Do Science and Religion Have Anything to Say About Each Other?

[Sunstone]

"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry - fact vs. values - so that there is a difference between the "nets" [1] over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap." -- Wikipedia.

Was Gould right? Why or why not?

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

 

[Terese]

Is the question you're asking mean can science and religion overlap?

 

[Sunstone]

Is the question you're asking mean can science and religion overlap?

Yeah, overlap in the sense of both of them making inquiry into the same subject with the potential, at least, of there being a logical conflict between their two views of that subject.

 

[Altfish]

Yeah, overlap in the sense of both of them making inquiry into the same subject with the potential, at least, of there being a logical conflict between their two views of that subject.

They can both inquire into the same subject but the methods are likely to be different and the results not accepted by the other side.

 

[Terese]

Well as a Hindu i believe that the laws of nature and just everything that holds the universe is God's doing. He is the force that holds atoms in place, so its compatible to me, its just that they call it differently. Science is the study of the material, Religion is the study of the spiritual.

 

[HonestJoe]

Assuming you consider the social sciences actual science, obviously it can (and should) have lots to say about religion, which remains a major element in human behaviour at both individual and societal levels.

Individual religions are capable of commenting on pretty much anything so that clearly can and does include “science” by any of the commonly used definitions (the formal process of study and discovery, some of the established conclusions reached via that process or some of the practical consequences of that).

I think the ideas of drawing such a hard line between the two comes from those on either “side” who don’t want to face the difficulties caused when they coincide. It’s easier to sit in your little bubble and pretend the world isn’t as messy and imperfect as it really is. I’m personally not convinced you can properly address either without acknowledging the existence of the other.

 

[Sees]

The position he gives religion basically seems to be subjective, psychological, wishy-washy, silly business that deals with truth as in - blue is the best color and sunsets are marvelous...

As far as this goes, he and I are not just on a different page but a whole 'nother book.

 

[rusra02]

"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry - fact vs. values - so that there is a difference between the "nets" [1] over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap." -- Wikipedia.

Was Gould right? Why or why not?

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

I think that true religion and true science are both based on realities, so they complement one another. For example, God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) So what true science reveals about the wisdom manifest in Creation can help us learn about the Creator. True religion, I believe, is also based on realities and facts. So science and religion (if true) do overlap, IMO. The problem is there is so much that is not true in both fields, yet accepted as truth by many.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

I suspect that you're reflecting a Western bias. So, for example, what such claims are made by Hinduism and Buddhism?

More to the point, I think Gould was speaking about appropriate scope. That scripture such as the Torah offer false etiologies should not be held against them. They did the best they could with what they knew at the time, and did so in such a way as to not preclude the arrival of a Jeremy England from time to time.

 

[metis]

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

The most important question to me is whether the religious denomination accepts overwhelming scientific consensus on "X"? If not, then I have to sharply question any validity that denomination may claim. An example would be dealing with evolution, and I grew up in a church that said it didn't happen but left it many years ago when I found out what the reality was and is.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I suspect that you're reflecting a Western bias. So, for example, what such claims are made by Hinduism and Buddhism?

More to the point, I think Gould was speaking about appropriate scope. That scripture such as the Torah offer false etiologies should not be held against them. They did the best they could with what they knew at the time, and did so in such a way as to not preclude the arrival of a Jeremy England from time to time.

Thanks for the link! I'm glad to hear that someone is really working hard to figure our ways it could happen; I know there have been others running experiments of various aspects over the years, but this sounds more comprehensive to me. Very interesting.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, overlap in the sense of both of them making inquiry into the same subject with the potential, at least, of there being a logical conflict between their two views of that subject.

In my view they are same. If both are making an inquiry, then why there should be a conflict (unless one party takes recourse to untruth).

 

[Skwim]

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

Becuase of the nature of science, investigating the character of reality, it's always in a position to comment on any claims within its purview. However this does not mean it interacts with them or the forum in which they arise; in this case, religion. Want to claim the Noah story is 100% fact? Science says "fine, believe whatever you want, we don't care; however, as a matter of scientific accuracy it simply doesn't wash." And religion's position is, "we don't care what science says. We believe the Noah story is 100% fact because our faith demands it." Science runs on testable explanations and predictions about the universe, whereas religion runs on satisfying the psychological needs of people. Religion doesn't care about testing explanations and predictions about the universe, and science doesn't care about satisfying the psychological needs of people. I think the image below pretty well summarizes the disconnect between the two.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry - fact vs. values - so that there is a difference between the "nets" [1] over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap." -- Wikipedia.

Was Gould right? Why or why not?

My opinion is that Gould was exaggerating the distinctness of science and religion because religions almost always make claims about things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. But what do you think?

I agree with you.
But Gould was a human being like us. We can revise his opinion.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is the question you're asking mean can science and religion overlap?

Religion can overlap legitimately as religion deals the whole life, science has a limited scope of life.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Well as a Hindu i believe that the laws of nature and just everything that holds the universe is God's doing. He is the force that holds atoms in place, so its compatible to me, its just that they call it differently. Science is the study of the material, Religion is the study of the spiritual.

I endorse your view.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think that true religion and true science are both based on realities, so they complement one another. For example, God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) So what true science reveals about the wisdom manifest in Creation can help us learn about the Creator. True religion, I believe, is also based on realities and facts. So science and religion (if true) do overlap, IMO. The problem is there is so much that is not true in both fields, yet accepted as truth by many.

I agree with what I have coloured in magenta.
Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I suspect that you're reflecting a Western bias. So, for example, what such claims are made by Hinduism and Buddhism?

More to the point, I think Gould was speaking about appropriate scope. That scripture such as the Torah offer false etiologies should not be held against them. They did the best they could with what they knew at the time, and did so in such a way as to not preclude the arrival of a Jeremy England from time to time.

That article probably deserves it own thread, but thanks for linking.

 

[Sunstone]

Well as a Hindu i believe that the laws of nature and just everything that holds the universe is God's doing. He is the force that holds atoms in place, so its compatible to me, its just that they call it differently. Science is the study of the material, Religion is the study of the spiritual.

I'm confused now. Science makes claims about material forces that hold atoms together, while you make claims about a spiritual force (God) that holds atoms together. Are you saying that God is the same as the physicist's forces?

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect that you're reflecting a Western bias. So, for example, what such claims are made by Hinduism and Buddhism?

So far as I understand it, most of the conflict between the sciences and those two religions occurs at what Joseph Campbell calls "The village level". That is, it's not the Hinduism and Buddhism of their scriptures, so much, as it is the Hinduism and Buddhism as they are lived on a day to day basis. For instance, Tibetan Buddhists at one time (and perhaps still do) perform a ritual in which monks drive a wooden stake into the corner of a farmer's field in order to prevent the topsoil from blowing away. Presumably, a comparative, science based study of staked and unstaked fields would show little or no variation in rates of topsoil depletion. At any rate, the practice of staking fields is a minor example, but it's my impression that it such minor examples are relatively commonplace through-out the East. I could be wrong about that, though.

More to the point, I think Gould was speaking about appropriate scope. That scripture such as the Torah offer false etiologies should not be held against them. They did the best they could with what they knew at the time, and did so in such a way as to not preclude the arrival of a Jeremy England from time to time.

Ah! That's a good point about "appropriate scope". I think Gould's notion of NOMA makes more sense if it's interpreted that way than it makes if it's seen as a mere description of what is the case worldwide with religions and sciences.

By the way --- as you might be aware, Mr. Spinkles is pursuing his doctorate in the same area of physics as Jeremy England. That is, the physics of biology.