Just a question from someone lost.

[evYugi]

This is just a question that I found myself asking, and maybe someone can help enlighten me to a proper answer.

Why is there a conflict between science and religion? Why is it that some people reject science? I believe that God is existant, and science is merely trying to understand existance, hence, it is a tool for us to understand God. If we refuse to face, understand, and find out more about the truth in our universe, and to some extent, we even reject it, are we not blindly rejecting God's existant? Just imagine our knowledge base as a blank book, and as time pass, we are slowly trying to fill in the blank. But, with so many blank, we really can't understand the book, which is why we must continues to try to fill in those blank. Only in such way can we eventually get to a point where we can start to understand existance. Unlike God, we are not eternal. We all have a beginning and an end, and the law of thermal dynamic dictate such an existant. Which mean we only have a limited amount of time to understand God's will before it is too late.

I apologize for the incoherent ranting as I am not very eloquent with words.

 

[astarath]

For me science as our attempt to rationalise the spiritual. However I am not will to wait for science to prove God's existence when I can skip the wait and simply have faith!

 

[yuvgotmel]

I recommend the book "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea," by Charles Seife. The author and mathematician, Charles Seife, describes the split between religion and science quite eloquently. Apparently, it had a lot to do with the innocent looking number 0.

Zero was at the heart of the battle between East and West. Zero was at the center of the struggle between religion and science. Zero became the language of nature and the most important tool in mathematics. And the most profound problems in physics—the dark core of a black hole and the brilliant flash of the big bang—are struggles to defeat zero.

“Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea” by Charles Seife, pp. 2~3

It is hard to image being afraid of a number. Yet zero was inexorably linked with the void—with nothing. There was a primal fear of void and chaos. There was also a fear of zero.

“Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea” by Charles Seife, p. 19​

 

[FatMan]

The mistake people make, including the post 2 above this is that science is connected to religion. It isn't - they are two seperate entities. Religion tries to discern where we came from and where we are going through oral stories and written bodies of work. Science exists to discertain what we can prove from a material fact point of view.

It very rarely involves matters of religion, but rather involves things like biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc (all science branches). Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion. It exists to help us become more knowledgeable about our surroundings and to understand why things act or do the things they do.

 

[Hema]

Welcome to RF.

I’m not sure about other religions and their take on science but my religion does not conflict with science. (Not that other religions are inferior – they are all paths to God).

Don’t worry about your writing. You brought your points across very effectively.

To me, science is just an attempt to justifying the way that God’s universe works.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion.

So, Newton, Galileo and others were fools?

 

[FatMan]

So, Newton, Galileo and others were fools?

They didn't believe science existed for the sake of religion. In fact, the law of gravity has nothing to do with religion.

Did they try to prove some religious aspects through science? Yes. But what were their lasting acheivements??? Non-religious scientific findings.

 

[love]

If you consider science as man's continued search for knowledge I don't see it in conflict with man's search for God. We are just begining to understand the basic laws of of our surroundings. If we as men think we have arrived and our wisdom is sufficeint we are still in the dark ages.

 

[yuvgotmel]

The mistake people make, including the post 2 above this is that science is connected to religion. It isn't - they are two seperate entities. Religion tries to discern where we came from and where we are going through oral stories and written bodies of work. Science exists to discertain what we can prove from a material fact point of view.

It very rarely involves matters of religion, but rather involves things like biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc (all science branches). Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion. It exists to help us become more knowledgeable about our surroundings and to understand why things act or do the things they do.

Wrong.... Here are some more excerpts from "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife

“Aristotle simply declared that mathematics ‘do not need the infinite, or use it.’”

“There was no infinite; there was no void. There was no infinity; there was no zero.

This line of reasoning had another consequence—and this is why Aristotle’s philosophy endured for so many years. His system proved the existence of God.”
p. 46

​

“When Christianity swept through the West, it became closely tied to the Aristotelian view of the universe and the proof of God’s existence. …Questioning the Aristotelian doctrine was tantamount to questioning God’s existence.”

“Void/zero destroys Aristotle’s neat argument, his refutation of Zeno, and his proof of God. So as Aristotle’s arguments were accepted, the Greeks were forced to reject zero, void, the infinite, and infinity.”
p.47

​

“Medieval scholars branded void as evil—and evil as void. Satan was quite literally nothing. Boethius made the argument as follows: God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. But God, the ultimate goodness, cannot do evil. Therefore evil is nothing. It made perfect sense to the medieval mind.

Lurking underneath the veil of medieval philosophy, however, was a conflict. The Aristotelian system was Greek, but the Judeo-Christian story of creation was Semitic—and Semites didn’t have such a fear of the void. The very act of creation was out of a chaotic void, and theologians like Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, tried to explain it away by referring to the state before creation as ‘a nothing something’ that is empty of form but yet ‘falls short of utter nothingness.’ The fear of the void was so great that Christian scholars tried to fix the Bible to match Aristotle rather than vice versa.”
p. 61


“Unlike Greece, India never had a fear of the infinite or of the void. Indeed, it embraced them.

The void had an important place in the Hindu religion.”
p. 64


“…the West was still far from adopting zero. Even the Muslim world, with its Eastern traditions, was heavily contaminated by the teachings of Aristotle, thanks to the conquests of Alexander the Great. However, as Indian mathematicians had made quite clear, zero was the embodiment of the void. Thus, if the Muslims were to accept zero, they had to reject Aristotle. That was precisely what they did.”
p. 73


“Zero and infinity were at the very center of the Renaissance. As Europe slowly awakened from the Dark Ages, the void and the infinite—nothing and everything—would destroy the Aristotelian foundation of the church and open the way to the scientific revolution.

At first the papacy was blind to the danger. High-ranking clergymen experimented with the dangerous ideas of the void and the infinite, even though the ideas struck at the core of the ancient Greek philosophy that the church cherished so much. Zero appeared in the middle of every Renaissance painting, and a cardinal declared that the universe was infinite—boundless. However, the brief love affair with the zero and infinity was not to last.

When the church was threatened, it retreated into its old philosophy, turning back toward the Aristotelian doctrine that had supported it for so many years. It was too late. Zero had taken hold in the West, and despite the papacy’s objections, it was too strong to be exiled once more. Aristotle fell to the infinite and to the void, and so did the proof of God’s existence.

Only one option remained for the church: accept zero and infinity. Indeed, to the devout, God could be found, hidden within the void and the infinite.”
pp. 83~84
​

 

[McBell]

Wrong.... Here are some more excerpts from "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife

“Aristotle simply declared that mathematics ‘do not need the infinite, or use it.’”

“There was no infinite; there was no void. There was no infinity; there was no zero.

This line of reasoning had another consequence—and this is why Aristotle’s philosophy endured for so many years. His system proved the existence of God.”
p. 46

​

“When Christianity swept through the West, it became closely tied to the Aristotelian view of the universe and the proof of God’s existence. …Questioning the Aristotelian doctrine was tantamount to questioning God’s existence.”

“Void/zero destroys Aristotle’s neat argument, his refutation of Zeno, and his proof of God. So as Aristotle’s arguments were accepted, the Greeks were forced to reject zero, void, the infinite, and infinity.”
p.47

​

“Medieval scholars branded void as evil—and evil as void. Satan was quite literally nothing. Boethius made the argument as follows: God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. But God, the ultimate goodness, cannot do evil. Therefore evil is nothing. It made perfect sense to the medieval mind.

Lurking underneath the veil of medieval philosophy, however, was a conflict. The Aristotelian system was Greek, but the Judeo-Christian story of creation was Semitic—and Semites didn’t have such a fear of the void. The very act of creation was out of a chaotic void, and theologians like Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, tried to explain it away by referring to the state before creation as ‘a nothing something’ that is empty of form but yet ‘falls short of utter nothingness.’ The fear of the void was so great that Christian scholars tried to fix the Bible to match Aristotle rather than vice versa.”
p. 61


“Unlike Greece, India never had a fear of the infinite or of the void. Indeed, it embraced them.

The void had an important place in the Hindu religion.”
p. 64


“…the West was still far from adopting zero. Even the Muslim world, with its Eastern traditions, was heavily contaminated by the teachings of Aristotle, thanks to the conquests of Alexander the Great. However, as Indian mathematicians had made quite clear, zero was the embodiment of the void. Thus, if the Muslims were to accept zero, they had to reject Aristotle. That was precisely what they did.”
p. 73


“Zero and infinity were at the very center of the Renaissance. As Europe slowly awakened from the Dark Ages, the void and the infinite—nothing and everything—would destroy the Aristotelian foundation of the church and open the way to the scientific revolution.

At first the papacy was blind to the danger. High-ranking clergymen experimented with the dangerous ideas of the void and the infinite, even though the ideas struck at the core of the ancient Greek philosophy that the church cherished so much. Zero appeared in the middle of every Renaissance painting, and a cardinal declared that the universe was infinite—boundless. However, the brief love affair with the zero and infinity was not to last.

When the church was threatened, it retreated into its old philosophy, turning back toward the Aristotelian doctrine that had supported it for so many years. It was too late. Zero had taken hold in the West, and despite the papacy’s objections, it was too strong to be exiled once more. Aristotle fell to the infinite and to the void, and so did the proof of God’s existence.

Only one option remained for the church: accept zero and infinity. Indeed, to the devout, God could be found, hidden within the void and the infinite.”
pp. 83~84
​

Would you be so kind as to explain how your quoted post above shows that science is merely for the sake of religion?

 

[yuvgotmel]

Would you be so kind as to explain how your quoted post above shows that science is merely for the sake of religion?

FatMan wrote: The mistake people make, including the post 2 above this is that science is connected to religion. It isn't - they are two seperate entities.

Hopefully, those quotes proved otherwise. Religion and science were intertwined. There was no division until the 0 was introduced into mathematics and science.

 

[McBell]

FatMan wrote: The mistake people make, including the post 2 above this is that science is connected to religion. It isn't - they are two seperate entities.

Hopefully, those quotes proved otherwise. Religion and science were intertwined. There was no division until the 0 was introduced into mathematics and science.

Ah.
For some reason I was thinking you were replying to the part: Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Ah.
For some reason I was thinking you were replying to the part: Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion.

no problem

 

[uumckk16]

Welcome to RF.

I’m not sure about other religions and their take on science but my religion does not conflict with science. (Not that other religions are inferior – they are all paths to God).

Don’t worry about your writing. You brought your points across very effectively.

To me, science is just an attempt to justifying the way that God’s universe works.

I agree! My religious beliefs do not conflict with science either Of course, beliefs by their nature go beyond what science can prove...but there is a difference between that and direct contradiction.

 

[Runlikethewind]

First let me say that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned there should be no conflict between science and religion because our search for knowledge is a search for God in some sense. Here is is straight from the horses mouth:

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 159 itallics added)

Only a fool thinks science exists for the sake of religion. It exists to help us become more knowledgeable about our surroundings and to understand why things act or do the things they do.

Becoming more knowledgeable of our surroundings and how things are does help us in religion and understanding God therefore, all attemps to gain knowledge and wisdom, including science, exist to further our understanding of God. Guess that makes me and a few billion Catholics around the world fools....

 

[evYugi]

Science does not exist for the sake of religion, and no one is claiming that it is. Science is a process that help us to understand the world around us. What I'm saying is that if one choose to believe in God, then it is not contriditing to refuse to believe in science? For exmaple, one of the reason I ask this is that there are many people that say they are religious, but refuse to read and understand evolution, and many work hard to make it so that evolution is not taught in school and such. Therefore, in the name of God, they are rejecting God imho. I truely believe that there is such thing as blind faith, but I also believe in those that are blinded by blind faith. IF God is the truth, then the search for truth should eventually lead us back to God.

 

[Runlikethewind]

What I'm saying is that if one choose to believe in God, then it is not contriditing to refuse to believe in science? For exmaple, one of the reason I ask this is that there are many people that say they are religious, but refuse to read and understand evolution, and many work hard to make it so that evolution is not taught in school and such. Therefore, in the name of God, they are rejecting God imho. I truely believe that there is such thing as blind faith, but I also believe in those that are blinded by blind faith. IF God is the truth, then the search for truth should eventually lead us back to God.

Well said and I agree. If one belives in God one should interpret the discovered knowledge of science in that light to gain a better understanding of God rather than reject the discoveries of God's creation mady by scientists for reasons of blind faith.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

They didn't believe science existed for the sake of religion.

Wrong. Science for them was a way of getting closer to, and communing with, a rational God who, they believed, created a rational universe.

 

[FatMan]

I think people are misunderstanding my statements. I did not say that science and religion were NEVER connected. What I said is that they are seperate entities, meaning that TODAY they are seperate entities. Because religion, namely the Catholic church was also a government, EVERYTHING in the old days was tied in some way to religion.

However, modern science deals with an array of topics that have no correlation to religion. It has evolved. Creationism has not.

Early scientists like Newton may have used science to get closer to God - that doesn't mean that they based their findings on religious beliefs. The Law of Gravity is a perfect example of that.

 

[Willamena]

Why is there a conflict between science and religion? Why is it that some people reject science? I believe that God is existant, and science is merely trying to understand existance, hence, it is a tool for us to understand God...

There is conflict because there is misunderstanding, including your own. On the surface, both science and religion are discovering the natural world in terms we can use to explain it. The difference is that one looks at that world from the surface, and the other from beneath it. One is not examining the other.