Can Science and Religion be reconciled? (testimony, contradiction, beliefs, evolution)

[Runt]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...rticle&k=2

Read it

[Truthseeker]

Religion and science can be reconciled in a very simple when we understand that nature and science is essentially God.

I.E. Photosynthesis is the way God makes plants grow.

[Runt]

Lol, and Evolution is the way God created Humans.

[Gnosti Seauton]

The study of the Qabalah reconciles completely Science and Religion. And professes evolution not as something that has happened but something that is constantly happening. We are still evolving.

[Engyo]

Science continues to catch up with the Buddha's awakening.

[Alaric]

That article was very... accomodating. Science and religion don't refer to different aspects of reality, they compete over the same territory. The difference is that science involves empirical observations and reasoned arguments, the making of hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses in controlled experiments; religion explains the world by relying on the testimony of people long dead. Science is self-critical, constantly seeking to test its postulates; religion usually demands unquestioning faith. And where we want to speculate about things we can't test, we have logic and philosophy.

The risk is that when people attempt to reconcile science and religion, they end up twisting sciencific discoveries to fit the beliefs within different faiths; just like reconciling different faiths tend to downplay their contradictions and in so doing pervert the entire message of the individual religion.

You can certainly play around with the different ideas presented by religions, but if want to get anything meaningful out of them you need to treat them like scientific theories. Even if you can't test them empirically, you can still apply logic to them, analyse the consequences of the idea etc. Otherwise they're just wild guesses and deserve no respect.

[Runt]

You can certainly play around with the different ideas presented by religions, but if want to get anything meaningful out of them you need to treat them like scientific theories.

A good idea, but nearly impossible to carry out. Although religion IS just a series of guesses with really no proof (other than a few resources written by unknown authors and containing information of who knows what validity), and not even scientific theories (which basically have been proven, although the word "theory" makes some people think they are little more than guesses), religion STILL believes it knows everything...

Not EVERY religion, but some.

And couldn't science and religion be talking about the same reality? One in metaphor, the other rationally? Just like scientific theories can be made to fit into religious molds to "prove" religious "theories", cannot religious myths and "theories" (here I mean guesses, not scientific theories) be made to fit into scientific theory?

The problem with assuming that science is the only way to measure reality is that it does not know EVERYTHING. There are many things we can't see in science... but we know they are there because of how they react with things around them. Who knows what yet undiscovered scientific truths are out there?

[Alaric]

Originally Posted by Runt

And couldn't science and religion be talking about the same reality?

This is what I meant. Religion is a bit like a gap-filling worldview, useful until science comes along. That doesn't mean parts of a religious belief can't be right, but we use science to find out. And if we have limited resources, lets spend them on theories that are a little more likely!

Originally Posted by Runt

The problem with assuming that science is the only way to measure reality is that it does not know EVERYTHING. There are many things we can't see in science... but we know they are there because of how they react with things around them. Who knows what yet undiscovered scientific truths are out there?

The question is whether science can know everything eventually. There can't be any truths we can only learn from religion, because until we can prove them scientifically, they cannot be 'truths' at all.

[Engyo]

Alaric -

If you want to get semantic about "truth" there are lots of places we can go. I participated in a seminar on healing racism once. I found that it is posible for two people involved in an exchange with each other to believe two separate and seemingly incompatible versions of what happened. Nevertheless, each version of the exchange is true, FOR THE PERSON THAT EXPERIENCED IT. For lack of a better term, this can be called perceptive truth.

I can say something to someone else, with no racist intent, no disrespectful intent and no hateful intent. Yet the person hearing my speech perceives that I have such intent. Whose perception is more true? Both agree on the exact words used during the exchange, yet there are at least two truths happening simultaneously. I say at least two, because if a 3rd person observes this exchange, he or she may have a different perception than either of the participants. Yet each version is true, for that individual.

These are different, obviously, from scientifically demonstrated objective "truth". I find that religious truth exists primarily in its effect on the individual's perceptions, thus placing it in the realm of perceptive truth, rather than objective truth.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by Alaric

There can't be any truths we can only learn from religion, because until we can prove them scientifically, they cannot be 'truths' at all.

There is one. What happens after death? We won't know for sure until we die, so it cannot be measured by science.

Unless... anyone ever seen the movie where several med students take turns killing themselves with medical drugs and bringing themselves back (allowing themselves to medically "die" for a few minutes and then having a friend bring them back by shocking them) and then comparing their experiences. The movie gets kinda freaky, but it is interesting...