Why presume that science and religion are incompatible?

[sandandfoam]

It appears to me that some see science and religion as being in a strained relationship where one must choose one over the other. Am I mistaken, or is this view out there?

 

[Storm]

It's definitely out there. Usually based on gross ignorance of science or religion.

 

[Falvlun]

I do see science and religion in a strained relationship. Personally, I think religion feels threatened by science encroaching on its "turf".

However, I don't think that this means you have to choose one over the other. While they might not be intrinsically compatible, I don't see why the individual can't make them so.

 

[Storm]

If they'd just stop peeing on each other's territory (ID, attempts to disprove the soul or supernatural), they'd get along fine. But that's the fault of the jerks in both fields, not the fields themselves.

 

[Falvlun]

If they'd just stop peeing on each other's territory (ID, attempts to disprove the soul or supernatural), they'd get along fine. But that's the fault of the jerks in both fields, not the fields themselves.

I certainly agree that there are jerks in both fields, but I don't see why science should be constrained in what it is allowed to investigate. If someone makes claim xyz, then shouldn't science be allowed to check it out?

 

[Storm]

I certainly agree that there are jerks in both fields, but I don't see why science should be constrained in what it is allowed to investigate. If someone makes claim xyz, then shouldn't science be allowed to check it out?

I don't see how what I said could be taken that way?

 

[MoonWater]

It appears to me that some see science and religion as being in a strained relationship where one must choose one over the other. Am I mistaken, or is this view out there?

It's out there but I don't buy it. Like storm said, the only time these things come into conflict is when they encroach on the other's territory. Science deals with the physical, material world while religion deals with the spiritual, immaterial world. if people didn't try to use science in the spiritual,immaterial world or religion in the physical,material world then there wouldn't be a problem. Science, by it's very nature, can't deal with the spiritual just as religion, by it's very nature, can't deal with the physical.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how what I said could be taken that way?

My mistake then.

When you said "supernatural" my mind automatically jumped to ghosts and such, ie, if someone said "I have a ghost in my house", Mr. Scientist should be allowed to go in there, do some tests and say "I see no evidence of a ghost", or vice-versa.

 

[Caladan]

Allow me to quote from Herbert's Dune...

Men, finding no answers to the sunnan [the ten thousand religious questions from the Shari-ah] now apply their own reasoning. All men seek to be enlightened. Religion is but the most ancient and honorable way in which men have striven to make sense out of God's universe. Scientists seek the lawfulness of events. It is the task of Religion to fit man into this lawfulness.

 

[Storm]

My mistake then.

When you said "supernatural" my mind automatically jumped to ghosts and such, ie, if someone said "I have a ghost in my house", Mr. Scientist should be allowed to go in there, do some tests and say "I see no evidence of a ghost", or vice-versa.

Well, assuming ghosts are supernatural*, I see the assumption that tests would be reliable to be groundless and even presumptuous, to put it mildly.

* "Supernatural," to me means "not bound by natural law."

 

[Storm]

Allow me to quote from Herbert's Dune...

Men, finding no answers to the sunnan [the ten thousand religious questions from the Shari-ah] now apply their own reasoning. All men seek to be enlightened. Religion is but the most ancient and honorable way in which men have striven to make sense out of God's universe. Scientists seek the lawfulness of events. It is the task of Religion to fit man into this lawfulness.

Yes, exactly! :shout

 

[Falvlun]

Well, assuming ghosts are supernatural*, I see the assumption that tests would be reliable to be groundless and even presumptuous, to put it mildly.

* "Supernatural," to me means "not bound by natural law."

Fair enough, though forgive me if I am suspicious of things that people claim to exist, and yet are also untestable, unprovable, etc, because of an intrinsic characteristic which makes them untestable, unprovable, etc. It sounds a bit schizophrenic-- and utterly convenient-- to me.

Scientists seek the lawfulness of events. It is the task of Religion to fit man into this lawfulness.

I do love Dune, and believe Herbert to be brilliant, but I find myself disagreeing with this sentiment.

Why should religion have insight into how man fits into the lawfulness, when more often than not, it presents a completely different picture of what the lawfulness consists?

While science itself is not, and should not, be responsible for figuring out "man's place in the lawfulness", I would argue that religion is not necessarily the only, or even the best, tool for figuring this out.

 

[sandandfoam]

Fair enough, though forgive me if I am suspicious of things that people claim to exist, and yet are also untestable, unprovable, etc, because of an intrinsic characteristic which makes them untestable, unprovable, etc. It sounds a bit schizophrenic-- and utterly convenient-- to me.

How do you react to the fact that "All natural sciences employ unobservable, theoretical constructs that are invoked to explain observations. For example, chemistry appeals to notions such as the energy levels of electrons in order to explain why compounds react"?
BTW I am not in any sense arguing against science - The quote came from a science book

 

[frg001]

Science and the belief in a higher power are not incompatible, but science and the following of any major religion certainly are.

 

[Caladan]

I do love Dune, and believe Herbert to be brilliant, but I find myself disagreeing with this sentiment.

Why should religion have insight into how man fits into the lawfulness, when more often than not, it presents a completely different picture of what the lawfulness consists?

Remember that you are talking about a very specific brand of religious phenomena.
the Muslim astronomers, engineers, doctors and other scientists along with Jewish physicians have been the de facto the keepers of scientific knowledge, while Christian europe was in the dark ages.

 

[Storm]

Fair enough, though forgive me if I am suspicious of things that people claim to exist, and yet are also untestable, unprovable, etc, because of an intrinsic characteristic which makes them untestable, unprovable, etc. It sounds a bit schizophrenic-- and utterly convenient-- to me.

Well, the concept of supernaturalism is older than the scientific method, after all. I'll grant that some people try to have their cake and eat it, too, and it just doesn't work. Either it's subject to scientific enquiry or it isn't.

 

[Caladan]

Well, the concept of supernaturalism is older than the scientific method, after all. I'll grant that some people try to have their cake and eat it, too, and it just doesn't work. Either it's subject to scientific enquiry or it isn't.

Science through out history has sprung from Magia and Religion.
for example the astronomers-priests of the neolithic British isles, have developed heaveny calculations for religious purposes with practical reasons.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It appears to me that some see science and religion as being in a strained relationship where one must choose one over the other. Am I mistaken, or is this view out there?

Absolutely. The function of science is to try to find answers to answerable questions. Religion fills in the unanswerable for those who need to know regardless. They don't serve the same function - they are not in opposition, until the political side comes into play.

Religion trying to fight science on science's terms is getting quite ridiculous though.

 

[Willamena]

It appears to me that some see science and religion as being in a strained relationship where one must choose one over the other. Am I mistaken, or is this view out there?

As one has a foundation in the naturalistic philosophies and the other in the ideal philosophies, it would seem there is (ironically) a natural contrast between them.

 

[Willamena]

However, I don't think that this means you have to choose one over the other. While they might not be intrinsically compatible, I don't see why the individual can't make them so.

I agree. Some people can embrace multiple philosophies with ease.