Or are they too different for us to accept both?
(I don't know if this important, but i'll say now that I am not religious, nor have I got any substantial scientific knowledge, don't know if that's important or not!)
2006-09-21 04:51:39 · 48 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I believe they can. There are many ancient cultures (Egyptians, Babylonians etc...) which managed the thrive and progress by mixing the two.
Whenever a problem arose or an unusual event needed explaining they based the theory on their religion and used science to prove or disprove it.
It is only with the emergence of the monotheism that religion was deemed the only path to knowledge.
In ancient times, science was equal to knowlege and knowlege was the tool required to get as close to divinity as possible. With enough time, they may have been able to progress to the point where man and God were truly the same.
Our modern society seems to have gone to the other extreme. Religion seems to have taken a back seat in terms of making progress. I don't think we are ready for that yet.
2006-09-21 11:18:28 · answer #1 · answered by StolenAnjel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Modern science was originated by Christians.
Most scientists of repute in the past were Bible believing Christians including Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Louis Pasteur.
It is only in recent times that certain branches of theoretical science have been hi-jacked by a primarily philosophical, secular ideology.
Of course, Christians still support and highly value science when its aim is an objective search for truth. Christians cannot possibly support the type of theoretical 'science' we have today, in which the search for truth is considered of less importance than the promotion of a secular ideology.
For example, we are told that it is an indisputable fact that, original life on earth originated from non-life in a primordial soup even though this goes against the well tested Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory. How can something which is against scientific law be presented to the public as a scientific fact?
Christians wholeheartedly support natural law, expressed as scientific law which is known to apply to all the material universe.
If your theory concerning any naturalistic occurance within the material universe does not comply with natural law then do not expect Christians to support it or even agree that it is 'scientific'.
Of course, this rules out both the unscientificTheory of Evolution and the unscientific 'Big Bang' theory.
2006-09-21 06:23:02 · answer #2 · answered by A.M.D.G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because the approach to both is different. In general, science requires evidence while Religion requires belief. That is not to say that one is more right than the other.
I mean, you can make a statement like, "God created the science that man is currently learning and revealing" but that in itself is a non-scientific statement as there is no evidence to support it. It may be an explanation to the existence of things, but it is an invalid, non-scientific explanation.
On the other hand, for science to say that there is or is not a God is not possible. There is no way for science to test for the existence of God. There is also no way to test all the properties mentioned in the holy books to suggest that all things are a result of 1 creator or multiplue creators. Therefore, for science, the only thing they can say is...I do not know and therefore cannot give you a conclusive answer.
I will end by saying that a person can be both scientific and religious at the same time. Science has yet to uncover a lot of things and religion provides us with some comfort of what is beyond what we know.
2006-09-21 04:55:45 · answer #3 · answered by leikevy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They can co-exist, but you need a strict "framework". You could believe that science is about discovering God's rules for example. But people can get very *emotional* about this sort of thing
(Have a look at Angels & Demons by Dan Brown [of Da Vinci Code fame]. Not a bad book, if a little predicatable especially after Da Vinci Code, but an enjoyable read)
2006-09-21 04:57:53 · answer #4 · answered by e404pnf 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, as Albert Einstein once said...
"Science without religion is blind
Religion without science is lame"
I think they can exist together- they are both trying to do what they think is best for the human race, after all!
But im not a theologian nor a philosopher nor a scientist so thats just my opinion and what i believe in!
2006-09-21 05:09:50 · answer #5 · answered by . 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the two can coexist. One should keep in mind, however, that religion deals with matters of faith and does not attempt to explain the natural world. Science on the other had attempts to explain the natural world and excludes matters pertaining to faith. Notably, faith is not only integral to religion, but it lives in daily life. I have faith that my spouse will not be unfaithful to me. Science can not determine whether or not she will be faithful, it can only give percentages on faithfulness vs. unfaithfulness and probability of each. Likewise, my spouse and I have faith in each others' fidelity but this faith cannot be explained by science. So it is with religion. They can and do coexist. Many of our greatest scientists were also very religious. The problem comes in when amateurs, or those not the top in their field, try to make one discipline explain the other. The two are separates fields and not to be compared. There are places where they cross or meet and there is no empirical conflict in those areas. The conflict is when one tries to explain the other. It is analogous to counting a bushel of apples and reporting the number of oranges. Or using the ingredients of a lemon pie and trying to make a lemon cake. The two may taste a bit like lemon, but they aren't the same the thing. Apples and oranges may be fruit, but one can't explain the other. So it is with religion and science.
2006-09-21 05:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by William T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
MAYBE THIS ARTICLE AND TWO WEBSITES CAN HELP.
Regarding the victories in the state of Kansas pertaining to teaching creationism, astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross says: "With the unprecedented strides scientific research has already made in the new millennium, we have been given a unique opportunity to make science education exciting again."
"The 1981 Supreme Court ruling guarantees the place of any scientifically viable model in public education regardless of its theological implications," contends Ross. "The problem scientists have with the current Intelligent Design movement is that ID proponents offer no model by which to test their claims. Testability and predictive power are crucial to credibility," says Ross. "It is right for the scientific community to ask, 'Where is your model?'"
According to a report in Christian Newswire, Ross has introduced the model in his new book, Creation As Science: A Testable Approach to End the Evolution/Creation Wars (NavPress, September 2006). It is testable, verifiable/falsified, and successfully predicts scientific discoveries, notes reporter Kathleen Campbell.
"The all-too-familiar evolution-bashing reveals a failure to understand how science works," Ross comments. "People need to realize that the scientific community will not abandon their current working model, despite its flaws, until and unless a model with greater explanatory power and predictive success emerges to take its place. I see the RTB model, though still a work in progress, as a viable candidate.
"This model-building effort and others like it can improve the quality of science education and enhance public enthusiasm for scientific research," Ross asserts. "Treating evolution as a closed subject has only hindered the search for truth. And that search is what science is supposed to be about," concludes Ross. "When will we have the courage to let evidence be the brutal yet fair arbiter in the competition of ideas? Let's be open-minded enough to follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads."
2006-09-21 05:01:43 · answer #7 · answered by baptism_by_fire_2000 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some folk say yea, but it depends on how you define religion. Some theists joyfully point out the 'some of the world's top scientists are religious', but many of these scientists subscribe to a sort of pantheism that equates god with the universe, which is a very different belief to most religions.
Personally, I say nay, Religion is inherently irrational, Science is based on evidence and objectivity, religion is based on faith and feeling. Applying the scientific method to observations of the universe is the antithesis of faith-based religion. I don't think you can be a scientist and religious and honest with yourself.
2006-09-21 04:56:26 · answer #8 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course they can...science is Man made, remember, Man's attempt to understand and describe the world around him.
This does not preclude faith in the God that made the world that Man is trying to understand, describe and interpret.
So many people think this question is either/or, like you can't have both. It really isn't.
Gregor Mendel, just to give one example, was a monk. He was also the father of genetics.
2006-09-21 05:42:26 · answer #9 · answered by anna 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. All Science can do is reveal God's work. The deeper into Science you go, the more you see God's signature on Creation. That is why so many scientists are believers.
2006-09-21 05:11:35 · answer #10 · answered by waycyber 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋