Science 'versus' God and Religion

K

Kaiduorkhon

Registered Senior Member
Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The poster of the above message added:
Few agree with Carl Sandage, he admits this with his own words. He attempted to theologize science.

If you are making the point that unanimous agreement does not exist, you are correct but this has been known for some time. Astrophysics is a relative new field and theoretical. Attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) continue much at the contempt of theists who oppose this.

Intelligent Design will not replace science.
_______________________________

K B Robertson (RascalPuff) wrote:
Your invocation of Carl Sandage and theism launches the endemic rhubarb between theology and science - as though the two issues were stringently antithetical.

Whereas, 'god' is routinely considered as the intelligent designer of the universe since the times preceding and including Pythagoras, to the present; where mathematicians and heuristic scientists daily and openly proclaim to prove the existence of a supreme being. In contrast to your direct implication that it is tantamount to scientific heresy to do so. It is a long and widely known fact that the exemplary Einstein not infrequently - and openly - said that his endeavors included an inquiry as to 'how God thinks'. Due to the nature of what scientists preoccupy themselves with, many are not only non-atheistic, but closer to God than many avid church-goers and pulpit pounders.

The posturing of contemporary practitioners of science is certainly not in league with the 'creationist' schools of thought who glibly speak of a time when an anthropomorphically assembled 'god' snapped 'his' prototypically unimprovable fingers and 'made' a universe and earth, oh, say, several thousand years ago. Thereafter, inhabiting the earth with people, perhaps at a time not long before the Monkey Trials.

Such organized beguilements do not at all parallel the endeavors of men and women in science who are in search of the parameters of the final frontier, aiming to go where no man or woman has gone before. In these circles, the - perhaps inevitable - issue of god emerges only inadvertantly and until further notice in such company, it is regimentally understood that:
God is on sabbatical.
Perhaps after stubbing 'his' irreproachable metatarsal over scientific expeditions in search of a Theory of Everything (TOE).

The debate over the Biblical presentation of the original creation of humanity and Darwin’s Origin of the Species - the adventures of the Bible (many of which continue to prove out as true) and the contrary facts of life - is an argument that may never end. Speaking for myself and no small number of others I find it no less divine or miraculous - no less an ‘act of God’ - that mankind exists and arrived in the here and now (on its way to a future of there and then), by way of an evolutionary process approximately or precisely as Darwinism reveals. The transition from a fertilized mammal egg to embryo to a recognizable human fetus, includes an intermission of the entire process of evolution, not excluding the reptilian feature of gill slits - this is a powerful station for Darwinism, which, in 1950, was pronounced by Pope Pius XII (and other popes since then), as non contrary to Christianity.

Of course these considerations are not unusual in discussions relating to the mystery of human existence and the despair that may accompany an unanswered existential question of whether or not there is a God. A major grist of devout atheism is that ‘believers’ are afraid not to believe in God... That the burden of human consciousness is unbearable without the comfort of a supernatural reason for being.
Whereas, the inescapable fact that inanimate matter organized itself not only to become animate, but to become sentiently self aware is manifest proof of ‘higher power’; a so called ‘intelligent designer’, aka ‘supreme being’. ‘Nature’ by any other name.

Such considerations tend to reverse the question of whether there is or not a God, to a question of how could there not be...

Anti-theism is marooned with the manifest self and others who came into being ‘inadvertently’; without any guidance from a higher power. It would seem in such contemplations that it is much more difficult to be an an atheist, or anti-theist, than to yield to what is apparently the inevitability of intelligent design, so far, beyond the mortal human ability to fully accommodate.
There is the issue of ‘divine intervention’; reasoning that if there is a God, why are terrible events - large and small - allowed to occur in the course of human existence. This question and the disappointment that accompanies it, is based, a priori, on the existence of a ‘personal God’ - a power which insures justice - per individual - in the corporeal world of mortality. Clearly, such expectations of God intersect with superstition.

That perspective leads to what is called ‘victimology’. Where it is reasoned that those who suffer - especially extreme - misfortune, are (invariably) slated to do so by ‘the will of God’, who metes out punishments for trespasses committed in this life, or, in cases applying to the suffering of very young children, those who have sinned in a (reincarnated) life preceding this one (Granted that life is inherently a struggle, and that some suffering is inevitable...). In other words, those who suffer severe misfortune are unsympathetically perceived as being pronounced guilty - with a sentence of punishment passed - by God. Such reasoning is commonplace (and a misapplication of the word, ‘karma’) as it is applied to the destitute masses in the country of India, for example.

In Western culture, these and other dilemmas led to the separation of church from state. The schizoid argument continues, with routine stories of religious ritual and regalia being prohibited and removed from government institutions, for example. While the federal government continues to mint certificates of currency bearing the inscription, ‘In God We Trust’.

Vigilant awareness and defense of scientific method and its practitioners does not go without appreciation in this discussion.
 
Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.
 
i got a bit lost,


science VS god cant happen, you can pit science Vs religion and religious books.

but modern science does not conflict with "god" in the slightest, people usualy over look this,

modern science in my opinion does the exact opposite, and actualy backs up the claim of a god in my opinion.

to say the universe and existence as a whole may have just sprung up at some point in time, is like saying god said "let there be light" and the universe just came forth, scientific facts do not collide with the idea of a god, it may be said that scientists "study and try to uncover and explain everything that was created"

peace.
 
Avatar said:
Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. But I don't think Kaiduorkhon's is comparing anything yet, though I also have trouble understanding the post.
If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies. Or epistemologies or areas of reference or assumptions. I don't think that is happening above, but who knows.
 
If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies.
Click to expand...
I have just the information for your request, but first I need to get one book I gave to a friend. She already promised to bring it to me tomorrow,
then I will reply to your question.
 
Khaiduorkhon ,

I find it interesting , that you start a thread about: science versus god ........
It is true, that many religious people see it this way ( because science often shows that some parts of religious texts or beliefs are , should we say "difficult" to be held true ) .........

However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....
I think most of the answers in old days were made by guestimating
( estimate by guessing without certain knowledge)

The only problem is that the knowledge of man is increasing , and answers that seemed rationally in old days are now sometimes considered less rational and more emotional ..... since many religions are static with traditions and texts , there sometimes are dissagreements between religion and science of today ..........it was easier in older days , a scientist could be banned by the church .........

Anyway , I do not see science neither as a religion nor as a myth ......science is based on observations and rationally thinking ....at least it should be - there is allways some bad scientists or even religious people (who wants god to be a part of science ) that tries to rock the boat .........

Anyway to answer your question : science versus god ....... I will simply give you a link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
 
Last edited:
Science 'versus' God (?)

Dear Sputnik:
Please take note of the quotation marks around 'versus' in the title at the beginning of this thread. I should have included a question mark (?), because many of the questions being asked about my post here are also my questions. No. I don't think there really is such a thing as science versus God. I suppose it's a 'man made' conceptual context.
One could say 'Science versus Religion' - but that wouldn't be exactly the same thing as the chosen title. It could be called 'Science versus Theology', and again, that imparts a different nuance - a different spin, on what a title says or implies. I am learning a lot about this thread from the people who are responding to - and often clarifying - it, furthermore. Thank you for your contributions; which readers are certainly invited to offer.
 
Perhaps better stated, the conflict referenced above seems to be something like this:

Virulent Antitheistic Dogmatists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) vs Evangelical Religious Nitwits

As is so often the case, media trains its attention on the extremes, ignoring almost entirely the (admitedly rather boring, but) ultimately more influential and important middle.

This is the case with regards to the "War on Terror" - Muslims are so often portrayed as backwards super-theists, some kind of modern-day medievel transplant of what might be called a Barbarian, whose core belief is basically to declare Jihad on everyone he doesn't like, screaming "ALALALALALALALA" in characteristically incoherent Arabic (because they are all Arabs, too) before detonating a suicide bomb among the innocent Christians or Jews, who happen to own the networks.

Hmm..

Well, in our current debate, regarding "religion 'vs' science" we have been handed the same kind of polarized portrayal of this "battleground," on one side you have backwoods zealots - just a hair's-breadth from believing in witches and that adulteresses should be stoned - versus self-righteous, overly pompous blowhards like Richard Dawkins, who do little to advance actually scientific thinking and much to make the rest of us start to feel we are very, very alone in being somewhat moderate.

And as is always the case with extremists, the greatest sin of all is moderation.

See, an outright sinner like an atheist is just misguided, and with just an ounce of good, old-fashioned Alabama preaching they can be converted to good christians, too.

Halelujah!

But a moderate, oh, the blind scum! They will never see the error of their ways for they attempt to do the unthinkable - go about their lives with a healthy dose of scientific reason while also making some attempt to give it meaning by attending a local church, perhaps.

*GASP!!*


...well in reality this kind of thinking is quite rare and (excuse me) rather retarded. I'm sorry if I have insulted actual retarded people, but I could not think of a better description of this type of thinking.

Let's take science first...

The accepted model works exceedingly well for us today in this world and will continue to work indefinitely. That is to say that superstring theories and biological investigations at the brink of the unthinkable are controversial "big ideas" that also get a lot of press, but what's really important?

In Physics it is appropriately producing and rationing out energy to the consumer.

In Biology it is tempering the almost hapless (even ecologically dangerous) advances in medicine with a social and environmental commitment to sustainablity.

Hence the two scientific communities have the same goal, and it's all very possible - indeed absolutely necessary for our survival - and it won't cost us our comfort or our freedom, in fact it can all proceed very much without the average consumer noticing a difference.

A car running on batteries (assuming that's possible) vs a car running on fossil fuel - what's the difference?

It's a car.

So science itself is advancing in all of these areas CONSTANTLY, and there is no threat to our morals or even religion. Building a better car, a more efficient power plant, an effective plan for sustainably feeding the human population are not only possible given perhaps another 5 to 10 years of development of CURRENT technology, but they are also in line with virtually every religious moral conceivable...


On Religion...

As with science, what gets the press is the controversial stuff - blasting gays, banning abortion (even for rape victims) and the like.

Nobody (including the vast majority of Christians) likes this stuff, it's baloney. It's just crazy talk from a select group of nuts but because it is controversial people like to talk about it.

What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out how to actually live with and respect one another.

We interact more and more with different cultures, the more globalized we become and the more influential countries like China become, the more we are going to have to accept that not everybody believes in a Messiah who died for our sins on a Cross.

And that's okay.

But what do we hear on TBN, on Bible talk radio and so on? The end is near because the gays are getting the rights they deserve, and our embrace of a once-isolated community of people whose genders are in ambiguous to whatever degree means that we are falling into the pit of hell and darkness from which there is no return.

Conclusion? We need to get down to business and accept the fact that we have our differences. But we do share these common and increasingly pressing problems: energy and resource allocation in a world whose human populatoin is expanding exponentially. The US and Japan and China and a host of other "modernized" countries are wealthy enough to do it.

If our scientists can be allowed to work, and actually get some attention for the good work they have been doing (instead of hot topics like sheep cloning, which is neat and creepy and interesting and USELESS) then we can get down to solving this energy crisis before it wipes us out of existence.

And our religious leaders need to state publicly "you know what? These (Muslims or Jews or Zoroastrians or Buddhists) over here are not going to Hell. In fact, I just killed a six pack with my freind Achmed over here and we both think all this fighting is kind of stupid."
 
Last edited:
What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out not how to incorporate all their religions into one that works and is fuzzy and wonderful for everyone, but how to actually live with and respect one another.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.
 
Avatar said:
I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was referring to efforts of Risho Kosei Kai (a Japanese Buddhist sect) to get prominent members of various religions in a room all talking about resolving these long-standing conflicts.

Bottom line, it's got to happen. The days of launching Crusades/Jihads (or whatever you choose to call them) have got to be laid to rest.

Respect, that's all I'm saying.

There are various degrees of religiosity in Buddhism, however, and popular Buddhism often appears very much like any other religious faith - that is to say there is a centralized building, a temple, in which followers gather to practice a ritual. There are altars, offerings, prayers, etc.

But you're right, Buddhism is not fundamentally religious. It's just that certain groups of people have made a religion out of it...

Perhaps this could be said of Christianity, though too. :shrug:
 
Sputnik said:
However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....
Click to expand...

Could it be that religion's limited understanding of fact is the real problem? It is not "emotive" or "irrational" to make conclusions on the information you have at the time. It's totally possible to be rational, and come up with the wrong answer.
 
I don't think that it's a problem of religion only. You can not know for sure that your understanding is limited, until you know better.
Any way, one of religion's functions is to teach cosmology. But it's only one of the functions.

I'd argue that our understanding of the objective reality will always be limited because our mind is subjective.
What was that phrase by the Greek philosopher: "I know that I know nothing".
 
The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."

Here lies the fundamental rift.

The same was true when Galileo made the absolutely preposterous claim that a grape and an apple dropped from precisely the same height would strike a table at precisely the same time.

That can't possibly be true, that preposterous, for Aristotle said...

It doesn't matter what Aristotle said, the two fruits struck the table at the same time and probably hundreds of astounded dinner guests learned a valuable lesson -

Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.

But over time science has consistently fallen short of answering "everything," so there is always a realm of undrestanding in which religion provides the only answer - science simple says "we don't know...yet."

Not being satisfied with the scientific non-answer the public at large often accepts the religious answer, because at least it's an answer.

But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."

Ultimately there will probably always be some gap to which religious answers can be applied, as the scientific method is limited:

It can't tell you, for instance, if you are in a capsule being accelerated or if you are at rest on a planetary body exerting gravitational force on you.

Traditional religious type thinking says, well of course, stupid, you're on Earth.

Science says "we don't know that."

But the gaps close and religion loses ground. Of course they battle against this loss of territory! Evolution represents the single greatest loss for the religious establishment - here is a mechanism by which new species emerge simply by virtue of being subjected to the environment.

But of course science can't tell us where the "first cell" came from. It only proves quite conclusively that every cell that we have ever observed absolutely had to have come from another cell.

Religion says God created the first cell.

Science says "we don't know...yet."

...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;)
 
I think the problem with many religions is that they stick to their outdated understanding of cosmology. As Joseph Campbell once said: "There is no conflict between science and mysticism, but there is aconflict between the science of 2000AD and 2000BC".

And because they stick to it, they become ineffective, because it's harder for anyone to believe in them. Of course many religions can't part with their cosmology, because it forms such a crucial part of them. An error in design. :D

Any way, I don't see that religion is always as negative as many think because of too much religious moronity in the world. Religion can hold a culture together, and when religion diminishes, the culture disintegrates, thus adding to the overall chaos and instability of the world.

Any way, to end my rant, I think that the most suitable candidates for world views that can hold our societies together, educate young people on how to become good members of their communities, promote peace and development, and keep up with the advances of science are Buddhism and to a lesser degree Upanishadic (if I may say so) Hinduism.
 
Hello, this looks an interesting debate....

Gently Passing said:
The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.
Click to expand...

That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.

Gently Passing said:
It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.
Click to expand...
Again, scientists often fall victim to their own propaganda. Feyerabend showed the "scientific method" is nowhere like as methodical a process as scientists make out. "Anything goes!" was his famous quote.

Don't get me wrong... I too believe in science as a good way to model our universe. However, it's not as squeaky clean as it's often made out!

Gently Passing said:
Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."
Click to expand...
So does science! It takes a genius (e.g. Einstein, Newton, Copernicus or even Gallileo) to challenge the accepted assumptions of the day and think about a scientific problem differently.

Gently Passing said:
Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.
Click to expand...

I agree, however, religion suffers from the difficulty that each person must make the journey of discovery about "God" individually for themselves. There is no archive of objective evidence to draw on - only the 'accepted wisdom' compiled from previous people's experiences. In this, religion is much more an art than a science.

However, progressive theology is all about challenging old assumptions, in the light of experience and current knowledge. There is progress. Perhaps it is akin to philosophy.

Gently Passing said:
But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."
Click to expand...

They address different questions. Religion is about discovering depth of meaning in our lives. Science is about discovering the nature of the physical universe. There is some overlap but generally NOMA.

Gently Passing said:
Religion says God created the first cell.
Click to expand...
Only bad religion. It's a scientific question.

Gently Passing said:
...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;)
Click to expand...
Ah, but why... if you can get away with it? :shrug:
 
Diogenes' Dog said:
That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.
Click to expand...

Hence science tends to flounder around for decades at a time - or centuries as it was in the past - and suddenly lurch forward when some virtual unknown, and Einstein is a perfect example, steps forward with proof that some of the fringe ideas established thinkers were afraid to explore actually have merit.

Then there is this period of tremendous progress until the potential of whatever idea it was that started the revolution is exhausted, and then it becomes dogma that must one day be rejected by a better theory and so on.

Scientists like to keep their jobs. Also they are generally paid to do rather specific research - financed by the government (military) or corporate interests. So it's not that science is directly biased by its financial basis to any great extent (to a certain degree sure,) but the types of questions being seriously investigated are limited to what there is funding for.
 
Science 'versus' God?

Hey, Gently Passing and Diogenes...
Can I use your (Bravo) quotes in a note I'm publishing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top