Science vs Religion

[SomeRandom]

I always have a bit of a hard time with the paradigms of science and reason vs religion and emotion. (Mostly due to the Western enforced dichotomy between the two.)
Religion was always presented to me, from day one, as emotion based. The core ideal being that one seeks to foster an emotional connection with God/Divine from within.
It was always couched in terms of art. And art doesn’t necessarily need to be rational or logical. It is supposed to speak to you on a primal sort of level. A human level, of you like.

But science is the logic. The cold hard truth. Facts. Objective evidence.
Obviously one can easily live with both paradigms quite comfortably.
So how do you reconcile both truths, as it were?

 

[Jainarayan]

I don’t think I ever had a problem reconciling the two, even when I was Christian. Believe it or not, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are quite progressive in this area. The Catholic Church learned its lesson from the Galileo Galilei debacle, among others. It was a Catholic priest, for example, Fr. Georges Le Maitre who originally proposed the Big Bang. It’s not that I took my cue from that, I was never a Bible literalist, and always had a more think-outside-box view. And of course, I recognized early on Hinduism’s seamless reconciliation of science, religion and philosophy. This is one of the reasons, if not the main reason most of the Young Earth, Flat Earth, anti-evolution and “God did it” threads make me crazy.

 

[Vinayaka]

I always have a bit of a hard time with the paradigms of science and reason vs religion and emotion. (Mostly due to the Western enforced dichotomy between the two.)
Religion was always presented to me, from day one, as emotion based. The core ideal being that one seeks to foster an emotional connection with God/Divine from within.
It was always couched in terms of art. And art doesn’t necessarily need to be rational or logical. It is supposed to speak to you on a primal sort of level. A human level, of you like.

But science is the logic. The cold hard truth. Facts. Objective evidence.
Obviously one can easily live with both paradigms quite comfortably.
So how do you reconcile both truths, as it were?

I use both, and rarely even think there is any conflict. So there is nothing to reconcile. My faith is in alignment with science. If there is stuff that we are yet to understand, I just assume that science has yet to figure it out, and leave it at that. But I do agree with you that western dichotomy influences a lot of folks.

To put it more directly, I don't need objective evidence to believe in God, or not. Hinduism, at least my version, is tolerant of a whole lot.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But science is the logic. The cold hard truth. Facts. Objective evidence.
Obviously one can easily live with both paradigms quite comfortably.

For me, there are no two paradigms. My religious belief is exactly the same as that of science.

 

[George-ananda]

Obviously one can easily live with both paradigms quite comfortably.
So how do you reconcile both truths, as it were?

I think your first sentence above answers your second sentence. They are different but not contradictory.

 

[ajay0]

Here is an interesting conversation between the female enlightened sage Anandamayi Ma and a disciple....


Question: In this age of Science, why is it difficult to believe in God?

Anandamayi Ma: By studying Science, the thirst for knowledge is aroused, and thus one awakens to the search after Truth. But the truth that denies God and all deities is a partial and one-sided point of view - it isn't a comprehensive vision at all. An integral, complete vision unites the point of view of Science with that of faith. In a full vision, the standpoints of the believer and of the non-believer meet. To lay stress on righteousness and ethics will educate your character and eventually lead to perfection. A complete, unobstructed vision will open out. By accepting your own line wholly and with all its implications, you will finally realise all lines of approach.

 

[Jainarayan]

But the truth that denies God and all deities is a partial and one-sided point of view - it isn't a comprehensive vision at all.

It’s like the story of the elephant and the blind men. There are many many components to the whole truth.