Can Science and religion ever get along?

[Son of Sephiroth]

I apologise if this thread has already been made in my absence, but I couldn't be assed to look back through the catalogue for it if it exists.

Anyway to the question at hand: is it possible for religion to coexist peacefully?

I am sorry to say I believe it is impossible in the strictest sense, as with every scientific discovery God loses a little more credibility that his book contains any truth. "SoS, you handsome bastard!" I hear you cry. "but what if he invented all of these magical physics-y bits that make the universe?" ah there is where it gets complicated. To truly believe in god, you must believe in everything in that book. As vast parts (if not all but one statement) have been proven false then we cannot regard the book as a usable piece of evidence that god exists. and what other evidence is there? none thats what. If you change what you believe is true then you're just adding to his own discredibility: facts do not change.

wait I've gone off topic here haven't I?

anyhoo, god + science = ?

[Firesnake]

in the stricktest sence religion and science don't mix
but if you trace back history you'll fiend a place where it does
between the death of jesus and the making of the bible (+/- 300 years)
people were or jewish or christian (or heathen ofcourse) and they did not have anything to be based on so... science might have been just as acceptable as religion.
But then a heathen emperor (something with a C in it) and some other emperors had a vote if jesus was the son of god. and with like 51% it was decided that he was. and then that heathen king decided what could come in the bible and what not..
But I digres... no in the stricktest form it can't but we do not know what the future will bring

[Terminal Est]

Very interesting. I find it hard to imagine that most folks will agree that the existence of God is indeed portrayed through specific beliefs; yet religion has always been this way, and even though today the definitions of most Christian organizations are littered with subtle ''believe what you will'' philosophies, what you say is true in regards to ancient and early Christian beliefs. The Inquisition is a proof thereof when considering human nature's role within the scheme.

I was going to argue that there indeed exists such a thing as ''Christian Science'', and am actually interested by such. I cannot really say much about it because I do not know, or from the little which I have seen, comprehend the relation between fundamentalist Christian beliefs and logical facts and theory determined by observation and scientific discovery process and the establishing of such.
To me, I have always perceived it as an ingenious way to ''promote'' Christianity, by orienting and broadening its path in order to make it live on, when regarding the theories that religion is steadily, apparently, loosing its grasp and significance upon people.

But no, I do not believe that both can ever get along, so to speak, because both subjects deal with different but very strong and significant mentalities, and as is simple as such, two confronting mentalities will not merge, (Mentality itself almost defines this in its own meaning. We only think differently so that we may bitch and argue.) and that is without considering the sparks that have always been present between religion and science. As you have stated already you handsome bastard, facts cannot be changed in one's beliefs, and so therefore, because of the nature of both mind frames, the two shall oppose each other with their different ideals.

One seeks protection, guidance, justification of the self and relief from what reality may entail, while the other seeks to comprehend, discover and use this knowledge for whatever purposes and benefits, no matter the conclusion of the discovery. One relies too much on emotion while the other suppresses it in such a respect. Or so, I think it may be worded as such.
Both can always stand, as religion accommodates the ''common'' man with its suggested beliefs, and although science is less pronounced then the word of God, openly that is, its actions speak for themselves, and everyone can benefit that somebody eventually found out that electricity could be generated and put to good use. all those folks who like to argue about God and how He is the only true thing and bla bla bla could not do so without their computer. XD

As well, sociology and different philosophies pertaining to such often suggest that mankind will always oppose itself, and so, even if I am completely wrong, the situation at hand is perfect grounds to establish and let forth the dogs of war. It can get rather complex, weather fact or theory, as to why both shall never coexists as one, or so I believe, but in a gist, our nature and the different mind frames and social orders which construct us cannot allow it; this turmoil and confrontation may very well even be its own necessity, in order to give cheering fences to both sides, to secure the interest of both for the sole reason of keeping both alive, for example.

I may support science, but I am far from knowing the first thing about it. How pathetic is that?

Still, I rest my case.

[JET73L]

Well, science can coexist with my religion. It is explained as the gods setting up the rules for the universes, thenm allowing life to come into being, then sitting back in their own infinite pocket dimension. Then they occasionally can create miracles by temporarily (or occasionally pewrmanently) changing local laws of nature, but other than that, they must keep out opf the "live" iuniverses, and only really do anything once one is dead. They are a sort of energy being made of the as-yert detectable "spirit" living in another realm(s). Exerything clicks.

[Terminal Est]

Might I ask what religion this is?

[Miss Lockheart]

I think it can depend on which religion you are talking about.

Most people tend to think sabout Christianity and science, which I have to agree cannot truly co-exist, because of ego more than anything else, not really in the interest of finding what is true and what is not. I think even if science did prove the existence of God, Christianity would still shun it for some reason. As would Islam probably.

But there are some softer-line religions that often try to work together with science as a matter of interest. The Yogic traditions are quite heavily mixed with science in modern day, as are the many Pagan branches of belief. I think I mentioned some of the research before, with Kirlian photography and such. I think these religions are more open to scientific investigation, they see it as a necessity to try and coexist with science as a way of staying up to date. Probably also many aspects of these religions seem to be proven by science, so they have to love it don't they? It must be annoying for Christianity when these things are proven, so they come with their "Holier than thou" attitude.

I also agree with some of what JET says, but like Termie I want to know which religion it is too

[Terminal Est]

I believe that the question at hand would highly regard the matter of popular religion such as Christianity. I must apologize for my arrogant conviction, but I do not quite perceive such things as Paganism as legitimate religious structure, as I believe it more to be derivative of older beliefs used to accommodate different but popular mind frames which, even with the broadening of Christianity which I spoke of before for example, will offer more incentive and familiarity for certain people then Christianity's closed minded structure can allow. If as you say is plausible, and I certainly do not say otherwise, then for this reason I would agree indeed.

However, because I am closed minded and perceive all religious and spiritual matter to carry the same concept in the end, I do not think it is possible, even if the nature of a specific practice defies the norm.

[JET73L]

Yeah, omnitheism (what I was talking about) is probably more of a philospophy than a religion. It certainly is not an organized religion. As for christianity, and current multiuniversal/quantum sciences, sciences have become just vague enough to handle a seemingly omnipowerful being. Like Stargate. Also, "any sufficiently advanced science is effectively magic." Even if it turned out that the God was a porely benevolent being, if the truth would make our little ignorant heads explode, it would be more ethical for it to tell us the story it did, and go as close as possible. (and that's not even bringing in the whole "humans are imperfect, humans translated the bible, therefore even the original human bibke is imperfect" problem.)

Edit: that's just for the logical possbility of science and religion coexisting. Actually, the human side of the answer is likely to be no, as many people try to keep "different" ideas in separate bxes in their minds. So, they could easily get along, as-is, but only if humans allowed it and stopped making arbitrary arguments about it.

[Zotar]

I hered somewher that if one trys to disprove the existance of god with science, he only ends up proving it. But don't qoute me on that.

During one of my classes we watched a movie on the history of the Incas. It mentioned a local legand of a "Bearded one." He came to the Incas and said he was their father and creator and that he would return to them. But the Incas ridiculed him because they did not have beards like his. Many native tribes of North and South America have similar legands. Calling this person by names like "The bearded one" or "The White father."

Now here is another thing. Before Jesus ascended to Heaven (After he died and arose of course) he told his followers that he would go to all the peoples of the earth and tell them of God and of things to come.

These two things just may coincide perfectly. Proof that Jesus did visit the Native Americans as well as the rest of the world. (Leaf Ericson was not the first white man to visit the America's was he?)

This is more than coincedence. Jesus existed, so does God. Nothing science can do will disprove it. History, which is in a sense, a science, has proved biblical events to have actually happened many times. To say God doesn't exist is little more than narrow mindedness and denial.

As long as we don't try to pit science and religion against each other, They can co-exist. They are after all, just two ways to understand existance and the universe as we see it.

Now I know this leaves many unanswered questions, but that is what debates are about.

[Terminal Est]

If Leif Erickson had visited a new place some centuries before his actual time, he would have been regarded the same as the White Father example.

If Mother Teresa had lived in Jesus's time, she would have been the Savior, and if Jesus had lived in her time, then he would have been seen as genuinely good individual.

The problem is psychological perception, and the dispositions which pertain to the beliefs thereof. Evolution often shows, and as psychological science has proven it, even in today's times, that the unfamiliar and unknown are easily and quickly given reason, even if created. The malaise which would otherwise issue must be negated.

It is easy to say that The Bible is a prophetic element, however there have been known to be countless different versions of it, and many of them stem from now dead languages. The Bible improvises indeed-we have The new Testament, or the Book of Mormon. They are updated to fit these evolutionary psychological refinements and accessions.

The White Father could have been anybody, as I am certain that a man as Jesus could have existed, however certainly not in the literal sense of popular belief.

In my opinion attribution is the key, and one often falsely interpreted, because of our nack for always processing what can be initially seen, as opposed to what sets it forth in motion.

Proving the existence of God would be science's dream-I do not believe that science itself and those who study it have for initial goal to disprove God for the sole sake of such. Indeed, much like anything, scientific establishments must be nothing more then corporations, but as it is, there is always genuine interest.

God is too human to be as depicted, and although it can never be proven, I would side with psychology and evolution. It basically speaks for itself.

To say God doesn't exist is little more than narrow mindedness and denial.

It easily goes the other way around just as well. I do not say that God does not exist for the sake of bashing it; but because I believe that if He does not exist, finding whatever answer would be, to say the least, fantastic.

Believers are just as dismissive as naysayers.