and Galilei tried to make people see reason that one does not hinder the other.

reason? what reason? a human is a reason to see one is to see reason.

Copernicus: “it is an endeavor to seek truth in everything”

I do not think so. i think one needs to seek logic if one is to get anywhere. it is not about the truth it is about how one go from A to B without destroying all and each other.

Galilei: "If we have these gifts from God (intellect, curious), why should we not use them and just let them sit"

I don't know about gift but I think necessity is the word . it is needed to make sense of what life is about.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Religion and science do coexist fairly well in modern liberal democracies, don't they? As long as religious people can't impose their beliefs on others, there is no reason for liberal, atheist, scientists not to coexist happily with religious people. Even Dawkins coexists happily with Christians; that is, he doesn't drum up a lynch mob to impose his views on them, he just has a good argument with them. Christian influence still interrupts valuable scientific progress, now and again, e.g., Bush banning stem cell research. But, even then, religion & science seem to be co-existing fairly well, in general, in the USA (and even better in Europe!)

mal4mac,

I completely agree with your comment. Excellent. Thank you.

[Melanie]

...As long as religious people can't impose their beliefs on others, there is no reason for liberal, atheist, scientists not to coexist happily with religious people. Even Dawkins coexists happily with Christians; that is, he doesn't drum up a lynch mob to impose his views on them, he just has a good argument with them....

Why am I not surprised that an atheist, would label their beliefs "a good argument" while labeling Christian's beliefs as "imposing their beliefs on others". Dawkins is certainly imposing his beliefs on others.

[mal4mac]

Why am I not surprised that an atheist, would label their beliefs "a good argument" while labeling Christian's beliefs as "imposing their beliefs on others". Dawkins is certainly imposing his beliefs on others.

In that sentence I was suggesting that *both* Dawkins and his Christian opposition have an interesting argument *together*. I wasn't, there, trying to suggest that Dawkins has the best argument, although, of course, he does

Dawkins never imposes his views on the people he is arguing with. How could he? If he pulled out a gun and said, "Deny God now!", he'd (quite rightly!) be arrested.

A recent example of religious people forcing their views on others is the LSE (London School of Economics) officials who kicked atheists out of the Fresher's fair for wearing a Jesus & Mo t-shirt. They should not be allowed to do that, just as atheists should not be allowed to kick Christians out of the Fresher's fair for wearing a t-shirt making fun of Dawkins. In fact, when have you ever heard of atheists getting violent because Dawkins has been insulted? It's always the religious types who have become violent in these situations, never the liberal atheists.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ssion-religion