Insurmountable problems or fundamental limits in human race?

Question

Can science and religion coexist in these questions?
1. Evolution
2. Embryonic stem cells.
3. Seeking life outside the space (athro
4. Human cloning or organ cloning
5. Believe in things that Science don't.
6. Must practise religion/science in daily.
7. Think science is part of religion (creationism)
8. Think religion is part of science (human science)
9. I kill someone because they dont believe in God.
11. I kill someone because science said so (Nature disaster)
12. Is okay to be ignorant as long as I study the bible
13. Is okay to be ignorant as long as I study the science.
14. You can't question religion but you can question science. (always)
15. You can question religion as well as science.
16. The existence of science is caused by asking, learning, thinking, and studying the nature.
17. The existence of religion is caused by believing.
18. Rational vs Irrational explanation.

Can I conclude that the war of future will be religion against science?

Answer 1

If you were GOD would you cause books to be written that say to kill other people that believe differently than you?

Spirituality without the kill teaching of religion - is that science?

Answer 2

I will only speak for my belief and I will leave non-Christians to explain other religions
1)microevolution , yes they can coexist. Macro-evolution, they cannot
2)Embryonic stem cells- Many scientist treat these with respect. As for Embryonic Stem Cell research;scientist have stopped trying to claim that it is not a life. Their own science proves that it is. Instead the debate now is about whether it is okay to kill that human life.
3)don't know.
4)If they would stop at organs maybe.
5)Scientist already believes in things that their own science does not support. Both religion and science require faith. We just admit it.
6)The word religion has come to mean the rituals not the life. It should be both. Daily.
7+8) Both side have the same evidence. It is just a matter of what lense we see it through.
9) Far more likely that you kill someone because you don't believe in God. Think abortion or #2 ESC research.
12+13) ignorance is not okay. We have to study science to be able to witness to scientist. If they don't study the bible,... You'll have to ask them to explain their ignorance.
14)we do question religion. PROOF of this is the fact that there are so many different denominations. Also we must be informed to witness to other religions.
15) question all.
16)It used to be as you said. Now, it is sometimes more about coming up with new ideas that can get a grant$$. Ideas can go a long time with out being proven. Novelty is more important than validity.
17)The existence of religion is supported by true science, that is those things that we can actually observe.
18)It would not be ational to think Mt Rushmore was caused by erosion and chance. Nor is it rational to think the precision of the universe happened by chance.

Answer 3

Vector,

I actually believe, that in the end, we will see that they are actually two different paths to the same thing. Sound crazy? Think about it. Science, claims to be the one and only path to the study of reality. It believes that any theory that doesn't meet it's criteria for credibility, is irrelevant. Unfortunately, science limits itself, to observable phenomena. The laughable thing about that is, we keep finding frequencies of energy that nobody knew about last week. How many times throughout history, has science had to excuse itself, because it didn't know there was such a thing as x-rays, atoms, molecules, infrared, and ultraviolet radiation. Let's not even mention quantum physics. We just keep finding new things, which science adamantly denied just a short while ago. Religion is more like science than we like to admit. We don't just believe anything that anybody says. If some clown says that the tuna fish god says we should all quit eating tuna fish, except on tuesdays, we are probably all gonna have a good laugh. Most of what the religious community holds to be legitimate, must meet some pretty good standards, before it gets to be orthodox. Granted, they wouldn't meet the standards of science, but they must be substantial, none the less. Religion, seeks to know the source of all life and creation, and to position itself to be in harmony with that source. This, is not only reasonable, it is logical. Why would an intelligent being, seek to do otherwise? The main conflict occurs, because science, has not discovered a way to detect the presence of the supposed Creator, or Source of life. If we assume that this is just one of thousands of such shortcomings which science has endured, then maybe things will change. What if tommorow, we suddenly invented a machine, which could detect the presence of spiritual energy? What if we then could find a way to communicate with this life energy, which would theoretically exist on a higher frequency of vibration than we currently know? At that point, science would be validating religion. Yikes. Perhaps then, religion would begin to include scientific standards in it's pursuits. Perhaps science, would seek prior information about this new realm, from religion. I see this coming. What we are all talking about, after all, is the nature of reality. These two seemingly opposite disciplines, may someday blend into one, comprehensive school, called life science.

Answer 4

Question is what is the goal of both?
If science is to find the truth about our existence, and religion has the same goal, then yes, the will have a future coexisting. Since both wanne find the truth, they should lead up to the same conclusion.

Science cant go beyond the world of matter, so they can never answer questions about God. Evolution (although I really think the theory sucks so far) can never say God doesnt exist. Even Stephan Hawkens admits that. Religion though is not very suited to answer questions regarding science. But since there is just one truth both should actually support each other.

Creation is a way of proving that there is reason to believe we must have been created. But because its a science, it still is limited to the world of matter. We can only see the fingerprints of God in nature not God himself. Doesnt mean reasoning doesnt lead up to that conclusion (Philosophy)
Strangely enough they have answered more questions with God as a agent in creation in there 40 years existence, then evolution has in 2000 years (old Greeks already talked about this theory).
They challenged evolution regularly in debates, and there are no answers to the problems they present.

see, science is limited to matter and 100% reality, but reality is not matter alone.
Ideas and thoughts are real, how much do they idea weight?
The law is real, what is the composition of law?
Science is too limited to handle the whole of reality. To get to the full truth, they need eachother.

Answer 5

You are talking about a noisy and politically influential sector of religion. And 99% of their influence is exerted here in the U.S. However, keep in mind there are many respectable and serious theologians have no problem with the main points of conflict you mention. (The exception here is around embryonic issues, where you can get Catholics in on the anti-science frenzy.)

Science will go on making discoveries and contributing to making humanity's lot a little easier. The retrograde religious sects will have nothing to contribute on this account and in that sense are totally irrelevant.

The war is mostly in the imagination of the zealots. At worst they help to hobble scientific education by attempting to introduce nonsense into the classroom. But even these incursions against reason are becoming less frequent and effective.

Answer 6

What war between science and the irrational theists' systems based on myhthological crreatures? There's only a conflict in the same way that the Flat Earth Society conflicts with reality and the sane.

Answer 7

Uhh, not to in any way promote Buddhism, but it has absolutely no problem with most of the things mentioned.

My guess is that there are other religions that also have no problem with them. Instead of making broad (wrong) assumptions about all religions maybe you should focus your questions to a specific religion and a specific topic.

That is **if** you are truly interested in learning something.

Answer 8

1.yes
2.probably not
3.yes
4.no
5.yes
6.yes
7.yes
8.maybe
9.yes
10. ... no 10?
11.no
12.not applicable
13. not applicable
14. no
15. yes
16. ..... ok you know what? these questions have tunred into "do you agree with the following?" and not "can religion and science co-exist?" of course they can! and in may cases, they do. I believe there will not be a war between religion and science, but hopefully, we will move closer towards the joining of the two.

18. yes

Answer 9

No because science just has to learn the law of correspondences.

http://www.mechanicsburgnewchurch.org

Answer 10

science deals with material world, religion deals with spiritual things. No conflict at all, except for a small but loud minority of people who are too stupid for science.