Science and Religion: Do they have to be in opposition or can they co-exist?

Sbenny.com is trusted by 1,312,933 happy users since 2014.
Register

GinkgoBell

Savage Lv6️⃣
Member for 4 years
Science and religion, do they have to be in opposition or can they co-exist?

Let the discussion begin.
 

Yas Kashije

Endless
Member for 4 years
Well, it depends on how religion takes science as.

My definition of science: Science consits on the search of ways to understand what surrounds us or ourselve with the use of the scientific method.
The scientific method is set of rules that any theory must follow in order to be considered a good explanation.

My definition of Religion: The set of beliefs a person or group of people follow, which try to give meaning to existence itself.

Any religion or ideology with some kind of trascendentalism and low tolerance feels like no-match. They won't try to go further in the search of answers.
For example, the mythos were a way to explain how the world works.
If the answers some religion provides is "God wills it" or "Because the Gods want it to be like this", and religion wants it not be questioned, it's obvious conflict will arise.

If the religion has a different take, they can easily coexist.
For example, some astrophysicist might believe the laws and the big bang itself are the work of some bored God. He as a scientist feels like he is cracking the code that God wrote, and considers looking for answers to how the universe works as some kind of worshipping cerimony.
This example's religion isn't really uncommon, and takes science as part of it.
 

fabienne80

Addicted Lv3️⃣
Member for 4 years
Hello.

what's your opinion? Is a science without faith possible?

Who sets boundaries of faith? And who sets limits to science? Is morality a matter of faith?

s'Fabienne
 

Yas Kashije

Endless
Member for 4 years
Is a science without faith possible?
Yes. Science sustains itself in a way in which faith is not needed. One of its basis is that "Everything may be proven false anytime anywhere". If a better explanation is found, the previus one becomes obsolete.


Who sets boundaries of faith?
Those who created or represent it.

And who sets limits to science?
Nowadays, science has it's limits set by:
>Tech limitations. You can't experiment without proper equipment
>Reality limitations. Not even God can defy some laws like wave diffraction or relativity.
>Ethics and morals. (see next answer)

Is morality a matter of faith?
I'd distinguish between 2 concepts. Inner morals and public morals. Everybody has its own compass determined by certain variables and civilized humanity decides the public one.
I'll be talking about Public morals
My opinion is that Morality is a convivence code. In order to be able to survive as a group, there are some things we must follow. If those rules were not followed, civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.
The same way scientists should experiment on humans without their consent, you should not commit crimes arbitrarily.
Maybe it's a faith, but then,it's a faith everybody should follow.
 

fabienne80

Addicted Lv3️⃣
Member for 4 years
In my school days we dealt with this topic very intensively. The trigger was here with us the discussion "Will CERN(Geneva) generate a black hole?

Yes. Science sustains itself in a way in which faith is not needed. One of its basis is that "Everything may be proven false anytime anywhere". If a better explanation is found, the previus one becomes obsolete.
In Plato's "Analogy of the divided line", which precedes the "Analogy of the Sun" in the Politeia, the necessary elements of human knowledge are enumerated.

In the first place is the sensual impression, of something that falls into our eyes, reaches our ear or touches our skin. In order to be able to place this physical impression in a context with other sensory stimuli, one needs, secondly, an idea of the context in which these impressions are in relation to each other and to the person in question.

Plato calls this summarizing idea faith, using the same term (pistis) he uses when he speaks of faith in the gods.

Those who created or represent it.
Great response!



My personal opinion is: Faith and science are not contradictory. And ideally, they not only live in co-existence but complement each other. And Geneva and the world outside still exists. Despite the Large Hadron Collider (particle accelerator).

Btw: what is the correct translation into english: "Large Hadron Collider" or "particle accelerator"?
 

Yas Kashije

Endless
Member for 4 years
Btw: what is the correct translation into english: "Large Hadron Collider" or "particle accelerator"?
Both are correct, but in different senses.

Particle Accelerator is any device/building that has the ability to apply momentum to particles or atoms. (Like the Zippe-type centrifugator or those old TV which were voluminous and heavy)
LHC is a particle accelerator (bigger than a building :p), especialized in causing collisions among groups of hadrons (a subset of particles) to see what happens.

In the first place is the sensual impression, of something that falls into our eyes, reaches our ear or touches our skin. In order to be able to place this physical impression in a context with other sensory stimuli, one needs, secondly, an idea of the context in which these impressions are in relation to each other and to the person in question.

Plato calls this summarizing idea faith, using the same term (pistis) he uses when he speaks of faith in the gods.
In this case, Science would fulfill by itself the Idea of Context. Sensory impressions would be linked to the technology, that limits science. Us humans have a limit to our senses: we are deaf to low frequency/high frequency sounds, our sight is limited even if its one of the best in the animal world (a good jack of all trades)...
We need devices for the sensorial impression.

However, I disagree with the comparison Plato does. He isn't wrong, but by his times, there was no way to prove how things worked. Believing in Gods or daimons was the same as believing it rained because water had an "impetum" to return to itself.
Nowadays, we know, and it has been proven, that rain is just caused by a complex mix of thermodynamics and mechanics, and it's not some god pouring water onto us.

Since you could also argue Faith in those laws is no different from Faith in some God, I'll say that God might fail you (you have faith in Him but you can't anticipate), while those laws will work under all circumstances (faith is not needed, you will be able to always predict with good enough precision).
One example: Before Newton, rocks fell because they wanted to return to their position. People could anticipate how would fell, but no accurate anticipations could be made. After Newton and his laws, we could predict where that projectile would land.
 

debrabarne

Lurker Lv0️⃣
Member for 3 years
Running a little ahead, and moving a little away from the general topic of this chapter, it is useful to make a few comments. The first concerns the very possibility of a confrontation between religion and science. The second is the theory of the origin of religion. The fact is that in this work, science is understood mainly as natural science, which supposedly refutes some sacred religious texts. And the rest of the work will be devoted to proving the absence of such a refutation. However, in this case, the title of the work does not quite correctly reflect its content; it reflects a somewhat simplified everyday view of the concepts of "religion" and "science". The fact is that in fact religion is a worldview that, in particular, gives answers to the questions: who we are, where we came from, why we are here and what is the meaning of life. Science is this changing system of accumulated verified knowledge about the observed world. It does not provide an answer to the questions that some stable worldview should answer. And science really isn't a worldview. A person's ideas (knowledge) about the phenomena of this world can be scientific or antiscientific, but not his worldview as such (religious, atheistic, etc.). Science and worldview are two different, irreducible concepts, and therefore they cannot resist each other. Thus, a person's scholarship can only push him to a non-religious worldview.
 
Top