Rapier Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 That question may seem stupid, but bear with me for a while. I've been thinking about this for a bit. So, correct me if I am wrong, but religion and science attempt to answer the same question through different methods: What are we, why are we here, what is the universe around us, and so on. Science tries to answers this through deep analysis, rigid methods, observation and empirical researches. Religion seems to try to answer this through metaphysics, tradition and myths. Both are not limited to these traits, of course. I can see why religion and science conflict sometimes. For example, if religion says the Earth is old, but we scientifically know it is new, then there is undoubtly a conflict. But in some cases, I don't see how both conflict. Suppose the Bible says God made rainbows as a pact with humanity that he won't flood it again, and science gives the scientific explanation for what rainbows are. In that case, both knowledges do not contradict each other, because the statements "God made rainbows" and "Rainbows are phenomenas that happen because of x" do not conflict. In fact, when christianity was ideologically dominant in the Middle Ages, science was a tool for understanding theological "truths" in the many universities created by the catholic church in Europe. So I've concluded that whenever science is used to explain the phenomenons as they are, it doesn't conflict with religion. But when it explains the origins of phenomenons (which it does poorly, imo, but it's somewhat unrelated to the topic), there is controversy. So, science and religion do not necessarily conflict with each other. What's your opinion about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Do they conflict in some cases? Yes Are they incompatible? No Back in the days when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other religions were founded, we didn't have the grasp of science that we do now. I think a lot of conflict between religion and science has arisen from the authors of these books not being able to fully put into words what they experienced, thus making it seem as if they were saying things that were incompatible with science. That being said, I wasn't there, so I won't claim full certainty of anything. Also, myself being a devout Christian, I believe that science has a great purpose and it is important to study. Being a Christian does not mean you reject science (or a Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist, for that matter). It's entirely possible to see the merit of both science and religion in their respective purposes, as long as you don't try to mix the two (like using religion as a science). All that to say, I don't think religion and science are incompatible, and I am sure there are lots of others who feel the same way. Hopefully this topic doesn't explode like most topics involving religion do. Edited July 11, 2015 by Blaze The Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 If they conflict in some cases, it follows by basic logic that they're incompatible. So yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Well...first of all, I think it depends on just what religion you're talking about. After all, "Scientology" is an entirely different beast from, say, the Roman Pantheon, and stuff like that. If you're talking about the Judeo-Christian religion and other similar ones though, then no, I don't think they are incompatible, for the same reason you brought up. If they conflict in some cases, it follows by basic logic that they're incompatible. So yes. I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Sometimes, I think the seeming "conflict" is only a result of a lack of understanding on our part. I mean, suppose someone tells us to be "kind, but firm". If there's a conflict between those two traits, it's not because those two traits are incompatible. It's simply because some people don't know HOW they can be compatible. Edited July 11, 2015 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) If they conflict in some cases, it follows by basic logic that they're incompatible. So yes. No, it follows that they are incompatible in some cases, but not all. If I could represent them in a Venn diagram, some parts would touch, while others wouldn't. The statement that they're incompatible (taken as an universal maxim) is only true iff there is absolutely no way for both to be compatible. I showed there is at least one occurence where they are compatible. By basic logic, it shows it's possible for both science and religion to be compatible. What am I missing? I can see I'd be wrong if compatibility necessitates absolute lack of conflict in all aspects. In that case, even if I say it is compatible in some cases, since it is not fully compatible, it's incompatible. But that seems logically off mark... Well...first of all, I think it depends on just what religion you're talking about. After all, "Scientology" is an entirely different beast from, say, the Roman Pantheon, and stuff like that. If you're talking about the Judeo-Christian religion and other similar ones though, then no, I don't think they are incompatible, for the same reason you brought up. Religion overall, as a field of knowledge, was what I was referring to. Edited July 11, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) No, it follows that they are incompatible in some cases, but not all. If I could represent them in a Venn diagram, some parts would touch, while others wouldn't. The statement that they're incompatible (taken as an universal maxim) is only true iff there is absolutely no way for both to be compatible. I showed there is at least one occurence where they are compatible. By basic logic, it shows it's possible for both science and religion to be compatible. What am I missing? I can see I'd be wrong if compatibility necessitates absolute lack of conflict in all aspects. In that case, even if I say it is compatible in some cases, since it is not fully compatible, it's incompatible. But that seems logically off mark... Bolded part is false. If there's at least one occurrence where two things are compatible and there is no other occurrence in which they are compatible, it does not follow that they are compatible overall. Absolutely not. Compatibility is not as strict in certain cases, but it is stricter in others, and in some cases it has to be a perfect fit. For example, a man may not be completely compatible with his girlfriend, because the girl might have a temper problem while the man is very calm. But you can still call them "compatible" if they work out in other ways. One way to show that compatibility is necessary is certain cases is this: just imagine a key and a lock, and there's only one key for the lock in the world which is a perfect fit. No other key fits. Then we can say that a perfect fit is necessary for compatibility, with no middle ground. Science vs. religion is one of the necessary cases. If you want to talk about theories about the nature of reality (religion vs. science), in order to be compatible, they must not make any conflicting claims. If the nature of humans is such that God made us according to religion, and God did not according to science, even if they make the same exact claims about everything else (which they do not), then intuitively, they are not compatible. Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) If you want to talk about theories about the nature of reality (religion vs. science), in order to be compatible, they must not make any conflicting claims. If the nature of humans is such that God made us according to religion, and God did not according to science, even if they make the same exact claims about everything else (which they do not), then intuitively, they are not compatible. Wait...but where exactly does science say that God did not create anything? I thought all science was ever concerned about was trying to come up with theories to explain the natural phenomena that we can observe in our world? EDIT: Just looked up the dictionary, and, all it says on the matter is that science is..."systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." So religion really doesn't play a factor in there at all. Edited July 11, 2015 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Wait...but where exactly does science say that God did not create anything? I thought all science was ever concerned about was trying to come up with theories to explain the natural phenomena that we can observe in our world? Religion says that God instantly created us by snapping his fingers. Science says that we were created in a period of around 4 billion years in a very gradual process of natural selection. An instance vs 4 billion years. There is no way to reconcile these two statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Bolded part is false. If there's at least one occurrence where two things are compatible and there is no other occurrence in which they are compatible, it does not follow that they are compatible overall. Hold on, Chiki, I'm saying they are compatible in some cases and incompatible in other cases. I'm not saying science and religion are compatible overall. Using the key analogy, some keys are compatible with my door's lock (the people who live in the house all have access to it, let's suppose), so how is it not valid to say that some keys are compatible to my door's lock because there are some keys that match with it? Science vs. religion is one of the necessary cases. If you want to talk about theories about the nature of reality (religion vs. science), in order to be compatible, they must not make any conflicting claims. If the nature of humans is such that God made us according to religion, and God did not according to science, even if they make the same exact claims about everything else (which they do not), then intuitively, they are not compatible. I see. So in that case, this comparison demands a very rigid compatibility. So (assuming that) even if science and religion do not conflict in 99% of the cases, if it conflicts in at least one case, it is incompatible. What I didn't understand is how we make that avaliation per case. How am I to know which cases are more rigid and which cases are more flexible? Is there an accurate way, or is it part of the unending discussion of intuitive logic that nobody quite knows what is absolutely true? Edited July 11, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Religion says that God instantly created us by snapping his fingers. Science says that we were created in a period of around 4 billion years in a very gradual process of natural selection. An instance vs 4 billion years. There is no way to reconcile these two statements. I take the "instantly created" (in the Bible it actually is several days) part as an allegory, that God just determined the physical laws, not that everything appeared out of nowhere like in a computer game. Those "days" may have actually been billions of years. The Bible is full of allegories that I don't think are supposed to be interpreted literally. As for other religions, I can't say, not being familiar with them enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Evidence/Observation vs Belief/Faith... That's sounds interesting. I take the "instantly created" (in the Bible it actually is several days) part as an allegory, that God just determined the physical laws, not that everything appeared out of nowhere like in a computer game. Those "days" may have actually been billions of years. The Bible is full of allegories that I don't think are supposed to be interpreted literally. As for other religions, I can't say, not being familiar with them enough. That's the problem with religious books, they try to be as much vague as possible. Edited July 11, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Science says that we were created in a period of around 4 billion years in a very gradual process of natural selection. Eh...are you sure that's not just what science is theorizing? Last I heard, according to Scientific Method, you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your theory by testing it under controlled conditions, after which, other people have to be able to replicate your results. But I can't see how you can do that with a process that takes 4 billion years, when we only live for like, 110 years tops. So frankly, I'd be kind of stunned if anyone who calls him/herself a scientist is trying to claim that as a fact rather than a simple theory. Edited July 11, 2015 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) I take the "instantly created" (in the Bible it actually is several days) part as an allegory, that God just determined the physical laws, not that everything appeared out of nowhere like in a computer game. Those "days" may have actually been billions of years. The Bible is full of allegories that I don't think are supposed to be interpreted literally. As for other religions, I can't say, not being familiar with them enough. Why take 4 billion years rather than do it instantly? God is omnipotent. Hold on, Chiki, I'm saying they are compatible in some cases and incompatible in other cases. I'm not saying science and religion are compatible overall. Using the key analogy, some keys are compatible with my door's lock (the people who live in the house all have access to it, let's suppose), so how is it not valid to say that some keys are compatible to my door's lock because there are some keys that match with it? I see. So in that case, this comparison demands a very rigid compatibility. So (assuming that) even if science and religion do not conflict in 99% of the cases, if it conflicts in at least one case, it is incompatible. What I didn't understand is how we make that avaliation per case. How am I to know which cases are more rigid and which cases are more flexible? Is there an accurate way, or is it part of the unending discussion of intuitive logic that nobody quite knows what is absolutely true? If you're not saying that science and religion are compatible overall, then you're rejecting your entire argument (since the title of this thread is "is science incompatible with religion?". Now that I think about it, it doesn't matter how many keys there are. But suppose there was even the slightest atom misplaced in the key that prevented the lock from unlocking. Then perfect compatibility would be needed. Bolded part: this involves definitions rather than logic. You have to use your brain to see what the right definition is. It's something that is very easy for me to do since I've had a lot of training, but it's not easy for people without training. Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why take 4 billion years rather than do it instantly? God is omnipotent. Well, I am not an expert and can only express my personal opinion, but I take it that God supposedly wants humans (and all nature for that matter) to have freedom to act and develop without being forced by anything and limited his personal intervention to the minimum by only introducing basic physical laws. Theoretically, God can do as he pleases, but doesn't want a universe full of dependent obedient puppets/zombies without free will. Don't know, I think maybe some of God's reasons we can't understand (at least yet): to make a relatively rough comparison, it's like trying to interact with an alien civilization 100000000000000 bilions of years ahead of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Fionorde: Evolution is a fact. Well, I am not an expert and can only express my personal opinion, but I take it that God supposedly wants humans (and all nature for that matter) to have freedom to act and develop without being forced by anything and limited his personal intervention to the minimum by only introducing basic physical laws. Theoretically, God can do as he pleases, but doesn't want a universe full of dependent obedient puppets/zombies without free will. Don't know, I think maybe some of God's reasons we can't understand (at least yet): to make a relatively rough comparison, it's like trying to interact with an alien civilization 100000000000000 bilions of years ahead of us. Why can't God give us free will despite the fact that we were created instantly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Compatibility, definition: "A state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why can't God give us free will despite the fact that we were created instantly? Again, I can only make allegations: in the Bible Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise for their sins and had to start a new life. Maybe the whole long evolution thing is something that was symbolically needed for a sort of "purification" or "starting over" for the newly formed humans. I know, it probably sounds like nonsense, I am just trying to make a hypothesis how it's possible to be religious without denying the obvious fact that evolution took place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) yes, they are incompatible. belief in a deity or many deities is not incompatible, but religions are definitely incompatible. this is due to reasons outlined above (by olwen). and, though a specific case is used (christianity), i'd be willing to bet all religions have a fundamental incompatibility with science. however, i do not think this means that religious scientists are inherently bad at conducting science. this could not be farther from the truth. it is a sort of cognitive dissonance that those scientists deal with (or i guess choose not to deal with). so the answer is yes, they are incompatible--but also that it doesn't matter. a bad scientist will do bad science, and religion can be blamed for it (eg, an astrophysicist that is also a ye creationist and looks for evidece of the ye belief), but a good scientist will just ignore the religious bits altogether. sort of like georges lemaitre and how his view was "god created it this way so that we may discover it." Eh...are you sure that's not just what science is theorizing? Last I heard, according to Scientific Method, you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your theory by testing it under controlled conditions, after which, other people have to be able to replicate your results. But I can't see how you can do that with a process that takes 4 billion years, when we only live for like, 110 years tops. So frankly, I'd be kind of stunned if anyone who calls him/herself a scientist is trying to claim that as a fact rather than a simple theory. note: you don't need to capitalize "scientific method." you mistake the word theory for how powerful it can actually be. that we live in a matrix-like simulation is a "theory," but general relativity, which attempts to explain the behaviors of gravity, is also a theory. scientific theories can hold a lot of weight, getting into "law" territory, but are also those questions which we have yet to come to a substantial answer for. think something like the "many-worlds interpretation" or "string theory." honestly, the word "theory" is used very confusingly in science. the best advice i can give you is to take it on a case-by-case basis and research what you're interested in. string theory is indeed a weak theory, but evolutionary theory is for all intents and purposes a natural law. there is nothing that supports that something besides evolution is the case. afaik, anyway. you're also mistaking what the scientific method is. i'm really not even sure what you're talking about with "controlled conditions," in this context. scientists formulate a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and retreive data from said experiment. perhaps the wikipedia page on the age of the earth can help clear some confusion. additionally, the age of the universe can be explored. edit: ah, i think i see what you mean with controlled conditions. with the age of the earth, we make sure that radiometric dating is actually valid (which it is), that the data is reproducible (it is), and that other possible variables that can affect data are held constant (probably are. i've never read the papers myself). Edited July 11, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Again, I can only make allegations: in the Bible Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise for their sins and had to start a new life. Maybe the whole long evolution thing is something that was symbolically needed for a sort of "purification" or "starting over" for the newly formed humans. I know, it probably sounds like nonsense, I am just trying to make a hypothesis how it's possible to be religious without denying the obvious fact that evolution took place. You can keep trying, but it honestly won't work. According to the theory of evolution, there are no "newly formed humans." This evolution is very very gradual. There was a point at which humans were like chimpanzees, and a point at which humans are as we know it today, and several million years of a middle ground where there are chimpanzee-like creatures evolving into people. There were creatures which had very very very slight differences from Adam and Eve, so why weren't they considered human too? It makes no sense in evolutionary terms to say that there is a first human, or a first cat, or whatever. Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 You can keep trying, but it honestly won't work. According to the theory of evolution, there are no "newly formed humans." This evolution is very very gradual. There was a point at which humans were like chimpanzees, and a point at which humans are as we know it today, and several million years of a middle ground. There were creatures which had very very very slight differences from Adam and Eve, so why weren't they considered human too? What do you mean, they weren't considered human? Neanderthal people for example were human in my book; for that matter, any alien civilization (if they exist) are equal to humans from the religious point of view as I take it. And of course evolution is gradual, whatever existed before the formation of the physical universe is supposed to be on a purely "spirit" plane, like Paradise and Hell aren't supposed to exist in any "physical" point of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Yes evolution happened like a gradient by spliting into different species. It is also still happening, our descendants in 10 millions years won't really look much like us. (And they'll maybe even not be within the same species) Edited July 11, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 What do you mean, they weren't considered human? Neanderthal people for example were human in my book; for that matter, any alien civilization (if they exist) are equal to humans from the religious point of view as I take it. And of course evolution is gradual, whatever existed before the formation of the physical universe is supposed to be on a purely "spirit" plane, like Paradise and Hell aren't supposed to exist in any "physical" point of the universe. Aren't Adam and Eve supposed to be humans just like us? So according to the Bible, Neanderthals wouldn't be considered human. If you think Neanderthals are human, and religion says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, this undermines your attempts to reconcile the two. It's unlikely but not impossible that Neanderthals even had the ability to converse with one another (due to the skeletal structure of their neck bones, it's more likely that they were capable of sign language if they had linguistic capabilities like us). So if Adam and Eve were Neanderthals, they probably communicated with each other using sign language. Doesn't this undermine the entire story in the Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Aren't Adam and Eve supposed to be humans just like us? So according to the Bible, Neanderthals wouldn't be considered human. If you think Neanderthals are human, and religion says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, this undermines your attempts to reconcile the two. It's unlikely but not impossible that Neanderthals even had the ability to converse with one another (due to the skeletal structure of their neck bones, it's more likely that they were capable of sign language if they had linguistic capabilities like us). So if Adam and Eve were Neanderthals, they probably communicated with each other using sign language. Doesn't this undermine the entire story in the Bible? I think it doesn't undermine anything. Probably Adam and Eve are represented like us because that way we would understand the allegory and the bond with God better. Who knows what kind of way to God Neanderthals would have, had they survived? Maybe the Bible wouldn't have been written that way at all if both species still existed on the planet. And, if somewhere there is a civilization of aliens who have tentacles, wings and 4 genders instead of 2, they surely have a different type of "Bible" if they aren't an atheistic society. Edited July 11, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) I think it doesn't undermine anything. Probably Adam and Eve are represented like us because that way we would understand the allegory and the bond with God better. Who knows what kind of way to God Neanderthals would have, had they survived? Maybe the Bible wouldn't have been written that way at all if both species still existed on the planet. And, if somewhere there is a civilization of aliens who have tentacles, wings and 4 genders instead of 2, they surely have a different type of "Bible" if they aren't an atheistic society. It does undermine things. Suppose Adam and Eve were Neanderthals. Since Neanderthals were made in God's image, why did we evolve? Are we better than God or what? Why did we evolve the ability to speak rather than sign? I could go on for ages. All these indicate that God is not perfect at all. Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) It does undermine things. Suppose Adam and Eve were Neanderthals. Since Neanderthals were made in God's image, why did we evolve? Are we better than God or what? Why did we evolve the ability to speak rather than sign? I could go on for ages. All these indicate that God is not perfect at all. You should be careful with this since we didn't evolve from Neanderthals. (But our species does share common ancestors) They were as much intelligent as ancient homo sapiens. They got extinct mostly because the earth was getting hotter instead of getting colder. Edited July 11, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.