Is science slowly chipping away at what religion explains?

Answer 1

Trying. But do you know how hard it is to argue with "Nuh-uh!"

Answer 2

True science cannot conflict with true religious beliefs because truth cannot conflict with truth. Which is why there are no apparent conflicts between the discoveries of science and the teaching of the Catholic Church. When apparent conflicts arise between the findings of science and the beliefs of some unauthorized manmade church, either the science or the beliefs of that church is wrong. Unfortunately there is a lot more unity of truth in science than there is in unauthorized religion. There are many scientific principles that are universally accepted by experts worldwide. Yet there are virtually no religious beliefs that are shared by all denominational Christians. This doctrinal conflict indicates that many false beliefs exist in denominational religion because again, truth cannot conflict with truth. This doctrinal chaos among denominations, a direct effect of the unbiblical tradition of sola scriptura, virtually guarantees that whatever science discovers will be in conflict with the false beliefs of some denomination somewhere. But why not? If they can't even agree with other Christians about what constitutes truth, why should they agree with science??
.

Answer 3

Nope. Religion doesn't explain.
Consider religion and agriculture: (From Leviticus)

When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD

You have a commandment without an explanation. You get a "Do this or else," without giving knowledge about why this is a good idea other than that it's what G-d wants.

No explanation from religion.
Science tells us about crop rotation, depletion of nutrients, which crops deplete which nutrients, how to add artificial fertilizers, ...

Answer 4

If you mean slowly as in VERY SLOOOOOOOOWLY, then yes. Today I heard that a group of scientists stated that they don't know how to even begin to explain more than 96% of the universe. How about that one, Mr. Science man?

Answer 5

In looking for a dichotomy between science and religion, you're guaranteed to find conflict and people who believe that the two are incompatible. But, on the other hand, if you're looking for science to 'prove' religion, you can find evidence there as well. This is one of those questions where your perspective and previous biases is going to make a big difference in what evidence you present. Scientific advances are continuing to be made every day, while religion seems to have stagnated at one point. There are no real religious advances being made.

But, with that admission, I would argue that the fundamental basis of your question isn't exactly right. Religion doesn't attempt to 'explain' things in the same way that science does. Science, and scientists, attempt to observe natural processes and come up with some kind of law that describes them. This is a scientific explanation. Religion has no way of doing this because it requires people to take things on faith. Science also requires faith because the natural laws are not guaranteed to hold in all circumstances and at all times, but the faith that science requires is more 'acceptable' because it's based on observable fact. Science gives us something empirical to believe in.

Basic science appears to chip away at the explanations that religion attempts to give. Newtonian mechanics, Mendelian genetics, Darwinian evolution, and many other familiar scientific teachings seem to give all of the explanations that are needed. By dovetailing them, it might seem as though everything can be explained without the need to recourse to a supernatural or religious explanation. But that's what it seemed like at the scientific heyday of the 1800s, when it seemed like everything would be explained by science. Instead, some of their theories started to fall apart.

Taking physics as an example, three different sets of laws are used to explain physics, each at a different scale. At the largest scale, the Theory of Relativity is needed to account for all of the phenomena that are observed at the scale of galaxies. For every day life, Newtonian mechanics explains everything without the unnecessary complications of relativity. But moving onto an atomic scale, quantum mechanics is something very different than either of the other two. These three sets of laws are all descriptive, but none of them are adequate at all scales. Physicists have come up with (or rather, are attempting to come up with) a unified field theory. This is also known as string theory because the theory (in a very basic form) states that energy exists as a sort of vibrating 'string' that moves in multi-dimensional space and causes the observable phenomena of the natural world. If the math of string theory can be made to work (and it's very complicated, which is a big part of the problem in making the theory work), it would explain things at all scales and take into account things that the other theories cannot explain. What you call this theory depends on your perspective.

If you believe only in science and discount the existence of God, you would say that a unified theory drives away the necessity of religious explanation because science itself is sufficient. If you believe in God and think that science can contribute to religious understanding, then a unified theory would be the closest that science can come to describing God Himself. Of course, these are just two extremes on a spectrum, and people believe many things in between.

Science does not necessary chip away at what religion explains because the two are only incompatible in the mind of a beholder. Science also cannot be said to confirm religion, because the same arguments can be used in multiple contexts to prove many different things.

Answer 6

Science Confirms the Bible
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=284

Answer 7

I believe science helps explain religion in the light of recorded observations from witnesses of and to martydom.

Answer 8

No. Science is chipping away at itself. You obviously haven't learned much science. Go find out what would be involved in enzymes and DNA "spontaneously" existing at the same time so that one could assemble the other into something useful.

Answer 9

Ahem. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the method of true science requires observation. Since we cannot directly observe the past, we cannot know it. Especially if it happened two billion years ago, which is too far away to comprehend.

Therefore, Buddhism can be just as valid as the THEORY of evolution.

If you were talking of the Theory of Evolution, of course. :P

Answer 10

Actually, no. The reverse is true.

For instance, Genesis states that the universe began with the Word of God. Well. The actual Hebrew word is "sound."

BANG is a sound wouldn't you say?

LOL!

I am no longer surprised by the number of scientists who "find God" within the very fabric of their research to disprove him.

Answer 11

Religion doesn't explain anything so it makes sense.
Science, however, is bridging the gap of understanding with quantum physics. Read about it.