Until the last century science and religion use to go hand and hand. You literally could not separate the two. In fact, most scientists pursued science in the name of understanding God. Newton wrote more about religion than he did about astronomy and mathematics. Kepler dedicated his life to God. etc..
What changed in the last century?
2006-09-13
20:21:46
·
23 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
As what often is the case when asking questions the answers got much better near the end. Thanks!
It is going to be hard to choose a best answer.
I would have liked to have heard more from the religious side though. I'm unaware of any conflict between Buddhism and science, but I realize most people think of Christianity here when talking about religions.
2006-09-13
20:46:31 ·
update #1
To begin with, it's been more than one century since science and religion broke apart. I think it was because religions started to dislike what science was discovering (I mean, the fact that the earth is not the centre of the solar system -leave alone, of the universe-, or that we evolve from simpler living creatures, and so on).
2006-09-13 20:26:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Religion and science must go hand and hand because they are from the same creator...the same God who told us to worship him ...created all this world....and sometimes science cant explain things ...religion gives us the explanation...even before we get to it...what changed in the last century? some people are convincing themselves that religion has nothing to do with science whereas if you understand religion and apply it you will get better results in science as what happened with Muslims in the dark ages:)i respect all opinions but here is mine:
if you look into religion and science ..you will find that religion told us alot about science and explained science facts for us better than science:)
2006-09-13 21:41:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion got stymied in dogma.All three monotheist religions in their essence recognized change and adoption to change and seeking change in human condition, was an important (even central) teaching of these three religions. The teachings were either lost or corrupted which left religion rooted in the past and unable to change easily . Change in religious thinking and practice became more and more difficult as theologians became fixed and inflexible in their approach and thinking. The West responded to this state of affairs by separating religion from other aspects of life. The Muslims distorted or mis interpreted very clear instructions in the Koran which made change and modernization an essential and central task of all Muslims.
The Hindu religion which has no scriptures was able to adopt to change, in spite of the stranglehold the Brahman exercised over religious thinking, thought and ritual. Hinduism lost this flexibility when the land was invaded by outsiders, currently Hinduism is seeking a path of dogma and in set in the past rather than evolve to answer modern challenges and situations.
2006-09-13 20:51:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by jarad_us 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think this is partly because going against the church used to have much nastier consequences. In medieval times it was a death sentence. More recently, it would lead to ostracism and career destruction. These days, being non-religious is much more acceptable, so scientists don't have any pressure to make a show of their piety.
I don't mean to imply that most scientists have been atheists: I know that's not true at all. However, I suspect that scientists in general - even very religious ones - are motivated mostly by a thirst for knowledge, and that thirst has very little to do with religious faith.
If it's perfectly acceptable to be non-religious, and the motivation for doing research isn't based in religion, then there's no need to invoke faith in order to explain one's motivations.
2006-09-13 20:37:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bramblyspam 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
No he's right, it has walked hand in hand. Going all the way back to the times of Martin Luther. (the first guy with that name, way way back "in the day")
I think the reason your not seeing it so much is because everyone lives in some ridiculous PC sort of state of mind where, one thinks learning something that can scientifically prove or disprove any piece of religion would be offensive and these days probably start at the very least a riot, or perhaps even a war.
Humans, who can say really.
2006-09-13 20:42:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sen 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
What changed was when the early scientists (who were initially supported by the Church of the day in search of evidence of the Bible's truth) came up with answers that did not fit Church dogma. The more they investigated, the harsher and more desperate the Church became...but then it was too late. People started being able to ask questions that the Church could not answer and science began to seperate in order to survive. Since science got results better than prayers did, people turned more and more to science and investigation. This resulted in the development of technology and eventually the Church's power began to wane.
Science has never, ever placed themselves in the positions of gods. Only the fearful and xenophobic accuse them of that.
As for Dr. Dino as a source of education: Please tell me you are not serious. The man is such a painfully obvious fraud and liar that even other creationists distance themselves from him!
2006-09-13 20:34:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Scott M 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
im just gonna tell things through my experience as i dont have reference anywhere else. science and religion goes hand in hand in my opinion or i was taught and i do believe it does even in this impossible century. i live in an Islamic country and our government supports any pursue in the scientific field. its just that we go against what could destroy and corrupt humanity. like cloning etc. i dont know what changed in the last century, maybe people suddenly got it in their head that their bigger than the Big Man and more ignorant that they could do off with spiritual guidence, the human heart and soul is weak, they do need it no matter what. it could be anything though.
2006-09-13 21:06:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Prevent Animal Cruelty 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, science and religion started their go-round back in the 16th Century. Perhaps it is useful to distinguish between religious faith and religious institutions. Back then, scientists could believe in God but not necessarily in religious authorities. Today, those authorities shout more but have less authority. Science fights back only because religionists seek to destroy science.
2006-09-13 20:34:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by skepsis 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Darwin is what happend! The theory of evolution has opened our eyes so that we are no longer blinded by religion alone. Since then the church has been trying to make the bible more scientific so they won't look like fools, but compared to true information that science gives us religion pales in comparison!
2006-09-13 20:27:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Speak freely 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
EVOLUTION
It knocked out god out of the picture. Anyone that claims that God can exist in this context is nearly lying. God would have to be mystical in the sense that he'd be some mathematician exsiting in a parallel universe creating the big bang and not involving himself with his creation, a deist god
2006-09-13 20:28:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Alucard 4
·
2⤊
1⤋