With the loud protests of a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concepts like evolution and the Big Bang in public schools, and the equally loud proclamations of a few scientists with personal, anti-religious philosophies, it can sometimes seem as though science and religion are at war. News outlets offer plenty of reports of school board meetings, congressional sessions, and Sunday sermons in which scientists and religious leaders launch attacks at one another. But just how representative are such conflicts? Not very. The attention given to such clashes glosses over the far more numerous cases in which science and religion harmoniously, and even synergistically, coexist.

One person can be both religious and scientific.
In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict.

Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it's important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith.

Source:http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

Objective truths are established by Empirical/Factual observations and discoveries.

-Personal truths are established by Faith [ Personal conviction] and incessant repetitions

Here now lies the difference- science operates on the platform of seeking objective truth through empirical means.

Religion is about faith.

they are both different enterprise with different goals and methods - there is no need to reconcile both since there is no war in the first place neither were they one and same reoncilable enterprise.

Science is science - Religion [theology] is religion.

The only problem always arises when people tend to have the idea that they can/should push their personal convictions as objective truth - that is when faith clashes with facts, that is when science becomes disrespectful to theology.

And more so Religion has always been on the hostile end against ideas that contradict their personal convictions even if that idea is the truth.

Like the case of Copernicus asserting that the sun is the center of the solar system and not the earth as the church taught.

It was a severe blow to the face of the church who found the idea that "God's precious" earth was just a tiny planet orbiting a massive sun very ridiculous and blasphemous - they even killed people in order to kill this idea that contradicted their faith.

Saint Bernard said during the trial of Galileo
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as saying that Christ was not born of a virgin"

Today Copernicus, Galileo has been proven right and faith demoted. Our ego to push ourselves as the apex of creation has been wounded badly by that one discovery by Copernicus.

Every great truth in science began as a blasphemy to the church.

But here is the truth about human ideas The truth has nothing to fear from alternate ideas or criticism, Only dogmas aim at suppressing alternate ideas in order to remain relevant

Any idea that thrives on suppressing contradicting views is most likely untrue.

I'm on the side of establishing objective truths and not personal convictions and gut feelings.

People go to religion to be messaged not informed, they go to be told what they want to hear, they go to be told what will make them feel good and hopeful, they do not for objective truths, they go for personal truths, they go for personal feelings.

Only one discipline exists to inform the human mind and that is science - it does not aim at telling you what you want to hear or what will make you feel good, it wil tell you what is objectively true as study reveals.

it is a humbling and fascinating discipline

Yes, religion and science aren't at war since they operate in different realms, but that's not the way a lot of people see it. Many religious people feel threatened by science and are often on the defensive when science is mentioned. They feel religion and science are in conflict, that personal faith mandates their opposition to the theory of evolution, that they have to reject scientific evidence to remain faithful. But that isn't really the case. Many scientists/evolutionists are people of faith too. Accepting science doesn't necessarily mean ditching religion. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Asa Gray and Georges Lamaitre come to mind.

Religion - Faith ( Blind by definition)
Science - Research

The difference is clear

hahn:
Religion - Faith ( Blind by definition)
Science - Research

The difference is clear

Then why do some religious people accept evolution? Why was a Darwinist like Asa Gray also religious? How could a Catholic priest like Lamaitre propose the big bang theory? Clearly, they found a way to reconcile both.

McSterling:
Yes, religion and science aren't at war since they operate in different realms, but that's not the way a lot of people see it. Many religious people feel threatened by science and are often on the defensive when science is mentioned. They feel religion and science are in conflict, that personal faith mandates their opposition to the theory of evolution, that they have to reject scientific evidence to remain faithful. But that isn't really the case. Many scientists/evolutionists are people of faith too. Accepting science doesn't necessarily mean ditching religion. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

You see in order to hold on to a scientific view of the world and still be a person of faith you must have to trim down the level of your faith or be dishonest in your scientific outputs.

Science is incompatible with theology - so for one to agree with evolution and still be a person of faith such a person must first "disbelieve" a 6 days creation tale, or creation by vomit, or from wood logs or at least find excuses to tag them alegories.

Science is not at war with religious postulations but at almost every juncture science contradicts religious ideas therefore is seen by the overly pious as dangerous to the faith [which i can argue it is]

Theology is lacking greatly in meeting with the intellectual satisfaction of the new evolved intellectual ground we are on and so it barely will thrive for so long.

Science do not find excuses for disproven hypothesis', they are discarded as bogus but in the enterprise of faith an excuse is needed in order for the faithful to hold on to their conviction.

For one to exercise FAITH you must be willing to disregard the Facts of reality and for one to practise science you must be willing to place FACTS before faith.

Religion= Division,control,a tool for ignorance and has nothing to do with spirituality. Religion was created to keep the poor people in check, stop them from murddering the rich

Science= Science creates doubt and the urge to find out more. This include exploring all possible imaginable possiblties which includes natural science Antropology, Astrology, Psychology,Archaeoastronomy, literature and many more. Every aspect of science is beneficial to humans.

The association between religion and science goes way back. For those who studied Astrology,who also stumbled on Pisces, will notice it is a sign of 2 fishes( doubt and faith). Every 2,500 bring new Age. During the Picses age, Faith and Doubt were dominant. Faith was the more dominant, hence the burning of scientific books, killing of witch( Natural scientist/ Astrolgers) and destruction of ancient knowledge by the faith group.

Now going to the water Bearer( Aquirius). Aquirius pours out the water, he represents knowledge and proof. But pouring out the waters of Pisces( religion) won't come easy. Pisces will not go down without a fight, but eventually will be eradicated, then will have to wait another full cycle. This is how Astrology describes the relationship btw both.

McSterling:
Then why do some religious people accept evolution?

Some . How many Nigerians even know the evolution theory and will argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that dinosaurs never existed or that evolution is a lie, as proposed by the bible and their pastors?

Why was a Darwinist like Asa Gray also religious? How could a Catholic priest like Lamaitre propose the big bang theory? Clearly, they found a way to reconcile both.

You cannot disagree that scientists who are theists have to undergo the personal battle of reconciling the obvious contradictions in their religious texts and the facts they come across in their profession. Imagine when an MIT student is arguing for her bible's account of the age of the earth and discrediting the evolution theory.

When science is mixed with religion it becomes pseudoscience

Religion prospers on the back of ignorance, this is especially true in nigeria. Where a whopping amount of our population is illiterate. When this illiteracy rate drops religion will take a back seat in Nigerian affairs.

When people say because God's word teaches that the earth is 6000 years old then Christianity is falsehood, I wonder.

In case they would understand:

The words that made the worlds are eternal and dateless,
Therefore being the material that made the worlds,
The worlds also should be eternal/ dateless, measuring into billions of years ago.

The bible teaches that:

2 Peter 3
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that BY THE WORD OF GOD THE HEAVENS WERE OF OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

I can tell how old my pair of shoes are,
I.e from the day they were constructed for me;
But I may not tell how old the leather of my shoes is.

In that way,
A two year old pair of shoes can have material geometrically older than it's creation.

This is the view for all that God has made.

They have their creation age and their material(word) age, which is as good as dateless.

Eternal words cannot create uneternal things,
Logically.

#MyGodIsReal

johnydon22:


You see in order to hold on to a scientific view of the world and still be a person of faith you must have to trim down the level of your faith or be dishonest in your scientific outputs.

True, when religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict science, the believing scientist would have to modify that aspect of his faith in order to remain objective. I don't know how they do it, but I admire them to a level. When a man modifies his religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, it is testament to his being reasonable. That is clearly not blind belief.

Science is incompatible with theology - so for one to agree with evolution and still be a person of faith such a person must first "disbelieve" a 6 days creation tale, or creation by vomit, or from wood logs or at least find excuses to tag them alegories.

Science and theology inhabit "non overlapping magisteria" to use the words of Steven Jay Gould. But this doesn't mean an individual cannot practice both at the same time. He'd only have to respect each magisterium accordingly. A religious scientist who respects the magisterium of science would know that religion has no business telling us how the earth began. Same way science has no business telling us what's right or wrong or the meaning of life.

Science is not at war with religious postulations but at almost every juncture science contradicts religious ideas therefore is seen by the overly pious as dangerous to the faith [which i can argue it is]

Theology is lacking greatly in meeting with the intellectual satisfaction of the new evolved intellectual ground we are on and so it barely will thrive for so long.

Science do not find excuses for disproven hypothesis', they are discarded as bogus but in the enterprise of faith an excuse is needed in order for the faithful to hold on to their conviction.

Mind you, the term "religion" does not describe only Abrahamic ones. Some religions do not make explicit claims that science can contradict. They have nothing to fear from science. Abrahamic believers are mostly the ones who have something to fear, as they like to overstep their magisterium.

For one to exercise FAITH you must be willing to disregard the Facts of reality and for one to practise science you must be willing to place FACTS before faith.

@bolded, not necessarily. @unbolded, I agree.

hahn:


Some . How many Nigerians even know the evolution theory and will argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that dinosaurs never existed or that evolution is a lie, as proposed by the bible and their pastors?



You cannot disagree that scientists who are theists have to undergo the personal battle of reconciling the obvious contradictions in their religious texts and the facts they come across in their profession. Imagine when an MIT student is arguing for her bible's account of the age of the earth and discrediting the evolution theory.

When science is mixed with religion it becomes pseudoscience

That there are some who have reconciled both is proof enough that they are reconcilable. Granted, compromises might have to be made when religion outsteps its realm. And I am not limiting my definition of religion to Abrahamic guys alone, I refer to faith in general, in whatever form. Your MIT girl clearly doesn't fit into the "some".

McSterling:
True, when religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict science, the believing scientist would have to modify that aspect of his faith in order to remain objective. I don't know how they do it, but I admire them to a level. When a man modifies his religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, it is testament to his being reasonable. That is clearly not blind belief.

For clear cut objectivity there must first never butter notions held on to by faith into objective deductions, Only 10% of elite physicists are religious - this is a few whose convictions we must respect by the fact that they do not impose their 'personal convictions' on the discipline they practise.

I for one think since 'Faith' lacks cold objectivity and facts there really is no need to exercise it as regards truths concerning reality - to believe something by faith means one has no objective reason to believe it at all

I applaud the religious scientists..

Science and theology inhabit "non overlapping magisteria" to use the words of Steven Jay Gould. But this doesn't mean an individual cannot practice both at the same time. He'd only have to respect each magisterium accordingly. A religious scientist who respects the magisterium of science would know that religion has no business telling us how the earth began. Same way science has no business telling us what's right or wrong or the meaning of life.

Science is the theology of reality as Thomas Paine would say, it is the poem of natural reality.

Theology aims at establishing elusive truths - I agree both should not overlap and each should maintain their own boundaries.

Human morality and ethics are for human politics and since we must invoke an emotional part of our thinking - i think theology also comes as a handy tool even though ultimately human behaviour is independent of these basis.

There is a humbling existential realization that science reveals - i think if one wants the warm and cozy hopeful feel religion can provide such succor.

Mind you, the term "religion" does not describe only Abrahamic ones. Some religions do not make explicit claims that science can contradict. They have nothing to fear from science. Abrahamic believers are mostly the ones who have something to fear, as they like to overstep their magisterium.

True i completely agree.

A religion like Hinduism is one i think deserves so much respect, they possess eloquent theology, honesty and respectable myths.


"beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'"
this is from the Hindu rigveda

Such honesty deserves to be encouraged and secondly they do not aim at imposing their belief as truth they only present a subtle way they think one can look at what is - such humility and honesty i think abrahamism lacks

If any religion can be reconciled with modern scientific findings it will be Hinduism - while most religions talk about the world, it talks about the universe, while other religions talked in thousands of years as regards the cosmos, hindu theology talked of billions of years.

they proposed a circle of universal effect, a universe under going infinite end and beginning - a possible truth the big bang model is leading modern cosmology towards.

@bolded, not necessarily. @unbolded, I agree.

Agreed

McSterling:
That there are some who have reconciled both is proof enough that they are reconcilable.

In what ways? How can you agree that the world is 6000 years because of your religion and then agree that it is also billions of years old according to science?

Granted, compromises might have to be made when religion outsteps its realm. And I am not limiting my definition of religion to Abrahamic guys alone, I refer to faith in general, in whatever form.

True

Your MIT girl clearly doesn't fit into the "some".

She belongs to the "most"

hahn:


In what ways? How can you agree that the world is 6000 years because of your religion and then agree that it is also billions of years old according to science.

They obviously don't believe in the literal truth of a 6-day creation. Compromise made.
I remember reading in one of Carl Zimmer's books about a scientist who talked about his reconciliation of faith and science. I found his views to be quite grand. It's refreshing at times to find a break from the norm of atheist/agnostic scientist.

McSterling:
They obviously don't believe in the literal truth of a 6-day creation. Compromise made.
I remember reading in one of Carl Zimmer's books about a scientist who talked about his reconciliation of faith and science. I found his views to be quite grand. It's refreshing at times to find a break from the norm of atheist/agnostic scientist.

But they believe it is possible for god to create the sun on the fourth day ?

johnydon22:


For clear cut objectivity there must first never butter notions held on to by faith into objective deductions, Only 10% of elite physicists are religious - this is a few whose convictions we must respect by the fact that they do not impose their 'personal convictions' on the discipline they practise.

I for one think since 'Faith' lacks cold objectivity and facts there really is no need to exercise it as regards truths concerning reality - to believe something by faith means one has no objective reason to believe it at all

I applaud the religious scientists..

The thing is that faith fills a void for many that nothing else can. It gives their lives purpose, a sense of direction and meaning. They might not subscribe to any form of organized religion but they still retain their faith or spirituality. Many people cannot stomach an atheistic view of life, and it's not their fault. It doesn't mean they're stupid either. I don't blame them. The origin of this void humans feel lies in the brain.

Human morality and ethics are for human politics and since we must invoke an emotional part of our thinking - i think theology also comes as a handy tool even though ultimately human behaviour is independent of these basis.

There is a humbling existential realization that science reveals - i think

A religion like Hinduism is one i think deserves so much respect, they possess eloquent theology, honesty and respectable myths.


"beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'"
this is from the Hindu rigveda

Such honesty deserves to be encouraged and secondly they do not aim at imposing their belief as truth they only present a subtle way they think one can look at what is - such humility and honesty i think abrahamism lacks

If any religion can be reconciled with modern scientific findings it will be Hinduism - while most religions talk about the world, it talks about the universe, while other religions talked in thousands of years as regards the cosmos, hindu theology talked of billions of years.

they proposed a circle of universal effect, a universe under going infinite end and beginning - a possible truth the big bang model is leading modern cosmology towards.

Wow. That's great, but I thought Buddhism was more progressive.

Arts is The Study and Maintenance of Physical Scenries. Science is The Study and Design of Observable Abstracts. Religion is Relating Abstracts to Physical and Developing the Results of such relationship to explain human existence and advancement. In other words, Pneumatology is a Zone enclaving Science and Arts.

McSterling:
The thing is that faith fills a void for many that nothing else can. It gives their lives purpose, a sense of direction and meaning. They might not subscribe to any form of organized religion but they still retain their faith or spirituality. Many people cannot stomach an atheistic view of life, and it's not their fault. It doesn't mean they're stupid either. I don't blame them. The origin of this void humans feel lies in the brain.

I agree but our progress should be judged by the depth of our questions and the sincerity of our answers and our tendency to agree with what is objectively true other than what feels good

Wow. That's great, but I thought Buddhism was more progressive.

Buddhism only developed on the tenets of Hinduism

hahn:


But they believe it is possible for god to create the sun on the fourth day ?

They don't believe all the stupid parts

Seriously, they respect the fact that postulating theories about the natural world like Genesis does, isn't within the realm of religion. In such instances, science has the upper hand. Nothing beats evidence.

McSterling:
They don't believe all the stupid parts

Seriously, they respect the fact that postulating theories about the natural world like Genesis does, isn't within the realm of religion. In such instances, science has the upper hand. Nothing beats evidence.

If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself - Saint Augustine of Hippo

johnydon22:


I agree but our progress should be judged by the depth of our questions and the sincerity of our answers and our tendency to agree with what is objectively true other than what feels good

True. I hope we get there someday.

johnydon22:


If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself - Saint Augustine of Hippo

That's St Augustine's opinion. Doesn't hold true for many. In fact, if you believe in parts of the scripture or anything for that matter, and disbelieve other parts, it should only prompt the question "why?" If it's because the parts you disbelieve contradict scientific evidence, then you should be applauded for being reasonable. Only unreasonable people hold on to ideas that contradict evidence.

McSterling:
They don't believe all the stupid parts

Seriously, they respect the fact that postulating theories about the natural world like Genesis does, isn't within the realm of religion. In such instances, science has the upper hand. Nothing beats evidence.

Lol