Does Science Contradict Religion?

[Haltickling]

Most of you know how the church subdued some early scientists: They made Galilei retract his findings, and Giordano Bruno was even burnt at the stake for heresy, just to name the two most prominent ones.

In a recent discussion of creationism vs. evolution, many clerical resentments against science became clear: The teachings at Sunday School contradicted the scientific evidence for evolution, and many highly religious people think that science in general shouldn’t mess with God’s unique creation. I, too, think that we shouldn’t take genetic manipulations too lightly, but more because of the imminent dangers of experimenting with something we still don’t understand sufficiently. As I’m not religious myself but respect the faith of others, one question keeps hiccupping up to my brain:

“Does science contradict religion?”

IMO, that’s not the case. Einstein was a very prominent religious scientist, for example, and many scientists think that there are, of course, areas in nature that science can’t grasp. What do you think about this?

 

[TickledToDeath]

Actually, they are in constant contradiction with and of each other leaving both reasonable doubt and reasonable truth.
Perhaps every theory known to mankind from Science to Religion. From normal to paranormal. From Fiction to NON Fiction. From the probable and possible to the Improbable and seemingly Impossible, all have a piece of the big puzzle but nobody can get together long enough or at all for that matter whether by design or by choice, to complete it.


TTD😉

 

[kurchatovium]

To me science and religion are two different things. Science is a tool to model the real world and predict events. Religion is a matter of faith. Having to do with love, hope, compassion and understanding. To me they are different entities. Can I prove how much I love my mother or quantitate how much I care about my father? No of course not. The feeling religion gives is similar it can not be explained. You either feel it or you don't.

Do I believe in evolution? Yes I do. I think as a scientist it has been proven quite conclusively to be a fact. How do I resolve this in terms of religion? Well I feel the bible is in many ways a metaphor for many of the events that God initiated. Like maybe God took 6 billion years to make the universe but since the average person may not easily understand that big a number the bible says six days.

Can science disprove or prove the existence of God? No I think not. Science can show a piece of cloth does indeed date back to the time of Christ. Science can not prove that piece of Cloth is Chirst's burial cloth at the time of ressurection. Thus the Shroud of Turin may date back to the right time but only one's faith will tell you if you belive in Christ's resurrection.

Anyway just my thoughts. Intersting topic though Hal.

 

[desdemona]

Wow...what deja vu.
Back in undergrad, I took an evolution course. We read Darwin and SJ Gould...no contest which author was more stimulating. I despised sitting there listening to pre-med wannabes say that "well, Darwin had a point, but I really don't believe that..." Oh, god...victim of bible belt brainwashing. Hal, the debate will always be between the two sides. Why they have to butt heads, I have no idea. Like K, I don't think the two have much to do with one another. It's a dichotomy...science is about seeing and testing and proving hypotheses and creating new theories. Faith is believing in the impossible, accepting the unknown. For a scientist, seeing is believing. That just isn't necessary for faith. There's no way to measure or prove any facet of it. I don't debate the existence of god. Whichever one you choose to believe in, I can't disprove your convictions. But I don't have to agree.
We do have to acknowledge that as members of the animal kingdom, man shares genetic material with other species. How we build on and use that knowledge is what frightens some members of religious communities. Knowledge is power and like you said Hal we are messing with things that we only have a rudimentary understanding of. But then again, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb after Franklin flew his kite...or so the story books go. If we are to gain further insight into these matters, some experimentation is going to have to occur. And it may be largely hit or miss.
Genetics is an awesome field. Dealing with mutations is just another great way to study ourselves and how our environment influences us. Nature already has its own mutants...bacteria and viruses adapt constantly, one step ahead of us. In the long run, we still have much to learn before we attempt to control the creative forces. Unfortuntely, it will be the lower mammals or the lesser primates that may be sacrificed in the name of learning. Anything for the good of man....Amen.

 

[Strelnikov]

In one sense, science originated as a form of worship - an effort by Christians to discover God's design. You'll note that the Christian West invented the "scientific method." It never occurred to the Muslims, or to the adherents of the various eastern religions.

As for your question, Hal - I vote with Kurch. I have no trouble reconciling my religion with science.

Strelnikov

 

[amk714]

Yes, I think science contradicts religion. Here is a site that details some of the conflict between them throughout history:

http://home.att.net/~resurgence/L-sciencechristianity.htm

It mentions Bruno (who was put to death because he defended Copernicus), Galileo, and other scientists whose findings challenged Christian beliefs.

 

[Haltickling]

Thanks. My own views correspond largely with kurchatovium's. I've heard a nice defintion lately: Science asks "What happens, what happened, and what will happen, and how does it work?" Philosophy asks "Why does this happen, to what purpose?" And religion asks: "Who made it happen?" Insofar, all three elements are inextricably intertwined, and more like different sides of the same object.

amk, thanks for the article. It seems to me that religion tends to contradict science more often than the other way 'round.

 

[Stitch62679]

Science and Religion

Being a religious scientist, I can lend some insight. It depends. LOL

The problem with this is the way we use words and meanings. If religion is more a community aspect, you're cool with science, but if it's more of a theological concept, then science is EVIL.
Those who have FAITH and are scientific can easily interpret religious thoughts to be open and metaphorical, as in genes and evolution were ultimately influenced and created by a God. Even other planets and other life forms can all be God given. However, those with strict interpretation would shoot me for such statements! To some God created man in his own image (sorry ladies you're SOL made out of our RIB) and that's it, case closed. I personally believe even God would look down and say "What a crock!" but that's just me.
Case in point, I know an ultra-religious Methodist family, the father of which does not believe in modern medicine and goes day to day with heart problems and a cholesterol around 600 and is under 50 years old. He does not allow his children to take even vitamins due to their non-belief, God will take care of all that.
So ultimately it depends on how much you let scripture and interpretation dictate your faith which allows science to be either okay or evil. 🙂

 

[JoBelle]

I've always approached Biblical historywith Kutch's view of the time line. Measurable time being a man made thing seems to be the biggest defining factor in the discussion to me.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that even if we can one day know, without a doubt, the ways of the universe to its origins, there has to be something that made that first speck of dust, or popped somethingness from nothingness. Even if we're all like the little whos in whoville. 😉 (Some will get that) We still can't explain the start of it all. THAT to me is where my God comes in even on the days I choose to not have faith in something.

As far as non-Judeo-Christian faiths, I doubt you'd find much that would disrobe science of its validity.

Anyone ever do this:
Sit quietly and close your eyes...
Think "No people on the the planet. No animals. No water. No planet."
You get a big solar system.
Think, "No planets. No sun."
Then your focus becomes stars.
Think......,"No stars."
Hmmmm??
Think, "No asteroids....no dust...no black holes....no nothing."
At that point, my brain clicks abruptly into the present and I lose my concentration. I wonder what happens for y'all. Care to make it an experiment?

Good topic indeed! Reminds me of the old Sin, Religion and Tickling monster from last year!

Joby

 

[THE THREAD]

Find the place where HOPE, FAITH, LOVE, and COMPASSION all intersect and that is where God dwells. That place does not lie out in the infinite regions of the universe but rather it lies within you.

 

[TicklingDuo]

OK, how did I miss this thread? LOL

I believe that, while SEEMING to contradict one another, science and religion often act to explaiin and confirm one another. Since evolution is the fav. debate, I'll use that.

Bible - The world was created in six days....details given.

Science - The world took billions of years to form and human life took as long to evolve.

But, put the two side by side sometime. The same basic order of things is there, though with less detail in Scripture. Now, consider that God is timeless. To Him, all those billions of years would be like a single short week.

So, evolution is told in a story that can be more easily understood and doesn't take a year to read. I don't have a problem with that.

There've been debates for ages about specific stories in Scripture...only to later learn that science has proved that they actually occured.

Is every single word of Scripture true in a literal sense? No. But, is it true in a much deeper sense? Absolutely. This physical life is fleeting. Eternity is.....eternity.

Ann

 

[Texas_Tickle]

yes

Science has always denied the existance of God, because in the words of Dr Spock, "That's not logical, Jim".

Since you cannot see God, hear God, touch God, ect, then according to science, there is no God.

Genesis tells that God created the entire universe, on his own will, but science will tell you "that's not logical" and they will promote their own theories about the universe

To science the world is limited to what you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. Since you cannot do any of those things regarding God, science debunks His existance and claims that He is "not logically possible".

 

[Haltickling]

Re: yes

Science has always denied the existance of God, because in the words of Dr Spock, "That's not logical, Jim".

Since you cannot see God, hear God, touch God, ect, then according to science, there is no God.

Genesis tells that God created the entire universe, on his own will, but science will tell you "that's not logical" and they will promote their own theories about the universe

To science the world is limited to what you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. Since you cannot do any of those things regarding God, science debunks His existance and claims that He is "not logically possible".

I respectfully disagree, Ticklemaster. Science does not deal with the existence or non-existence of God, that's the realm of theology and philosophy.

Science deals with things that can be observed, measured, weighed, or counted. Science deals with deductions from these observations on a strictly logical basis. God doesn't belong to these categories. That's why you need FAITH to BELIEVE in him. That's the mystery of religion, and the very reason for its existence at the same time.

As long as mankind exists, it has wrestled with the mysteries of this world. Thunder, lightning, the sun and the moon at first. So much has been explained by science. Life and death as well as infinity remain largely unexplained mysteries. Science doesn't meddle with the ultimate reason for those, it only tries to explain why life and death happen the way we observe them.

That certainly doesn't mean that science is infallible. Many scientific theories were revised over the centuries; in fact they were improved or even disproven by later findings. They didn't withstand logical evidence, and somebody found a more logical explanation. That's one of the beauties of science: You don't need to BELIEVE anything they say. Go ahead and disprove them, or find a better LOGICAL explanation for the scientific observations or mathematical equations.

That's easy to say, but modern science is much too complicated for the average layman to understand nowadays. I tend to compare it with mathematics (whose logic is undisputed, I hope). Not all mathematical issues can be grasped by the way our brain functions normally, but with the help of mathematics, we eventually are able to prove or disprove them, like Irrational Numbers (the square root of a negative number, for example). There is no mathematical formula for God, nor will mathematicians ever try to find one.

Now, on the other hand, Christians have tried to prove a logical reason for God since Thomas Aquinus, and they usually tried to disprove science on the basis of an illogical historical scripture which contradicts itself quite frequently. Sorry, that's not logical, and none of these proofs withstood closer scrutiny. This is futile, like comparing apples with pears. When a religious person tries to disprove science, it's just as invalid as when science tries to disprove God.

Science and religion doen't deal with the same subject; together they complement each other into a whole.

 

[QBWeaver]

The one story that always confused me kind of fits into this thread.

I was raised on the story of Adam and Eve. They had two sons. I don't remember if Cain slew Abel or Abel slew Cain but in any case whichever one remained went off a fathered some children... ok.. do I have you so far..

Who was the woman? It wasn't Eve. It was another woman from somewhere. So if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman then how could their son go off and marry another woman?

I remember arguing with a priest on this at school and the only answer he gave me was..."You must have faith!". I have faith, I just wanted an answer too!

I remember my uncle, a former Jesuit, explaining that there were other "people" on earth and that he had learned that in his training. I don't recall the entire story.

but that's an example where the religion I knew contradicted with science.

 

[Texas_Tickle]

The one story that always confused me kind of fits into this thread.

I was raised on the story of Adam and Eve. They had two sons. I don't remember if Cain slew Abel or Abel slew Cain but in any case whichever one remained went off a fathered some children... ok.. do I have you so far..

Who was the woman? It wasn't Eve. It was another woman from somewhere. So if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman then how could their son go off and marry another woman?

I remember arguing with a priest on this at school and the only answer he gave me was..."You must have faith!". I have faith, I just wanted an answer too!

I remember my uncle, a former Jesuit, explaining that there were other "people" on earth and that he had learned that in his training. I don't recall the entire story.

but that's an example where the religion I knew contradicted with science.

I asked my pastor about that, just when I was beginning my biblical studies and he told me, that in all likelyhood, the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve married each other.

It was a common pratice to take your own brother/sister as your husband/wife. In fact, that was a **very** common pratice even during the life of Moses.

 

[46and2]

The one story that always confused me kind of fits into this thread.

I was raised on the story of Adam and Eve. They had two sons. I don't remember if Cain slew Abel or Abel slew Cain but in any case whichever one remained went off a fathered some children... ok.. do I have you so far..

Who was the woman? It wasn't Eve. It was another woman from somewhere. So if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman then how could their son go off and marry another woman?

I remember arguing with a priest on this at school and the only answer he gave me was..."You must have faith!". I have faith, I just wanted an answer too!

I remember my uncle, a former Jesuit, explaining that there were other "people" on earth and that he had learned that in his training. I don't recall the entire story.

but that's an example where the religion I knew contradicted with science.

Well, according to Pastor Arnold Murray (whose the gentleman I listen too mostly) The first humans mentioned as being created on the sixth day were not Adam and Eve. So there were other humans on earth besides them before they ever had children. The reason Adam was the one chosen by the serpent was because his bloodline would bring forth Christ. However I'm not entireley certain as to the validity in the Hebrew manuscripts, but it would definitley make more sense that way.

 

[desdemona]

Interesting debate...

But if everyone could trace his/her roots back to Adam, that would make for a very small genetic pool. I always found it interesting that science courses I took brought in the religious debate to lay beside the evolution debate. One professor pointed out an interesting observation about the creation account in the bible.
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 offer two accounts (to see what I mean, go to

One has references to time, the other does not. I remember how this upset some students. But it was a good example of the metaphorical nature of the scripture. I love the answer you got, QB. That one always just makes me smile...like you're not supposed to question anything you read in certain texts.

 

[TickledToDeath]

The one story that always confused me kind of fits into this thread.

I was raised on the story of Adam and Eve. They had two sons. I don't remember if Cain slew Abel or Abel slew Cain but in any case whichever one remained went off a fathered some children... ok.. do I have you so far..

Who was the woman? It wasn't Eve. It was another woman from somewhere. So if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman then how could their son go off and marry another woman?

I remember arguing with a priest on this at school and the only answer he gave me was..."You must have faith!". I have faith, I just wanted an answer too!

I remember my uncle, a former Jesuit, explaining that there were other "people" on earth and that he had learned that in his training. I don't recall the entire story.

but that's an example where the religion I knew contradicted with science.

I have been saying this for decades myself and I also stated this in another thread here somewhere. I too have had many "heated discussions" with Priests' during my childhood and even well into my adulthood to the present day!
You have hit the perverbial nail on the head and have even took thoughts right out of my mind.
The Bible is a constant contradiction of itself. Plain as day it says that Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth and ONLY people on the earth. They had Cain and Able. Cain whacked Able, the worlds first "HIT". Then ventured off. Unless Adam and Eve had a third child at the same time and kept it the worlds greatest secret and Cain met what was unbeknownst to him, his sister, then we have the first act of incest(A sin according to some religions especially the Christian)
but where did the rest come from? Did they have more children (brothers and sisters) who had sex with each other(more incest) and so on and so on? IF that is the case, we literally ARE all brothers and sisters.
Barring that. There were NO other people on the planet ergo Cain met NOBODY that we know of, or somebody left ONE HELL of a chapter out of the "Bible".
Faith has NOTHING to do with it. Truth is Truth. Fact is fact. Fiction is fiction.
There has to be answers, however NOBODY has them. There are only Theories and speculation that eventually form ones' hypothesies'.

TTD
😎

 

[Haltickling]

I remember an interesting discussion about this topic at school, when I was 14 or 15. One of my classmates asked how the teacher can explain the fact that different races existed: black, Asian, Indian, Arab, etc.

The teacher (not a priest) told us that, while the Bible only mentioned the creation of the first two humans, there's the possibilty that God created a lot more specimens of this species. Adam and Eve were the 'prototypes', but the real 'mass production' started afterwards. Therefore, Cain didn't necessarily have married a relative.

Although I'm an agnostic, this explanation seems interesting enough for me.

 

[Texas_Tickle]

I tend to think that people accept science over religion because science can be explained, whereas religion cannot.

They have to be able to see it for themselves, and with their own 2 eyes, in order for them to accept it as truth.

Many people cannot comprehend religion and some people choose to have science as their "religion" because of the fact that it can be explained.

 

[RichardAuc]

Like so many things, what you see depends on what you look for.

Sure, the creations & the evolutionists disagree on many things. I submit they also agree on many things.

The light was created before the earth.

(Big Bang.)

The earth was created before the oceans, then the plants, then the animals, with man coming last.

The major distinction, as I see it, is the timing. Creationists put the age of the earth at about six millenia, evolutionists at about 4.5 million millenia. Personally, I think they're both way off, but what does it matter? It's not as if we'll be here long enough to settle the argument. 😀

 

[BigJim]

Science can show a piece of cloth does indeed date back to the time of Christ. Science can not prove that piece of Cloth is Chirst's burial cloth at the time of ressurection. Thus the Shroud of Turin may date back to the right time but only one's faith will tell you if you belive in Christ's resurrection.

Just wondering, since when did science prove that the Turin Shroud dated back to anything other than the middle ages?