I have a question about Religion vs. Science?

Question

I was thinking in the shower, and it occurred to me that modern Science is based on two accepted gives: 1) That careful observation can in all cases lead to knowledge, 2) that the observations we make today would produce the same results under the same conditions at all times and in all places. Basically the rules of nature don't change with time or place.

Then I realized religion has several contrary givens 1) That most of Creation is unobservable because it is invisible, 2) THat the rules the world is run by can change suddenly and drastically. An example is that certain animals became other animals when the Temple was destroyed, and even certain plants became animals. And the Satmer Rav says the sky changed color, and the old color doesn't exist anymore.

Given that the two have totally seperate givens on the nature of reality, I thought that they can have no logical arguement or reconciliation with each other since they have no common ground. Is this logical of me?

Answer 1

It's great to see someone putting some actual thought into this issue rather than stubbornly sticking to one side of the. I agree with your points about religion and science and your conclusion, but you should add another point to your list: Religion deals with supernatural occurences, whereas science deals only with the natural world.

Your train of thought is completely logical. Unfortunately though, the conclusion you came up, if correct, shows that we have no hope of ever resolving conflicts between science and religion since "they have no common ground."

Answer 2

Hey I think in the shower too.LOL

Sometimes I get my best thoughts there and try to remember them until I get out.

Anyway.I am not sure I know what you are talking abut , when you say plants turned into animals and everything but I think that there is some truth in what oy are saying but not completely.

There is a place where scientific reasoning and religion meet, but they do not meet in all aspects.
I do agree that there are many undetectable, hence invisible aspects to creation, supporting it, in fact I hear that science is moving in that direction, because otherwise all our laws and universe is itself "hanging on nothing" and has nothing supporting it.
By the way I love thinking about things like the nature existence, the begining and before the begining, simply because it humble reason and it always increases the joy of my faith or confidence in our Wise Creator, confidene which id rooted and grounded in an expectation based on knowing in advance that it will be, though presently it does not show itself except to some.

Anyway where they meet, they meet, and where they do not meet, they do not meet, but where they do meet they support each other, that is true science and true religion. Not all theories are science,like the present evolution model and evolutionary understanding. It is not that evolutionists are illogical as they often say of religious people, neither is it that religious people are illogical, both are logical and rational, religious people simply do not limit themslevs to sensory phenomenon, but trust reason a whole lot more even beyond the physcial realm, while most not all evolutionists only trust reason up to a certain point. The main differenc eis not in science or religion, the adherent so fboth are both scientific, but evolutionists are in addition to being logical and scientific comitted naturalists, while religious are logical, scientific but somewhat moderate naturalists, which by some is called supernaturalism.we believe in both, they in one, so our respective reasonings which are both rational and logical ,differ as to ultimate things.

Answer 3

I'll answer somewhat metaphorically. It's said that if the only tool you have is a hammer you tend to treat every problem as if it's a nail. You could as easily say the same, substituting screwdriver and screw. But the mind of the handyman encompasses the appropriate use of both tools. To a philosopher, science is one set of tools, religion another. Sometimes the ?common? ground is a bit confused. I admit I've pounded in a nail or two with the battery end of my drill driver because I hadn't brought the hammer up the ladder with me.

I hope you see the point. Insisting on only 1 set of ideas creates more problems than it solves. Buddha said religion is like a raft. It's a useful tool for crossing a river, but it would be silly to keep carrying it after you've reached the other side.

Answer 4

There is something missing from your logic.

First, careful observation will not always lead to knowledge of the truth. For instance, careful observation led astronomers to the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that the night sky never changes. Today we know both of these 'facts' to be untrue.

Also, religion does not say that most of nature is unobservable because it is invisible. True religion says that nature is observable and should be studied. Religion is the study of the spiritual, which is unobservable by scientific means.

Therefore, true science and true religion cannot contradict. They both seek the truth in their respective fields, and truth cannot contradict truth.

If science and religions seem to contradict, some mistake has been made in one or both fields to create the apparent contradiction.

Answer 5

Depends on whether you insist on taking your religion literally or not.

Hasidic Judaism does some amazing things with the old stories by using the characters and events as psychological motifs, challenging our patterns and beliefs and bringing us to new interpretations.

The idea that the sky was a colour that doesn't exist anymore is an incredible image of the societal change that occurred with the destruction of the Temple. As a literal fact, it's a curiosity. As a metaphor, it's profound.

Traditional Judaism asks us to investigate reality. The texts are guidance and a tool, with its own methods that have been worked out and reworked through the millenia. Science does the same, it just asks the questions differently.

Answer 6

As knowledge increases I see that science normally bends and excepts that change. So in a way science is much more likely to change suddenly than the rules of faith. I wonder, what are those that reject a solid fact of science as new information is made know to it? Liars? Dishonest? Time and again on here I have explained the fact of chirality and how it relates to creation. I have noticed every time it was mentioned I get many thumbs down.. that doesn't bother me I just bring it up to show the intolerance of those who are suppose to believe in science. Those that make science almost their religion.. I know they don't know much but when it's brought up as evidence for creation they attack me instead of checking the evidence... I know that no ones like to be shown to be wrong but would they put that above being a dishonest believer in science? Jim

Answer 7

True science follows the Scientific Method. Observability, repeatability, falsifiability & c. When scientists speculate, it is not science.

Certain things like the origin of the universe, and the origin of life, are outside the scope of science. There is no scientific explanation for them. Any speculation cannot be observed, tested of falsified, therefore, that speculation is not science.

A scientist can explain how sound is produced by a musical instrument, but he cannot explain how the vibration produced by the instrument can have an effect on us.

Until people understand this, they will remain confused.

Answer 8

Not sure about religion, but you raise a good and painful point about science - we only "know" what 1) we're capable of knowing (ie what is apparent in three dimensions) and what we can see or detect, and 2) we only know what seems true around HERE - we may be in a local gravitational low or high or whatever. Our "knowledge" is really only an organized record of what we've observed. That's a far cry indeed from true understanding.

Answer 9

Well you are correct. Science does not concern itself with things that are not testable. Unfortunately for your question, there is no evidence that the laws of physics or biology have ever changed as you say.

But hey, what do scientists know right? All they ever do is experiment and collect data and draw conclusions from it. I'm sure the Satmer Rav is a product of the same system right?

Answer 10

Here's another way to look at this:

Had it not been for a constantly changing world and the undeniable effects of "invisible" things, humans would not have turned to scientific observation and explanation.

You convinced yourself of the separation of the two.. sets of principles.. for lack of a better word. Now try thinking of them as one merged system.

The very nature of reality is dual, usually existing in opposites.