To anyone whom considers them-self a scientist : Does you science knowledge conflict with your religion ?

Question

If so , how do you deal with it scientifically and religiously ?

Answer 1

I am a scientist.
I hold a degree in chemistry and to get that degree I studied many different fields of science. Not once EVER has science conflicted with my religious faith. Here's why.

The number one tenant of science is that we, as scientists, do not know everything there is to know. That's why we bother to study things and do experiments and such, to learn more. In fact, we will never know all there is to know. As a chemistry example, there was a time when people didn't know that molecules exist. Later we discovered that molecules were made of atoms and atoms were made of electrons and protons and neutrons and even now we're learning that electrons and protons and neutrons are made up of even smaller particles. In science it's all about the questions. Every answer leaves room for more questions. (That's the cool thing about science!)
Along similar lines an important aspect of most religions is that you don't know everything, God (or whatever) does. When you put both of those tenants together you end up with WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW.

Contrary to popular belief, science has not disproven God. A popular hot topic debate is God vs. evolution. Some people like to say God created man therefore evolution is a lie. That's completely ignorant. Other people like to point to evolution and say that God did not create man, it was all evolution. That's totally close-minded. But I say why couldn't God have created man through the tool of evolution? The two are not mutually exclusive.

In my opinion science has never conflicted with religion and religion has never conflicted with science. The problem has always been man's lack of understanding of science and misunderstanding of religion.

Sorry to talk your ear off. Good question though.

Answer 2

I am not a scientist. Plus, I am an atheist so have religion with which it would conflict. But I need to adress the argument put forth by a creationist that science (Darwinism in particular) is itself a religion in conflict with others. It is not. It is the method we have developed over the centuries for trying to figure out how the natural world we live in works. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood the tests presented to it, not a religious tenet. And the link provided that purports to show creationist scientists is entirely misleading.

There are many Christians in the field of science. Muslims and Hindis and Buddhists too. Do I agree with their beliefs? No. But I would not argue against them on purely scientific grounds.

Answer 3

First of all, it is my personal belief that a lot of the Bible is metaphors. Neither science nor religion can explain the whole universe. For example, think about the origin of the universe. What most people don't realize is that the Big Bang does not tell where the universe came from, it only explains what happened very immediately (within milliseconds) after the matter and energy came into existence. Believe it or not, the Vatican has actually said that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with anything in the Bible. I am a Christian who is currently majoring in biology, and I have not noticed any conflict between what I hear in Church and what I hear in class.

Answer 4

Yes obviously it does. I want to comment on the first poster's response before I answer your question. You say someone had to have put that big ball of energy there? So you believe in some super power? Who created this super power? You'll say it's always been there...it has no beginning. Well my question to you is, why does this big ball of energy have to have a beginning but the super power that created it not?

I do agree that religion and faith are different. And I agree with his explanation. The only difference I really see...is Science searches for logic and fact and bases future science on such. Faith won't let logic hold it back. In summary, Science is full of Educated Guesses, and Faith full of well uneducated guesses. Humanity's search for answers is so strong, that when science fails faith steps in. When science succeeds faith steps aside or uses the age old "figuratively speaking" excuse.

How to deal? As a scientist you can't discount the facts you find because your faith told you differently. So it's always facts first, faith second. As a religious person, it's always faith first, and when the facts come out, chalk it up to our ignorance...'cause really god didn't tell us nothing, we assumed from the beginning.

Answer 5

Religion fills the void which science at present cannot explain. If we knew all the answers we wouldn't need religion at all. For example, the existence of our conciousness, and the origins of the universe and life within it are all presently explained by religion and the existence of a higher order or god. But ultimately, there may come a time when there is no further need for religion, when we have all the answers - or, in other words, when we can prove or disprove the existence of god.

Answer 6

I don't consider myself a scientist but maybe I will one day, I'm fairly scientifically literate though being well read in quite a few areas so I feel this question is relevant to me.

A love of science pushed mystical types of beliefs right out of me - I just suddenly decided rationality, experiment and logic were much better tools to find out what reality was about than reading bronze age myths. Science can't disprove God (you can't disprove a negative) but it gives you an idea as to the possibility. If you're going to reject Baal, Thor, Shiva, The Golden Calf and the Invisible Pink Unicorn you might as well reject God, too.

I think it would be very difficult to keep hold of blind faith and dogma if you're highly educated in science - the % of christians in the US in the general population is about 90% - in the national academy of science its about 7%.

Answer 7

What I have come to realize is that religion and faith are two completely different things. Religion is a tool used by man to control and manipulate. Faith is a belief in a power greater than ones self.
My faith does not conflict with my exploration of science, rather it accentuates it.
For example, one of the basic tennants of the unverse is the "Big Bang" where a super dense ball of energy created all life in the universe. That energy had to come from somewhere, right? The circumstances that led to life on this planet and me answering this question are too astronomical not to have had some kind of guiding hand somewhere along the way.

Answer 8

Of course not.
It is important to understand that everyone has exactly the same evidence - which exists in the present. Creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.

It si not a question of science v religion, it is the science of one religion v the science of another.
Many of the greatest scientists of all time were not only Christians buyt creationists. (Newton, Kepler, Kelvin, Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, Pasteur, Babbage, etc
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/270.asp

People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them.

Answer 9

No, since I have no religion. However, my scientific training probably lead me to the conclusion that there probably is no god. In science, we require evidence and logic in making our conclusions. Religion requires neither. Science isn't the kind of job you leave at work - it follows you everywhere.

Answer 10

the precedence looks to commence with the non secular facet. faith sees technology's skill to construct itself on commentary, hypothesis and examine out and could develop into resentful of technology's seen, verifiable procedure. So it tries to imitate the approach, recasting its arguments as theories, sweeping the mandatory gaps of religion out of sight, and tacking on regardless of cloth "data" looks to in high-quality condition. it truly is deceptive, both to the international and to its genuine objective. faith is about faith, about searching previous the obtrusive and looking out for something better. It calls for consistent recommitment. it truly is something yet certain. those who search for "actuality" have lost their faith. technology, on the different hand, is all about actuality. It rejects pat motives and assessments assumptions, searching for mistakes and inconsistencies, with the in simple terms proper objective of having the reason proper. this barriers technology to the observable international, yet a international it remains too deep to thoroughly understand. each nicely-commonly used theory ought to be able to change itself to account for brand new, contradictory archives until eventually it not can and yields to a extra recent, extra ideal theory. A scientist who has invested a lot right into a theory that he can not evaluate a demonstrable yet radical new interpretation stumbles into the area of religion and loses clinical objectivity. Scientists and theologians would certainly, finally, be looking for the same aspect, an underlying HOW it truly is indistinguishable from the in simple terms proper WHY. yet their disciplines are incompatible. If technology does not shield objectivity, it not learns. If faith would not proceed to hit upon for deeper meaning, its pronouncements develop into esoteric minutiae. they ought to each and each shield their distance and their own integrity, at the same time as respecting the others' jurisdiction. in the different case we've a medieval muddle of meaningless secret. i visit do without the craze, yet I insist on a sparkling separation between reason and instinct.