Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Unveiled Artist]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

I don't see science and religion conflict with each other. They have different criteria of truth. For example, I wouldn't go to religion if I wanted to know how to cure a chronic illness. I wouldn't go to science if my experiences is more criteria of truthfulness in my spiritual wellbeing than science.

I don't understand why science and religion has to be at conflict with each other.

If science proves religion is false, why would that matter? Unless religious purpose is to solve mathematics with its beliefs that two and two is five, it makes no difference as a whole just to the individual. Science and religion address two different aspects of a person's life. Science address and describes a compilation of spiritual, phycological, and physiological role of religion. GodReligion describes how these three things are lived.

I mean, believing in God is like believing two and two is five. If we were transported to Pagan times, I bet you can see a difference in criteria of ones truth then and now. But no one wants to. If their experiences help their wellbeing, why tell them they are false. Life isn't scientific. It just is.

It highly depends on how you see life. Science addresses and defines spirituality but it doesn't define what these things mean to others. It doesn't describe ones personal experiences and worldview that helps people strengthen their worldview. No one over the other. They address different areas in life.

What I see is the issue is when a religion feels their religion would be true if it's backed up by science. We have history, archeology, history channels, ghost catchers just to prove religion true. Why? Science doesn't care. Sometimes I think religous are threatened by science. What if science proves god isn't real. So what. Why does that matter when religion isn't mathematics?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

If we think about what religion and science are, I think it becomes obvious how we should balance them:

- science: our best understanding of objective facts, determined in a rigorous way.

- religion: a belief system that, for those who have one, provides meaning and a framework for a person's life.

I see it a lot like bank balance versus lifestyle: your bank balance doesn't impose any value judgements on you - it just is what it is. However, if you live as if you have a million dollars in the bank when you only have a hundred, you're going to run uo against reality in ways that will interfere with your chosen lifestyle.

 

[Earthling]

Modern science didn't really start until (about) 1700, so yes many moons ago religion was the font of all knowledge. In fact the likes of priests were probably the only people in a village who could read and write.
But, what has religion added in the last 200-years to our knowledge? Has it brought us computers, modern transport systems, medicines, etc., etc. No, it has only tried to hold back human's advancement.

Well, first of all I agree that science has brought us these things, and that's great, but in the last 200 years it has also greatly increased our understanding of the Bible. A great deal that was thought to be made up nonsense and incorrect historical content has been demonstrated to have been accurate through archaeological work, which I'm sure you will agree, though highly subject to various interpretations, is nevertheless, science.

However, I think that if anything, it is money that holds back scientific and technological advancement. A distant second would be politics. Religion, I think, would be minuscule in it's effectiveness in doing so.

Of course, I also happen to think that science is science, whether good or bad, ancient or modern. And I think the same thing of organized religion. As a believer in the Bible, being apolitical and never more than expressing observations on politics, I can sincerely say that I would be glad to see the destruction of organized religion, money and politics but quite sad to see the destruction of science and technology. Not only that, but my Bible beliefs lead me to think that organized religion, money and politics will, in fact be destroyed but not so with science and technology and that gives me comfort.

 

[Valjean]

I do not cherish beliefs. I assess the outcomes from holding those beliefs and value the utility of holding them accordingly. Goes for everything, including scientific and religious beliefs. Thus, for me, any and all beliefs can be accepted or rejected at any time if they prove useful or not useful in making me a better person, ...

But useful doesn't necessarily correspond with true.
Utility is useful in choosing actions or political positions, but belief should be based on one's best perception of truth, regardless of its ramifications.

I will abandon something if I am unable to express my self and character and purposes and meanings through it. This holds from choosing (or abandoning) certain style of shoes to a certain worldview, lifestyle or religion.

Abandoning an action or lifestyle is one thing, but shouldn't religious belief be based on absolute, epistemic Truth?

It's a difficult question. To science minded atheists science is fact, true, infallible, right, and religion is myth, false, fallacy, wrong. It's a dogmatic and political xenophobia. It's as ridiculous as saying if you like the color red you can't be a parent.

Absolute rubbish! No-one familiar with science believes this, religious or not.
Science is a best guess. It's never infallible, in fact, testing; trying to disprove one's hypotheses, is part of its methodology. Science' theories are always provisional

Theoretic Science is almost always wrong.

Where do you come up with this stuff? What do you base this on?

If science tells me that there isn't a God, or that we weren't created by God it means nothing to me. But to a science minded atheist it is affirmation.

How would science come to such a conclusion? The best it can do is say God is unnecessary to explain the world we see.
And what the heck is a "science minded atheist?" How is one different from a scientifically illiterate atheist, or a science minded non-atheist?

Why this obsession with atheists, anyway?

 

[osgart]

Science brings us everything we own of value.

Religion is still trying to figure out what religion is.

There are realities of being that exist in such a way as to be independent of natural phenomena. Religion could one day help there, but you have to discard so many of its mythologies, and belief systems and cherry pick its wisdoms to get any spiritual value from it.

Science is an entirely different function altogether then what religion could be.

 

[Valjean]

Religion deals with questions of value and meaning, science with fact and mechanics.
Their purviews don't usually overlap.

Science generally avoids pronouncements on meaning or value. Religion, on the other hand, frequently makes pronouncements on objective facts and mechanics -- and frequently falls on its face, but not before sometimes doing great harm.

 

[Audie]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

Does religion always involve the supernatural?

If so, it is always, not so much opposed to science,
but at odds with reality.

How or where would you draw the bright line distinciton
between religion and superstition, or, do you even do
that?

I can find no distinction, other than that religions
may constitute a subset under the general heading of
superstition.

 

[Audie]

Science brings us everything we own of value.

Religion is still trying to figure out what religion is.

There are realities of being that exist in such a way as to be independent of natural phenomena. Religion could one day help there, but you have to discard so many of its mythologies, and belief systems and cherry pick its wisdoms to get any spiritual value from it.

Science is an entirely different function altogether then what religion could be.

Do you see any way that religion is not superstition?

 

[Earthling]

Absolute rubbish! No-one familiar with science believes this, religious or not.

Science relies on fact, experimentation and investigation. Most of religion is based on revelation.

Science is constantly presented to me on forums like this just as I described it. Science is rational belief in the Bible is irrational. Study of science rational, study of the Bible irrational. Science ever changing religion never changing.

You can't say that it's a fact that Pluto is a planet one day and then the next say it isn't a planet without having been wrong at least half the time. We don't need science to tell us it's raining outside or that the grass is green. I've repeated over and over to @Subduction Zone that science is guessing, speculative, conjecture and he constantly repeats that I don't know the meaning of these terms or science.

This hypocrisy is idiotic at best.

Science is a best guess. It's never infallible, in fact, testing; trying to disprove one's hypotheses, is part of its methodology. Science' theories are always provisional

Conjectural, speculative, theoretical, correct? What is the difference between "almost always wrong" as I said and "always provisional" as you said.

Where do you come up with this stuff? What do you base this on?

Observation.

How would science come to such a conclusion? The best it can do is say God is unnecessary to explain the world we see.

I believe one day they will not have a choice.

And what the heck is a "science minded atheist?" How is one different from a scientifically illiterate atheist, or a science minded non-atheist?

A science minded atheist promotes science as incontrovertible evidence that there are no God(s), normally without having even a basic understanding of what a God is. Scientifically illiterate atheists, though that isn't a term I would use, I would just use the common term atheists, don't care about science. Science minded non-atheists would be science minded theists; That is theists who promotes science as incontrovertible evidence that there are no God(s) normally without having even a basic understanding of what science or a God is. They follow the pack of wandering stupidity no matter if it's based from a laboratory or a church.

Why this obsession with atheists, anyway?

I like to observe people who post on religious forums, which happens to be primarily atheists.

 

[Augustus]

Science brings us everything we own of value.

Not really. People seem to vastly overestimate the role of science proper in technological progress (although that's not to say it hasn't had a significant impact).

Technologies owe far more to people playing around with stuff in a process of trial and error than formal science.

 

[osgart]

Do you see any way that religion is not superstition?

Superstition is 90 percent of it. The other 10 percent is wisdoms about how to live life. Of that 10 percent id say 2% of it is practical and that all depends how you take it.

 

[Audie]

Superstition is 90 percent of it. The other 10 percent is wisdoms about how to live life. Of that 10 percent id say 2% of it is practical and that all depends how you take it.

A church social is not religion, as such.

 

[Audie]

Not really. People seem to vastly overestimate the role of science proper in technological progress (although that's not to say it hasn't had a significant impact).

Technologies owe far more to people playing around with stuff in a process of trial and error than formal science.

You have some numbers for that?

 

[David T]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

I am waiting for a something that endows nature itself over science and religion. Both tend to be pretty domesticative and disagree more on details than actuals.

 

[j1i]

When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.

The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

Science comes from the mines of faith
It is a livelihood from God given to some people to help gets their needs
They have faith in God but many people deny faith

GOD is full mercy

 

[Augustus]

3 unlike religion that is dogmatic unchanging.

But you confirmation bias is understood.

Historically, religions have been remarkably adaptable, that's why they have been so successful for so long.

Regardless of whether or not you believe we have 'outgrown' religion in modernity as it can no longer keep up, seeing religions as historically unchanging seems to have a far better case for confirmation bias. It's so untenable as to be ridiculous.

People might criticise a religion for having 50,000 sects then also criticise it for being unchanging

 

[Aupmanyav]

'If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion?
One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs.
Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong.
For many of us the truth will lie in between.
We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.'

Accept the scientific conclusion.
Sorry for the cherished beliefs. Yeah, doing that was not very easy in my case - abandoning all Gods and Goddesses.
That would be 'jahiliyat' (foolishness).
Truth does not entail compromises. It is either here or there, not in-between. Science will clearly mention where they have problems.
We have no evidence of that. Why should one believe that way?

 

[Augustus]

You have some numbers for that?

Not sure anyone has given the amount of research it would entail.

In general though, from the machines of the industrial revolution and the railways, to aeroplanes and the jet engine, to much of the modern tech sector this hasn't been dominated by scientists, but hobbyists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

 

[j1i]

Accept the scientific conclusion.
Sorry for the cherished beliefs. Yeah, doing that was not very easy in my case - abandoning all Gods and Goddesses.
That would be 'jahiliyat' (foolishness).
Truth does not entail compromises. It is either here or there, not in-between. Science will clearly mention where they have problems.
We have no evidence of that. Why should one believe that way?

If there is no Lord no Creator

Tell me how you came out of this life?
Where did you come from?
How did you create ?

Now in an age in which humans receive information and misconceptions with interpretations believed to be scientific

with respect

 

[WalterTrull]

Religion and science are the same thing. The followers just pray to different gods.