It's not unusual to hear about conflicts between science and religion -- there's evolution & creationism, stem-cell research, cloning, the nature of the mind, and the list can just keep going on and on. But is there a real conflict between science and religion and, if so, is it getting worse or better? I think that the conflict is real, though it lies primarily on the level of methodology than any particular conclusion on any issue, and that it is probably getting worse over time.
Science and religion rely upon very different and incompatible sets of assumptions -- you can't do good science on the assumptions used by religion and there don't appear to be any religions interested in adopting the assumptions and methodology of science. The two sets of assumptions are not, however, equally valuable. The assumptions and methodology of science produce clear, unambiguous, and incontrovertible gains in knowledge, understanding, and quality of life. Science certainly isn't perfect, but it does about as well as any human system of investigation possibly could. Religion, on the other hand, hasn't produced anything close to what we have gained from science.
Faith, religion, and dogma are not "ways" of acquiring knowledge about the world around us. Once a system openly and explicitly declares a willingness to ignore or abandon logic, then it forfeits any claim for authority over empirical studies of nature and the universe. This is how dogmatic systems work, though not just religious ones -- we can find the same thing occurring in a wide variety of ideologies.
Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking. Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.
Thus, not only are the foundations of religion and science incompatible, but the fruits of one are clearly superior to the fruits of the other. The only way to salvage some compromise is to insist that science and religion deal with different spheres of existence, but that's a difficult position to maintain. It's a rare religion that doesn't purport to make any empirical claims about our world, but efforts to exempt such claims from scientific investigation effectively admits that science and religion are incompatible.
This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.
I voted that it’s about the same. It’s not an assertion I can prove; but here’s my logic: As scientific knowledge increases, religion seems to have the uncanny ability to morph itself to not conflict.
In other words, when it begins to look like homosexuality is unquestionably related to biology, the apologists stop arguing that it’s a sinful choice and begin to argue that we all have different crosses to bear–and it’s like alcoholism, where you might have a propensity–but you have to just work to overcome it. So, where the counter-apologist would have expected an “Aha!” moment from the apologist–something along the lines of: “Hey–why would god create some people with a propensity to be ‘abominations’? That seems to conflict with my beliefs…” What they got was the apologist saying, “I guess my belief was wrong–I must have misunderstood god’s meaning.”
Ironically, I just saw “It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown,” where this very thing was put forward. Every year Linus misses “tricks or treats” to sit in the pumpkin patch and wait for the manifestation of The Great Pumpkin. And every year the GP never shows. At the end of the episode, Charlie Brown is trying to console Linus and commiserate with him. He says “Don’t feel bad. I’ve done some stupid things in my life, too.”
Rather than being met with agreement and thanks from Linus–for the sympathy/empathy. Charlie Brown is met with a tyrade where Linus yells, “Stupid?! Whaddya mean STUPID?! You just wait Charlie Brown! Next year the Great Pumpkin is going to come, and…etc.”
Says the apologist: It’s not my Bible, my religion, my god who conflicts with science. If there is a conflict–it’s in my lack of knowledge and understanding. Wherever conflict exists between reality and my beliefs, the fault can only be my faulty human comprehension of god or god’s meaning. If I can’t reconcile it–no worries. God will explain it all after I’m dead.
How can there be a conflict between religion and science when religion provides itself a gaping “out” of that magnitude?
The conflict will always get worse because science and religion are not only diametrically opposed to each other, they are contradictory. While science means using logic and evidence to come to conclusions, religion means having faith in what some guy says despite all the evidence against it. Science and religion cannot live with each other. One of them will eventually perish, which could mean life or death for civilization.
V:
I agree with you in that it appears that way from where I stand–that the twain shall never meet and the divide is getting ever deeper.
But I see a conflict between how _I_ view it, and how theists view it, because even a glaring contradiction is simply accepted with: One day god will explain it–it doesn’t matter than I don’t understand it right now.” Additionally, I’ve seen too many scientific findings that _I_ would have thought would have been another nail in the coffin of religion–where religious apologists simply redefined the current view to a different view that would accommodate the new science.
So, for a person who accepts that God is, and god knows all, and any “apparent” contradictions are simply the result of his lack of ability to “know” what his god “knows”–there’s never going to be any significant divide. Either science is “wrong” for them–or the science is “right”–and if it conflicts with their god, it’s not their god that’s wrong, it’s _their_ understanding of their god’s message that’s wrong.
Someone who is not going to stop believing will accommodate new and conflicting data in one of those modes, and then simply deny any conflict.
For Christianity there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room and his name is science. He has been there since the beginning of the age of enlightenment. When they get tired of trying to push him out of the room, they spend the rest of the time trying to ignore him. My prediction is that after they are gone, he will still be there.
Ron,
Sometimes I think it is the Church (religion) that is an 800 pound bear.
You can be sure that a nuclear holocaust would most probably be the end of civilization. The Church would blossom forth in all its glory and crush education, burn the books, destroy science and command humankind to its knees. And, feeding on the lives of us peasants, the priesthood would probably revise the Holy Scriptures and add a few.
We would in time come to look upon the crumbling highways, burst-ed dames, sections of bridgework with no more interest than did the 5th or 6th century European did, with his peripheral sight, glimpsed at the remains of the Roman aqueducts and crumbling coliseums.
The Church will reign supreme and the people will tremble at the sight of a cleric.
And few will live so long as to be Grandpa
When one states there is conflict between science and religion there must be clarification of terms. Science is observable, testable and repeatable experimentation. Evolution fails on all points, this is the case in natural selection, there is indeed change within kinds (micro-evolution) but there is the lack of changes into new kinds (macro-evolution) By religion, I understand it to mean a man made superstition to explain natural phenomena. In contrast, Christianity in its fundamental teachings is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God. There is intimate harmony between science and the Bible. Thus, there is no conflict of interests. Though the Bible isn’t a science book, it is accurate in scientific matters. Contrary to the efforts of militant atheists to demonstrate otherwise, their efforts are an exercise in futility.
Evolution has been observed, tested, and repeated.
The term “kinds” is not a scientific term. It’s a term derived from theology and superstition. By applying it to science, you reveal that you aren’t actually interested in or knowledgeable about real science.
OK. If Christianity is not a religion then it isn’t protected by the First Amendment. All churches can be taxed. Activities can be closely regulated. Indeed, it can be banned if we want.
Do you agree, or do you want to backtrack now?
Prove it.
Prove it.
We’re not trying to prove otherwise, we’re jus howling in derisive laughter at Christians trying to deny evolution and claim that Christianity isn’t a religion.
My vote was that the conflict has been increasing. Tracieh has a good point that religion just keeps backing up. But nonetheless I think that advances in neurosciences are making dualism (and therefore supernaturalism, less and less tenable). Religion has to diminish its purview the more that science discovers. The last resort is that existence is a mystery. I admit the this feeling, but really it doesn’t lead anywhere, certainly not to any god envisioned by the major religions. Perhaps religion will abandon theism (those that are theistic) and be satisfied with meditations on existence. I think it might persist in such a form, either nontheistic or meiotheistic (rediced. etiolated god).
Two things are missing in the debate: the application of new technologies based on scientific discoveries, and the question of social ethics. Or is that one thing? Anyway, science and religion should work together to eliminate war, famine, lack of medical care, global warming, etc. Technology derived from basic science, e.g., atomic bombs, drones, biological warfare not to mention CO2 emissions, etc., etc. We need a technology that says: “On January 1, 2015 all exiting atom weapons will be detonated from a space station funded by the World Council of Churches and the United Nations. All parties are advised to disarm theirs. That’s not a serious proposal, but maybe you get the idea. Religion is usually co-opted by Nations seeking hegemony. Science says, “It isn’t my fault that you use my discoveries to kill your enemies, real or imagined.”
Larry – you do not understand the theory of evolution.
How can one argue with someone like Larry who can just dismiss evolution as unproven in spite of the mountain of proof.
Christians desperately cling to the conceited idea that they are made by God in his own image, without considering the ramifications of such an idea.
God must then have a digestive system like ours – so he must eat. He must have sexual organs – so he must ——. He has eyes that are inferior in structure to those of an octopus and inferior in performance to those of a hawk. His body is full of the evidence of his own evolution (quaint little things like a coccyx, appendix, plantaris muscle, etc).
Could you shed some light on this dilemma Larry?
P.S. I am thoroughly sick and tired of Christians saying that Christianity is not a religion.
@ Cruzer
“Two things are missing in the debate:”
This alone is enough cause to regard your comment is a bunch of trash.
Grandpa
If christianity is not a religion the what is it Larry
Science gets stronger with knowledge. Religion gets weaker with time.
OZAtheist,
Regarding your P.S. to Larry: “I am thoroughly sick and tired of Christians saying that Christianity is not a religion”.
Well, OZAtheist, maybe these particular Christians are pretty sick and tired of you, who are too blame stupid to realize the it is not a religion but a wonderful scam that has stood the test of time for almost seventeen centuries, thanks to children who are taught to honor their father and their mother’s super-scam. (Fifth Commandment?)
Grandpa
P.S. And OZAtgeust, For goodness sake, think before you PS
Nashka says:
‘Science gets stronger with knowledge. Religion gets weaker with time.’
True, BUT, ignorance (religion) is more into sex and replicates itself at a far faster rate.
Another thing. Knowledge require work and critical thinking. Sex requires neither
That’s why our next president may be a “Good Christian Man.” A phrase I heard aften asa child…”a Good Christian Man.’
I have either never me a “Good Christian Man.” Or I’ve jus tnever met one I liked.
Grandpa
PS I grew up in a Christian atmosphere.
Funny how some religions oppose science, but some religions have used it for their own purposes. The ancient Muslims, for example, studied astronomy so that no matter where they were, they would be able to face Mecca while praying. They also developed geometry because they were forbidden to make pictures of Allah or Mohammed, so they adorned their buildings with intricate geometric designs which could be extended infinitely, thus representing their belief in the infinity of Allah.