Can religion stand up to the progress of science?

Answer 1

Read GK Chesterton sometime. This is an extremely good answer you'll find out why!

Answer 2

You're kidding, right? :)

Every single time there has been scientific progress in finding factual, natural answers to the questions we ask about ourselves, our world, and our universe, religion has tried to censor the information, has declared it wrong (with no evidence to support that) or "blasphemous," or tried to silence, imprison, or kill the messenger carrying the new knowledge.
Every single time.

Inherent in every religion is the belief that they possess some special "truth" that will guide their way to a glorious afterlife, and that all other beliefs do not understand just how right they are. Since these followers are convinced (illogically so, and without evidence) that theirs is the only rightful way to heaven, anything that challenges the dogma upon which their path to heaven is based is treated as a deadly threat -- a threat which could undermine their path to heaven, and so a threat that must be exterminated at all costs. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for the new idea, it doesn't matter if the new idea accurately describes reality or natural processes -- it's a threat to them.

While there are a FEW religions that are more open to true scientific knowledge than others, they ALL have their dogma which they refuse to give up no matter what. Doing so would crumble the foundations upon which they base their beliefs.
They are NOT open to true knowledge if it even hints that their dogma might be incorrect. Even the "scientifically tolerant" religions are only tolerant to the point their dogma is challenged, at which time they cease to be so tolerant.

It's the false certainty that religious people have, that they "already know the truth and don't need to know any more" that causes the conflicts with science. Science doesn't care about dogma -- if new testable, verifiable evidence is found that contradicts even the most long-held scientific models, the new evidence is welcomed into science and followed to its logical conclusion. Science is self-correcting, religion is about self-preservation at the expense of knowledge. Too much difference to ever be able to allow the two to ever really get along.

Answer 3

you're kidding, precise? :) each and every time there has been medical progression to find authentic, organic solutions to the questions we ask approximately ourselves, our international, and our universe, faith has tried to censor the ideas, has declared it incorrect (without info to assist that) or "blasphemous," or tried to silence, imprison, or kill the messenger donning the recent information. each and every time. Inherent in each faith is the perception that they very own some particular "actuality" which will instruction manual their thank you to an excellent afterlife, and that each and everyone different ideals don't comprehend basically how precise they're. on condition that those followers are confident (illogically so, and without info) that theirs is the only rightful thank you to heaven, something that annoying circumstances the dogma upon which their direction to heaven is predicated is dealt with as a perilous danger -- a danger that could undermine their direction to heaven, and so a danger that could desire to be exterminated in any respect expenditures. it is not suitable how plenty info there is for the recent theory, it is not suitable if the recent theory accurately describes actuality or organic tactics -- it fairly is a danger to them. whilst there are some religions that are extra open to real medical information than others, all of them have their dogma which they decline to resign no matter what. Doing so might disintegrate the guidelines upon which they base their ideals. they don't look to be open to real information if it even tricks that their dogma may well be incorrect. Even the "scientifically tolerant" religions are in undemanding terms tolerant to the factor their dogma is challenged, at which era they quit to be so tolerant. this is the fake actuality that non secular people have, that they "already know the actuality and don't might desire to renowned to any extent further" that reasons the conflicts with technological expertise. technological expertise does not care approximately dogma -- if new testable, verifiable info is discovered that contradicts even the main long-held medical fashions, the recent info is welcomed into technological expertise and accompanied to its logical end. technological expertise is self-correcting, faith is approximately self-upkeep on the cost of information. too plenty distinction to ever be waiting to permit the two to ever fairly get alongside.

Answer 4

I think so. Science and religion do not always have to be at odds with one another. Many religions are not changed or altered by science's studies on dates and times and evolution.

Some are - but they should be able to adjust themselves - well they should if they are smart.

It is no problem to still belive in something like Christ or the bible but still think that the world is old. Or that maybe evolution was assisted...

Anyway - until science can prove that there is no god... faith will be around. Until then science will just show flaws in some passages or theories here and there... and that is something that people of faith can still look past.

Answer 5

Yes, as long as they recongize that they answer two profoundly different questions.

Science asks "how" - it looks at process and patterns.

Religion ask "why" - it looks for meaning and intent.

The problem occurs when Scientists believe that they can read minds and establish that there is no "meaning" to anything, or when the Church over-applies scripture.

Example - on the issue of Evolution. The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. It's not specific on the details. Why? Because it's not telling a story about how to create life. It's telling the story of a relationship - why would God bother to create life?

Answer 6

umm.. they are two different things.
Religions do not emphasize on what is truth
they just say, things are out there, and just accept
they are much more like faith things
and they only emphasize on making a peaceful and harmonious society.

There's some myth in religions, many are corrupted, but in their pure forms they just are trying to make humans live together.

And, the science says we should find truth...

so wondering, if both things are really same.

Answer 7

What progress? Science is a religion. So are you saying can religion stand up to the progress of religion? That makes no sense.

Answer 8

When religion fights science, it's doomed. It's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a broom. Religion has a critical role in addressing the moral implications of science.

Answer 9

Ba'ha-ism believes that science should inform religion, supposedly if any of their beliefs are proved wrong by science they're supposed to modify their beliefs. Don't know how much it works in practice!

Answer 10

Organized religion may slowly evolve (irony) as people become more educated in science and the universe. So far it has made struggling progress to move forward with the modern world.

Answer 11

The Bible is not a science book, but when it touches on science, it is correct. Relogion is another matter. In ancient India, it was believed that the earth was supported by 4 elephants who stood on a giant sea turtle. That view of the earth has obviously been adjusted.