This conversation is closed.

Why people are trying to find a bridge between religion and science?

By bridge I mean that science will prove or disprove religion.

  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: I think its because most of us just want people to get along and be civil.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2011: Everyone wants to be in the exclusive group of people, and thus the reason for argument. Both are chosen ways to explain the universe around us (agree or disagree) from two separate perspectives. Two different methods with the same end goal. How, and why? Can you use science to explain why we are here? Maybe after everything everwhere in all of the universe is known, and we can then see the direction in which existence is going (towards S=1). Can you use religion to explain how something acts? Certain passages may mention references, but can it explain the change of temperature in a room with a heater in it? The idea of a bridge is as always, an attempt to bring peace around. I believe over time it will be accepted (and will always exist those who fight against it), but peace and stability will prevail.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2011: I suppose you meant proving/disproving god.
    Religion is only the dogmatic framework.
    Science, doesn't dedicate itself to proving or disproving God. If one day, prove for or against god becomes available, then it will be a side effect of scientific progress.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: first of all we have to come in common point that what religion we are talking about. i believe science is in its younger age. when it will mature, it will become religion itself or rather prove it.

    though there are many aspects of religion that cant be proved by logic, eg., what happens after death! as for applying logic, we need a set of principles and experience. since we do not have anyone who can actually tell us that what happens after death, who have experienced death, we can not apply logic or any scientific experiments.

    what i believe that science would prove the logical aspects of religion and our intellect and conciseness will surrender towards the truth.
  • Jul 20 2011: Because all religions make claims that can be examined by science. If God/Spirits exists and interacts with our physical reality in any way, science will eventually be able to prove it. Creation of Earth, creation of life, miracles, afterlife, ect. - all of these are physical, scientifically testable claims. Even more subtle claims, such as personal spiritual experiences, can be tested by science: personal experience means that somewhere in your brain some neurons are lighting up, and we can, at least theoretically, scientifically study such phenomenon and find out what has caused it.
    Only God that never interacts with our physical universe will remain undetected by science, but if that's the case, then why should we care about such God? He/she would quite literary be outside of our Universe.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: Helen: I agree with you accept for your Golden rule argument. I think Confucius was wrong when he said "treat others as you would treat yourself" (something like that) because we are not all the same people and that is exactly what makes it so hard, we can't all be treated the same.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: Spirituality is not religion, unless you can prove that the Golden Rule is dogma.
  • Jul 20 2011: I think people try to prove or disprove religion with science because science is something people can understand (or have a strong belief that they understand) and knowing something gives the person power over it. There's no fear of the unknown. With religion, there's a lot of fear of the unknown. That's what I think.
    • Jul 20 2011: I agree with you. I think people use spirituality to cope with to 'answer" the question of the origin and the end of life.
      These are questions science has not answered as of yet and may never answer. I believe that is where their separate domains, as Mr.Lohit put it, intrude on each other.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: The goals of spirituality/religion are different from the goals of science.

    I think the conflict arises when one tries to intrude into the domain of the other.

    Science is best in explaining the objective reality of observed phenomena. It is precise, and the language of math is needed. Those people who deny the findings of science, display intolerance and insincerity.

    Spirituality is based on internal experiences of the mind. It is not related to society or survival. It cannot be precise, but it is as real as we are. Those individuals who are not spiritually-minded cannot deny the experiences of the spiritually-minded. This is also intolerance and insincerity.

    NOTE: "Spirituality" not religion, as in church dogma.
    • Jul 20 2011: What are these "internal experiences of the mind" you speak of? Wouldn't they simply be brain activity, which science can, and does study?
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2011: 1) Existence of a consciousness independent of physical matter, and subjective awareness of such a self-consciousness. Separation of consciousness from brain functions during deep sleep.

        2) Experiences during a brain stroke where the left brain stops functioning, and so the right brain takes over. So the consciousness that was earlier shaped by left and right brain is now shaped only by the right brain, resulting in loss of speech capabilities and blurring of boundaries, and feeling of uniting with the surrounding energy. See TED talk:

        Science has collaborated with Buddhist monks in meditation (per information given to me by a fellow TED member Jim Lloyd, citing B. Alan Wallace's work). Yes, science can point out what happens in the brain during such experiences. But that does not in any way show cause-and-effect.
  • Jul 20 2011: I agree, ambiguous. I really meant, Why people believe that science will prove/disprove that there is a God. To be more specific a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient. The reason I didn't say a specific religion is because there are several religions that have a "being" with these attributes. I'd like to use the word spiritual instead of religious. I don't believe science can be spiritual. I do not believe that there is any connection between science and religion. I believe that they are both whole and separate entities. They do not need each other to thrive and add value to the world.
    • Jul 20 2011: "I really meant that science will prove that there is a God."
      "I do not believe that there is any connection between science and religion."
      These are contradicting statements. If there is no connection between science and religion, then there is no way that science can prove that there is a God.
      • Jul 21 2011: You are correct. They do contradict. I meant to amend my original question to say "Science will prove/disprove "God" instead of "religion".
        • Jul 21 2011: I think terms "God" and "Religion" are interchangeable in this discussion, since religion is basically a description or a study of what God is.