Does Science Contradict Religion?

[Anonymous]

Before I start:

There are many different religions with a multitude of varying beliefes. However for this discussion I'll try to focus on the three main Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and mainly Islam, as I know more about said three religions than others.

( but if you are a member of a different religion, feel free to contribute to this discussion )

I'm a Muslim and I personally believe there are little to no contradictions between Science and Religion. In fact I see Science as a working explanation of "God's / The creator of the Universe's" Design. How he made everything, basically...

However one of the only scientific theories that I believe contradicts my religion is Human Evolution.

And it annoys me to an extent when certain people tell me science is contradictory to apparently all religions, but that doesn't mean I do not respect their beliefs.

Now if you look at certain accomplished scientists from the past and their work, you'll find many were religious and believed in Science as well as their Religion.

Above is Picture of Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaître. Some of you may not be familiar with Lemaître's work. Who is he you ask?

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.

Lemaître proposed what later became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

Many people will use the Big Bang as an example of how "Science contradicts Religion", whilst not knowing who the author of the Big Bang was. Many also say that a religiouse person can not be a Scientist or Doctor.

Well Lemaître proves those people wrong.

END OF PART 1

Part 2 coming soon...

[Anonymous]

Here's the nice thing about science:

It doesn't give a fuck about the person who originates an idea. They're race/beliefs are IRRELEVANT.

Science gives a fuck about one thing: the ability to prove an idea given the current evidence available. By extension, one must look for evidence -- thus research.

And science is inherently humble. It says "this is what we understand to be true today. But we are going to keep looking for information so that those ideas can be modified over time and become more accurate."

Religion is NOT humble. It says "This is the way the world is, and anyone or anything that disagrees with that gets their head cutoff and censored."

Fuck religion.

[DonyChicago]

I don't know which religions says "This is the way the world is, and anyone or anything that disagrees with that gets their head cutoff and censored." Only fanatics (as you seem to be) say such things. Religion is HUMBLE. The only fact to believe that there is a person superior to us who made us and who diserves obedience is the greatest proof of humility. I agree that true science is humble. But many scientists are not. They claim that God does not exist without any proof. In science, when you can't show that something is true, it does not mean that it is untrue. But many scientists (such as Stephen Hawking for who I had respect) are too proud to recognise that and they claim that God does not exist.

[Surfofthenomad]

@DonyChicago prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, leperchauns, unicorns? OH, I GUESS THEY MUST BE REAL! Religion is far from humble, it makes unwarranted claims by faith alone and claims them to be dogmatic without any evidence.

[DonyChicago]

@Surfofthenomad Ok. Maybe we are not talking about the same religion. But what I know is that religion is NOT dogmatic. In the Bible, Christains are encouraged to use their intelligence to examine what they learn.
Once more I repeat the only factt to assume that there is a person that is superior to us who made us and who diserve obedience is the greatest proff of humility. Even if you don't believe in God, since you cannot prove he doesn't exist humility demands you to assume the possibility that he might be real. Thinking in another way is the contrary of humility. You talk of humility but obviously you don't know what it is.
I understand that many people have been disappointed by the messages of some religions or the behavior of some people claiming to be religious. But if you are humble, then no matter what you see or you hear, you will try to find the truth about God by learning through anybody that tries to teach you about him because you want to bend yourself before Him.

[DonyChicago]

@Surfofthenomad Sorry for the language I am French speaker.

[Anonymous]

I think this issue is highly based on interpretation. I personally do not think that science contradicts religion at all. Science is more about how things work; religion is more about how we should live our lives morally and we should treat each other. Sure, you can say we as human beings already have a conscience, so we can guide ourselves, but I think many world religions provide a framework of ideas as well as a way to articulate those ideas.

[DonyChicago]

Thank you !

[hellionthesage]

science contradicts religion only if you take religion literally rather then as a parable/metaphor. However, the fact that religious scholars have been arguing the meaning and interpretations of as far as I know, every major religious text shows that it is not to be taken literally otherwise there would be no interpretation. As for evolution, that follows the same premise. I am agnostic so I do not know or presume to know whether or not there is a god nor what god even means (we have no agreed upon definition) however one can very much interpret our evolution as nothing more then the methodology of our creation by god, not unlike how you build a foundation and then move forward from there slowly adding in wha you need till the completion of the building. As for the big bang theory, its more of a hypothesis since scientific method requires repeatability (in fact the definition of a miracle is something which happens once and never again which is probably why Georges Lemaître felt it was evidence of the existence of god, a singulur event that defied physics and is unrepeatable) There is no way to prove it mathmaticly since it would require us to be able to verifie it which we can't because its unrepeatable so we can only suggest correlation which is more akin to an educated guess rather then a theory sine we can't prove that we are not missing any variables. Then you have the fact that if the big bang created the universe then it created reality and physics so attempting to measure it by the rules created after it would be like trying to measure a meter stick with itself, it was the thing that created the rules so you cannot presume that those rules where applicable before there existence.

[lonerider]

Well.. First of all.. I am an agnost coming from a religious Hindu background. ( I was deeply religious previously)
The thing I would like to point out is that you think that Islam and science agree on pretty much everything except evolution is because everyone has told you that The Qur'an mentions Allah's miracles in metaphors. The world was made in 7 days, yes? Now what you might be suggesting is that a god's day might not be equal to a human day. So 7 days of Allah might be equal to the billions of years since the big bang theory. This is one of many such examples.
But, what I believe is that they were no metaphors. Now that science has consistently been proving religious ideas wrong.. the protectors of religion have come up with such ideas to defnd their ideas. " The Lord speaks in metaphors". "The Lord works in mysterious ways". These are all excuses just to defend the dying religious ideas.
Every religious fact is taken literally until proven scientifically wrong. Then what? call it a metaphor. It does not work that way. If evolution is true. ie. if you believe that animals have evolved.. there is no reason that just one species from the millions to have not evolved. We are not so special.
Then there's Noah and his Ark. The entire was not flooded. Probably not even the entire levant. Call it a metaphor? Sure you can. I call it myth.
Al'Buraq. A flying steed. Call it a metaphor? Sure. I call it myth.

As a human, I urge you to stop listening to what people around you tell you. Open your eyes. Islam is like every other religion filled with stories of supernatural and non-scientifically supported phenomena. I hope I didn't hurt your religious sentiments. Even though I am non-religious, I do respect them. But you have to choose between Islam and science. Both are in no way compatible.

[DonyChicago]

I am christian. And actually, the statement " The Lord speaks in metaphors". "The Lord works in mysterious ways" are not statements that religion protectors have created but they are found in the Bible (I talk of the Bible because I don't know Quran). And in the Bible, it is also said that one day for God is like one thousand years.
And talking about Noah and the downpoor. Some scientists believe what we know as the glaciation era could have been a general flooding. The two would have produce the same effects that we observe today.
Even if a religion fact is taken literally and then proven wrong and then taken as a metaphor where is the problem? The fact that we misunterstand something does not mean that it is not valid.
You can't tell somebody to choose between religin and science. Science is about physical and abstract things. Religion is about spiritual things. And for me having a serene spirit is more important than knowing how the world began.

[lonerider]

1. Bible/Quran was not created by Gods.. but humans. Those who were religious protectors. That's why there are so many versions.
2. 1 day of God= 1000 human years. SO 7 days= 7000 years. The world is billions of years old. So again crap.
3. Yeah.. my point is.. flooding MIGHT hav occured. Not over the entire world as mentioned in these scriptures. Flooding of 20% of world area means 80% area was not affected. So.. again crap.
4. "Even if a religion fact is taken literally and then proven wrong and then taken as a metaphor where is the problem?" - Look at ISIS, Al-Qaeda, The Crusades, etc. These are the problems which are created when people take religion literally.
5. The fact remains that the Dharmic religions have always been spiritual. The Abrahamic religions.. not so much. They ask you to take the word literally. And should I remind you thatthe punishment of apostasy is death in Islam?

[myTake Owner]

Firstly there is only one version of the Quran.
Secondly there is no punishment for apostasy in Islam.

Also groups like isis have formed as a result of political instability, lack of law enforcement and intervention from other governments!
And not as a result of taking religious scripture literally.

[Klara-Hitler]

No. science doesn't contradict religion. Because they are completely two different areas of study.

It only comes in conflict with science when the people believing in it stand against science based on their beliefs.

Religion in itself is a very valuable area to study, and if the religious people don't attempt to force every single rule inside it to the whole society there will never be a conflict.

Newton was a Christian. That solely should prove to anyone that religion doesn't contradict science and they can coexist.
Theology the philosophy of various religions have layers that the most intelligent individuals actually always were interested in them.

It is the ignorant who uses religion to bash science, or uses science to bash religion.
They care about neither science and philosophy nor religion. They care about bashing.

Agnostic philosophers weren't ever religion basher. They were critics of certain theological beliefs while praising many other kinds of theologies.

Religion bashing using science is ignorant. Defending a religion against philosophical and scientific critique is more ignorant. There are some intolerant religions in the world that should be openly criticized.

[Marstalk]

What I have learned is most who believe in contradiction read the Christian scriptures literally. Whether religious or atheist. The belief that because scripture is not always literal means it can not be trusted is a bit naive. Many people still seem to have a post enlightenment idea to this. These books where seen as stories of the people. Whether or not they all happened where irrelevant to them. Christianity does not work with just scripture. It has a very deep traditional aspect that is some what fluid. This also go with Judaism. The concept is scripture does not teach about science and never has and science does not teach about scripture. The two are mutually exclusive.

The concept of the argument for interpretation is that we do not live in the culture, tradition, or time period in which these books where written. There for we need help when reading it because our mind is not of that era. Yes there are multiple interpretations and that is because of different schools of thought about theology, which work of the philosophy of the time to interpret what they have read in these scriptures.

Now these schools of thought are also trying to figure out what exactly these books are saying since we do not have a word for word translation and much of the older stuff in Christianity used the Septuagint as a bases which is not based in the Hebrew texts. The other aspect is whether they where verbally dictated or inspired which can include anything from wanting to record their history and how their God interacted with them to stories to teach about God.

[kiler1000]

This is from 2 Timothy: But know this, that in the last days+ critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power;+ and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. does that not sound like the world that we live in? In fact, here is a publication concerning this same subject : www.jw.org/.../ You will also that mere science does have have limitations, as the current condition of the world would suggest.

[Red_Arrow]

Galileo was a father of modern astronomy. He was way ahead of his time and proved that the earth rotated around the sun, not the sun around the earth. He was tried by the inquisition and found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest, thanks to the Catholic Church. I would say that was a major contradiction. By the way, in case you did not know, he was correct. And there are many, many other similar occurrences. Science often proves things that upset religious believers and they refuse to listen to factual proof, instead relying on what humans wrote about their beliefs of gods thousands of years ago.

[DonyChicago]

"I would say that was a major contradiction" : a contradiction between what Galileo said and what the Catholic church thought at that time, not what is written in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible you'll find something contradicting the fact that the earth rotates around the sun. Only misinterpretations can cause contradictions.
"Science often proves things that upset religious believers" : religion believers being upset does not mean that science contradicts religion.

[Red_Arrow]

@DonyChicago - The definition of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Notice that it says nothing about the Bible. The belief system (religion) contradicted the proven facts.

Also, "what the Bible says" is always interpreted by who is reading it. And that is always changing. And what is a "misinterpretation"? It is assumed to be a correct interpretation until someone proves it is a wrong interpretation. So is what the Bible says correct? Some people believe it, and in the way they want. Others do not. And you can go through the bible and find something written every few pages that has been proven to be wrong. There are whole sets of "laws" that conflict with what we know now.

[DonyChicago]

Like?

[DonyChicago]

"Notice that it says nothing about the Bible" : My religion is based on the Bible. So if I have to talk about religion and science I will talk about my religion because it is what I know. I give concrete examples therefore. I am not here to philosophize.

[DonyChicago]

"It is assumed to be a correct interpretation until someone proves it is a wrong interpretation." : this statement is true for science if you didn't know it.

[Red_Arrow]

@DonyChicago - The topic here is "Does Science Contradict Religion?" Religion is the set of beliefs, to any book that the religion is based on nor any supporting books. What is believed and practiced often is at odds with the book it is based on, which is why you have so many variations of beliefs (religions) within a more inclusive religion: Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. are all based on the Bible. And the belief system (religion) of those in Galileo's time was contradictory to what was fact, and those people based their religion on the Bible, just as you do.

'"It is assumed to be a correct interpretation until someone proves it is a wrong interpretation." : this statement is true for science if you didn't know it.' Actually, until proven, it is a theory, awaiting proof of it being correct or being wrong.

[DonyChicago]

Ok. I see it is easier for you to talk of religion because it is so abstract. But reading the take, the author talked about his particular religion that is Islam. He said himself he is Muslim. He said "However for this discussion I'll try to focus on the three main Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and mainly Islam, as I know more about said three religions than others". So I think he doesn't want people to talk of religion as an abstract thing but to say what they think about the topic with concrete examples.

[Red_Arrow]

@DonyChicago - I have already given you the definition of religion. It is not the Bible or any other book. It is the beliefs of people. If you want to call that abstract, then that is what is being talked about. And I gave a concrete example of Galileo. And of course there are many others. Play with words all you want, but the example I gave is one of the contradictions between religion and science.

[DonyChicago]

The example you gave is just an opposition between some catholic church members of that time and Galileo. And I am not playing with words.

[Red_Arrow]

@DonyChicago "an opposition between some catholic church members of that time and Galileo." Wow. The heads of the church, a major inquisition, and the rest of his life basically under house arrest. And that is you playing with words again.

[DonyChicago]

I have said all I had to say. I think it was clear. There is a difference between what religions teaches and what people do. If you don't want to understand that , good for you.

[G-Daz]

Thank you! I rarely comment on takes but I'm glad you made this. Unfortunately however, religion and science compatibility has been excluded from the secular narrative. Interestingly when fr lemaitre published the big bang.

Mainstream atheist belief was in the aristotlian steady state theory. The big bang was out right rejected and even banned from being taught. .. especially in the atheist state if the Soviet union.

Cool fact. .. the first person to discover the big bang was actually the bishop of Lincoln in 1150ad.

However i am Catholic and believe in evolution. It doesn't exclude Adam and eve. We always viewed God as involved with a hand in creation. Not an "armchair" God. I believe God placed the mechanisms in place to guide us evolutionarily to exist

[G-Daz]

There's an interesting question here. .. because the secular mind has a very different interpretive lens of reality than the theist.

If atheism is true. Logic and our reasoning capabilities are completely untrustworthy. .. so do begin to do science isn't even part of the equation. Science arose precisely because of belief in God.

Asking a theist to choose between God and science is assuming that an atheistic reductionism approach to reality is reality. .. which it isn't. We have contrary e evidence in fact.

It's like asking a theist to chose between God and science.
I. ee like asking someone to pick between Henry ford and internal combustion as an explanation for the motorcar. ..

One is the explanation of an agent. The other a mechanism. Equally valid and essential for truth and a deeper understanding

[DonyChicago]

THANK YOU !

[Marstalk]

Well Pope backs you up on this.

[G-Daz]

Pope's *

[DonyChicago]

Very interesting take. I'm lookking forward for part 2.
A you said many people believe science contradicts religion. They take for example the evolution theory. But what they seem to ignore is that the evolution theory is not a proven fact but an hypothesis to explain the origin of all the different species we have on Eath. Honest scientific recognise it. We used to be taught that humans come from apes. But nowaday scientist are less likely to believe that human deescend from apes. They realize that there is a large gap between us an apes. I was watching a documentary on National Geographics some months ago where they studied the ability to learn of apes. They said in the film that apes are not as close to humans as people used to think.

[lonerider]

I agree on the part where you say evolution is not a proven theory. Sure. You can't record millions of years of evolution. But does that mean it is untrue? Nopes. According to a theory Sanskrit and Greek-Latin were related, today the Indo European language family is considered to be the largest language family of the world. And still it's just a theory. Just as true as evolution.

"scientist are less likely to believe that human descend from apes" . Any famous biologist saying these words? None.

" I was watching a documentary on National Geographics.." National Geographics doesn't have world's smartest scientists working for them.

[Dandeus]

Scientists have NEVER taught that we came from apes. That's a mischaracterization perpetuated by the wilfully ignorant. Anyone who repeats it reveals that they've never taken the time to read for themselves what the actual proposition is.

Evolution is an observable process. The extent of its mechanisms are not entirely understood, but that it happens at all is a well documented fact. To suggest that the human species is solely immune to a natural process which affects billions of other species is lunacy.

[DonyChicago]

@Dandeus Saying that humans come from apes is just a simple way to say that scientists believe that apes and humans are close cousins !

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider It would be great if you could also say "The existence of God is not a proven theory. But does that mean it is untrue? Nope."
"Any famous biologist saying these words? None." : Famous scientists do not always have the monoploly of intelligence. Many scientists that are praised today were considered ridiculous at their time. Even Einstein was not taken seriously at the beginning.
" National Geographics doesn't have world's smartest scientists working for them" Maybe. But that is not a problem. It is just an example to illustrate that lately I have heard and read several things about the fact that scientists are less likely to believe that humans and apes are as close as they thought before.

[Dandeus]

I have close cousins. I would never say that I came from one of them to indicate that we share a set of grandparents just three generations ago. Why would I say that if I shared a common ancestor more than 30,000 generations ago?

It may be easy to say we came from apes, but that doesn't make it correct, and using lazy language feeds confusion among the non-scientific community.

[DonyChicago]

@Dandeus Saying that does not prevent people to understand what is evolution. And the most important thing about it is not to understand how it has occurred but simply what it is. And I think that people who use that "lazy language" do understand what is evolution anyway.

[lonerider]

I have absolutely no problem in the Existence of 'God' per se. There might be a higher existence. But it just created the ball before the big bang. Defined the laws of this world and let it evolve on its own. I have problem with 'Allah', "Yahweh', 'Jesus' and all. Nobody created adam and eve. Nobody sent prophets. And yes.. Humans might not have descended from apes but shared a common ancestor. Human evolution is not something you can reject if you accept animal and plant evolution.

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider "Human evolution is not something you can reject if you accept animal and plant evolution.". Accepting animals and plant evolution does not lead to accepting human evolution. Humans talk, think, have a consciousness that animals and plants don't have.
"Nobody created adam and eve. Nobody sent prophets." You say you have no problem with God but you are clearly opposed to the creation of Adam, Eve and the prophets.

[lonerider]

So let's assume Adam and eve existed. They had sex, had children. All children are siblings. Now what? Brothers and sisters have sex? Entire human race descended from 2 people? Seriously, do you believe this?

[lonerider]

And if god exists. Why should there be the God of Abraham? Why would it be the Hindu gods who created the world? WHy not the Sumerian Gods? Why not the Egyptian Gods? Why not the Greek Gods?

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider "Entire human race descended from 2 people? Seriously, do you believe this?" And if humans have evolved, the entire human race descend from how many people?

[lonerider]

Do you even understand how evolution works? It's not like yesterday you were a dinosaur and today you are a chicken. It takes millions of years. And that means a large breeding population. Make a time machine and count them.

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider "And if god exists. Why should there be the God of Abraham? Why would it be the Hindu gods who created the world? WHy not the Sumerian Gods? Why not the Egyptian Gods? Why not the Greek Gods?" That is a question of analysis. You choose to believe in one God or the other (s) when you are convinced of it/their existence. And to be convinced you need to learn. Learn about the God of Abraham, learn about the Hindou Gods and the others.
In the Bible, those who do not accept everything they hear but use their intelligence with humility to think about it are congratulated.

[lonerider]

" That's a question of analysis". After thousands of years of human civilization, and thousands of religions.. the answer is pretty obvious. Except to those who have never read about anything other than Bible/Quran. And that is exactly what happens with people of ABrahamic faiths. They don't have much knowledge. There was a famous quote.. I don't take it as a serious point of view.. but I still find it worth mentioning.
" Jesus promised to rid the world of evil, Odin promised to rid the world of giants. I don't see any giants, do you? "
Ponder over it. Read about other religions.

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider Even if it takes millions of years it started at one period of time. And at that period, how many individuals made the rest? Even if a bacteria started the process, there was just one of them. So you think that believing that two human beings are the origin of billions of people requires more boldness than believe that a single bacteria is at the beginning of billions of people, animals, plants...

[lonerider]

How do you know it was just one bacteria? Making up points on your own now, eh? XD

[myTake Owner]

You two better start playing nice or else

[lonerider]

^I was leaving anyway. Once someone starts imagining things on their own, you know they have run out of points.

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider " Read about other religions." Believe me, I do. But obviously, if you quote " Jesus promised to rid the world of evil, Odin promised to rid the world of giants. I don't see any giants, do you? " then you know nothing about Christianism.
You have not understood anything about what I've said. We don't need only to "read about religions". Religion is not history or phylosophy. As long as you won't be able to get the spiritual dimension of religions, you still won't understand what I told you. You can conclude that I have run out of aarguments. It is so easy to do that. But what I tell you, I tell it sincerely.

[DonyChicago]

@lonerider "How do you know it was just one bacteria? Making up points on your own now, eh? XD" I don't know how many of them started. And obviously you don't. I am not an expert of evolution. But maybe I would be more likely to believe in evolution when evoluion supporters themselves will know how many bacterias started the process. Until then, I have a source that tells me that one man and one woman are on the top of the human race. It is quite clear and logical.

[ThisDudeHere]

“God's / The creator of the Universe”
And here is the first place where the contradictions come into play. You say God created the universe while science disagrees with this. Although the exact nature of the appearance or the ‘start’ for everything is still unknown, it was not a deity.

[DonyChicago]

Science clams that the Universe come from a big explosion that started one day suddenly, came from nowhere and from nothing. I think that believing in that theory requires more boldness than believin in the fact that everything was made an planned by a living and thinking being.

[ThisDudeHere]

@DonyChicago that's the whole jist about it - it's a theory. Nobody's 100% sure whether it's the case or not. But I think that believing in the notion that a being had to be the start for everything requires more boldness than believing it to have a natural beggining. If it had a beginnimg at all that is. For all we know the universe may be in an eternal loop with no beginning or end, no matter how inconprihensible that is to the human mind.
Besides, where did your being come from? Who or what created it? It had to have a beginning itself. And that beginning needed one for itself too. And so on.
You say that the universe can't be without an intelligent beginning but I'll just say that an omnipotent intelligence can't appear out of nowhere either and we won't get anywhere.

[DonyChicago]

You say "For all we know the universe may be in an eternal loop with no beginning or end, no matter how inconprihensible that is to the human mind." But when talking about the possibility of an intelligent being starting everything you say "It had to have a beginning itself". You are not fair. If a being has created us, it is superior to us and understanding its beginning would certainly be a tough thing.
Sorry but an explosion that start suddenly and come from nowhere is not a "natural beggining". Even nowadays if you hear a sudden explosion that has no origin it won't seem natural to you. That is why I think believeing in such a thing requires more boldness and imagination than just assuming that it was well planed and well designed by somebody that is superior to us.

[ThisDudeHere]

@DonyChicago Again, wrong. Again, nobody's 100% certain it was the big bang that started everything. And even if it was, it wasn't much of an explosion as it was a big expansion. Also you can't compare the explosions the way you understand them and the "explosion" that was the big bang. It's like saying that a carriage should be able to drive by itself simply it has four wheels - just like a car when we all know that there's more to it than just 4 wheels.
And I was completely fair - my assumption that it had a beyond-human-comprehension natural start was far more reasonable than assuming that it had an intelligent beginning. The one and only reason for that is that insofar ONLY natural processes have been observed with absolutely NO signs of there being any deities. NONE at all. It stands to reason that since none have been observed, none have existed ever.

[DonyChicago]

"No sign that there was a Deity" : people are so limited nowadays (not to insult you) that even if a "deity" appeared in front of them they will enunciate all kinds of theory except that it is "supernatural".

[ThisDudeHere]

@DonyChicago Your point being? The issue here is that that has never happened so there's no reason to ponder over it. There is no proof of any deity. There has never been any beyond the "oh but I saw shit in my dream, I had visions. Now pass me the join." So yeah, no matter how incomprehensible it is, it is still easier to assume that everything had a 'natural' (depends on what you define natural) start than the Flying Spaghetti monster starting everything.

[DonyChicago]

"The issue here is that that has never happened so there's no reason to ponder over it." : that's exactly what I said before.

[DonyChicago]

I mean you've just reacted the way I described.

[ThisDudeHere]

@DonyChicago Your point being?

[nativepride73]

No, religion and science do not contradict each other. Both are completely separate ideas. Science is the how things work (i. e evolution, big bang, etc.) Religion is the why and how it began (i. e what was before the big bang and why we exist). Both can be entirely complimentary if you are willing to have an open mind, which most people don't. Many atheists want to reject God no matter what and many religious people want to hold on to archaic thoughts because they are scared of the new ones (even though evolutionary thought predates the Young Earth Creationist hypothesis).

[Phoenix98]

A good my take and as a Christian I'd have to agree even Einstein himself stated that the universe and everything in it couldn't have been created without or without the help or intervention of a higher power. He's not the only scientist to think this either but really all the proof you need is in the world, everything especially the ecosystem is very delicate and was so carefully created and constructed and all the animals were designed with specific purposes in mind all so that they could all live in balance. Something like that couldn't have been created randomly within nature out of pure chance and luck.

[Kirah]

Einstein never said that, please don't spread misinformation.

Also, "I don't understand how nature was formed, therefore it MUST be God" is not a valid argument.

[Phoenix98]

@Kirah

Actually that was said at one point his view changed near the end of his life but he did at one point believe that a higher power had intervened in creation he wasn't talking about god specifically, just as a simple higher power or entity.

[Phoenix98]

@Kirah

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed.

[Phoenix98]

@Kirah

A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Other well known scientists who did believe in god

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)

[Kirah]

Science and religion can co-exist, but they can never mix.

Religion is unfalsifiable, and anything unfalsifiable is automatically unscientific (pseudoscience at best). There's no way around it. Naming scientists who were religious does not solve this problem.

[Omar5881]

I like this explanation of urs that they can Co exist and they can never mix cox science changes and relgion is constant

[ImSoSozzled]

Well the convenient thing about religion is that you can believe whatever you want, so people constantly adapt their beliefs to fit whatever the current science is. Since you can't disprove something that isn't proven to exist in the first place, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Bluemax]

I don't believe science necessarily contradicts the idea that a creator or creators (and why do people dismiss polytheism so readily?) designed and created the universe. I do however believe that science contradicts literal interpretations of every religious scripture that I can think of.

[TommyNorth]

It depends on what aspects of religion and science you're talking about. The afterlife? We haven't scientifically proven that to be true. Evolution certainly contradicts many aspects of religion also.

The creation of the universe is certainly a contradiction. Scientific evidence says the universe is roughly fifteen billion years old, but some religions say the universe is only a few thousand years old. We've used dating methods to determine the ages of various fossils to be millions of years old.

So, I certainly think you can find a way to perceive a way that the two can go hand in hand. I just don't think we'd ever find common ground though.

Coming full circle, it depends on what aspects of religion and science you're talking about. I'm sure if you reason and think about it enough, you can find a way to make links between anything, whether those links are strong or not.

[Kuraj]

Yes, the Bible directly contradicts science by claiming the earth is no older than 6000~10,000 years old and that everything on it was created in roughly the same time period.
Which is obviously not true, if that is completely made up bogus how can you have any faith that all of the rest is also not just completely made up bogus... ?

[DonyChicago]

The Bible says that for God one day is like 1000 years. That is to say when God talk of one day it means a long period of time. Read the Bible clearly befoe saying such things.

[Marstalk]

Because religion does not necessarily use post-enlightenment thinking.

[SirenDep]

I agree with your statement. Science replies to the question 'How is the world made?' while religion replies to the question 'By whom is the world made?'

[myTake Owner]

Well put!

[Omar5881]

That's a very nice question I don't know about other relgion in my relgion we know how it's made and by whom but I am not sure about other relgions

[RedThread]

The only thing science contradicts are literal interpretations of holy scriptures around the world. Luckily most people don't take that type of fundamentalist approach.

I have a couple Muslim friends who are studying to become doctors who completely believe in human evolution. I'm sure you guys would have interesting discussions ;P

[myTake Owner]

By human evolution I mean I do not believe humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor.
I do believe humans can evolve however!

[Bluemax]

Dr. Robert Bakker, one of the world's leading dinosaur paleontologists, is a Pentecostal minister. He argues in favor of evolution and warns people about interpreting the Bible literally when it comes to natural history.

As Galileo said, "The purpose of the Holy Scripture is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

[myTake Owner]

@Bluemax I personally don't follow the Bible. I do believe in Evolution though, as a plausible explanation.

[RedThread]

@Bluemax yeah it's really sad when people teach the "controversy" when there really isn't one. People can and do believe in both.

[Dandeus]

Science directly and overwhelmingly contradicts literal interpretations of Abrahamic religion. If you take religion as metaphor rather than history, it's not inherently contradictory, but it begs the question of what worth remains in the metaphor when you can discuss it directly in meaningful scientific terms.

[Mesonfielde]

Religion makes claims that science has debunked.

So yeah.