Science and Religion: Are they really at war

It seems that you have a pretty much balanced view of the issue, youdontsay! I appreciate your views and thanks for participation

Howhigh! you are right that empirically, we can find nothing in miracles as they are supposed to be either against or suspending physical laws that govern our universe. do you find it impossible? specially given the fact that certain scientific laws/principles themselves can't be applied to whole universe like for example Newtonian physics which is only works well in inertial frames. Thanks for your participation:-)

I agree but i think through observation we can find better questions to ask. The physical laws that "govern" our universe are up for debate and over time its changed. Why? Its only a description of what is observed. So the scientific laws of today don't have to fully explain our universe.

I agree that we advance with observation and reassessment, but will you agree that a physical law, though still correct and unchanged like one i gave example of, may have different implications depending upon the reference and frame used. you can include theory of relativity as an example.

Religious dictum is subject to human interpretation. A single sentence can have many interpretations depending upon the perspective one has. Generally people have their own agendas and hence they interpret religion the way they want to. Religious beliefs are human concepts and ideas, that the concerned leaders of each religion attribute to their God, which they say is the one true God, or the divine trinity or whatever...... Within the human concepts of God and religion, personally, I feel that any God would only care that the person is 'good', and this 'good' is defined in most religions and has a lot of common properties to it. There could be some exceptional properties added to define 'goodness' in some religions, but these were means devised by the founders, the leaders of those religions to spread those religions during times when those religions were still fledglings, struggling to gain an audience of believers. Science demands proof for anything that one considers as gospel truth. When the religious adherents don't know how to go about providing proof for their beliefs, the discord arises, fear of science arises. It is easier to accept dogma than to understand science, it is easier for the mind to attribute something to the unknown, or to accept religious explanation than to grasp what science has to say about something. From the point of view of science, it is still very nascent, whatever progress we have made, I don't think we have even scratched the surface of the vast knowledge bank in the cosmos (and maybe beyond it) that has yet to be discovered, explored and understood. Scientists scorn at what religion has to offer and yet some of the greatest scientific minds (Einstein, Stephen Hawking to name just two) accept that there is a creator, a higher power. I am sure that millenniums from now, when a lot more of what this cosmos has to offer is better understood, there will be many more points of commonality between the two, and humanity may end up with a religion that contains the richness of all religions and sects that exist and those that may yet be conceived, founded. To sum it all, check my first statement fully, its is the adherents that are at war, not the religions. Oh yes, I do believe that there is creator, but beyond that my opinions on how he (she or it) would like me to live my life is my own and would be too much digression from your discussion.

You have presented some interesting points tarachand!. "Religious beliefs are human concepts and ideas, that the concerned leaders of each religion attribute to their God", Are you suggesting that they were not inspired by GOD? please excuse me if i misunderstood. I respect your opinion that GOD cares for goodness which is common in al religions or even without them. problem is how to define "goodness"? specially when you see it as "devised means" or by devised means you are ony referring to additional goodness parameters? frankly for me, science has been an easy subject than theology all my past:-) Your idea of uniersal religion is quite interesting and appreciated. Thanks again for replying back to my comment tarachand:-)

You have a very positive view tarachand! i must say. I agree that most of the problems come from the stubborn adherents but would you like to elaborate how religion and science "can't be" at war, as mentioned in your first line? Thanks for your participation, tarachand. I appreciate.

i stopped reading after i read "evolution steps out of the realm of physics" you figure out why

when people stand up for things that are just plain incorrect, people need to point it out so others learn from their mistakes... and can someone explain to me the relations between changes in the genetic make-up of organisms over time and the interactions of matter and energy? ..cuz thats what socorban was promoting..

Thanks for your participation and sharing your views socorban! I appreciate, specially," Just because we are learning how things work doesn't mean that it wasn't set that way externally by an outside force". I think science is best in answering to our problems related to physical world in more systematic, logical and comprehensible way but i too think that it has some limits, which probably can never be crossed. Fightingistheonlyway! I appreciate your correction, but wasn't it possible that he was refering to over all physical world compared to spiritual world or may have just written in error. should we make fun just for an error? I expect much better things from you and keep you in regard. You have the ability to think, which i like most about people, so let's use it in a better way:-) Let's be friends and make each other understand what we dont understand. I believe that we all have something to give to other, so you must be having things for me.

Are you referring to division of science and religion in generel, following the scientific revolution or are you taking a positive note that science was a branch of religion to explain natural principles? You make an interesting point that domains of science and religion are different. one is worldly and other is beyond physical world. so are you suggesting that religion has no part in physical world? please elaborate. Thanks for participation scammerwear:-)

yeah you're right. they are disproving each other, that's why it's called conflict.

I'm taking the positive note on this one :p I won't say religion has no part in the physical world, it teaches us how to conduct ourselves in the world. Religion and Science are similar in the sense that they are both our perception on subjects, one about 'other-worldly' knowledge and the other about the world around us. They do meet at some points, disagree at some and totally unrelated in others. But that is expected for any knowledge and believe systems isn't it? Happy to join another discussion with you kamran12, go easy on me this time, my head is still spinning from our last discussion LOL!

einstein is not really a philosopher

Thanks for your participation jessemt35!. I do appreciate as well as share your view. They can be great partners i helping each other. I believe that science is not the complete answer to human needs and reality, similarly, we need science to explain our physical world in a systematic way.

Hello fightingistheonlyway! I didn't mention that Einstein is a philosopher I only quote his saying regarding his views about religion and science. He is a great scientist but he knows that religion and science are to complimentary discipline that must support each other. He is familiar with his theory of relativity.

Thanks for sharing your views margieanneart! I agree that human nature demands a proof, but does proof must need to be a direct or scientific one? even in science, we don't have direct proofs of many things like for example, no body has ever seen electron, yet we all believe that it exists, based on circumstantial evidence, not on direct evidence. No body has ever seen or observed macro evolution, and even the circumstantial evidences are mere interpretations yet majority believe in it. No body can testifiably and scientifically prove existance of love, yet we all believe in it. Are not Similar proofs abundant about existance of GOD!?. in my view there are, So I do believe in GOD.

No problem, Chiang Mai is the name of the city, in Thailand, that I lived in when I joined myLot. I have since moved to Yala, also in Thailand, to take a teaching position. Dr. Collins does say that he sees the hand of God in the origin of life but not in the continuing evolutionary process. He goes on to say that if a sound scientific explanation for the origin is put forward he would accept it but it would not have any effect on his faith.

Thanks for sharing that info about your screen name chiang_Mai_boy! I too believe that creationism and evolution can co-exist with each other but for me i have yet to see solid evidence about evolution. What we have till date is circumstantial evidence. once i get it, i'll have no problem in adjusting evolution in my broader creationism:-) Thanks again for participation and sharing your views.

Chiang_Mai_boy! I appreciate your view that they don't need be at war and that it is caused more by people than the concepts themselves. Dr. Francis Collins is a pretinent example but i would humbly disagree a little about confirmation. isn't it that he sees evolution alongside creation? please correct me if i am wrong, but yes you gave example knowing this fact:-) Thanks for participation in my discussion:-) btw a little personal question if you don't mind! what does your name (screen name) means:-) boy is english word but i couldn't figure out other two, hope you won't mind:-)

actually, feelings can be tested by electrical impulsis in the brain. depending on what you feel/do, a diffrent part of your brain sends signals to your nerves.. i dont think its unreasonalable...a theory is an idea based on fact, that is why its a theory, that came out of facts, not science i dont agree, i can be spiritual and not believe in god. i dont know of any observations that say societies without these fall in morality. there are a couple things wrong with that statement btw, because nobody knows what is absolute truth, nobody knows what is truely good and bad (IE stealing for food, killing for self defence, abortion etc.) also, that is where LAW comes in, to enforce the morality that the majority agree with. i dont think anyone would have come up with a guy dying for our sins (jesus), a guy showing his face on the moon to show that he talks to god (mohamad), or a guy who opens the sea to save his people (moses). and who would come up with such a thing as stoning women if they dont bleed on the night of their wedding? (old test and koran). and why would anyone want 72 virgins when they die.. or a place that good things happen all the time/vice versa.. and the last thing you said, thats what government is for lol..

Thanks for participation and your views fightingistheonlyway! It seems that you are doing justice to your name:-) just kidding. "Faith can never work side by side with reason", would you please define reason or how you percieve it? can't reason exist as more than what we know as reason? if you believe that religion is nothing beyond those three things, i.e. GOD, spirituality and morals and still believe in all three than shouldn't it be concluded that you belong to religion, yourself!?:-).

Thanks for coming back, fightingistheonlyway! I appreciate:-) If only reasonable things are the ones that are testifiable than what do you think about love? do you think that it is testifiable? what we can see/observe or test about it are merely effects caused by love and not the feeling itself. Same is applicable to other human feelings like hate, anger, pain, admiration, exaltation, happiness etc. Do you believe in existence of these feelings? Interestingly, effects of all these feelings can also be observed with the concept of deity. Now if effects are to be taken as reason than you will find plenty of reason for existence of deity:-) Do you agree that science also observe faith, as you define it, to some extent at least for some time, e.g. infinite time as per Theory of relativity, infinite (theoretically)density of black hole, macro evolution etc. Macro evolution is not testifiable as per normal scientific experimentation, do you consider it unreasonable? I agree that a person who believes in GOD with a religion may be void of spirituality and morals (though no person on earth is completely void of these things, in my humble opinion) but you will not find him refuting the existence of these things. I also agree that morality can exist without GOD or religion, though observations show that societies who abandoned Religion and Deity fell sharply into moral decline than the ones who adhered to it. You are also right about the fact that religion gives faith rather than one coming up with one's own faith. What if you come up with a faith that is close to a religion, will you accept that religion? In addition to things you mentioned, I think of religion as a complete social order. I would go for a religion that has all systems defined optimistically for the society, like economics, politics, defense, judiciary, education (including sciences), morals and ethics, communication etc, if such a religion exists:-)

I am a little confused about your usage of word "they", xd14keilrisker:-). It seems that "they" is referring to religious people!? or it means the people related to science or as your last line suggests "both"? It agree that spirituality may exist without religion, as you say. one fine example would be Budhists. i won't agree, however, that religion devides people unless you prove it to me:-) Thanks for participation, xd14keilrisker!

Thanks matrixx! for participation in my discussion. I appreciate the fact that you believe them to come together:-)

I share your view that they can support each other, thanks for participation buri2_jaemon!:-)

Thanks for participation jw01980! I too believe that religion and science are not exclusive of each other. I appreciate your view:-)