Does science and religion agree on anything?

Answer 1

no because science in based in the real world and religion is based in a fairy tale world of god the devil and a talking snake

Answer 2

This question only shows that you have never looked. Science and religion agree on almost everything if you really look with a keen eye. Just read Einstein and Newton, the two most prominent scientist ever both learned much from their spiritual knowledge and neither found a contradiction without an explanation. In fact both Einstein and Newton were more spiritual and did more spiritual inquiry than they did scientific inquiry. Both found spiritual awareness to be of a deeper essence than science. Science is only for things that can be measured, spirituality is for the things that can't be measured. In truth spirituality to the real seeker is about understanding the inner self and what we are apart of in a conscious and experimental way. True spirituality is about real experience and not fairy tale type beliefs, that is just people playing other people for money and control. Nothing new. The science vs religion hype has always just been hype for those who never really look. It's a total joke to most scientists with any real credibility. Of course some people do still try to make money out of this silly argument that isn't even a real argument.

Answer 3

Agree? They aren't asking the same questions, so it's hard for them to "agree".

Science as we know it today is a surprisingly recent invention that had really only come about in the last two centuries or so (and really only crystalized in the last five decades). I think it is fair to say that the objectives of science is to discover the underlying principles of nature: in other words, a scientist is someone who wants to find out HOW things work.

Whether this relates to weather patterns, the mating rituals of obscure avian species, the detection of Dark Matter or resolving the scalar relationship between relativity and quantum theory is really a matter of inclination and aptitude. The underlying objective is the same and that is what defines a scientist.

Before we had "scientists", these people were known as "philosophers" and they were very much interested in the "hows" of the universe (although they were often pretty slack when it came to acquiring empirical evidence for their theories...). But they were also interested in the "whys" and - perhaps more importantly - the "whos".

Modern science, by definition, limits itself to the "hows". This is essential to good science. After all, if scientists looked at something like gravity and asked themselves how it happened, then giving the answer "because God says it does" is not conducive to discovering anything new or interesting about our universe. As a result, all questions of "why" and "who" must be discarded by good science.

Time has led us to a point where many believe that all the answers we could desire belong onto to the "how" camp. "Who" and "why" questions are dismissed. But - and this is the important thing - whereas once they were (and for the most part, to be fair, still are) dismissed for the benefit of good science, increasingly they are dismissed by athestic zealots as fundamentalist as any terrorist (albeit less explosive) as questions that have no value whatsoever.

Fortunately, we still have philosophers.

They mostly let the scientists deal with the "hows" these days, but they are still very much interested in the "whys". And, because the very act of asking "why" presumes the a priori condition of purpose, that implies that there must also be a "who".

And that's pretty much where religion steps in.

Religion, however, has an advantage over science. Because whilst science HAS to ignore the "whys" and "whos" to work properly, religion doesn't have to ignore the "hows".

So it's very sad when religionists seem determined to take a stand against "hows" that is every bit as counter-productive as the stand taken by scientists against the "whos".

But they aren't the same question. And the answers aren't mutually exclusive.

Answer 4

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.


THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"
[Al-Quran 41:53]

Answer 5

The Bible does not condemn science, it only condemns fables that are taught as science.

Dan. 1: 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

1 Tim. 6: 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Galileo found out that the Catholics misinterpreted the Bible in their old belief that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. They got mad at him for the arrogance of interpreting scripture even though he was right and they were wrong. On the other hand a Catholic Priest taught the theory of an expanding universe that many scientists thought was wrong including Einstein. Turns out they found out later that the universe is expanding and is accelerating it's expansion. The priest was right while Einstein was wrong. go figure.

It is not uncommon for religious people to misinterpret scripture... just as it is not uncommon for scientist to misinterpret nature. These misinterpretations often cause false conflicts that unfortunately can derail the faith of many. Pride and arrogance among both religious folks and scientists prevent them from admitting their errors or seeing the truth on the other side... such is human nature.

Answer 6

Science and Religion generally deal with different topics, so they can't really "agree on anything."

Science deals with the physical world, while religion deals with both the metaphysical world and emotional and ethical concerns.

Most Christians in the world do not feel challenged by scientific theories that run counter to Genesis. Most Scientists are not bothered by one's religious beliefs.

Answer 7

You'll get loads of answers on this one. I don't see any reason why science and religion shouldn't agree. You'll find that many scientists and researchers are deeply religious. I see science as looking at the way god's creation works. It's really intricate and hard to understand but at the same really time beautiful.

Answer 8

Science will one day soon disprove religion because religious beliefs evolved from mankind's unintentional misinterpretation and translation of God's scientific instructions for mankind. These scientific instructions can be found written in the laws of Moses in the Torah, Bible and The Dead Sea Scrolls.

Answer 9

They agree that you have to start with some premise or presupposition to get anywhere.

For science, it's the scientific method.

For religion, it's usually the existence of a higher power.

Answer 10

"Do science and religion agree on anything?"

I do not know. I do, however, know that serious, reputable scientists do not care if believers agree or not. Religion is irrelevant in 21st-century science, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Answer 11

Yes! They can and should be compatible.

Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest was the first scientist to predict the expansion of the universe leading to the theory of the big bang.
Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, were all very religious, very spiritual. It’s only the ignorant who deny the findings of science and refuse to adapt their beliefs.