NationStates Jolt Archive

I have posted on this topic before, but perhaps I did not express my views clearly enough, thus leading many NSG posters to disagree that Science and Religion (especially any form of organized, heavily socialized religions) will necessarily go head to head.

Let me present a more cogent argument on why these clashes are inevitable. Have occurred in the past, and will definitely do so in the future. As long as these two human endeavors exist, there will be friction.

On paper, Science is about explaining Nature. A method, a set of empirical observations, experiments, model-making, theory-forming. Its interest is in the material Universe. Religion on the other hand, is about the transcendental, higher consciousness, supernatural, immaterial spiritual experiences and revelations. It is about faith, about love, inspirational and divine.

Looks like they shouldn't cross paths. Two separate realms. On paper.

Unfortunately, Religion the Human endeavor sits in the material Universe that Science works in. That's where the problem lies. An illustration:

Let's say we have a fast expanding religion that wants to show the world that is The One Truth. Time to debunk the other "Devil-worshipping" faith competitors. How could they do it?

By strength of faith? You produce a zealot willing to kill or die for your faith - how can such strong faith be false? But yet, the opposing religions can also do the same! What's worse, they accuse your poor martyrs as being hoodwinked by the Devil. In this first round, blood just spills everywhere and nobody wins.

What about prayer power? God will only answer the True believers right? A direct prayer challenge to see who can actually smite who. But alas! God works in mysterious ways. And has a Divine Plan. Thus - no direct demonstration of fury from Heaven. Instead you still need to send people with predictable human fury and automatic weapons to kill each other in order to do "God's Will". What's worse, sometimes God's justice is applied only in the afterlife, so that those vile heretics may have to die naturally before they will rot in Hell. But will they actually? What if there is no Hell? Or that they were actually right? Who can possibly know for sure? No one wins this round either.

Of course no one can really win. In the spiritual realm, everything is mysterious, vague, confusing, wishy-washy and so often completely subjective. You can take the same transcendental heavenly moment of beautiful divine inspiration yet produce two zealots that worship opposing Gods. Maybe there is no way around this but the pure social competition games of who-converts-more and who-outbreeds-you.

Wait a minute. What about the Physical Universe? AHA! This is the final battle ground that will finally reveal the True believers. Since God created the Universe, the religion that is best supported by physical evidence "revealed by God" will win. Science is objective. It is clear. It is not wishy-washy. It gets things done in terms of robust explanatory, predictive and technological power. This time we can finally show those vile unbelievers who's boss!

BOOM! And the clash of Science and Religion thus occurs. The organized religionists have their own social agenda. They see Science as just one of their tools to convert more people into their belief system. When disagreements occur with people of Science...

- Scientists say that the disagreement is on Nature. The Physical Universe. Thus it is their territory, where Evidence and Theories call the shots. They claim the religionists have a social agenda for selective mining of scientific facts to fit their story.

- Religionists say that Nature belongs to their Creator which is in the supernatural realm. Thus this is also their territory. Scientists should only be technicians to learn more about their God, not cast doubts about His existence or character. Evidence and Theories are servants that ought to have to their asses whopped if they go out of line. Any dissent must be inspired by the Devil.

And thus the conflict.

Hey Xis ... perhaps a quote or two from Thomas Aquinas might be in order, to help elucidate your point?

And even though it sometimes takes centuries, science will always prevail (because I have faith in humanity!).

I have faith in humanity!Well at least the only way to prove you're right, is to avoid shooting people.

Well at least the only way to prove you're right, is to avoid shooting people.
Actually, if science (i.e. objective reality) exists outside of humanity, then it will prevail, with or without us :)

Actually, if science (i.e. objective reality) exists outside of humanity, then it will prevail, with or without us :)In what way does that contradict faith in humanity?

I would say clashes between Science and Religion do happen, because science is true and religion is fictional (Though not neccesarily false...it is fals, but what I said doesn't have to arry that implication...but what I said just then carries the averted implication as a literal meaning...however, what goes in the brackets stays in the brackets, so I'm in th clear).

However, I don't beleive these clashes have to occur. Smart Deists from all of the religions around have a clever habit of reinterpreting their divine gospel to match the findings of science to further validate their religion (Using the excuse that their original gospel was an obscure sort of metaphor). If religion does this, there will be no clash (At least until science eventually proves there is no god, decades or centuries from now...if people are still interested). The advice I give to religious types when it comes to contraversial science/religion stuff is to go with science, because "After all, is science is the pursuit of knowledge, then eventually it'll prove your religion right, hmmm?".

You notice that by "Religion", Xisla means only those militant religions which declare themselves the One True Faith. I have great hope that such cults will eventually all but die out.

However, I do not believe that tolerant religions will necessarily clash with science at all. Provided one does not take the Bible literally, religion can get along with science quite well. It is unfortunate that the face of religion which many see is nothing more than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or the mullahs in Iran.

As for GreaterPacificNations, please know that it is by definition impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of God(s). If God does not exist, then the results of experiments will be as they are, and you have no way of knowing whether that means that God doesn't exist ro whether God is simply not interfering with the experiment.

I suppose God could make himself scientifically provable if he so wished, but that would obviate the point of faith, which is central to most religions.

You notice that by "Religion", Xisla means only those militant religions which declare themselves the One True Faith. I have great hope that such cults will eventually all but die out.

However, I do not believe that tolerant religions will necessarily clash with science at all. Provided one does not take the Bible literally, religion can get along with science quite well. It is unfortunate that the face of religion which many see is nothing more than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or the mullahs in Iran.

As for GreaterPacificNations, please know that it is by definition impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of God(s). If God does not exist, then the results of experiments will be as they are, and you have no way of knowing whether that means that God doesn't exist ro whether God is simply not interfering with the experiment.

I suppose God could make himself scientifically provable if he so wished, but that would obviate the point of faith, which is central to most religions.

I'm talking superdeveloped science, where the origins of the universe(s) is like the law of gravity now. In which case God would be disproved via alternative. One cannot prove there is no apple in the box (because a not-apple can't be shown), however, one can show there is only a banana in the box, and thus indirectly refute the claims of an apple being there. Also, admittedly there is nbo such thing as certainty and impossibility, just near-certainty and near-impossiblity. As in, the banana may look, taste, and feel like a banana, but it might not actually be a banana, it could be an illusion placed by an un-dis-provable god. Like wise, there may not physically be an apple in the box, but a flying-spaghetti-monster could be making it invisible, intangible, and weightless with his un-dis-provable noodly appendage. In any case, this is just semantics and must be overlooked for the sake of any progress at all. Assumptions must be made.

So I mean when science has advanced thus that the likely hood of god is that of the current likely hood that fire is not actually iridicent superheated particles of carbon, but the glowing of ancestral spirits. A near impossibility, if you will.

I never wondered about clashes between Science and religion before...Mh...In facts, yes I have, but only while talking about other countries. I think that education has an important place in those clashes. Religion has nothing to do at school, it's a non-sense. Religion has to stay in the private life, every body is free to believe in what he wants but only at home...

I think there's nto as much clashes between Sci. and Rel. as we coiuld expect. There could be more clashes...But no... Do you know why? Because; contrary to Religion, Science is necessary.
I believe that Human race is clever and full of hope, and I'm pretty sure that one day those clashes will stop.

No, really, clashes between Science and Religion are not a problem, because we perfectly know who is right... The dangerous thing is clash between two religions...

Hey Xis ... perhaps a quote or two from Thomas Aquinas might be in order, to help elucidate your point?

Thanks for dropping by. :) *Salutes*

I'm not much of a fan of any "Saint", but here goes:

Saint Thomas Aquinas

- A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground.

- The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

And even though it sometimes takes centuries, science will always prevail (because I have faith in humanity!).

I hope you are right, of course. But as Despair Inc (that anti-motivational poster company) has taught me:

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Actually, if science (i.e. objective reality) exists outside of humanity, then it will prevail, with or without us :)

I don't agree. Objective reality will continue to exist of course, and maybe other smart Aliens will use their own investigative methods to study the Universe. Perhaps their methods will share common features with our Science.

However, I believe the human endeavor of Science is unique to human beings. Should we go extinct, or lose interest in this pursuit, then Science will die. It is easy to take for granted our scientific progress and underestimate the social prowess of belief systems. Let's not forget that the Dark Ages came after the Classical Greek/Roman period.

They don't have to conflict. There are plenty of people who view science (in a pure, unbiased form) and their religion as completely compatible. These people are proof that religion and science don't have to conflict. It's just in some people's actions where the conflict arises. Certainly, in the past, many in the Church felt threatened by science, because, for example, they felt that sun couldn't be at the center of the solar system because that would somehow be heretical. Today, however, I believe that most Christians have learned from the mistakes of the past and instead of trying to form science to fit their views, they are instead viewing science as an opportunity to learn more about what they see as the "universe God created for them".

Also, I don't agree that people try to use science to "prove their religion is better than all the other religions." Let's take, for instance, the Intelligent Design debate. People often attack that theory claiming that its proponents are wanting so badly to view the actions of God, that they are narrowing their focus and thus lacking the imagination to thoroughly consider evidence contrary to their theory -- an important part in science (for instance, they'll use the theory of "irreducible complexity" to say that some body parts could not have been formed through evolution, but do not explore ways in which evolution could have formed said body part). To me, I don't see this as these people "using science to try to "beat" other religions." I think they want to find evidence of God in creation as much for themselves than anybody else. I don't think it's an "agenda". Remember to look at it from their perspective. They truly believe in God and thus it is natural to look for evidence of Him. Their mistake is that they get too caught up in their search to be open minded in their research (I'm not saying all Christian scientists do this, just some.) So, it's not so much an "agenda", as it is a mistake, I would say. They don't mean to deceive.

Also, I think you might be demonizing the evangelization process a bit. It's not a "do whatever we can, say whatever we have to say to get more people to join us!" type thing. I think in almost every case of evangelization, the people truly believe what they are saying and are taking time out of their day to try to help you (by converting you to something they think will be good). You might disagree with what they have to say, but their intentions are honestly good.

Most of the time, it just scares the shit out of the evangelizee. :p

Why do you have to say religion, each one is completely different. Just say fundamentalists.

I suppose God could make himself scientifically provable if he so wished, but that would obviate the point of faith, which is central to most religions.
See, that's the catch-all though. It would be the defining moment in human spiritual history as valid instead of delusion.
So far, delusion's covered extremely well.
The stopgap of faith is what keeps the real risk out of it all, and essentially allows the mistakes to keep being made.

Thanks for dropping by. :) *Salutes*
No problem. I like your topics and your reason, i think people should give an ear to you. *salutes back*

I'm not much of a fan of any "Saint", but here goes:

Saint Thomas Aquinas

- A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground.

- The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.Excellent quotes. Exactly what i would have picked. *bows*