In light of all the conflict between faith and science, how do they "compliement" each other?

Question

Galileo v. faith
Evolution v. faith
Big bang v. faith

How is it that science and religion compliment each other?

Ok people, correct, the LIBERAL Christians who don't go up against science have no conflict. But anyone who lives in the United States sees a daily conflict.

HIV prevention v. religious morality
stem cells v. pro-lifers

the list goes on.

Answer 1

They don't compliment each other, all that happens is that logically minded people who also have a need to believe change and sculpt their own god in their mind, or make up things like intelligent design and god being outside of time.

Answer 2

To have faith means to imagine that something is real and believe it without seeking proof, or being convinced that one is impotent to produce a proof. That was the position in which many scientists had to be in the past - like Galileo. His faith in God was necessitated by the time in which he lived. It did not complement his science, it did not help his discoveries, it was a ball and chain (even literally) he had to drag along.

With every new fossil that we unearth, evolution chips away (again, even literally) at faith. They do not complement each other, and faith is definitely a social and political obstacle to the freedom of research.

Cosmologists have powerful telescopes, space capsules that monitor radiation that comes from the origins of the universe. They are getting closer to making sense of what produces a Big Bang and what the Big Bang in turn produces. Faith takes no part in cosmological discoveries.

To say something positive about faith, since it is so prevalent among common people, and has been with humans from prehistory, I should mention that since faith, like any other emotion, is a biological and natural response of the human intellect which arises when a person feels overwhelmed by the magnitude of a fact and cannot yet understand it. Our minds are our tools of cognition and survival. Our emotions, such as fear, desire, and faith have helped us evaluate whether something is for or against our life, for or against our wellbeing. So, faith is something to pacify us about what we don't know. If we can convince ourselves that Someone is in charge and all is for the best, we feel better. To make sure that our children are not frightened of the unknown, we sing songs that reassure them before they go to sleep, we tell them there is a power that will protect them, and we do this with prayers, poetry, beautiful literature. Alas, the positive part I see in faith is the poetry and literature that comes out of the creative minds of artists and poets, but I think the educational message for children in particular, and for adults in general, is deplorable and criminal because it blurs the ability to distinguish the true from the false, the objective from the subjective.

Answer 3

This is only my opinion.
At school I was taught science, and at home I learned religion. In my mind, religion and the bible are the story of WHAT happened. Science is the means we use to explain HOW it happened. For example, the bible states that God created the universe in 7 days and then goes on to tell of the many different things that were created. OK, then science comes along and people begin to wonder how God created everything. This leads to different protocols set up to prove: OK this happen and this is how we think it happened. Science is reproducible experiments and faith is simply faith. There is no way to prove faith, it is something we believe. Science, we can believe because we can reproduce it time and again. It is all the same thing, just from two different perspectives. What and How.

Answer 4

There are two types of evolution Micro and Macro evolution. Faith does not argue micro-evolution; you may know it as adaptation (It's a bit more complex than that) . I believe macro evolution is junk science; it is based an conjecture and theory which can not be proven. Most theologians will admit faith is the substance of things unseen; therefore, it can not be proven either. I have no problem with saying I can't prove that my faith is correct with conclusive evidence. Many teacher/scientist will teach students that evolution and the big bang are proven facts, but they are not allowed to show the other side of the coin which is divine design.
Most men I speak to that have ever studied both faith and science are very much agnostic in their theology. I believe that an agnostic presentation of divine design and the Theory of evolution and the big bang should be taught side by side in the public schools.

Answer 5

Faith believes in an orderly world (Genesis) which God intends for us to be fruitful and multiply (including our brains as well as our genitals.) Faith believes science is one of God's many gifts which bless people.
Science has to begin with a belief that there is an order to be discovered. Science has to believe the order is good or else we would seek to hide from it. Quantam mechanics alone demands a faith with its fantastic theory of observation changing the act/result of observation. How could you proceed at that point w/o faith in a future/answer.
Neither faith nor science has been particularly eager to "confess" their selfishness nor to embrace the beauty and potential in embracing the other's perspective.
Big bang - I'm not so sure about this given the plethora of black holes, but let's run with it. Sounds like the opening chapter of Genesis - dark, chaos. God spoke - I doubt it was a whisper. Faith on the other hand closes up and says, "Oops, God is limited to our way of thinking of how creation started. God's bang could not have included the collision of the Spirit w/ chaos."
They are both rich, delightful parts of life. Come let us dance. Science can describe the sones and faith call the tones.

Answer 6

Science and faith (not religion) are two separate fields. Hence, you can't use science to prove faith and faith to prove science.

In science, you need to "create" an environment to prove something that can be re-produced over and over again. The evolution and big bang are just what they are - merely a theory. For example, how can you prove the existence of Einstein in science?

Science and faith do not compliment each other.

Answer 7

authentic technology -- the study of the empirically observable international in no way conflicts with faith... in reality i'd go so some distance as to say, it bolsters faith because as one analyze the creation one receives a significantly better perception into the author. That being reported.. something that befell it the previous, isn't occurring now falls outdoors of empirically observable -- that's till or till scientists be certain out a thanks to construct a operating time device! this particularly falls into the realm of hypothesis, and the further lower back you're attempting to seem the further assumptions and hypothesis are in contact. After organic technology replaced into allowed to degenerate to hypothesis, without caution those speculations determined there isn't any choose for God so God must be pretend, and warfare replaced into declared by the scientist on faith. Even that does no longer somewhat problem me -- I easily believe in time the authentic scientist will rebel adversarial to the charlatans who've hijacked technology and grew to change into into to a faith and stability will be restored. What bothers me is that those similar persons that position self belief in hypothesis and extending stages of unproven assumption particularly of empirical statement, experimentation and so on. Insist that we provide provide an account by providing empirical evidence of God... no longer in problem-free words is that hypocritical, even with the undeniable fact that it exhibits they do no longer actually have a miles off comprehend-how of exact technology - in the adventure that they did they'd comprehend that the non secular is outdoors the realm of technology and their expectancies are absurd! contained in the authentic international, and contained in the clinical international, the information may have many interpretations, some ensuing in the reality, some no longer. authentic technology considers each and each and every of the achievable interpretations because summarily ruling out any interpretations because of a own bias adversarial to the outcomes that interpretation would influence their international view undermines the technique of technology to locate the reality.

Answer 8

Religious faith and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. Consider that many developments in science-- especially in ancient and medieval times-- were discovered by religious people. People who knew math, or knew how things worked, were considered to be holy or profane in ancient times. (The Pythagoreans were considered to be a religious cult, and the manipulation of numbers a sacred activity.) The science of genetics was developed by Christian monks-- etc.

A person who is scientific-minded does not have to drop his or her belief in God or a Creator. There is nothing in the universe that we can see or study that effectively rules out the existence of God. Atheism is a beliefs system just as much as religion, no more or less provable than any creed. It all boils down to personal choice.

Answer 9

The more moderate you are in your approach to most things in life, the less "conflict" you see between faith and science.

I have a strong faith in the one true God, and have accepted salvation of my eternal soul.

I'm also a scientist (MS from Purdue).

Politically, I'm a militant moderate. And, a defender of Yaks(pbut).

As you stay away from the influence of the extremists, you find that science and faith really DO complement each other.

Answer 10

For me religion and science answer two different questions! For example Big Bang that explains why the universe exists and there being a God and Goddess explains why the Big Bang existed. etc..