Does Science Contradict Religion?

[Pythagorean]

Hi, everyone.

A question I have is since science must take as its starting out point some kind of logic or reason, then does this necessarily exclude from the scientific mind any notion of the miraculous of which religious belief is founded upon?

If a scientist believes that Jesus, for example, rose from the dead and made appearances then doesn't this contradict the kind of work that the scientist must do qua scientist? My real question is how can these two views be reconciled (if at all) within the mind-set of science? I know that in Japan there is an apparently harmonious co-existence between the theological beliefs of the Japanese people and the modern scientific outlook (of which they are pretty good at) but I am not sure if Christianity can survive the scientific outlook because the contradiction between Christian theology -the Bible- and the scientific method seems more pronounced.

There are a lot of people who write for certain influential publications and publish best selling books in America who believe fervently in science and as a consequence (so they imply) they look upon those who do believe in Christ or the Bible as being backwards type of folks and out of date. It is apparent that these self-styled "progressive" thinkers hold fast to the idea that modern science and Christianity are irreconcileable and that science is destined to conquer the "backward" Christians, but I'm not so sure. It may actually be that Christianity can, in principle at least, survive the scientific outlook (whether it can survive the fashionable progressive onslaught is another matter entirely). I mean the Bible may go out of fashion but that doesn't mean that it is innately incompatible with science.

And also, to be modern: what does it mean to say or think that one is modern (as opposed to those more primitive less technological "backward" folk who live in the scientifically undeveloped parts of the globe) or even post-modern-? What does it really mean when one considers oneself to be a modern, sophisticated type of person? Is modernity ultimately a privation from a retrograde God? Can one be Christian and modern simultaneously? Can the two co-exist in harmony? If not, will the modern, sophsticated people end up going completely insane? (as did Nietzsche, that proto-typical tempter of nihilism par excellance, who came before them and who leads the way through his writing) -- is it possible that the whole nation, with its ultra-modern desires, could end up going insane in this secular epoch of sophisticated progress? And are we already half-way there? I mean does being too this-worldly, too well-informed for hoary faith equate to a special kind of mass insanity ? Maybe "mankind without God" is the classical recipie for psychological extremism and abnormal actions in the social context and the political sphere-? These questions I ponder.

I know this is a broad topic, maybe too broad, but it is something that I've been wondering about for a while now. Maybe someone could just explain how it is possible that a scientifically oriented person can also get away with believing in miracles or the God of religion without falling into contradiction - ?
--

[Aedes]

Many people equate science with the rants and raves expressed by some people within the scientific community. But polemics are not science so I'd disregard statements by scientific people that are not actually scientific statements. I think that what science does is it transforms (in our mind) the miraculous into the allegorical. Many religions are perfectly happy doing that -- which is why in synagogue we CAN and DO actually talk about creation and evolution as independent topics. Some things, like belief in God, may have to be held as unanswerable to scientific inquiry, and it's up to the individual to decide if that is satisfactory or not.

It's not the scientific method per se that conflicts with religion. It's the scientific skepticism, i.e. that epistemologic confidence comes only with evidence. While a case can be made for that, frankly we have to live our lives based on certain assumed truths, and moreover based on regarding some scientifically unverifiable things as important. I mean science may some day explain neurobiologically how belief in God comes from dopamine secretion in the temporal lobes or something; but that doesn't address the human experience of believing in God, so the incidental mechanism doesn't approach the questions of meaning that actually move many of us.

But your most prescient question is your last one. People are ALWAYS in contradiction with themselves -- their rational faculties are under constant assault by irrational processes. People don't need to have rational consistency in their beliefs, because they find some way to internally reconcile them even if it seems absurd to outsiders.

So the issue is psychological and cognitive, not necessarily methodological.

Finally, the world changes constantly, as does the human experience. Scientific advances are but one element of this. Religions NEED to find a way to accomodate and adapt to the way the world changes, including scientific developments, if they want to stay relevant. That doesn't mean rejecting all religious traditions, but it means religions have to grow and develop as well.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Religions NEED to find a way to accomodate and adapt to the way the world changes, including scientific developments, if they want to stay relevant. That doesn't mean rejecting all religious traditions, but it means religions have to grow and develop as well.

I'd bet Aedes and I have different opinions on how this could apply, but in essense I think this is a very good insight. Personally, I feel like it was (at least partly) the fault of the religious establishments (during the scientific explosion) not following this advice that led to the dichotomy that we see today. I'd also wonder if acedemia was overly happy to disregard religion in whatever way possible with the new tools at their disposal... It's too bad it happened like that, and I know that we (me too!) deal with the struggle it created, and have to watch our attitudes and motivations. Certainly the methods/epistemology of religion and science are different, but that doesn't mean they need to be at each other's throats!

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Many people equate science with the rants and raves expressed by some people within the scientific community. But polemics are not science so I'd disregard statements by scientific people that are not actually scientific statements. I think that what science does is it transforms (in our mind) the miraculous into the allegorical. Many religions are perfectly happy doing that -- which is why in synagogue we CAN and DO actually talk about creation and evolution as independent topics. Some things, like belief in God, may have to be held as unanswerable to scientific inquiry, and it's up to the individual to decide if that is satisfactory or not.

It's not the scientific method per se that conflicts with religion. It's the scientific skepticism, i.e. that epistemologic confidence comes only with evidence. While a case can be made for that, frankly we have to live our lives based on certain assumed truths, and moreover based on regarding some scientifically unverifiable things as important. I mean science may some day explain neurobiologically how belief in God comes from dopamine secretion in the temporal lobes or something; but that doesn't address the human experience of believing in God, so the incidental mechanism doesn't approach the questions of meaning that actually move many of us.

But your most prescient question is your last one. People are ALWAYS in contradiction with themselves -- their rational faculties are under constant assault by irrational processes. People don't need to have rational consistency in their beliefs, because they find some way to internally reconcile them even if it seems absurd to outsiders.

So the issue is psychological and cognitive, not necessarily methodological.

Finally, the world changes constantly, as does the human experience. Scientific advances are but one element of this. Religions NEED to find a way to accomodate and adapt to the way the world changes, including scientific developments, if they want to stay relevant. That doesn't mean rejecting all religious traditions, but it means religions have to grow and develop as well.

Just a couple of remarks.

The theory of evolution does not address how life began. It addresses how life became diverse.

Why do you say that what you call scientific skepticism has to do with the view that we need evidence for our beliefs (if that is what you are saying)? Don't we need evidence for our beliefs? John Locke once pointed out that religionists were perfectly happy to give arguments for their religious beliefs, until those arguments failed them. Then, they shifted to the view that evidence was not required, and all that was needed was-faith. It is hardly skepticism to insist that we need to back up our beliefs. The failure of the attempt to answer doesn't argue for unanswerability, does it? It may just argue for failure.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

The theory of evolution does not address how life began. It addresses how life became diverse.

Except for the part of it that does address how life began. That is a major area of research within evolutionary biology, and in fact there has been prospective scientific research that has taken elemental chemicals, subjected them to the energetic conditions of the young earth, and actually produced organic molecules. The development of self-contained cells from aggregates of phospholipids IS part of the theory of evolution. The development of cellular metabolism (using membrane ion gradients and electron receptors IS part of the theory of evolution. The development of genetic material IS part of the theory of evolution.

Why do you say that what you call scientific skepticism has to do with the view that we need evidence for our beliefs (if that is what you are saying)?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that scientific skepticism will doubt religious assertions if they lack evidence that stands up to scientific criteria. Creation, for example, doesn't stand up to scientific inquiry into the world as we can observe it, certainly as compared to competing ideas.

It is hardly skepticism to insist that we need to back up our beliefs. The failure of the attempt to answer doesn't argue for unanswerability, does it? It may just argue for failure.

I'm addressing the original question, which is how religion and science can come into conflict. And they can when religious beliefs are rejected because of routine scientific skepticism. SCIENCE requires pretty strict evidentiary standards for any claim; and frankly there are few religious claims that meet scientific standards. But doesn't it poison the spirit of, say, Easter, to question the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

[Didymos Thomas]

The only time contradictions arise between science and Christianity is when Christians demand their scripture to be taken literally - ie, Adam and Eve were literally the first two people, Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus died and returned to life.

If we approach the scripture as we do any other written work, as literature, science should never contradict scripture.

Religion and science serve two different purposes. Only when we try to rub one out in favor of the other do we have troubles with them.

[prolix]

I believe that science can, and often does, contradict the way we rationalize todays most popular religions. However science and religion are two different platforms that require two different venues of thought, and because of this, will never be fully compatible. Though many may try to intertwine the two, they are ultimately seperate. If any contradictions do exist between the two, they are irrelevant. Again, I am speaking in regards to todays most popular religions and not all. Religion does not neccessarily entail "faith based reasoning."

[prolix]

I apologize, but most of this reply is a rant.

kennethamy.. "The theory of evolution does not address how life began."

It addresses how more than 99.9% of life began. Including my life, and yours . I do not believe that the purpose of the theory of evolution was to explain how life was first created. Other theories can explain that . Would that make you an enemy of those theories or would that force you to make a new argument for scientific/religion compatibility? Would you need to go back further in order to argue that science cannot dismantle the foundation of a particular faith?

Faith based reasoning must seperate itself from science for it to survive logically. And furthermore.. Because I believe in the principles of science, I cannot believe in the principles of faith based reasoning. You may argue that everyone has faith to an extent all you want. The truth is that faith, in regards to reasoning, is an facade. A form of intuition hidden behind a wall of the apparent inability to explain why you feel the way you do. Maybe hopeful wishing, or maybe just a need to forgo judgement and let something else within the mind do the dirty work.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by prolix

I do not believe that the purpose of the theory of evolution was to explain how life was first created.

That is a major area of research in evolutionary biology, and there ARE indeed theories, some of which are testable, as to the actual origin of all life.

[prolix]

Originally Posted by Aedes

That is a major area of research in evolutionary biology, and there ARE indeed theories, some of which are testable, as to the actual origin of all life.

But I must ask.. If life randomly creates itself from numerous components under the right conditions, did it evolve or just emerge. I believe the theory of evolution cannot be used to explain the origin of life, but only its progression. However I am not an evolutionary scientist so.. I have read about some testings going on about space dust and amino acids turning into amino peptides under heat and pressure. Is this one of the theories you are talking about?