Can Science and Religion ever be Reconciled?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Potentially, yes, but inevitably, no.
In my opinion.
Science has already made vast steps forward in our understanding of 'the universe' to simplify things, as well as biology in general. The ultimate question I spose to answer with all knowing evidence is "how did the earth come to be" and therefore, how did living, intelligent life come to fruition.
For me, I am satisfied with an answer already proposed to the second question, in that I beleive in the theory of natural selection and evolution (origin of species) first proposed by Darwin.
the first qusetion is something which is much harder to grasp and even trying to read on the subject threatens to induce scanner-like brain explosion on my part.
In honesty I am not so vain as to think I know a lot about anything, and low on the list is religion, but from life experience (again, little) I have so far judged that the thing that religious people call "faith" will always be an overriding factor in decisions to beleive scientific evidence.
hell, there are people alive today who claim the earth is less than 12k years old and dinosaur fossils exist as something God put on the planet to test our faith. This, in my mind, just has to be bull****. ITs material, the bones exist, we have sophisticated methods for determining the age of such materials. That for me is overriding evidence in support of the existence of dinosaurs.
anyway, I digress. this faith thing I feel will always afford religion its place in society. Lets talk hypothetically. Assume that it was ultimately proved beyond any reaonable doubt that the solar system came to being through a "big bang" type event, and that life did indeed begin with single cellular organisms which then evolved through the passing of time and natural selection to where we are today. It was also proved (somehow, LOL) that death is just that, there is nothing more, no afterlife, no soul, no white light and st peter, never seeing loved ones again. I do not think, unless the human brain evolves so much as to be able to deal with this complex information, that people (as we know them now) will be able to deal with that.
One of the reasons I think (Id like to say know) religion exists is to give people hope that there is more to life than getting up, having three good meals taking one good dump and going back to bed for circa 70 years. People also want to know that the people they lose are safe. If the reality is that they are simply decomposing inthe ground and replenishing the nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon cycles (which they are, but you know what I mean) thee will still be people that will not accept that as fact.
Anyawy, ramble over.
I think at one point science will provide evience for everthing people use their faith to explain, but there will still be a schizm of people who do not choose to accept this evidence.
In my opinion.
Science has already made vast steps forward in our understanding of 'the universe' to simplify things, as well as biology in general. The ultimate question I spose to answer with all knowing evidence is "how did the earth come to be" and therefore, how did living, intelligent life come to fruition.
For me, I am satisfied with an answer already proposed to the second question, in that I beleive in the theory of natural selection and evolution (origin of species) first proposed by Darwin.
the first qusetion is something which is much harder to grasp and even trying to read on the subject threatens to induce scanner-like brain explosion on my part.
In honesty I am not so vain as to think I know a lot about anything, and low on the list is religion, but from life experience (again, little) I have so far judged that the thing that religious people call "faith" will always be an overriding factor in decisions to beleive scientific evidence.
hell, there are people alive today who claim the earth is less than 12k years old and dinosaur fossils exist as something God put on the planet to test our faith. This, in my mind, just has to be bull****. ITs material, the bones exist, we have sophisticated methods for determining the age of such materials. That for me is overriding evidence in support of the existence of dinosaurs.
anyway, I digress. this faith thing I feel will always afford religion its place in society. Lets talk hypothetically. Assume that it was ultimately proved beyond any reaonable doubt that the solar system came to being through a "big bang" type event, and that life did indeed begin with single cellular organisms which then evolved through the passing of time and natural selection to where we are today. It was also proved (somehow, LOL) that death is just that, there is nothing more, no afterlife, no soul, no white light and st peter, never seeing loved ones again. I do not think, unless the human brain evolves so much as to be able to deal with this complex information, that people (as we know them now) will be able to deal with that.
One of the reasons I think (Id like to say know) religion exists is to give people hope that there is more to life than getting up, having three good meals taking one good dump and going back to bed for circa 70 years. People also want to know that the people they lose are safe. If the reality is that they are simply decomposing inthe ground and replenishing the nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon cycles (which they are, but you know what I mean) thee will still be people that will not accept that as fact.
Anyawy, ramble over.
I think at one point science will provide evience for everthing people use their faith to explain, but there will still be a schizm of people who do not choose to accept this evidence.
Simple answer … No!
How can a scientist be religious? – They base everything on ‘facts, proof & experimentation’. As opposed to a religious point of view – who base their beliefs on faith and the writings (bible – Quran – etc) that have been passed down for thousands of years by nothing more than word of mouth and scribbled notes.
Therefore how can science ever agree with religion – when evolution obviously goes against creation?
And IF God has been around for eternity – what was he doing in the ‘forever’ BEFORE he created the universe.
I believe it was Einstein who said “there are 2 classes of people on this planet – Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence”
(Great thread Robbo)
How can a scientist be religious? – They base everything on ‘facts, proof & experimentation’. As opposed to a religious point of view – who base their beliefs on faith and the writings (bible – Quran – etc) that have been passed down for thousands of years by nothing more than word of mouth and scribbled notes.
Therefore how can science ever agree with religion – when evolution obviously goes against creation?
And IF God has been around for eternity – what was he doing in the ‘forever’ BEFORE he created the universe.
I believe it was Einstein who said “there are 2 classes of people on this planet – Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence”
(Great thread Robbo)
Slight flaw in this argument, and it's come up a lot. Science is *not* based on facts.
Now before the pitchforks come out let me explain; the correct way to describe what you are saying is that most science is based on provable, duplicatable experimentation. Up to a point anyway.
Mainly science is based upon theories to explain what is happening around us. Wherever possible is is backed up with experimentation but not all the time, sometimes we have to use mathematics to establish a reason for something happening, but by scientific terms that's not truly proof, just the best we can do at this moment with our understanding of mathematics.
Science is filled with unproven theories, often multiple theories are suggested to explain the same event. Take the Higgs Boson, the so called "God" particle, it's a theory and there are other theories in place to explain the same thing. Yet people (and by that I do mean non-quantum physicist mass media) talk about it as if it exists and just needs to be found. It may never be found and there's the clue.
If you want some fun try comparing the 'graviton' with 'god' neither is provable but both provide a basis for belief
Believing in some form of deity was an explanation for the events around us and science does the same thing; both offer people an explanation of what happens around us though science could be seen to simply be proving 'gods' work.
Oh and as people like quoting Einstein here's a good one for - referring to his inclusion of the cosmological constant in his theory of general relativity he said it was "the biggest blunder of my life" at the time it was pretty much dodgy mathematics to make his theory work
BTW, If you want to read just how dodgy science can be I recommend Bill Brysons "a short history of nearly everything", a great book.
If you want to mess with your concept of the universe read 'Beyond the Quantum' or 'The Holographic Universe' be Michael Talbot.
Light those torches
