Why is there such a deep divide between religion and science?

Question

Why do people feel a need to pick one or the other, and constantly argue that the other side is wrong? Other cultures seem to have both science and religion coexisting so what is it about North America that makes us so divisive on this issue?

Answer 1

besides the issue of evolution and a few life issues science and religion are not far off. woulld like you to read a nice article about this issue by Chuck Colson. and here is a quote from the founder of modern science.

A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back.". . . Sir Francis Bacon
here is the other argument as science destroying Christanity

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30
here is the Chuck Colson

The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”

There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.

The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.

Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”

In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”

After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”

As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.

But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.

The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?

For Further Reading and Information


Today’s BreakPoint offer: Learn more about the new Wide Angle worldview curriculum and how you can purchase it.

Richard A. Schweder, “Atheists Agonistes,” New York Times, 27 November 2006.

Michael Ruse, “A Separate Peace: Stephen Jay Gould and the Limits of Tolerance,” Science & Spirit.

Travis McSherley, “The Season for the Reason,” The Point, 13 November 2006.

Catherine Claire, “An Unsurprising Revelation,” The Point, 14 November 2006.

Catherina Hurlburt, “Easterbrook on Dawkins,” The Point, 14 November 2006.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 031204, “We’ve Been Lied To: Christianity and the Rise of Science.”

Source(s):

Answer 2

It's a power struggle. Even early catholic scholars were studying religion and science together. At some point before the Inquisition, the divide took place and since then, it's history. The Muslims are not as conflicted about this- neither are Buddhist or Hindus.

Answer 3

I do not consider you are speakme such a lot approximately the "..new size to reality, anti-truths, additionally redefines part-reality, and lie" as you're approximately the "obvious" dualities created by way of the minds of men and women. The correct & fallacious, black & white, establishing & finish linear mind-set. Philosophically, what's a real reality? What is a real lie? There aren't any absolutes. I very a lot disagree with "...the 'customary sin' remains to be with us. I respectively inquire what the "customary sin" was once. I consider that now not best can there be a bridge among technological know-how & faith, however as soon as "we" discard PREMISES, they may be able to merge in ultimate concord. Negative & constructive aspects are subjective. I do not assault the devout, or the non-devout, but notion in customary sin is not going to ever connect to technological know-how. The tale of genesis might quite simply be PROVED legitimate by way of technological know-how. If extra folks cared to "cross there."

Answer 4

Because some scientists have become so arrogant that they have forgotten that if they do not have the tools to measure something, it means they don't have the tools. It does not mean that they can say with authority that something does or does not exist.

On the flip side, we have a group of fundamentalists that make the mistake of taking the creation story too literally and are completely uneducated in the scientific method. I blame the school system.

Answer 5

There is no divide. The only time this occurs is when people adhere to a god of the gaps. As science discovers answers to these gaps, those who have invested all this time and faith into a dogma that is now being undermined fight against the truth. People would rather blindly adhere to what they've invested their life into instead of evaluate the truth of the matter. People love to follow the sunk cost fallacy.

Answer 6

Science is fact, religion is fiction. In my mind anyway.