Science and religion mutually exclusive?

[water]

Those of you who think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, present your arguments.

Also, those of you who think they are not mutually exclusive, present your arguments as well.



Please refrain from any self-referential, circular arguments and appeals to authority, like "Science is superior because the scientific method is the only proper way to analyze objective reality" or "Religion is superior because it has been there before science".


Thank you.

 

[(Q)]

There are already several long-winded exhaustive threads on scienve vs. religion. Must you start another one?

 

[Lawdog]

Read the Holy Father JPII encyclical FIDES ET RATIO "Faith and Reason" which explains the proper relationship.

 

[Cris]

Science is based on evidence, observation and detection.

Religion is based on faith - specifically a belief where there is no evidence, observation or detection.

The two disciplines are therefore necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Lawdog]

Science is based on evidence, observation and detection.

Religion is based on faith - specifically a belief where there is no evidence, observation or detection.

The two disciplines are therefore necessarily mutually exclusive.

Religion is not based on Faith, faith is a vehicle of Religion.

Religion is based on Tradition, Observation of God and his Creation, and Logic.

 

[(Q)]

Religion is based on Tradition,...

Sacrifices, slaughtering of the non-beleivers, cruelty to the innocent, ignorance, fear.

...Observation of God and his Creation,...

No one has ever seen god - there is no evidence to support a creator.

...and Logic.

Logic would dictate gods do not exist.

 

[Lawdog]

always the same...

 

[James R]

Those of you who think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, present your arguments.

What do you mean, exactly?

If you're asking whether science can tell us about God, then the answer is "No", because God is not a falsifiable concept. There is no conceivable scientific test we could do which would disprove the existence of God, so God is not a scientific object.

If you're asking if religion can help us do science, the answer is also "No", because the methods of science and religion are antithetical to each other. Science relies on evidence and hypothesis testing (hence the need for falsifiability); religion demands faith in the unprovable.

If you're asking whether it is inconsistent for a scientist to believe in God, or for a religious person to accept the findings of science, then the answer is "No - there's no inconsistency". Since science and religion are two different fields of inquiry, you can work in both without conflict.

The problems come, of course, when religious people try to make proclamations about science, or vice versa.

 

[superluminal]

Yeah ^^^^^

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Religion is not based on Faith, faith is a vehicle of Religion.

The subtle distinction has no effective difference - a religion remains a belief system without any evidential basis.

Religion is based on Tradition,

While science is based on evidence.

…Observation of God

There is no verifiable record of anyone ever observing a god.

and his Creation,

If you mean the universe then again there is no evidence that the universe was created.

and Logic.

Logic is based upon evidence to form its component premises – religions have no evidence for their claims thus must necessarily fall outside of the realm of logical reasoning.

 

[Jenyar]

The subtle distinction has no effective difference - a religion remains a belief system without any evidential basis.
...
There is no verifiable record of anyone ever observing a god.

You mean, there's no record or evidence that would be believed.

Logic is based upon evidence to form its component premises – religions have no evidence for their claims thus must necessarily fall outside of the realm of logical reasoning.

On the contrary: The gospels rely heavily on the evidence and logical conclusions of what they were witness to. Paul even states that without the reality of the evidence, their faith is in vain. All the epistles and pastoral letters do, is explain the implications of what they came to believe - what kind of behaviour corresponds to what they believe, and what doesn't.

 

[Lawdog]

Lawdog,

The subtle distinction has no effective difference - a religion remains a belief system without any evidential basis.
While science is based on evidence.
There is no verifiable record of anyone ever observing a god.
If you mean the universe then again there is no evidence that the universe was created.

Logic is based upon evidence to form its component premises – religions have no evidence for their claims thus must necessarily fall outside of the realm of logical reasoning.

There is much evidence for the Life of Christ, and so recent in relative historical time was his life that no serious historian doubts his existance, it would be like doubting the existance of the Roman Emperor Augustus. Jesus declared that he was God. Concerning this there are three possibilities:
Such a statement would be evidence that he insane, or else a liar, or indeed God.

If he was insane, why did so many follow him? Why was He taken seriously by the Pharasees and Romans, indeed, to such an extent that they crucified him?

If he was a liar, what advantage in risking death would promoting the such a grand deception have? He knew that they would execute anyone who said such things. It was well known that the Jewish punishment for such a heresy was death.

If he was both crazy and a liar, he would never have been allowed in the sacred temple area, and he would have been recognized as a well known heretic and punished with death. If he were both crazy and a liar, he would have had to go live on his own self-made colony in the desert, like David Koresh. (The Essenes would never have taken him).

This leaves us with only one choice:

DEUS MAIESTATIS OMNIPOTENS

 

[Cris]

Answered in your new thread "How do we know that it was Jesus".