Can religion and science coexist?

[Bobby-21]

During my study of argumentative writing at college i did a research project on 'can religion and science coexist?' in the sense that an individual can be religious and have a strong belief in scientific principles.
One time a team of christians who were all scientists.( harvard graduates with their PhDs) came to inform that god did make everything, evolution does not exist and the earth is less than 10 000 years old.
I had a lot of questions for them but i want to get some feedback on the topic.

[FilterDreaming]

I believe they can co-exist.

Science is the explanation and god is the reason (in theory. I do not believe in religion).

Who is to say that "The big bang" wasn't Gods doing? And who is to say that he didn't make creatures able to evolve?

The only way to truly know is to ask the big man himself.

[Flarky]

Yes

[petersingerjr25]

Religion is a search for truth, and so is science. The only difference is that science does this in a logical manner called the scientific method.
In fact science should complement religion because they are both quests for truth. The only problem are people who keep sticking to their beliefs despite evidence pointing to the contrary. It's not wrong to challenge accepted truths but not too much, especially those with overwhelming evidence.
The world would be a better place if everyone had a scientific mind.

[goldenboyz]

Now? No.

[UninvitedGuest]

Depends on what religion.

Some religions are more philosophy-oriented, other religions are like political doctrines that require you to be close-minded.

What matters more is how followers interpret their religions.

There is only one Torah but Jews are separated into different sects depending on how they see themselves in the modern world; Orthodox Jews interpret their holy book in a very direct way while Reform Jews focus more on how they function in the societies they assimilate to and see their religion as a part of tradition and culture rather than an actual doctrine requiring deep commitment.

I identify myself as a Buddhist because it's an important part of my culture and identity but I understand that the way I conduct myself when I'm at my worst is very contradictory to what Buddhism actually teaches.

I can be very vain, materialistic and ego-driven, but it's how I aspire to act that's the source of my identity as a Buddhist and my failure to do so that is the source of my shame.

[SuperReallyGoodAtMathGuy]

It depends on the claims religion wants to make. Traditionally religion has been used to explain everything about the world around us, starting with creation and moving along to why humans are here, and where we go when we die. None of this tends to be central to religion: christianity is really about the belief that Jesus is your savior and died for your sins. Islam is about submission to Allah and honoring him. Who knows what jews really believe anymore. Anyway, the point is the central tenets of the religions tend to not contradict science. The problem comes when believers cling to the explanations that were once meant to explain what we today can study scientifically. For instance Christians who still oppose evolution because they see it as casting doubt on all of the Bible. As long as they do this, they will be unscientific, regardless of how sophisticated they get in coming up with arguments for intelligent design.

On a more philosophical level, I believe they are naturally opposed. Religion is about tradition and upholding beliefs with faith rather than reason. Religious believers are taught that belief without evidence is a virtue. In practice of course many of them will not do so, and if you promise a Christian one million dollars to have sex with you, they are more likely to decline because they doubt you can follow through than because they see prostitution as wrong. But the mindset is there. Science is antithetical to this, it teaches us to question everything, even the views of the great scientists of the past. Newton may have been a great physicist and mathematician, but his work was incomplete and the recognition that we can improve on it rather than take it as absolute gospel is central to understanding why Einstein is such a celebrated man.
For this reason I think science is corrosive to faith, and so to religion.

[zachharrison2010]

I had a biology professor who made a lot of sense on the subject. He said that the world is like a square room, or technically a cube I guess. Science and religion a both a spherical ball that can explain things in the world. No matter how big the ball gets, and regardless of which ball it is, there will be some things that cannot be explained by it. Sometimes the balls bounce parallel to each other in agreement, sometimes they hit head on, but neither can ever bust the other.

[SuperReallyGoodAtMathGuy]

I had a biology professor who made a lot of sense on the subject. He said that the world is like a square room, or technically a cube I guess. Science and religion a both a spherical ball that can explain things in the world. No matter how big the ball gets, and regardless of which ball it is, there will be some things that cannot be explained by it. Sometimes the balls bounce parallel to each other in agreement, sometimes they hit head on, but neither can ever bust the other.

Thats a cute analogy, but as with all analogies I have heard on the subject, there is no reason to think it is accurate. I don't see how this makes any sense honestly because there is no good reason to picture the world, science, or religion the way your professor described.

[zachharrison2010]

Thats a cute analogy, but as with all analogies I have heard on the subject, there is no reason to think it is accurate. I don't see how this makes any sense honestly because there is no good reason to picture the world, science, or religion the way your professor described.

Actually there is plenty of reason to think that it is accurate. It is fact that there are something that both science and religion simply cannot explain. And its also fact that sometimes the two align and sometimes they clash.

[Mr_Quick]

During my study of argumentative writing at college i did a research project on 'can religion and science coexist?' in the sense that an individual can be religious and have a strong belief in scientific principles.

Given that the majority of history's greatest scientists were religious, I'd think it would be obvious that individuals can be religious as well as devoted to science. Atheism was exceedingly rare among the human population until quite recently, so if religious belief was an absolute barrier to scientific thought then by rights we ought to still be living in caves.

[SuperReallyGoodAtMathGuy]

Actually there is plenty of reason to think that it is accurate. It is fact that there are something that both science and religion simply cannot explain. And its also fact that sometimes the two align and sometimes they clash.

He could have said that without the silly analogy. It doesn't make the analogy accurate, just superfluous. Also I tend do doubt that there is anything that is in principle unexplainable by science.

[zachharrison2010]

He could have said that without the silly analogy. It doesn't make the analogy accurate, just superfluous. Also I tend do doubt that there is anything that is in principle unexplainable by science.

I'm starting to question if you know the denotation of an analogy. He could have said it without the analogy, but the analogy lines up perfectly with the explanation, making it accurate. And analogies are necessary for many average people to grasp abstract concepts.

[goldenboyz]

On second thought, both of them can now coexist, but that's just like water and oil in the same beaker. They don't mix. In laboratory, we can mix oil and water by using some chemical, however. Do you think you can combine your religion and science? Do you want to use science to beautify your religion? Hmm...

[TurtlesAreAwesome]

Yes I think they can co-exist, my science teacher is also religious.

Science is just a way of finding out what god has done to create the world, and since nobody has actually proved how the world was created yet then there's no argument to say that god didn't create the big bang or electricity etc.

The only argument would be that religion (at least Christianity, I'm not sure about any others to be honest) says that time travel is impossible for man, but science disagrees.

Since nobody has ever time travelled though, nobody can really prove either side.

[Stridar]

Ofcourse they can. Only fundamental evolutionists and atheists bitch about it.

[Just_Scott]

At some point it becomes a matter of faith. There may be a God, maybe not. We dont know and we wont ever "prove"it. I'm Ok with saying "maybe but maybe not" and getting on with life. The problem isnt God the problem is religion. People turn faith into rules and into organizations and thats where the trouble starts. Science and faith can exist because at some point you focus on science and say OK Ill make this fit with my version of God or vice versa

[srsbsns]

I had a biology professor who made a lot of sense on the subject. He said that the world is like a square room, or technically a cube I guess. Science and religion a both a spherical ball that can explain things in the world. No matter how big the ball gets, and regardless of which ball it is, there will be some things that cannot be explained by it. Sometimes the balls bounce parallel to each other in agreement, sometimes they hit head on, but neither can ever bust the other.

I figured out why this analogy bothers me. Suppose the world were like a cube, then the analogy goes that religion and science are spheres that try to explain things in the world. No matter how big the spheres become they can't account for everything. This seems wrong even in the case of religion, but in the case of science it seems obviously false. If science were such a sphere, it would not be so for long because science continuously adapts to better explain the world. With time the sphere would be becoming more and more like the cube as it explained different things more and more accurately.

[kings8686]

i think not. especially when talking about some of the mainstream beliefs (catholicism, christianity, etc.) which have a history of persecuting those individuals who discovered rational thought and dabbled in scientific research. see; galileo galilei, giordano bruno etc. etc.

these facts vividly illustrate that religion and science have been and always will be in direct contradiction with one another.

religion is simply a conglomeration of superstitious ideas that explain nothing. the only thing that one can derive from a religious book would be philosophical value. or entertainment value if you swing that way. but as far as having any kind of logical explanations pertaining to the universe, biology etc, religion doesn't offer anything in these areas. science is a fact finding endeavor which enables us to concretely understand the dynamic of this beautiful thing we call life. science is unbiased and indifferent, whereas religion is a notion which has a history of perpetual bigotry, fanaticism, and condemnations attached to its name. in this sense, religion is like a bicycle with a flat tire, stuck in a never ending race against an accelerating ferrari with a science sticker plastered on its windshield.

[kings8686]

Religion is a search for truth, and so is science.

religion is not a search for truth. most of these beliefs have established doctrines dating back thousands of years that make a half-assed attempt at explaining life. a search means a continual, never ending process, which we call science. the only correlation that one can make between science and religion is that they are both mechanisms for explaining life, and science is sort of like a continuation of religion. you have to remember, religion was the primary source of knowledge until technology started to improve, which enabled humanity to sort of make this transition from religion, to science. the telescope alone will probably remain as the bridge between religion and science.