Science VS. Religion

[Hevenly Heathen]

I have perused these forums, often times being more of a spectator than a participator. Looking through numerous threads, I see the science community trying to wring out proof from the mystic, and I've seen religious community trying to appease to logic with faith. Many, many questions has this subject alone raised, but were more or less dealt with through many threads I've watched.

But there is always a fissure: scientific language-reasoning, and religious jargon-faith. I am aware that some science may bolster spiritual or religious beliefs, and vice versa.
What I am curious about is this barrier. I have also seen many scientists unwilling to listen to claims of faith, and many spiritual and religious unwilling to accept that science is the Rosetta Stone to understanding the Universe, but there are some who seem to have reconciled somehow this precarious divide.

The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?
Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?
Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

And just one point for some consideration if you haven't thought on it yet: The vocabulary of science and r/s are different, and I have seen too often one side or the other pegged as ignorant or treated without patience when they don't understand or grasp the concept or idea, so please practice patience with one another in the rise of counter opinions. Science and r/s can get along beautifully, just as the mind and heart can.

 

[Dunemeister]

Science is deaf to such things as morality and spirituality since it is confined to what goes on at the level of atoms bouncing around.

 

[Storm]

Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do believe it's our most effective tool for determining truth. It infuriates me when people denigrate it.

Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?

Well, for one thing, science is impotent when it comes to exploring the supernatural. Now, I don't believe in the supernatural, but I'm just as annoyed by the naturalist saying it's been disproven as I am by the Literalist rejecting scientific knowledge.

Science is incredibly powerful, but not without its limitations. It cannot answer the questions of religion: why are we here, where are we going, etc..

In a nutshell, science tells us how things work, HOW "Goddidit." Religion, otoh, deals in shoulds. It's about shaping the world to an ideal, not exploring it as is.

Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?

With the aforementioned limitations firmly in mind, science is still (as I said) our most pwerful tool. It's a bright light shining into the mysteries of the cosmos, where theology is groping in the dark. I believe that religion should be flexible, adapting to and incorporating new knowledge if it wants to survive.

Now, this doesn't mean that religion should yield all authority. Rather, it means that religion should embrace growth. There's a beautiful passage in Huston Smith's Why Religion Matters about how research on the nature of light, a near-universal metaphor for God, makes that metaphor all the more powerful. Religion should celebrate knowledge.

Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

IMX, when they deny the science.

And just one point for some consideration if you haven't thought on it yet: The vocabulary of science and r/s are different, and I have seen too often one side or the other pegged as ignorant or treated without patience when they don't understand or grasp the concept or idea, so please practice patience with one another in the rise of counter opinions. Science and r/s can get along beautifully, just as the mind and heart can.

Excellent point!

 

[Gabethewiking]

Science is the tool we use to find evidence and learn about the real world.
(IE. Science dealswith reality).

Religion is a man made concept to give a name to personal beliefs people have without proof.
(IE. Religion deals with fantasy/fiction/things that do not exist).

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

"Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?"

In many religious and spiritual paths, it is the studying of life which provides the answers, not the dissection of how it all works and what is going on, but the seemingly insignificant and often overlooked aspects which offer insights, and meditation upon the insight to delve deeper and grow spiritually.

I am aware that science does a LOT of observation, but the dissection I am speaking of is of their mind to determine the why's and how's. Subtle may have been the wrong word, but I chose it in regards that science is invasive in its questioning, looking at something from all sides, picking it up, turning it this way, then that, probing (not always physically), trying to determine what makes it tick. R/S doesn't. IMX, it seeks the relationship of one thing to the universe/god/energy/magic/whatever.

I don't know if this clears up the question, or sounds like rambling, haha.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....

The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?
Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?
Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

....
Science and r/s can get along beautifully, just as the mind and heart can.

Most of my (and from my observations, most complaints in general from the scientific/reality based community) stem from claims about reality/the universe/history/etc... made by the r/s community, which are clearly untrue.

Science is deaf to such things as morality and spirituality since it is confined to what goes on at the level of atoms bouncing around.

Case in point....
Science, as a way of thinking, has problems with many claims by the r/s community since it is the goal of science to answer questions. Yet the r/s community often (violently) refuses to even abide the questions; let alone daring to answer any questions raised.

Earth is flat.
It is the center of the universe.
It is 4000 years old.
Homo sapiens came into existence *POOF!* out of thin air. In the physical form of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being (which nobody has ever seen).
etc...etc....
To question these (and MANY other) statements of faith.....COMMANDMENTS of faith.....has led to uncountable numbers of vicious persecutions and executions throughout history.
But even in the face of these atrocities by the r/s upon the scientific community, the search for answers....
the search for real, verifiable TRUTH....marches on.

Please note: I am agnostic. My father is a scientist....who is also a Christian. I agree that spirituality and science can readily go hand in hand.
But reality/science has already demolished the 'organized' Abrahamic religions/"Churches". There really isn't any going back, but the ignorant and violent followers of these dead churches are willing to kill.....en masse....in their death throws.
So one can clearly see where there would be animosity.

As for subtlety of awareness.....I believe you have it in reverse. It is the scientists who are constantly looking closer, and closer, and closer still....in order to appreciate the truly sublime subtlety involved in the most minute movements of the universe. Whereas MOST OF the r/s community wants simple, BIG answers for easy public consumption; without having to do the work of actually looking for those answers.

Spirituality is still crucially important in comfort; and psychological therapy for innumerable people around the Earth....and will likely continue in that role for decades or even centuries yet to come.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

But reality/science has already demolished the 'organized' Abrahamic religions/"Churches". There really isn't any going back, but the ignorant and violent followers of these dead churches are willing to kill.....en masse....in their death throws.

You'd better watch what you say then, haha. Really, though, they aren't demolished. If taken as literal, yes, it could be seen as being upturned and 'demolished,' but things are rarely as they appear to face in matters of r/s. Which is where the subtlety plays in. I know it is common to see r/s-ers not being patient and understanding, but in a perfect world...

Thank you all for your responses so far!

 

[Storm]

You'd better watch what you say then, haha. Really, though, they aren't demolished. If taken as literal, yes, it could be seen as being upturned and 'demolished,' but things are rarely as they appear to face in matters of r/s. Which is where the subtlety plays in. I know it is common to see r/s-ers not being patient and understanding, but in a perfect world...

Thank you all for your responses so far!

Totally agree with this.

 

[skydivephil]

I have perused these forums, often times being more of a spectator than a participator. Looking through numerous threads, I see the science community trying to wring out proof from the mystic, and I've seen religious community trying to appease to logic with faith. Many, many questions has this subject alone raised, but were more or less dealt with through many threads I've watched.

But there is always a fissure: scientific language-reasoning, and religious jargon-faith. I am aware that some science may bolster spiritual or religious beliefs, and vice versa.
What I am curious about is this barrier. I have also seen many scientists unwilling to listen to claims of faith, and many spiritual and religious unwilling to accept that science is the Rosetta Stone to understanding the Universe, but there are some who seem to have reconciled somehow this precarious divide.

The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?
Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?
Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

And just one point for some consideration if you haven't thought on it yet: The vocabulary of science and r/s are different, and I have seen too often one side or the other pegged as ignorant or treated without patience when they don't understand or grasp the concept or idea, so please practice patience with one another in the rise of counter opinions. Science and r/s can get along beautifully, just as the mind and heart can.

Before one decides on what to beleive, one should first decide what is a good method of deciding what to believe. The method of science is to believe statements in the proportion of the evidence for them. I have yet to see a better method of assessing factual claims, how does faith enable one to determine which statements are true and which are not?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repeatability, theory.

The scientific method, take is as gospel - every moment of everyday, that you are you; seeing that which is not you, is where you stand as observer in your subjective reality.

Ecclesiastes clearly states; Fear god. The commandment to know in the Bible is that thou shalt have no god before me. It is not necessary to even try to understand "what is god" to understand what is being demanded in terms of subjective vs. objective reality - do not impose your will upon others. When others try to impose their will upon you - they are not fearing god.

That's half. The other half of what it is to fear god - is to fear god as manifesting right into your subjective reality with such love and joy and happiness and glee - that god must go away - that's the other half.

There is a resonance built into love as fear that those blinded by dogma seem unable to grasp - but is has been made much easier to see others giving you the first half of the wave - take it and smile. Seeing others doing error, that makes you want to stop fearing god by being god - stop it and smile.

And love, truly, madly, deeply - and the rest of that book is for shearing sheep.

 

[AxisMundi]

Science is deaf to such things as morality and spirituality since it is confined to what goes on at the level of atoms bouncing around.

Christianity has no monopoly on morals, nor did it create the idea of morality.

"Morals" are social in nature, as they effect purely social considerations. The "Big Three" for example (murder, theft, rape) simply do not effect religion in the least.

Most confuse morals (society) with religious laws, many times on purpose as you ahve above.

The current oppression of gays is not an example of a question of morality, it is a question of religious law, for one example.

 

[AxisMundi]

....Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?.....

Science attempts to answer questions concerning the visible universe through the full gambit of the scientific process.

The purely religious, using your example above, attempt to explain the observable universe by arriving at a conclusion first, ie "Goddunnit", and refuse simple scientific proof as it runs contrary to their already established conclusion.

If those things that lie beyond the easily observable were to become measurable qualities, subject to the entire scientific method including repeatable testing with predictable results, then science would quite readily adjust and apply said scientific methods to Deities who would then enter the realm of scientific fact.

That said, I belong to a sub-group of the Celtic Reconstructionist Movement. We call ourselves Gaels as we tend to have Irish ancestry.

We believe that Deities, and the spiritual aspects of ourselves, are echos imprinted on the universe in energies and matter so radically different that we (Man) simply do not have the equipment to measure it, or the knowledge (yet) to even know where to begin looking.

We "reconcile" science and religion by noting that science has already proven some aspects of our beliefs, and have done so without argument or the ignorance that the YECer mentality requires.

Science already explains electromagnetism and how it effects different substances around it, and is also aware that the human body runs on bio-electricity. Science also discovers new matter and energy constantly, and other dimensions are hypothesized for a few examples in an already too long response.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Before one decides on what to beleive, one should first decide what is a good method of deciding what to believe. The method of science is to believe statements in the proportion of the evidence for them. I have yet to see a better method of assessing factual claims, how does faith enable one to determine which statements are true and which are not?

First one must ask this question: what is truth?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

First one must ask this question: what is truth?

Truth is one of those words that only has meaning within a specific context. If spot is a dog, it would be the truth that spot was a dog. There is no abstract entity out there in the universe called 'truth'

 

[johnhanks]

Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?

1. That a deity would create an unimaginably vast universe with billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, just so that it could colonise one tiny speck of rock on the outer edge of one so-so galaxy, for a small fraction of its existence, with moderately clever social bipeds that were its special favourites.
2. That in the unlikely event of 1 being true, said deity would reveal itself to its darlings in completely different guises in different parts of the world, but always invisibly and ambiguously, whilst at the same time demanding their complete belief in itself as a condition for their well-being.

There are other bits and pieces, but the above are the stand-outs.

 

[skydivephil]

First one must ask this question: what is truth?

A statement should be considered true if its consistent with all avaibale information. But a good scientists regards all truths as tentative, contigent upon the available information.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Before one decides on what to beleive, one should first decide what is a good method of deciding what to believe. The method of science is to believe statements in the proportion of the evidence for them. I have yet to see a better method of assessing factual claims, how does faith enable one to determine which statements are true and which are not?

A statement should be considered true if its consistent with all avaibale information. But a good scientists regards all truths as tentative, contigent upon the available information.

Would you then consider the information from r/s sources valid? They are believed and supported by many ways within the r/s upholding them.
R/S can validate their claims, and science can validate their own, but how do you choose which one is more reliable? Science is easier, as it deals with the physical, but r/s relies on some areas not covered by science, or 'rebuked' by it.
It is unlikely that there is an all powerful being at the head of creation, but it is only unlikely, not fact, correct?
I am not one for believing in such a being, but to my knowledge, science itself has not determined the alpha of the universe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Would you then consider the information from r/s sources valid? They are believed and supported by many ways within the r/s upholding them.

How?

R/S can validate their claims, and science can validate their own, but how do you choose which one is more reliable?

Science is results based, R/S is faith based.

To put it simply, when something is held true in science you can test it, observe it and use it to make successful predictions. R/S doesn't meet any of these requirements - it's just true because you believe it to be, no test required, no burden of proof met.

Science is easier, as it deals with the physical, but r/s relies on some areas not covered by science, or 'rebuked' by it.

In what way is science "easier"?

It is unlikely that there is an all powerful being at the head of creation, but it is only unlikely, not fact, correct?

Correct.

Here is a list of equally unlikely things:
- leprechauns
- pixies
- unicorns
- goblins
- trolls
- elves
- gnomes
- the tooth fairy
- father Christmas

I am not one for believing in such a being, but to my knowledge, science itself has not determined the alpha of the universe.

But what does that have to do with anything? Science only works with what it's been given. If it has no supporting facts to make an accurate theory on what created the universe, then it makes no assumptions to that effect.

Religious beliefs forgo this, making absolute assumptions about complete unknowns. Not only that, but it uses these assumptions as a basis for morality, lifestyle and rituals throughout life and as a basis by which people judge and view the world around them. That's the principle difference between science and religion: science seeks facts to understand reality, religion just seeks to reaffirm it's assumptions.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Hmm, that's an interesting POV, Immortal. What do you think a culture based on science would be like?

R/S, as you have stated, relies on faith. Their proof is all around, or so we are told. I understand their point of view, but I do not accept anything blindly, even if it has been peer reviewed to the thousandth time; nothing is as it seems, and the world is blind until silenced, only then can we begin to see.

Science is easier as the physical, and the physical world is all around us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmm, that's an interesting POV, Immortal. What do you think a culture based on science would be like?

Depends what you mean by "based on". Science is not a cultural device, it is means through which we learn about the natural world. I would not, in that sense, "base" my culture on science, but I could learn a lesson from science and say that I would most like to live in a secular culture or society, in which faith is held in no higher a regard than any other unproven assertion - but where people are still able to believe and follow the practices that they wish.

In short: it's not science's place to have culture built around it, but we can at least learn from the secular means by which science attains it's goals.

R/S, as you have stated, relies on faith. Their proof is all around, or so we are told. I understand their point of view, but I do not accept anything blindly, even if it has been peer reviewed to the thousandth time; nothing is as it seems, and the world is blind until silenced, only then can we begin to see.

But that standpoint makes no sense and offers absolutely no insight whatsoever. Regardless of how uncertain you believe you are about something, you must accept that there are degrees of certainty about everything and that logic dictates that which has the most supporting evidence is more likely to be true. The idea of "nothing is as it seems" is a meaningless point that only leads to a complete dead end, both scientifically and philosophically.

The truth is that things are as they seem - until demonstrated otherwise. This isn't to say that knowledge is something that we simply grasp and that ascertaining truth is somehow inherent within us all, but assuming that things are other than what logic and rationale dictate they are without merit does not lead anywhere. If all knowledge were so loose weave then you would not get out of bed in the morning for fear of stepping into a black hole. Human perception, in your opinion, may not be substantial enough to plumb the very depths of the universe's meaning, but you know what it is good for? Saving lives. Learning. Understanding basic tenets of existence. You can fault your perception all you want, but it's the only one you'll ever have and you're doing a disservice to yourself and society by squandering it on meaningless ruminations about how you "can't know the truth".

Science is easier as the physical, and the physical world is all around us.

But how does that make it "easier"? In what way is it "easier" to observe, study, test, predict and quantify something than it is to just to make it up out of thin air and assume it's already true?