Is scientific religion an oxymoron?

Question

Can there be a reconciliation between science and religion?

Answer 1

yes, if only those foolish creationist boneheads would realize that

Answer 2

A key to the question is a more scientific, i.e. objective, study of religion in general and religions specifically. Start no later than the Neolithic, and trance the lineage and pedigree of beliefs, concepts, and practices down to the present day... and one will gain interesting insights on how religions and their entire cultures have become as we know them today. It is indeed a process of evolution at work! Religions borrow from antecedents and change greatly over the centuries ... but people generally have knowledge only of their own religion and often only of their own sect or denomination at that, often assuming that it *is* the one and only universal truth. Scientific thinking is a methodology for acquiring reliable information about the Cosmos; it deals only with testable propositions. Collectively, our knowledge grows, but we have some capacity limitations. Your dog probably cannot grasp your politics, philosophies, or beliefs... and so the Cosmos may include all sorts of intelligences as different from humans as human differ from bacteria. It's speculation, as is religion pretty much. We all, in various ways, seek what's true, beautiful, and good, in accordance with our capacity to appreciate it. To ask whether science and religion are opposed or in harmony (or none of the above) will primarily revolve upon how one defines religion and what the same person understands of scientific methodology.

Answer 3

There is a fundamental difference between the two. Science examines the natural world in order to explain how it functions. When Science learns something new that contradicts previous understanding, this is considered a good thing. This is the process. Corrections are part of learning and growing. The perfect example would be the theory of gravitation which was replaced by the better explaination; the theory of relativity.

Religions deal in absolutes. These are unchanging. Their doctrinal statements are not to be contradicted. This is the opposite of science. It is not considered a good thing. The fact of evolution would be a good modern example.

Science deals in facts (beliefs based on reason judgement)

Religion deals in faith (beliefs free from reason)

How can they reconcile. I'd argue they shouldn't even be discussing the same topics!

Answer 4

Reconciliation can be brought about when and wherever people are willing to accept one another.
There is no logical clash between them, as they are trying to do different things-both of which are necessary for life. It is usually people claiming to speak for science who claim there is no way to reconcile them; but if you read a book such as 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath, you will see clearly that many scientists are at least open to the concept of God existing, and they should know whether or not there is any sort of clash. The fact that many scientists are open to the concept shows that the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Answer 5

Not at all. The more we understand science, the more it backs up what is recorded in the Bible. My faith is, well, exactly just that, a faith that God the Creator spoke all that we see (and have not yet seen) into existence. But those who have no 'faith' still must put their faith in the theory that someway, somehow, the world poofed into existence by some cosmic collision of nothingness. As a designer by trade, it takes a whole lot less faith for me to believe in Someone who designed and built everything than to believe that everything just kinda fell into place. We are much too complex for me to buy into that. The problem is that we don't really want to buy into the idea that there might really be a GOD out there that we might someday have to answer to. Isn't it much easier to say that we are the result of celestial fireworks so we don't have to face the idea that we might have to meet the One who made us?

Answer 6

science that is true does not accept as fact things not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus the theory of Evolution does not hold with true Science as it is not and can not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many Scientist are coming to see that the Bible is the most provable document ever written, and in fact there has been much research on the science of Theomatics though the media has not seen fit to print that, as it does not suit the Liberalist Agenda which the Media supports.

Answer 7

Not necessarily. It's possible to take a scientific approach to the problems of religion; but it generally leads to results that "religious" people find disturbing, because they've been trained to cling to certain preconceptions in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Buddhism, for example, is, at core, a workable, practical, non-dogmatic system. You can perform the practices without subscribing to any fantastic supernatural hypotheses, and you can record the results, rule out sources of error, isolate the essentials from the non-essentials, and so on. In short, you can apply the scientific method. The same might be done to a greater or lesser extent with all religions.

Answer 8

science can not be reconciled with religion, the facts of science has progressed far beyond the restrictions of religious science, though some, who I call creation evolutionist, believe that God created life with the intention for it to evolve, though this goes against most creationist.
science has shown us many facts about life that religion can't explain, the book of Genesis, for one , has been prov en as pure fiction, another would be the Adam & Eve and the garden of Eden, the very idea that life began with just two people has also been put down to religious drama.
science today, with space exploration, geology, carbon dateting, forensic science, but most of all common sense, has taught us to question the old religious beliefs, mostly to call into the answers, religious science, conclude 1000 yrs ago, when all life was classed as being formed by the creator in the form it is for a purpose, this, we know now ,to be false presumption on their part.
religous belief, stems from the bible written, between, 1800 & 1900 yrs ago, when the people of the planet still believed in magic and mysticism, today we have the knowledge to look deeper.
religion can not hope to reconcile with science until it lets go of its fundamental beleif in creationism and leans more toward the scientific facts that we know, with a spiritual meaning.

Answer 9

Science is often used to support religion. For example, there have been many account where people have tried to prove there is not an intelligent agent (a god) that created the universe. On each and every one of these accounts they have found that there is no way that there could not be a god. Keep in mind that believing there is a god is not religion, but believing there is a specific god is. But to answer your original question, a religion based entirely on science can not exist due to the fact that religion is based on faith. Every religion has some factual evidence, but in order to be a religion some faith is required. Josh McDowell once tried to disprove Jesus existing using science alone. He couldn't.

Answer 10

If scientific discovery was only limited to pathways of proof then it would loose a valuable avenue for discovery. I dont see the art of science being limited by proof, only the body of scientific work. Religion likewise would be hugely limited if it only operated in the realm of the unprovable sphere of belief. Perhaps the mystery's of Science can be explained by aspects of Religion, though they are different things entirely and so for those reasons cannot be an oxymoron.

Answer 11

Actually, no. You could worship Nature and that would be fairly scientific because Nature follows such organised laws and order. There is a scientific precision in Nature and some feel it is worthy of worship, believe it or not, and perhaps that would be the exception, right?