Would you agree with the following sentence?

Question

`Neither science nor religion can continue into the new millennium and beyond as islands unto themselves. The world cannot afford to lose either the incredible quality and depth of traditional knowledge or the incredible range and accuracy of the knowledge of the exact sciences of today. They both need to integrate themselves into the theory of unity the adherents of both perspectives propose to believe in. They both need to exhibit a new consciousness that complements the incredible breadth of knowledge and possibility that these valid and alternative fields of vision encompass. They both need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, inviting dialogue and exchange between related fields of interest, no matter how different their methods or frame of reference.`

By John A Herlihy
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=1363&id=10118

Answer 1

wishful thinking. hehehe...

Answer 2

No I wouldn't. I believe that religion and science are both mutually incompatible. As our knowledge and understanding of the natural world grows, we find more and more that virtually all claims made by religion are demonstrably false.

For example, we now know for a fact that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. And that Earth is over four billion years old. This new understanding completely destroys any idea of creationism, and with it the credibility of any religious text supporting it.

The big Bang theory has completely pushed God out of the universe altogether. He now either plays no role in the grand scheme of things or simply gave the universe a "push" to get things moving.

I believe that one day science will completely destroy any need or basis for belief in a supernatural being. And that any "knowledge" gained from religious belief is either flawed or could have been obtained by simply employing logic and reason.

For instance, many people believe that without religion we have no basis for being moral. That people may as well do whatever they want. A quick look into the Bible (or any religious text for that matter), will show that this is most certainly not true. The Bible tells us that Racism is righteous, and that homophobia and and chauvinism are both moral and highly desirable qualities in a faithful person. Obviously no one in today's enlightened society could possibly consider such things moral.

Of course the Bible has many good pieces of moral advice, such as the sixth, eighth, and ninth commandments and the Golden Rule (which, coincidentally, is found in virtually every culture, and is certainly not exclusive to religious doctrine).

This is not my point. My point is that we cherry pick through the Bible, taking only those portions we deem as good and moral, and discard the rest. The fact that we apparently already have these concepts of 'good' and 'bad' programmed into us shows we would naturally believe these things without religion in the first place.

Anyway, that's all I can thing of for this particular rant. Sorry about the lack of clarity, but I was just typing this off the top of my head, with little thought for lucidity and organization.

And remember
“good people will always do good things, bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things”

Answer 3

I disagree. Science is science - fact and theory that can be backed up in some fashion. Religion, for the most part, is fictional stories of "morality," but I will not delve into the hypocracy of most western religion.

I do not think that just because one person puts their stock into science they are some inherently amoral individual. On the same note I do not think that someone who believes in God, or that the world is 10,000 years old and humans lived with dinosaurs is a moral one. I think the scientific community is doing a great job of appreciating the beliefs of people, but that the religious community looks down on the very people who use science to prove that the world isn't 10,000 years old for example. Basically what I'm saying is that I believe the scientific community has a genuine interest in looking at religion without prejudice, looking for fact and the religious community has a genuine interest in staying completely ignorant and spitting on those who dare question their faith.

Answer 4

I agree to an extent, but right now it seems that both work to cancel out the other rather than complement. And the power of both are abused and taken to the limits of destruction, thereby limiting the credibility of their adherents and gaining more and more the disdain of those who might otherwise believe, or at the very least stop to listen.

Answer 5

Those are the words of a believer in an anachronistic philosophy trying to stay alive in a scientific world. He’s swimming in shark-invested waters and asking the sharks ‘can’t we just get along?’

Answer 6

The idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria is gone, but how the two play together is yet to be seen. If Y!A is any kind of a precursor then they will not play well at all.

Answer 7

This is not a new idea. "By Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities. All things were created by Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16) And in Him are hidden all treasures of wisdom. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to find out a matter." He enjoys watching us discover His universe. He is good. Science and Christianity have no argument.

Answer 8

Yes. I firmly believe that when the full truth of science and religion are both fully understood, they will complement each other like two bookends. Best of luck.

Answer 9

All that is useful in religion can be incorporated into science. They are not alternative, and valid does not mean true.

Answer 10

Christians still need science, so the don't become ignorant of the world around them.

I don't need religion, I have morals.

Answer 11

Yes I agree. Any theories on application of those ideas?