Is science incompatible with religion?

[Dwalin2010]

I think the quote I posted on top of this page is pretty outrageous but that just might be my opinion.

Do you mean this?

Unless science can find a way to prove without a shred of doubt that the universe was created by something that definitely was not God, I think it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existance of God

But what's wrong with stating it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existence of God? Posters above said it's simply "not needed", so why should people worry at all whether it's possible to prove or not?

An eternity in Heaven would be pretty boring too though. If I had to spend an eternity in Heaven I'd probably just try to kill myself, but it wouldn't work out lol. Maybe it's for the best in the end.

Well, it depends on how Heaven is actually presented. I don't think it's that simple as the medieval Christian hell where people are fried by devils or the Muslim Paradise where people are womanizing with multiple virgins. Those are primitive views, in this I agree with the atheists.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Vorena]

Religion is a theory with the promise that there is something beyond one's understanding that has distinctive influence over people. With the unfortunate result that one cannot really prove or disprove the theory. If anything its a pretty terrible theory and predominately has only practical aspects in the ideas of morals and teachings through story. This is really the only merit religion ends up having (someone will chew me out with other examples of what it is good for). My general opinion is that religion is compatible with science because ultimately it uses reason and logic to attempt to achieve a conclusion. That is a very scientific thing to do. The downside is that its a theory that often it is not usually very good at explaining things well and what is used as evidence or logic is often questionable.

I would agree religion and science are compatible, but one has to realize they are still not quite the same. Religion is more than simply a theory to try to explain what is around us. Its helps to guide one's way of living at times depending upon how you would treat it. Science on the other hand is often only concerned with fitting an explanation to something that exists. Its up to everyone else to decide what they will do with that knowledge. Therefore, they parallel some common traits with each other, but ultimately attempt to achieve relatively different things.

[Rapier]

I didn't see this gem. No one who is studying logic should make asinine arguments like this.

We also can't disprove the existence of a scientifically undetectable pink unicorn. Why take God seriously, but ignore the possibility of the existence of a pink unicorn?

Occam's razor is used for this problem: even if we can't disprove the existence of God, pink unicorns etc. we can still reject their existence simply because they're unneeded in our theories.

As far as I know, there is nothing logically wrong with saying you need a positive claim to disprove God, which is what I said regarding science. To disprove God, they need a positive scientific claim... It's basic reasoning, lol.

Also, Occam's Razor is a method for erasing unnecessary parts from a theory. It has no place in applying a value to whether something is true or false. It can not be used to establish whether God's existance is true or not...

Are pink unicorns irrelevant? I'd argue most people think so. Even if it exists, as long as it doesn't eat my carrots, I'm fine with it. Is God irrelevant, though? I think many people would argue that a being who supposedly created the universe and has a big role in how we came to be is too (ideally, at least) relevant to be cast away by Occam's Razor. Maybe God is irrelevant to science, alright, but to the big picture he shouldn't be.

i don't get why the burden of proof lies upon us when the other side is the one actually making claims!

It seems both statements "both are compatible sometimes" and "they are overall incompatible" don't contradict themselves, as I thought they did. It is perfectly possible for both to be overall incompatible and only compatible in very rare cases, my mistake.

And I did make a claim, but it's irrelevant to cite it now since I am done with this part.

Making outrageous, baseless claims and expecting the other side to "disprove" it is essentially a step back into the middle ages.

I'm very glad I didn't do that. If you had read my post more closely, you'd have seen I argued that, because science doesn't always contradict religion (see science defining what a rainbow is and religion defining what a rainbow is. Both statements do not contradict each other. This is my base for my claim), it is sometimes compatible, even if they are overall essencially incompatible (faith versus evidence, for example).

So let's see, my claim has a base. Check.

I expected the other side to show me how the statement "both are sometimes compatible" (which is my claim) is incorrect. Check.

I don't seem to be in violation to logic and science's methods.

---

By the way, I've looked in the dictionary for the definition of reason.

a. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction: "There are good reasons to learn a foreign language".

Don't see how religion is unreasonable, based on this definition. Nowhere it says that reason is deducing stuff from empirical evidences and observation, which is plain scientificism...

Edited July 12, 2015 by Rapier

[Espinosa]

The definition you're looking for is "the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts". But eh, choosing the other one can't possibly make this discussion any worse.

[Rapier]

The definition you're looking for is "the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts". But eh, choosing the other one can't possibly make this discussion any worse.

Is reason essencially limited to practical facts, though? That's my concern.

And yeah, agreed. I'm letting the ship sink.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Rapier

[Makaze]

The opening post says it all:

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.

Science and religion are incompatible because their methods are opposed. Science relies on indirect testing: ruling out alternatives to the hypothesis and determining truth by process of elimination. Religion is not derived from experimentation, it is taught. Where religion does experiment, it relies solely on direct testing: If X occurs, my conclusion is true. The idea that religion and science are compatible exists because there are people who think that this is not a problem. Look at the people in this thread who think that Russel's teapot is invalid.

The reason we can safely rule out God's existence is because of indirect testing. Direct testing for God might go something like: "I will pray for X. If God exists, then X will occur." Note that when making a scientific hypothesis, we do not generalize. This hypothesis requires that this direct progression is an absolute truth and can be replicated perfectly every time. The corollary of direct testing like this is that if it is valid, then a negative result means God does not exist. Religion would largely suggest that a positive result in this direct test is conclusive proof for God's existence, but that a negative result is inconclusive for his nonexistence. That is bad science.

The scientific approach to this question isn't so narrow. The indirect way to test that hypothesis is science's answer. It might look something like: "I will pray for the branch to snap in two. If this occurs, it could be the wind, the age of the tree, God exists and did what I wanted, someone or something else exists and did what I wanted, et cetera. I will do tests that, if positive, would rule out each of these options until only one remains. I will under no circumstances stop my testing early because one option does not get ruled out." This approach will invariably lead to a more accurate conclusion compared to direct testing.

Science has failed to rule out swathes of natural, testable models for the universe that do not include God. Every direct test proposed to prove God's existence has had inconsistent results, a sign that there is another cause for the positives. If your test returns false, even once, that proves that your hypothesis is false as well and needs to be adjusted. You need to do indirect testing to rule out alternatives. That same philosophy applies to testing religion. If your prayer does get answered, but not in ways consistent with the hypothesis (e.g. not all of the time), that is a sign that your hypothesis is not the cause for the prayers being answered at all and you need to apply indirect testing to rule other things out. Continuing to believe that you have the right answer because of a handful of positive results instead of moving on to indirect testing is what we call superstition. These two philosophies of proof are completely incompatible.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Makaze

[Izhuark]

Okay this is tricky... And i think that blaze the great fears reaveled to be true.... So people need to learn that even tough in a logical way opinions are still opinions : Even crazy logicians can't throw in your face that your are wrong because their conception of how logic work says so, it's the equivalent of religious people saying that you are statment is false because it's written in the sky. I believe, and i think most can agree on this, that you can't deny someone philosophy by saying that your own is the better one, it's only a way to conceptualize the world like religions do and one is no more legitimate or noble than the other.

Logic isn't science by any means : it's science that USE logic to analyse our environnement but by being over pragmatic, in my humble opinion, i think that we are just denaturing life, taking out the unknown for the sake of an all powered "logic", in brief trivalize humanity. On the other hand i agree beleving too much in the scriptures, once again in my opinion, can blind us out of life's truth, taking out the known for the sake of an hypotetical all powered "god", in brief trivalize humanity. We all have conception(s) of the world that surround us why couldn't we take what we think good in symbolism and spirituality and what we think is good in science and logical way of thinking ? Pushed at it's paroxysm logic is just a belief between a thousand of other.

Please evryone do not forget our heirloom has human with herited of milleniums of knownledge and philosophy... Look nothing prevent philosopher to be scientist or poet while still believing that their something beyond us : Plato one of the father of the metaphysic wrote on the front of his school "enter here only those who are geometer" ; Pascal who made one of the first calculating machine and created the scale that we use today to calculate pressure was a very religious man and one of the most influencing philosopher. Don't forget this phrase, i think it's very important in a world that trie to separate and "classify" different kind of knowledge :

"Science without conscience is the death of the soul." François Rabelais

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[dondon151]

Except most scientific theories that posit that the universe grew from nothing require some sort of outside impetus to start the process? Saying that we can reject the existence of God with great certainty is false; we can't do anything like that at all.

i am not a cosmologist, but i am almost certain that what you're saying about the need for an outside force to create the universe is not commonly accepted by cosmologists.

We can dispute the exact written word of most religions, but that doesn't really matter. Religion is a theory made up of many different parts. Disproving one part of it doesn't mean the entire thing is wrong.

in modern times, not once has a religion made a claim that has caused science to reconsider its view of the world. the trend is the opposite: science makes claims and religion has to accommodate for those claims in order to maintain its adherents and allow for the development of society. this is a clear indication that science and religion are incompatible.

we tend to think that science is limited in its domain because it can't answer ethical questions. this is also false; ethical questions can be assessed through a scientific method where outcomes are measured as a result of ethical decisions. not only can science tell us that the world is more than 6000 years old, but its method can also tell us that abstinence is not an effective contraceptive strategy when used alone, which is a message that most conservative christian communities do not like to hear.

as i've stated before, science and religion not only conflict largely in their content, but also in their methodology.

Edited July 12, 2015 by dondon151

[Blaze The Great]

i am not a cosmologist, but i am almost certain that what you're saying about the need for an outside force to create the universe is not commonly accepted by cosmologists.

in modern times, not once has a religion made a claim that has caused science to reconsider its view of the world. the trend is the opposite: science makes claims and religion has to accommodate for those claims in order to maintain its adherents and allow for the development of society. this is a clear indication that science and religion are incompatible.

we tend to think that science is limited in its domain because it can't answer ethical questions. this is also false; ethical questions can be assessed through a scientific method where outcomes are measured as a result of ethical decisions. not only can science tell us that the world is more than 6000 years old, but its method can also tell us that abstinence is not an effective contraceptive strategy when used alone, which is a message that most conservative christian communities do not like to hear.

as i've stated before, science and religion not only conflict largely in their content, but also in their methodology.

Bolded part, I assume that you are speaking about abstinence as an idea, rather than abstinence as a practice. As an idea, it's much too naive and will never be fully put into practice. But as a practical solution, if it were fully implemented, it is THE ultimate contraceptive measure.

[Snowy_One]

My dad likes Michael Bay movies. I cannot stand them. We do not agree here and likely never will; yet we are compatible.

Science and religion are, indeed, compatible. In the past religion was the driving motive of science (understanding the world) and, while that has changed over the years, it does show that they were compatible at at least one time. As far as I'm concerned we live in a vast and wonderous universe; and anyone who can sit down and turn that into a debate of science vs. religion doesn't really care about either.

[Izhuark]

Too bad there isn't a way to like post without quoting...

My dad likes Michael Bay movies. I cannot stand them. We do not agree here and likely never will; yet we are compatible.

Science and religion are, indeed, compatible. In the past religion was the driving motive of science (understanding the world) and, while that has changed over the years, it does show that they were compatible at at least one time. As far as I'm concerned we live in a vast and wonderous universe; and anyone who can sit down and turn that into a debate of science vs. religion doesn't really care about either.

Thank to resumate wonderfully what i was desperately trying to tell in my 3 paragraph of cryptic phrase and bad grammar... ^^

have a good day or night sir.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[Phoenix Wright]

i am not a cosmologist, but i am almost certain that what you're saying about the need for an outside force to create the universe is not commonly accepted by cosmologists.

it's a "problem" that's pretty much ignored. since physics started after the big bang, it's impossible to study pre-big bang.

but the problem does exist, i think. along with all the other creation questions that aren't answerable (how did it get there etc. etc.). it's just a philosophical one.

It seems both statements "both are compatible sometimes" and "they are overall incompatible" don't contradict themselves, as I thought they did. It is perfectly possible for both to be overall incompatible and only compatible in very rare cases, my mistake.

even still, when are they sometimes compatible?

My dad likes Michael Bay movies. I cannot stand them. We do not agree here and likely never will; yet we are compatible.

Science and religion are, indeed, compatible. In the past religion was the driving motive of science (understanding the world) and, while that has changed over the years, it does show that they were compatible at at least one time. As far as I'm concerned we live in a vast and wonderous universe; and anyone who can sit down and turn that into a debate of science vs. religion doesn't really care about either.

i feel like you did not read at least the first page of this topic.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Pixelman]

My dad likes Michael Bay movies. I cannot stand them. We do not agree here and likely never will; yet we are compatible.

Science and religion are, indeed, compatible. In the past religion was the driving motive of science (understanding the world) and, while that has changed over the years, it does show that they were compatible at at least one time. As far as I'm concerned we live in a vast and wonderous universe; and anyone who can sit down and turn that into a debate of science vs. religion doesn't really care about either.

Did you even read through the topic?

Chiki addressed this earlier, lol

EDIT: Here's the post:

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.

also, ninja'd

Edited July 12, 2015 by PixelmanFE

[Izhuark]

Did you even read through the topic?

Chiki addressed this earlier, lol

EDIT: Here's the post:

also, ninja'd

i feel like you did not read at least the first two pages of this topic.

It there really any need of it ? i read the 4 page until know and all it was was a ping pong of people saying that their pragmatic philosophie was better than the other's (not targeting you in particular) and other people trying to defend their chunk of self expression... I don't know if all philosophical topic turn like this on SF but that's kinda sad actually.

[Phoenix Wright]

i've been pretty respectful, i feel (and i believe nexus said as much too, so there's that), and i have argued the same as dondon and olwen.

religion requires faith.

science rejects faith.

they are wholly incompatible because they fundamentally contradict in their structure and methods. no one has attempted to address this for some reason.

and like i've said twice now, whether they contradict doesn't matter anyway. i don't think having a religion makes you a bad scientist and i don't think attempting to understand the natural world as it actually is makes you a bad religious person. as dondon more succintly put it, the two are not incompatible within the same person. there will be cognitive dissonance, but i suppose that's okay.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Izhuark]

Sorry bad phrasing when i said that i was not targeting you in particular i meant not really and even not at all i was just for describe the general feeling that i had reading trough those page. For me the essence and goal of a philosophical debate is to evolve the way we see the situation by confronting it other point of view and eventually if we don't find a mutual agreement at least acknowledge other's opinion ; so it's just infuriating for me to see people crushing other human being's reasoning with cold logical arguments, at least it's how i felt it.

You've made a pretty good point and i agree with you on the last part at least.

but i have question, don't you think that logic and so science require somme sort of "faith" ? By faith i mean the volition to devote yourself to this cause and believe in the path that other peoples traced before you. That seem for me no so different thant the religious faith but maybe am i wrong ?

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[Pixelman]

It there really any need of it ? i read the 4 page until know and all it was was a ping pong of people saying that their pragmatic philosophie was better than the other's (not targeting you in particular) and other people trying to defend their chunk of self expression... I don't know if all philosophical topic turn like this on SF but that's kinda sad actually.

Yes, because people bring up some good points

also, something you say could have already been explained earlier in the thread

[Izhuark]

Yes, because people bring up some good points

also, something you say could have already been explained earlier in the thread

Did you read my entiere post ? ^^

I already said that i read those 4 page but i then explain why i didn't liked at all the general feeling they gave me, even if interresting point were made there were given for the most part in way that i really don't like...

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[I.M. Gei]

Did you read my entiere post ? ^^

I already said that i read those 4 page but i then explain why i didn't liked at all the general feeling they gave me, even if interresting point were made there were given for the most part in way that i really don't like...

i don't think it's fair to discount a post's substance simply because you don't like the style in which the poster said it

[Izhuark]

The way you turn a phrase is sadly how most will receive it : (i'm exegarating but here's an exemple )if you blame people for not loving each other enough by screaming at them especially if their total strangers i'm not sure they will be able to appreciate the substance, as beautiful as she is, that you'r trying to give them.

But we are getting off topic here.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[Phoenix Wright]

but i have question, don't you think that logic and so science require somme sort of "faith" ? By faith i mean the volition to devote yourself to this cause and believe in the path that other peoples traced before you. That seem for me no so different thant the religious faith but maybe am i wrong ?

i don't think that should be our definition of faith! to me, what you are describing is passion for a certain subject. and i think science, generally, requires lots of passion because most won't be making beaucoup bucks and it's lots of work that sometimes isn't all that rewarding. the same is probably true for those whose passion is philosophy. traditionally, scientists care deeply about the path traced for us. within physics, it's the reason why most people have a hard-on for newton and brahe and copernicus and many others.

faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof. in this way, i think the two are very different.

i don't think it's fair to discount a post's substance simply because you don't like the style in which the poster said it

agreed. at the same time, i think it's important to be respectful, since people tend to ignore reason when core beliefs are being challenged, and especially since people are less likely to listen when they feel they're being attacked for their beliefs.

[Izhuark]

Okay i guess i understand where i was wrong now, sorry for the bothering and thank you for your patience.

nontheless on a more philosophical than pratical side i think that it's still possible to make a link between the two. When you see philosopher like Plato you really can't dissociate the faith into something invisible and purely logical (princiaplly mathematical) concept, for exemple when he give a solid shape to each element ; he even say that human soul is based on a mathematical structure... For him after all philosophy even if it's conceptualize thing we can't see it's still a "science" for him. I even remember Socrate in one of his dialogue describing philosophy as "science of science". Therefore at this time philosophy was also use for discuse on religious and mythological topics isn't it ?

So where do you place philosophy in all this or at least this special kind of philosophy ? (P.S : Or maybe the real question is "were do you place mathematique ?" when i think about it...)

Edited July 12, 2015 by Izhuark

[Rapier]

even still, when are they sometimes compatible?

When science is used to describe phenomenons. Science doesn't always touch the origins of phenomenons, which is what religion does all the time (God made the universe, rainbows, a pegasus etc.). When it tells how things are instead of what exactly they are and where they come from, it does not conflict with religion. As I said, do the statements "God made rainbows" and "Rainbows are actually phenomenons generated by (...)" directly contradict each other? In medieval times, science in Europe was pretty much seen as a tool to "understand God's creation", under the catholic church influence. Did they reach a point where science needed to be regulated by the church's ideology due to their incompatibilities? Yes. But sometimes they don't conflict, and it historically didn't for some time, until Galileo and, IIRC, Giordano Bruno.

As a sidenote, while some posts here do border on intolerance imo, posters such as Phoenix Wright and Chiki (like in this one) have been civil and politely addressing other people's points. I don't take offense in any of their posts in this thread. I confess I am ignorant about the topic's matter, I confess that most knowledge people around here have is far beyond my level, and I apologize for sounding silly, but I wished to start a discussion because I could not reach a conclusion about this matter alone, and I want to be less ignorant. If my posts seem outrageous, then do educate me better about the subject, instead of shoving in my face that I make stupid, "outrageous" posts. I hope we can maintain the topic's civility, thanks.

[Snowy_One]

Did you even read through the topic?

Chiki addressed this earlier, lol

EDIT: Here's the post:

also, ninja'd

The problem with that statement is that it assumes that science is infallible and that religions never change and act independent of science in regards to how they treat the world when, in fact, science itself can become a religion. The faith that science can answer every problem and question despite a lack of knowledge and/or theory for the solution is just as much a matter of faith as believing a divine being can provide said answers as well. There really is no point in continuing much further in the debate.

If religion deals with the unknown and science with the known then the two are not incompatible in the slightest as they inhabit entirely different spheres of reality. A prime example of this is aliens. Many people believe that there are intelligent beings out there in the cosmos. However much of the evidence provided is false or questionable with nothing conclusive. Yet science does say that its POSSIBLE. So how is it okay to believe in aliens without proof and not an extra-dimensional being that can call itself God without proof?

[Phoenix Wright]

When science is used to describe phenomenons. Science doesn't always touch the origins of phenomenons, which is what religion does all the time (God made the universe, rainbows, a pegasus etc.). When it tells how things are instead of what exactly they are and where they come from, it does not conflict with religion. As I said, do the statements "God made rainbows" and "Rainbows are actually phenomenons generated by (...)" directly contradict each other? In medieval times, science in Europe was pretty much seen as a tool to "understand God's creation", under the catholic church influence. Did they reach a point where science needed to be regulated by the church's ideology due to their incompatibilities? Yes. But sometimes they don't conflict, and it historically didn't for some time, until Galileo and, IIRC, Giordano Bruno.

haha, sure, the bible and science both agree that rainbows exist. this is trivial.

how does religion attempt to explain how rainbows exist? it's a fairly complicated phenomenon--i doubt religion can explain it. the statement that god made dogs, frogs, and logs directly contradicts with what we know because we know that's not how they were made! we know how rainbows are made.

any form of "god did it" contradicts science either because it contradicts what we presently know, or attempts to reject the intellectual basis of science--curiosity. well, also the basis of the doing science, which is experimentation.

imo, there really isn't a way to reconcile the two unless a scientist has the perspective of "god created it ('it' meaning the universe) this way so that we may discover it."

historically it didn't conflict because what the church said is what we knew, or just had no clue about.

The problem with that statement is that it assumes that science is infallible and that religions never change and act independent of science in regards to how they treat the world when, in fact, science itself can become a religion. The faith that science can answer every problem and question despite a lack of knowledge and/or theory for the solution is just as much a matter of faith as believing a divine being can provide said answers as well. There really is no point in continuing much further in the debate.

If religion deals with the unknown and science with the known then the two are not incompatible in the slightest as they inhabit entirely different spheres of reality. A prime example of this is aliens. Many people believe that there are intelligent beings out there in the cosmos. However much of the evidence provided is false or questionable with nothing conclusive. Yet science does say that its POSSIBLE. So how is it okay to believe in aliens without proof and not an extra-dimensional being that can call itself God without proof?

it does not assume that at all! for a person, science can become more than a body of knowledge. astrophysicist carl sagan said in his final

before his death that, "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe." sagan, and indeed for many, many individual scientists, the practice of science can be something more. planetary scientist carolyn porco argues that "the same spiritual fulfillment that people find in religion can be found in science," for example. however, this is far different from religion because these values are not meant to be shared across those who practice it, rather it is deeply personal for every individual person. science is only a body of knowledge. religion is not this way. if you are christian or islamic or jewish, you adhere to the beliefs not-so-neatly conveyed by holy texts and the interpretations of officials. you are not constrained in this way in science--this is precisely why you can be a scientist and religious person. you can't be a muslim and a christian. you can't be a scientologist and a jew.

science is a direct rejection of religion. also, no one thinks that science can answer every question. there are areas in which science does concern itself with--the existence of deities is one of those areas. the supernatural in general, actually.

why do you say science deals with the "known"? the entire point of science is making the unknown known in a valid and reliable way.