Scientists say that Religion and Science can coexist | INFJ Forum

Scientists say that Religion and Science can coexist

GracieRuth

GracieRuth

Permanent Fixture
Aug 19, 2011
974
229
0
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
7
I wasn't sure whether to post this here, or in the Religion/Philosophy forum. I decided that since it was scientists who were polled, this was the better choice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-science-can-coexist_n_974116.html

The most interesting element of this poll is that while scientists had high opinions of fellow scientists who were religious, Richard Dawkins was the person most negatively mentioned, as Scientists felt he was creating a bad name for Science.

Enjoy
 
This is a nice article but not really news. Religion and science have coexisted happily for a very long time though they sometimes disagree.

However, some modern Christians (I cannot speak for other religions) hold a false idea that they cannot coexist. I invite them and anyone else who is curious to read the truth. The topic is simply too large for me to expound on here.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science.htm

There are arrows at the bottom of the pages that will take you to the next.

I would also like to say to Christians that Jesus repeatedly said "Have you not read?" Our religion is not an intellectually lazy one so read!
 
The idea that religion hampers science or that science disproves religion is actually a fairly recent development. All of mankind's greatest achievements and discoveries in the past have been made in deeply religious societies. Hell, science probably wouldn't exist without religion. Before the crusades Muslims were known as the greatest thinkers. In fact that hasn't changed much seeing as a lot of the best doctors in the world are Muslim.

Anyone who thinks that religion and science can't coexist knows very little of the history of either practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barbad0s and willow
Francis Collins (born April 14, 1950), is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time". He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to being appointed Director, he founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation. Collins has written a book about his Christian faith, and Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Also, Richard Dawkins is just a hatchet man for anti-theists. He is to unbiased skepticism as Fred Phelps is to Christian living.
 
An open mind can do lots of things, including allowing science and religion to coexist in the same reality tunnel.
 
I have no problem with this idea at all. The two disciplines approach the search for understanding from different perspectives and there is ample room to meet in the middle. Still the specific process-boundaries unique to each discipline (science and theology) must be maintained, and generally are from what I can tell, at least among the top people in their fields.
 
How many of the people interviewed would be able to define science in a rigorous and methodological way that takes into account both the advancement of scientific theory as well as the scientific process?

And how many people would agree on the different definitions they gave?

You can do science and bracket concerns about religion, but if you think about it, then you will run into problems.
 
Science and religion can't coexist, science and faith however can.

The main reason I say this is because the word religion refers mostly to tradition and dogma, it is the yamaka or the lighting of candles. Faith is just the belief.
 
Kmal said:
An open mind can do lots of things, including allowing science and religion to coexist in the same reality tunnel.
Click to expand...

Right. Closed-mindedness is detrimental to BOTH science and religion.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Closed-mindedness is detrimental to BOTH science and religion.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Science and spiritual belief can coexist. They only have difficulty in doing so when the religious people or scientists are uneducated. For example, I would call christians who believe that the earth is only ten thousand years old uneducated.
 
Last said:
Science and religion can't coexist, science and faith however can.

The main reason I say this is because the word religion refers mostly to tradition and dogma, it is the yamaka or the lighting of candles. Faith is just the belief.
Click to expand...

You say yarmulke [sic] and candles like they are bad. What precisely about wearing a yarmulke or lighting candles do you think is incompatible with science.

I would say that if a faith is NOT expressed by actions, it sounds pretty impotent.
 
Scientists are right.
 
vdwxmskkntz said:
Science and religion can't coexist, science and faith however can.

The main reason I say this is because the word religion refers mostly to tradition and dogma, it is the yamaka or the lighting of candles. Faith is just the belief.
Click to expand...

Not to be offensive, but faith isn't just the belief. Faith is more akin to fealty or trust, If you have faith in something you have trust in it. Belief is simply to recognize or acknowledge something as true or real, and religion at the root of it's etymology means "fear of God/gods"

It's easy to confuse belief and faith because they are usually dependent upon one another, but not always.
 
Barnabas said:
Not to be offensive, but faith isn't just the belief. Faith is more akin to fealty or trust, If you have faith in something you have trust in it. Belief is simply to recognize or acknowledge something as true or real, and religion at the root of it's etymology means "fear of God/gods"

It's easy to confuse belief and faith because they are usually dependent upon one another, but not always.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the ways I personally define religion and the ways I personally define faith. I see religion more as the traditions surrounding a belief and faith more as the belief itself. Perhaps this is an incorrect definition but it is the way in which it is defined to me. To me I agree with Dawkins in some sense (though I think he went overboard) that God can get in the way of science in such a way as one might say "This couldn't happen because the earth is only 10,000 years old." it becomes frustrating when you find empirical scientific data that is refuted based on old religious ideals or literal interpretation of text. It is these barriers which scientists have to fight against, not necessarily a belief in God itself. But science constantly changes thereby changing the meanings of other things that came prior, it is excepted by the scientific community that a new finding can change the meaning of an old scientific finding without debunking that old finding. So basically instead of people molding their beliefs in God to fit the reality of the earth in the same way that scientists use new reality to mold the way in which the old science fits. many religious people (Read: not all) remain stead fast to a very old, transcript that has been chopped up, and translated so many times it has essentially become the worlds oldest game of telephone. It becomes quite vexing when there is no reason to hold so stead fast to these principles even with a belief in God, There is no reason for example that the entire system of evolution couldn't be an intelligent creation. or that "7 days" couldn't be a metaphor.
 
vdwxmskkntz said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear in the ways I personally define religion and the ways I personally define faith. I see religion more as the traditions surrounding a belief and faith more as the belief itself. Perhaps this is an incorrect definition but it is the way in which it is defined to me. To me I agree with Dawkins in some sense (though I think he went overboard) that God can get in the way of science in such a way as one might say "This couldn't happen because the earth is only 2000 years old." it becomes frustrating when you find empirical scientific data that is refuted based on old religious ideals or literal interpretation of text. It is these barriers which scientists have to fight against, not necessarily a belief in God itself. But science constantly changes thereby changing the meanings of other things that came prior, it is excepted by the scientific community that a new finding can change the meaning of an old scientific finding without debunking that old finding. So basically instead of people molding their beliefs in God to fit the reality of the earth in the same way that scientists use new reality to mold the way in which the old science fits. many religious people (Read: not all) remain stead fast to a very old, transcript that has been chopped up, and translated so many times it has essentially become the worlds oldest game of telephone. It becomes quite vexing when there is no reason to hold so stead fast to these principles even with a belief in God, There is no reason for example that the entire system of evolution couldn't be an intelligent creation. or that "7 days" couldn't be a metaphor.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly interested in debating, so I'll skip the fluff and move on to my point. If your going to talk about religion and more specifically Christianity you need to know your terminology and use words via there definition. If you start a conversation or a debate with a Christian and misuse key words that are relevant to there world view there going to treat you as if your ignorant about there world view. The same thing goes in reverse if Christian goes to a naturalist and talks or debates about evolution and uses the words micro or macro as a prefix for evolution it's vary likely that the naturalist is going to treat the christian as if they're ignorant about the subject.

It's all about communicating in a common language.
 
In alot of ways, I think science proves the existence of God. If you really think about evolution, there seems to be a force or conciousness that drives it and makes decisions for it. Life is actually counter to nature in that the nature tends to take the path of least resistance, where life is constantly fighting against the natural order.
 
88chaz88 said:
The idea that religion hampers science or that science disproves religion is actually a fairly recent development. All of mankind's greatest achievements and discoveries in the past have been made in deeply religious societies. Hell, science probably wouldn't exist without religion. Before the crusades Muslims were known as the greatest thinkers. In fact that hasn't changed much seeing as a lot of the best doctors in the world are Muslim.

Anyone who thinks that religion and science can't coexist knows very little of the history of either practices.
Click to expand...

lol some of the best doctors in the world are Muslims, are you trolling?...yet Muslims believe LGBT people are sinners and are committing evil acts against Allah, that sounds very scientific.
 
And that was discovered now despite modern sciences Judeo-Christian roots?
Interesting...
 
Richard Dawkins is a genius when it comes to evolutionary biology, but he has taken the "God Delusion" too far. In my view, he is no different than a religious fundamentalist; he is just an Anti-Religous Fundamentalist. I understand his concerns for religion, but is there is necessary need to take it as far as he has? If you were to go to Africa and tell all those starving children that there was no god, then they would lose all hope. Is crushing dreams really the best way?

Some people need religion to feel fulfilled, so why not let it be?

There are too many religions as it is, and there are too many wars caused by religion, but will atheism really save the world???

It isn't religion that causes individuals to do evil things, it's themselves.

New atheism is just anti-religious fundamentalism


It's no wonder why scientists are concerned for their reputation....

Interesting article

Religion coexisting with science sounds interesting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back