Religion and science, can they co-exist?

Question

"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science." - Zuka, Gary in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters'

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein, Albert

Are Albert Einstein and Gary Zuka correct? What relationship should exist between science and religion?

Answer 1

Both religion and science try to answer the same questions, but by different methods. Religion is based in faith, which cannot be proved, and science attempts to base its conclusion upon established facts. Both have shown flexibility and mutual influence.

An interesting take on this was posed by Jean Cocteau, who said:

"Religion attempts to define God. Science attempts to explain him".

Answer 2

Gary Zuka is correct. But the issue here is the credibility of science. A scientific theory must be disprovable in order to be scientific. So I see his observation as a strength of western science. Not to say that science from eastern civilizations are without merit. But science is limited, more so than most think.

Recently, the Dali Lama observed that science and spirituality are two paths to the truth. I agree, but I don't believe religious fundamentalism can be included in this definition of spirituality.

.

Answer 3

They can and in many arenas, do co-exist. An atheistic, naturalist, and materialist mindset is incapable of understanding or accepting their co-existence. Science and religion are at odds only with those fore mention because they refuse to understand, or at least to accept, the truth. That is that natural phenomena do not require a naturalistic origin or explanation. There is no such requirement in scientific thought. Originally the most brilliant scientific minds understood this truth and willingly accepted it. Those that then require that the earth, life, and the entire cosmos have a naturalist origin are then going to be pitted against the religious who say that these things cannot be explained naturally. Even though there is no testability in the assumptions of macro evolution nor the "big bang" theory, the naturalistic/materialist mindset clings to it faithfully.

Answer 4

I'm not sure that religion is the term I would use; because religion tends to be dogmatic and traditional which defies the basis of scientific thinking. I would much rather use the word faith as in faith in a higher being "GOD". In that case faith and science compliment themselves because faith is the fundamental basis of knowing that there is something more beyond scientific proof. The proof lies in history for example Leonardo Davinci believed that the earth was round even though he had no proof we could say that he had faith based on reason that the earth was round. We now know that he was correct and today what was considered ludicrous is now scientific fact. We have yet to discover all that GOD has created and take credit for those things which we have discovered in the name of science not realizing they too are his creations. If you ask me do you believe in GOD it would be like asking me do you believe in water I will answer no to both questions because I know what water is and I know GOD
exists.

Answer 5

well science is much more accurate in the facts but not everything needs to be proven to gain belief. The biggest debate is evolutionism vs. creationism. Christians seem to be getting scared because there is much proof to back up evolution where all the have is their bible to back up creationism. I think religion and science can and should co-exist, but not everyone has the tolerance and spiritual knowledge as Zuka and Einstein that's for damn sure.

Answer 6

I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive. Science can tell us how the universe was created by the big bang, but I think G-d was the one who made it work that way. I read a book where an atheist is explaining his point of view. He said that if you look at a fertilized egg under a microscope, you can see the cells multiplying, science explains it all, and there is no room for G-d. I look at it the opposite - the fact that the cells can multiply and everything forms correctly shows that there IS a G-d.

Answer 7

Scientists accept many things without proof. For instance, in order for a psychological hypothesis to be accepted as true (verified), the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must reach a statistical significance of 0.05, which means a 95% certainty that the IV had an effect on the DV. Scientists assert that this is proof, even though proof means 100% certainty. Gary is wrong when he says science rejects that which is not proven. If he were correct, then all evidence that is not proof would be rejected, but clearly that is false.

Answer 8

Science wants nothing to do with belief, and religion wants nothing to do with proof. A relationship (science verses religion) that was created in heaven and has raised nothing but hell. Religion is like water, while science is like oil: the two just do not mix without extreme things. like war, going on.

Answer 9

Christian Science.

I am a Christian, and I like science, GOD does not hate true science. HE created it. If it weren't for true science where would we be medically......?

The science that Christian's are against is the ones who have for years try to prove that GOD does not exist. Those who want to create life in their own way.

Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Meaning,science can be a good thing. True science brings satisfaction, false science kills and makes ALL science look bad.

Bad Christian's bring false judgment on all Christian's
Bad politics's makes all politics look bad.

We separate the difference.

Answer 10

I look at science and religion as two different tools for puzzling out the mysteries of existence. Science is much better at figuring out the physical realm, and religion (at least so far) seems to be pretty good at handling the internal, intuitive, "spiritual" realm.

I try not to make the mistake of using one to serve the purposes of the other. For that reason, I have never found my religion and science to be in conflict.