Science V Religion

P

Postmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Galileo said that Christianity explained how to get to heaven but science explained how the heavens were made. I think that’s just a perfect phrase to synchronize religion and science. Other then that science has nothing to do with religion regardless of what some modern day religions have to say.
 
You ought to read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. He does an excellent job of merging science with religion.
 
It seems that during Galileo's time religion sort of came to an agreement with the scientists. He's out there running around saying the earth revolves around the sun confounding what the church was teaching...using his demonic telescope to exam the heavens and not finding above the firmament what was common knowldege to be there...

Got the church fathers on shaky ground but with some introspection and discussion...was sort of hard to disprove what was being said...so we had to come to terms....science you deal with what is known and can be proven and the church will deal with things of faith, that which is unkown and can't be proven.

Since then science has been gaining ground...but more recently we are seeing a merger between the two.. of course some say this merger is tenous at best, and being held together by strings...but that is only theory.
 
Let's not forget that religion and science were once one discipline. Also, the Eastern Church never had the conflict with emerging science like the Western Church. I've never heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever accusing scientists of heresy. With the exception of fundamentalists and assorted backwater denominations, modern religion seems to have renounced any substantial conflict with science. Science keeps religion from getting out of hand and vice versa. Plus, with what the new physics is teaching us about the illusory nature of matter, science and religion seem to actually be coelescing. That's really cool!

Chris
 
Postmaster said:
science has nothing to do with religion
Click to expand...
In fact Science and Religion are very much related with each other. Since both have been created by One God, science is the Action of God manifest in the universe and Revealed Religions are Word of God, there cannot be any contradictions between the both. If there is apparently some discrepancy that is either because a scientific Law is still in the making, it is yet a theory and not considered a Law as yet by the scientific world; or the Word of God has not been correctly understood or interpreted due to omission or commission of the religious world or simply by the cunning corrupt religious hierarchy.Thanks
paarsurrey@yahoo.com
 
lunamoth said:
Hey Postmaster, excellent timing on this thread. Emphasizing the complementary nature of science and religion will balance out the thread I started here:
.....

cheers,
lunamoth
Click to expand...

I am Ludwik Kowalski, a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey. A webpage at our university website contains my recent reflections on the topic of 'science v religion.' Unfortunately, I am not yet allowed to post links. The abbreviated version of the content of my webpage should appear on this website shortly.

I will be happy to provide the link to those who ask for it by regular email. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post an email address. But you can find it at the website of Montclair State University.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
 
Dondi said:
You ought to read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. He does an excellent job of merging science with religion.
Click to expand...

Merging? The two worlds, materialistic and spiritual, were growing together for thousands of years. Unfortunately, the "we are better than you" attitudes often created conflicts. I am not an expert in this field, but I often think about these conflicts. How to end them? My reflections on this subject will soon be posted on this website.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
 
Hi everybody!

I am sorry to hear that some people have belief systems that conflict with science. I have a religious/philosophical belief system that has no conflict with science (except for the idea that nature is a random and unplanned occurance). I hope that everyone can bring their own belief systems and science into agreement, as I have been lucky enough to do.

"...religion and science were once one discipline."

--> To me, they still are.
 
Welcome to Interfaith.org :)
kowalskil said:
Merging? The two worlds, materialistic and spiritual, were growing together for thousands of years. Unfortunately, the "we are better than you" attitudes often created conflicts.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: It is not truth that matters, but victory.
Adolf Hitler

I am not an expert in this field, but I often think about these conflicts. How to end them? My reflections on this subject will soon be posted on this website.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
Click to expand...

It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.
Buddha
 
kowalskil said:
Merging? The two worlds, materialistic and spiritual, were growing together for thousands of years. Unfortunately, the "we are better than you" attitudes often created conflicts. I am not an expert in this field, but I often think about these conflicts. How to end them? My reflections on this subject will soon be posted on this website.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
Click to expand...
Welcome to IO Professor!

We have a scientist and an engineer abord IO. Especially where God is concerned... This should make for great debates.

It is my hope you enjoy and can contribute to IO, in a meaningful and thoughtful way...again, welcome sir.

v/r

Q
 
ok, should have been put in the intro thread, but............

Gday and welcome Ludwick!

We have scientists aplenty here and Im sure many will love to pick your brains.
Being an expert in something is truly valuable, however I do not believe that one can be a scientist and necessarily be in conflict with God. IMO, a scientist looks for answers etc, hopefully finds answers .... but there are infinite questions....... to which God has the answers.

Love the Grey
 
I would say science is the study of matter, and religion is the study of whether it matters.

Or perhaps: Science can be conducted by a single person. Religion involves at least two.
 
luecy7 said:
I would say science is the study of matter, and religion is the study of whether it matters.

Or perhaps: Science can be conducted by a single person. Religion involves at least two.
Click to expand...
...and faith in either, can only be achieved by the "one"...
 
Science is incapable of telling us anything about the supernatural, which by definition is above nature. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since God is supernatural. Science is concerned with things that contain natural properties, and the interaction of those properties to one another, in their continuous cause and effect interaction. Just because Darwin observed natural events taking place, has little to do with whether or not a supernatural event is possible. What science is really saying, is that science has shown, through empirical observation, that the universe is a closed system without the possibility of outside supernatural events interfering on their cause and effect interaction. This thought is totally absurd when you think about it. How can you study natural events, to then determine supernatural ones? The role of science is not to discover the supernatural. If anything, the role of the supernatural is the field of theology. What science can do is help us determine when supernatural events occur, since we have observed the natural course of life. When the supernatural occurs, we can then see more clearly what the supernatural might be based on our natural observations but science of itself is not able to say what the supernatural is because science is not a study of the supernatural.
If a person were to die, and then be seen walking around, eating fish, and talking one can conclude that a supernatural event has occurred. This of course will frustrate a scientist because it is not a repeatable and falsifiable experimentation. Therein lays the limitations of observable science. Just because an event is not repeatable, does not mean that it lacks truth. “A supreme workman will never break by one note or one syllable or one stroke of the brush the living and inward law of the work he is producing. But he will break without scruple any number of those superficial regularities and orthodoxies which little, unimaginative critics mistake for its law. If we had grasped as a whole the innermost spirit of that work which God worketh from the beginning to the end, and of which Nature is only a part and perhaps a small part, we should be in a position to decide whether miraculous interruptions of Nature’s history were mere improprieties unworthy of the Great Workman or expressions of the truest and deepest unity in His total work. In fact, of course, we are in no such position.” So when a dead body stays dead it acts in accordance with natural law. But when a dead body does not stay dead and is reanimated to life, this is an event that takes an outside force of supernatural power.
There is also the fact that the world does have properties of intelligence, from which we can observe that the world was created out of intelligence. Instead of allowing science to determine what exists, it is better to allow it to point us to the original cause. We learn from William Paley’s famousWatchmaker Argument, that if we were walking through a field and came upon a watch, even though there was no one else around, we would not attribute the watch being there by evolution, chance, or mutation. We would say that the watch was placed there because the complex inner workings of the watch, show necessity of an intelligent designer. Also the watch as a whole (not just its parts) functions in a complex state that is characteristic of an intelligent designer. Another way of saying this is Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” This Scripture attributes the heavens and the skies to a supernatural Creator.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=61412#_ftnref1
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Hi everybody!

I am sorry to hear that some people have belief systems that conflict with science. I have a religious/philosophical belief system that has no conflict with science (except for the idea that nature is a random and unplanned occurance). I hope that everyone can bring their own belief systems and science into agreement, as I have been lucky enough to do.

"...religion and science were once one discipline."

--> To me, they still are.
Click to expand...

I don't think that SOME forms of religion and science are compatible-fundamentalism comes to mind. Why must science and religion live in harmony? What is wrong with tolerating science despite the opposing view of the world that science has developed with many religions if you consider both fields honestly? Religious people seem to constantly have to readjust their view to incorporate science and essentially modify their concept of God or religious beliefs.
 
Well, since science is the study of what exists in the material world (okay, math and philosophy are knda-sorta sciences, but I am not including them), if science discovers something new out in the world (like heliocentric universe or the existence of more than one galaxy or the Big Bang or the expanding universe or the acceleration of that expansion) that is most likely true and it conflicts with a tenant of a Religion, for that Religion to remain copasetic with science, it must readjust its view.

Science does not readjust its view based on a Religious claim, but only material proof or good conjecture of such (Big Bang Theory a perfect example).

Reliugion does not have to adjust its claim either... but if it holds to something that is scientifically questionable it is treading of thin ice (easier to lose members and credence).

Michael Heller, a Catholic Priest, SJ, mathematician, physicist and cosmologist has some pretty good discussions on this (still alive). He supports my assertion.
 
radarmark said:
... if science discovers something new out in the world ... that is most likely true and it conflicts with a tenant of a Religion, for that Religion to remain copasetic with science, it must readjust its view.

Science does not readjust its view based on a Religious claim, but only material proof or good conjecture of such (Big Bang Theory a perfect example).

Reliugion does not have to adjust its claim either... but if it holds to something that is scientifically questionable it is treading of thin ice (easier to lose members and credence)...
Click to expand...
I've seen another approach on Christian and Islamic boards, and even on this board. They try to debunk the science through various sleight of hands. I used to be surprised by such closed minds, but not now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top