This conversation is closed.

Can Religion and Science coexist?

Looking for examples and ideas and your opinion.

Example:
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

"To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure"

http://realsikhism.com/index.php?action=quotes&topicid=15&topicname=Universe

  • Jun 30 2012: Of course; it does right now.
    The Bible isn't fighting with Science.
    People, caught not thinking, fight
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Jun 29 2012: They do already.
  • Jun 29 2012: I think my most memorable one was when the Cobe (or was it the Sobe) satellite found rhythmic fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. I guess one scientist quipped, "My God - He was laughing!"

    But the best answer I have to this is Stan Tenen's work. He started the Meru Foundation.
    http://www.meru.org
    It's much much deeper than my mind, but in my ten years of looking in on this, I have yet to find a serious fault here, so strap-in & hold-on!
    I would suggest not-googling his video "First Light"
  • Jun 30 2012: To catch a glimpse of truth we should collect everything that he have learned, reflect upon it and draw connections in the sense of an encyclopedic overview on art, religion and science.
    As it was said :
    "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: I am god
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: Neither religion nor science exist independently in the physical universe. They are given an existence in the mind of man, and as is true of this form of existence, it is ephermeral, and transient, captured by written descriptions specific to the time and place of the minds that accept it and always open to modification. They have no physical existence and the question of coexistence is not answerable.
    • thumb
      Jun 30 2012: They science exists independently from religion in my mind.

      I guess all knowledge and experience and beliefs only exist in our minds ultimately, including all perceptions of the universe.

      Your conclusion from this is ultimately we can not differentiate anything that relies on the human mind. I disagree. In a practical sense we can differentiate an apple from religion.

      It is answerable depending on your frame of reference and assumptions.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: Science & the bible are totally compatible in all but one area. That is origins. Origins science is similar to forensic science, where we examine what we have today & make assumptions about days gone by. People make different assumptions depending on their viewpoint.
    I guess it hinges on one's definition of science.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Jun 30 2012: Peter, I suggest there is much more incompatibility than simply origins.

      It starts with the existence and description of a supernatural deity, the development of the universe, earth, life and every supernatural claim and miracle, every act by this deity. From genesis, global floods, burning bushes, people living 800 years, chosen peoples, virgin births, water walking, resurrections and claims of prophecy regarding the end of the Earth, an afterlife, and hell. Prayer and the spiritual realm. And the dinodragons living side by side with humans.

      Also there are questions about what is historically accurate all the way through it. There is no compelling evidence that Adam, Eve, Abraham etc actually existed, and any independent sources supportin many of the noted events and conversations let alone the the fabled or mythical or magical elements etc. It is even internally inconsistent and our best estimates is that some key parts were written decades after the claimed events.

      We have no compelling evidence about natural laws being broken as claimed in the bible.

      No compelling evidence for the existence of any deity.

      Its not just a 6000 year old universe created by a deity versus science indicating something over 13 billion years and evolution. The whole book is laced with the supernatural and historically suspect claims.

      Some claims directly conflict with the scientific view, evidence and reason. Others are impossible to verify. Some we just don't have good understanding and to claim knowledge of this is highly speculative.

      I suggest it hinges on what fits or can be twisted to your core beliefs and what to ignore, like dating techniques, the fossil record, the DNA map of life,

      Science dropped supernatural explanations a few hundred years ago. Religion aims to inject gods back into the shrinking gaps or to shove aside or ignore the best explanations we currently have.

      If you believe the bible is the inspired word of god as a starting point, problems await.
  • Jun 29 2012: They already do exist simultaneously but I don't like the word "co"-exist. Makes it sound to me as though they get along with each other when they don't.

    To me science acts like a bleach, removing the three M's of life - mystery, magic and meaning.
    To me religion is a leach, it's main purpose, to annihilate the human spirit.

    To co-exist peacefully, with meaning, application and acceptance, both need to sincerely ask if they could be wrong and both need to sincerely ask if they both could be wrong. Seems to me each only wants to win the argument that they will never be able to prove, rather than building a bridge, that I am most certain, most of humanity wants and needs built. But, both sides refuse it seems. A bridge requires letting go of some fundamental tenets in order to meet the other side in union. A bridge is built using science but is crossed in faith by all who use it. They can't join hands if they won't let go of their most cherished beliefs and both have failed miserably at providing moral context to live by.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: They do coexist, but not always very easily.

    There have been periods where science flourished and developed in very religious societies. Other times when religious authorities have put the brakes on so called heresy. Everyone knows about Galileo. No much science undertaken by the Amish or the middle east these days.

    The level of discomfort, tension and dissonance depend on the dogma and power of the religion in a particular culture or society.

    You won't get evolution taught in many Islam dominated countries. There is a theme park in the US with Dinosaurs alongside humans as if they existed at the same time.

    Science has worked best once the supernatural was excluded from explanations and dogma was challenged.

    It also depends on individuals. It amazes me how people manage their religious beliefs in the modern world or twist their their world view to something that fits their beliefs. Some understand their beliefs conflict with the scientific picture of reality but manage to partition this from their faith. Others know that their beliefs conflict with thousands of other religious beliefs yet are sure theirs is right or just ignore this fact.

    Some beliefs conflict with science. Some are unverifiable with science. Science and religion are not necessarily separate magisteria if the claims of both clash, yet people manage to live in a world with both via various methods. Science on top. Religion on top. Or some mish mash and compartmentalism.

    There is a pointy end where science and religion bounce against each other in regards to explanations about the origin of the universe and humans, human psychology and neuroscience, and the existence of a spiritual realm and gods, religious experience etc.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: Is it not co-existing already in today's world?
    Today's world is not full of purely scientific or religious people.
    Moreover many scientist are out there who are religious as well.........finding other way combination seems difficult
  • Jun 29 2012: “In so many ways, He has unfolded Himself. So many times, He has expanded His expansion. Forever and ever, He is the One, the One Universal Creator.” (Guru Granth Sahib, p.276)

    This explains the Big Bang Theory, was in the SGGS of Sikhs.
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2012: Sorry, but I don't see the big bang theory explained here at all Sunny.

      It just says god is the creator and unfolded and expanded himself (I guess god is a he then) and is perhaps eternal. I don't really know what "expanded his expansion" means. Maybe that he made the universe big perhaps in two phases. Maybe he made him self big. More tenuous is perhaps god expanded to fill or be the universe.

      If you didn't know the BBT, this would explain nothing specific about it. How do you get the big bang out of this?

      Seems like cognitive bias. trying to make the two concepts fit. Wishful thinking to take a claim about a creator in an old religious text that mentions expansion and link this to the BBT.

      This is a common problem with religious texts. Vague language, infinite interpretations possible and changing over time as peoples world views change.