Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: SuperFrog

Personally, I honestly do not see a disconnect between "creation" and the notion of a Big Bang or something like it.

Nor do I have a problem with the possibility that certain ideas of the origins of the universe according to my faith, are allegorical rather than being verbatim. It does not mean that I believe in Jesus any less. It just means that I have a healthy regard for observational skills and what they can teach us about the world around us, its form, and the functions of its inner workings.

Here is a link to a page which contains data from polls, showing that quite a decent percentage of scientists are religious, or at the very least believe in a higher power of some sort.

www.pewforum.org...
The spin in this article is BS, but the data seems solid. I find it hilarious that there is a negative comparison being drawn between the percentage of scientists with a faith, and the percentage of American citizens who profess to a faith, given that America is one of the few nations where organised religion being a business is not only recognised but entirely welcomed, and therefore the advertisement and indoctrination (none of which are a part of a real relationship with any deity) levels are ridiculous there!

If not for that, the percentages would probably match up better.

a reply to: swanne

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Einstein wrote a letter stating he didn't believe in god so he is not an example showing that god and science would be compatible. In fact he was on good terms in atheist circles even doing interviews with them.



Newton is actually a good example of how religion and science should not mix.

When Newton was observing the orbits of the planets he knew that planets neared each other that gravitation tug at other and realizes that if that system continues that eventually it would destabilize the orbits until everything flew apart. Instead of reconciling that by pushing himself further and figuring it out he said "god steps in every once in a while and corrects the orbits" the "god of the gaps fallacy is thought to originate with Newton. Newton was absolutely brilliant, but once he invoked god that put an ending to him going further in science with that field. If he hadn't then he most likely would have figured it out. About 100 years later Leplace looked at Newtons problem with the orbits where he had invoked "god of the gaps" and set out to solve the problem and succeed demonstrating that the solar system was stable.

So Newton is an example of where religion mixed with science can be detrimental. I am pretty sure Newton could have figured it all out if he hadn't invoked god when things became more complex.

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and I don't know of any conflicts that arose with his work and beliefs. Imagine for if a minute by a twist of chance he had ben born to the Islamic faith do you think we would have a place in history? Long before Western enlightenment the Islamic world was far beyond others with mathematics. The words algebra, arithmetic, and algorithm can all be traced to the Islamic golden age, until Imam Hamid al-Ghazali who was a Muslim cleric and codified what it is to be a good Muslim and one of those things he stated was "manipulating numbers was the work of the devil". Pascal wouldn't have gotten far with a different faith in fact it was that change in the Muslim faith and Islam still hasn't recovered from that.

I don't think there is any problem with people being religious and doing good science, but there is a problem once they mix their religion into the science.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It is either mistake, or something wrong with my browser, but I don't see any links.

Please note my opening post and 2 verses from Minchin's song:

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

See, if scientist can differentiate between his belief and what he is observing, there is no problem, but that does not necessarily show compatibility of religion and science but just ability of person to differentiate between his tradition and his work.

But as soon as your belief contradicts what is observed, and you try to apply religion to science, you end up with Ham and rest of science ignorant people who even continue to propose what they believe even all evidence, or in case of his debate with Science Guy, piece of rock that is older then his view of world it leads in delusion and it is not healthy for religion. Catholic church noticed that and is making adjustments, Islam is still in denial...

a reply to: SuperFrog

Added link to my previous post... My apologies!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SuperFrog

Added link to my previous post... My apologies!

Please note that was just for members of AAAS, while research done in 1998 includes only top scientist and here is comparison....

www.lhup.edu...

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

IMHO - As long as a scientific or religious person isn't indoctrinated into blind groupthink, then science and religion are compatible and actually help each other. Science proves many bible stories are metaphores and myths. Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

IMHO - As long as a scientific or religious person isn't indoctrinated into blind groupthink, then science and religion are compatible and actually help each other. Science proves many bible stories are metaphores and myths. Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something.

What a fantastic post, FF.

Because there are things that science hasn't explained that still happen to people.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: FlyersFan
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

IMHO - As long as a scientific or religious person isn't indoctrinated into blind groupthink, then science and religion are compatible and actually help each other. Science proves many bible stories are metaphores and myths. Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something.

What a fantastic post, FF.

Because there are things that science hasn't explained that still happen to people.

like lightning and gravity once were?

Religion and it's participants spend a lot of time trying to make themselves immune to science. They offer up lots of claims about what it is and how it helps, but when asked how they came to this knowledge, it's always, "you just have to feel it", or "i just know". They never offer anything substantial that science can even be used on.

A claim like "jesus loves you" is an unsubstantiated claim along with any other claim about god, jesus, allah, vishnu, ect.

When religion finally does offer something besides a claim, something that science can be used to determine is true or false, then we'll see if it's compatible.

Definitely none of the supernatural claims about jesus can be considered true without good solid evidence. We've never seen anyone walk on water, so thats not believable. We've never seen anyone turn water into wine at a pass of their hand so thats not believable. Healing the blind with the laying on of hands? No one has ever been shown to do that. Raising the dead? Nope. Not to mention all the other wild claims in the bible like sticks turning into snakes. Talking bushes and animals, raising of the dead, raising of the mass dead!, weather and other normal events being attributed to deities.

Of course none of these things are compatible with what science can prove to be possible. But people believe it anyways because they are taught the fairy tale from a very young age and it is constantly reinforced throughout their life by family, friends, work environment, movies and music, ect. This can be shown in several scientific theories to be fact. You can trick people into believing almost anything. That is why physical evidence is so highly valued in proper science and even debates like this. Try bringing up some nonphysical evidence to court. These stories cannot hold up in a court of law.

instead of using critical thinking to determine what their observations mean, they can give a pre-approved generic answer and get instant grat in the form of atta-boys from all their equally ignorant clones. Because that is what faith is all about. Toeing an imaginary line, whatever that line says. You have to take into account how mainstream that religion is.


I agree with OP. The claims that religious texts do make, can easily be refuted with science. Because without good supporting evidence, science cannot give any credibility to any of the claims that abrahamic religions make. Even the seemingly benign claims like "jesus loves you" and especially ones like "god is real. " Until religos can prove that "god is real" with science, then the two are not compatible.



a reply to: swanne

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

But why should those spiritual ''events'' have anything to do with primitive people's religions and their concept of god?

Those could very well be explained by science and be part of nature's law's, I still don't see any connection with our known god(s).

a reply to: SuperFrog

Religion says there are creator being / beings always watching us.

Science says OK, fine...prove it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

IMHO - As long as a scientific or religious person isn't indoctrinated into blind groupthink, then science and religion are compatible and actually help each other. Science proves many bible stories are metaphores and myths. Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something.

It was posted more then once here on just this topic what was Einstein view and how this quote was misused to serve exactly this purpose showed here with your post...

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Source: www.theguardian.com...


Or even better this letter, that was written after above quote and book misused his earlier quotes, written by Einstein on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you still support Einstein view of religion and God??

a reply to: SuperFrog

Einstein did not believe in a personal God. But he was a theist - not an atheist. You do not have to believe in a personal God to be a theist.

"Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337;Jammer, Einstein and Religion p.93.

link

On the subject, religion could only stall the scientific process of observing and analyzing because science tries to find answers and religion has already an answer for everything.

religion killing science is nothing new really since early christianity has totally erased the science of ancient pagans who already had invented the scientific method, and were already questioning their own beliefs,
and stall the science for nearly 2000 years!

''Religion, in its opposition to reality, is "...mortally hostile to the 'wisdom of this world,' which means science." Friedrich Nietzsche

Religion and science cannot work together, it's a ''paradox'', and unfortunately an illusion that many religious people have.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

IMHO - As long as a scientific or religious person isn't indoctrinated into blind groupthink.

By blind groupthink, do you mean accepting unsubstantiated claims? Then i agree. Claims like "god is real" is one of those blind group think things though.

Science proves many bible stories are metaphores and myths.

Haha yea. Science proves that some of the stories in the bible should be regarded as colorful representations of other cultures stories and myths. Also that snakes, trees, and donkeys don't talk. Oh and people don't raise from the dead.

Spiritual events prove that there is more to the multiverse than science can explain.

No they don't. "Science" is very aware and comfortable, that it does not have the answers to the universe yet. People's unsubstantiated claims about some spirit realm that can appherantly elude "sciences" detectors does not prove anything about "science".

If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something.

If one child says that 2+2=4 and can show how that works, but another keeps insisting there is some extra thing and always says 5 but cannot demonstrate what that thing is. What can they learn from each other? Could you relate to the person who constantly insists on 5? Would you be quiet in a society of people who insist on 5?

It's as easy as counting apples.

ALL DEITIES PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE COUNTED AND YOUR PROPERTIES ASSESSED. If you think that any deities can avoid physical detection or are immune to scientific scrutiny then science and religion are certainly not compatable.

a reply to: SuperFrog

In my opinion, this is one of reasons recent poll shows decline of religion even among Americans...

It's safety in numbers - increased acceptability

Science has never been OK for some people - mostly people who are very afraid seems to me

These days it's like a big coming out party. Every time the group grows larger it is easier to say what you're willing to believe or deny out loud, in public - and live your life accordingly. It's still easier in some places than others, especially if you're surrounded on all sides by people that insist science is evil

The process of science, the necessity, the benefits, the beautiful truth of it - none of that should interfere with anyone's personal belief system

Papa Francis doesn't seem to be too conflicted

:-)

But, ya know - C'est la vie...

a reply to: Woodcarver

accepting unsubstantiated claims?

There was a time someone thought illness was caused by little bugs that could not be seen...

There was a time Einsteins theories could not be proven

There was a time, Newtons theories were unsubstantiated..

ALL science, is based on an unproven idea, a thought which to most, sounds irrational and insane... yet.. these people often later are found to have been correct... all thought starts with things unsubstantiated.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: SuperFrog

Einstein did not believe in a personal God. But he was a theist - not an atheist. You do not have to believe in a personal God to be a theist.

"Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337;Jammer, Einstein and Religion p.93.

That quote refers to pantheism; the belief that the universe / nature is the god itself, and not a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

Yes many respectable scientist are or were pantheists.
The point is that pantheism is NOT a religion,

Imaging someone praying to the law of gravity...lol
Even if he does worship the gravity, or the stars or universe it self, what's the point? those things are just doing their ''jobs'' without judging our life's or promising us eternal life and salvation.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Not exactly. The ideas may not be substantiated to the larger scientific community in their times, but those scientists didn't just pull those ideas out of their head and said, "Yep, I think THIS is how science works." No, they came up with those ideas after compiling their own evidence and writing their theories to express this. So by no means were their ideas "unsubstantiated".

a reply to: Dr1Akula

EInstein himself claims he was not a pantheist. He does claim to believe in Spinoza's God, who also claims he himself was not a pantheist.

"The French philosopher Martial Guéroult suggested the term panentheism, rather than pantheism, to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the universe. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘panentheism’ as the theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time is greater than, and independent of it. So panentheism is similar to pantheism, but crucially in addition believes that God exists as a mind or a spirit. The idea that God is both transcendent and immanent is also a major tenet of both Christianity and Judaism."

Link

Again, you may read the Christian confession on what God is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...