• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science and religion are not compatible

Humes fork

Banned
Humes fork
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
3,358
In another thread, some people apparently believe that science and religion are compatible, or at least science and liberal religion. So let's settle this. They are not. Sean Carroll explains why.

In short, the incompability is not because they are different (science relies on evidence, religion on faith), but because they reach different conclusions. I'll quote:

Sean Carroll said:
The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.
Click to expand...

And before you start to mention religious scientists, read the linked post, as it deals with that. Likewise, NOMA is rightly dismissed as redefining religion to mean "moral philosophy". But that's not how most religius people view their religions, the religions' claims about how the world works tend to be pretty important to them.
 
Sorry.

I didn't realize this was a generic science v. religion (not specifically Islam).

Anyway ... Wowbagger said it, people can and do resolve contradictory viewpoints all the time.

Such as right-to-lifers can supporting the death penalty and war ... or myself, who advocates against those two issues supporting a woman's right to choose abortion.

We do it all the time.

Trust me. People can manage it.
 
Last edited:
For once, we are mostly in agreement, Humes fork. The existence of religious scientists merely suggests the two can exist in the same brain, not that they really are compatible. People are capable of holding two contradictory views, as long as there is some mental scotch tape resolving any subsequent dissonance.

But, that does NOT mean we must discriminate against the religious, either. As long a scientist remains a competent scientist, it doesn't matter what religious ideas they believe in. In general: As long as someone is not hurting anyone, it doesn't matter what religion they belong to.
 
Last edited:
Science and religion are not compatible, in that they do not fit in neatly with each other. That is because, at their most basic, they do not address the same questions. The problems occur when one (usually religion) tries to enter the purview of another. For some reason, religions feel like they need to address questions like "the origin of the universe", a field in which religion is outstandingly useless.

Science, on the other hand, has no mechanisms for addressing the question of God or gods. Kept in their own spheres, they an both function in addressing their own separate issues, but that does not mean they are "compatible", only that they should not necessarily be interfering with each other.

They are compatible in the sense that gardening and philately are compatible.
 
citizenzen said:
My mistake. Please read my edit.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change anything. "Religion" includes Islam, so by saying that science and religion are incompatible, I'm saying that science and Islam are incompatible. You know, the thing you vehemently has denied so far.
 
Tricky said:
Science and religion are not compatible, in that they do not fit in neatly with each other. That is because, at their most basic, they do not address the same questions. The problems occur when one (usually religion) tries to enter the purview of another. For some reason, religions feel like they need to address questions like "the origin of the universe", a field in which religion is outstandingly useless.

Science, on the other hand, has no mechanisms for addressing the question of God or gods. Kept in their own spheres, they an both function in addressing their own separate issues, but that does not mean they are "compatible", only that they should not necessarily be interfering with each other.

They are compatible in the sense that gardening and philately are compatible.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of NOMA crap that the linked post refutes. Yes, religion addresses questions of scientific nature, and it almost always contradicts the scientific account. To postulate the existence of God is a poor choice from a scientific point of view.
 
Tricky said:
Science and religion are not compatible, in that they do not fit in neatly with each other. That is because, at their most basic, they do not address the same questions.
Click to expand...
Not at all true. They both try to answer exactly the same questions. There is no question religion brings up that science can not discover a reliable answer for. And, there is no question science can bring up, that religion could not possibly try to claim that it has some sort of answer for.


Tricky said:
The problems occur when one (usually religion) tries to enter the purview of another. For some reason, religions feel like they need to address questions like "the origin of the universe", a field in which religion is outstandingly useless.
Click to expand...
This statement contradicts your previous one, and only serves to demonstrate that they DO ask the same questions. All the freakin' time!

Tricky said:
Science, on the other hand, has no mechanisms for addressing the question of God or gods.
Click to expand...
It does, when the claims are specific: They can be tested.

I will grant you that science would not have much to say for vague or untestable claims about god or gods. But, that does not mean science doesn't have any answers: The answer is that such an entity is superfluous. Its existence has no bearing on anything, and is therefore nothing to worry about.


The fundamental reason science and religion are incompatible, I think, is because of standards.

Religions' standards for obtaining knowledge are far, far, far weaker than those of science. So we find religious people coming up with ideas that sound good, but have not been verfied. As long as faith is part of religion, there won't be any way of getting around this.

Science accepts only the highest available attainable standards. The ideas it develops are usually non-intuitive, but are much more reliable to work with. There is no faith in science: Only challenge.
 
Last edited:
Humes fork said:
This is exactly the kind of NOMA crap that the linked post refutes. Yes, religion addresses questions of scientific nature, and it almost always contradicts the scientific account. To postulate the existence of God is a poor choice from a scientific point of view.
Click to expand...

Then you should educate yourself on both and decide which one (or even both) are valid.

And postulating God's existence is within Science, Religion, and Philosophy's realm. It's a matter of which one provides a valid explanation that matters though.

While many say science cannot answer the "God's existence" question it most certainly can point out whether a God, given attributes, can exist due to its attributes (Philosophy can do this through semantics games too, such as with the "omnipotence" word game in JudeBrando's thread on book delivery)
 
Tricky said:
Science and religion are not compatible, in that they do not fit in neatly with each other. That is because, at their most basic, they do not address the same questions. The problems occur when one (usually religion) tries to enter the purview of another. For some reason, religions feel like they need to address questions like "the origin of the universe", a field in which religion is outstandingly useless.

Science, on the other hand, has no mechanisms for addressing the question of God or gods. Kept in their own spheres, they an both function in addressing their own separate issues, but that does not mean they are "compatible", only that they should not necessarily be interfering with each other.

They are compatible in the sense that gardening and philately are compatible.
Click to expand...

Happy Birthday!
 
I like the idea that both are compatible because they exist within the brain. And the ultimate conclusion of that is that the brain decays with the rest of the body upon death.

I think what creates that dissonance, isn't what both are trying to answer, explore, etc .... rather, it's when you judge one "good" and the other "bad", especially in regards to trying to understand something.

Plus, someone who fancies themselves a scientist can still **** and procreate with someone who fancies themselves a religious person. So perhaps that settles the question ultimately ... :)
 
Trent Wray said:
I like the idea that both are compatible because they exist within the brain.
Click to expand...
Science models a realm, outside the brain, that can be verified by independent observers even after decay and death of a single brain.

Religion might survive the brain as a set of memes. But, they would be more prone to wither away in the long run, than the findings of science.

If enough brains go, the religion would perish. But, any scientific facts could be rediscovered. Those science facts are more likely to take on their original form, than the lost religious ideas that are "rethunk".

Religions' ideas tend to be incompatible with those of science, because religion lets in arguments that are of a much lower quality, and much more pleasing to other people to hear. Science, taking the route of reliability, will more often develop a completely different set of answers, as a result.

Trent Wray said:
Plus, someone who fancies themselves a scientist can still **** and procreate with someone who fancies themselves a religious person. So perhaps that settles the question ultimately ... :)
Click to expand...
Okay, but that is a different definition of compatibility than what we are using.
 
Tricky said:
Science and religion are not compatible, in that they do not fit in neatly with each other. That is because, at their most basic, they do not address the same questions. The problems occur when one (usually religion) tries to enter the purview of another. For some reason, religions feel like they need to address questions like "the origin of the universe", a field in which religion is outstandingly useless.

Science, on the other hand, has no mechanisms for addressing the question of God or gods. Kept in their own spheres, they an both function in addressing their own separate issues, but that does not mean they are "compatible", only that they should not necessarily be interfering with each other.

They are compatible in the sense that gardening and philately are compatible.
Click to expand...

I generally find myself in this camp. The way I see it, the purpose of science is to answer "how" and the purpose of religion is to answer "why".
 
Tricky said:
They are compatible in the sense that gardening and philately are compatible.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the above form of compatability was the topic of the other thread. Kind of like two people are compatible if they can live with each other, get along with each other. It doesn't mean they have to agree on everything.
 
In a scientific evidence based reality, the faith based reality does not exist except as a fictional construct. Ergo, science and god beliefs are incompatible. Science can ignore god beliefs and refrain from challenging god beliefs and construct definitions of 'god' that exclude scientific investigation. That's like putting oil and water in the same glass. They go in just fine but do not mix.

Religion, OTOH, can exist without god beliefs. But I'm assuming the OP means theist religions or an alternative religions with some other fictional being(s).
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I generally find myself in this camp. The way I see it, the purpose of science is to answer "how" and the purpose of religion is to answer "why".
Click to expand...

The distinction between "how" and "why" seems to me to be a lingual deception.

"Why was there an earthquake?"

"How did the earthquake form?"

These two questions have the same answer.

In addition, religions try to answer the supposed "how" questions. And their explanations are contrary to those of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom