July 29, 2007
Science vs Religion
What is with the resurrected war between science and religion?
I must admit, I used to think that science and religion were natural enemies. How can something that relies on faith not be in direct opposition to a practice which specifically relies on reason and evidence? The thing is, it wasn’t always like that, and to some it still isn’t. Of course, there are those who choose to create conflict, but conflict isn’t necessary. Historically, science grew from the church. The first scientists were clergy, and scientific research was sponsored by the church. The church wanted to understand God’s world, and science was one of the ways they tried to do that.
Before I really began looking into things myself, I thought that the only rational scientific view could be that God (as always, I use the term very loosely) does not exist. But there is so much magic in the universe that we can’t help but feel insignificant in it. Even if the universe does exist due to a cosmic fluke, that’s still pretty darn amazing and if we could ever truly understand that, I think that would be on par with a religious experience.
Arthur C. Clark’s famous quote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” seems to be true not only of technology as we know it, but also the natural world around us, which possibly explains why many seem to believe the only option is that this world was created by a “sufficiently advanced being”. As our science advances, we discover more and more things that seem like magic – we continually discover new exciting things that seem completely unreal and magical. The quantum world, for example – even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. As time goes on, our science progresses, and we understand these things differently, but that doesn’t make them any less amazing. While I accept that both science and spirituality/religion have limits to what they can explain, they both seem to be striving to understand this same magic.
Can’t science be a path to God? If God exists in all things (as is often claimed), then by understanding the world around us through science, we could begin to understand God. Sure, the God we might find wouldn’t be Yahweh, Allah or Jesus – but some parts of the bible have to be interpreted as metaphor, right? 
Further Reading:
- The Myth of Conflict
- Ferngren, Gary (2002) Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction
Popularity: 18% [?]
Posts
Scavella said,
July 29, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Needless to say, I believe science could be a path to God. What you observe about magic is exactly what some anthropologists have theorized. Some have gone further and see science and magic as being exactly the same human process; the difference lies in the documentation of “experiments” (spells that fail are adjusted and then forgotten, while experiments that fail are adjusted but recorded).
Sure, the God we might find wouldn’t be Yahweh, Allah or Jesus
But why not? The God that might exist could be anything or all things. After all, as you say, even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. Who’s to say?
Richard said,
July 30, 2007 at 11:36 am
I thought that comment might stir you up.
I think if you interpret the bible liberally enough, then sure – your God could be found through science, but I’d argue that if your interpretations are that liberal, then it’s not really the Christian God that you believe in.
The Christian God:
I’m not saying it’s not possible that science could one day show that zombies ARE real, and that supernatural all-powerful gods DO hide in burning bushes – but would that really be a God you’d worship?
If I was a Christian, I’d personally rather take a more liberal view, and accept that the God of the bible is not REALLY the God any thinking Christian (such as yourself) believes in. A creator? Perhaps. Yahweh? Definitely not.
D.Bheemeswar said,
July 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dear Mr. Richard,
Science and Religion or Science vs Religion, To my knowledge religions were developed for the beliefs and practices that some of the people of different places used to practce customerily. Some of them are just rituals may have nothing of science certain other customs and traditions that people used practiced have some science in it. If one goes through some of the greatest epics of history they have some science and also most of the portion is for spirituality, the advices they give for others are that of unique in nature. Of course modern day science has evolved from churches, but if observe some of the temples in India are abroad like Indonasia we can observe that life sciences are drawn in the form of art or sculpted, even some of them can be seen in churches and mosques. Most of the religious texts emphasize only one thing, “We are all Human Beings and we should live and let Others live is the Principle”. The main principle is the life should continue on this earth, what ever be the fashion it has come on to this earth, it should be encouraged to live. Most of the cases the History shows that Women and children or the main victims, thats why we have so many convents, nunneries, anganvadies etc. This all because of the use and forget people those who take a ride on their victims either by force or by cheating or luring or showing theiry money and muscle power. This all part of living as we have so many types of people those who are mostly after worldly desires of materials gaining, very less people those who preach spirituality, that everybody has equal rights on this earth to live, whether they are children or women or men, without cast, religious,racial, regional etc barriers. As evreybody has their own faith here science can not do any thing, only human sciences can do something. That means we have to combine all the sciences for understanding this human sciences along with Astrological sciences. Unfotunately this is not officially recognized science. Church, Mosque or temples may believe it but not the Offcials. I think everybody may read his horoscope everyday or every month. How evr present Science has nothing to do with Religion. Otherwise there would not have been so many problems in this world like fighting against terror (mental pollution), echological (environ-mental pollution) and last but not the least Using numbers to outsmart under the name of democracy or communism (Bullish-mental pollution).
Richard said,
July 30, 2007 at 5:18 pm
If I understand what you’re saying, Mr (?) Bheemeswar, I agree that science doesn’t rely (and shouldn’t!) on religion in anyway – any relationship between science and religion today is definitely not two way!
What I was suggesting, is that a thinking religious person today should not dismiss science as opposing or even separate to their religion – science (and I mean REAL science, not pseudoscience like “intelligent design”) should necisarily be a path to god, not away from it.
Also, I suppose, science should not dismiss religious beliefs as “unscientific” (in the sense that they couldn’t possibly be proven/disproven by science). An interfering God is a scientifically testable hypothesis – just one for which there is no evidence (…. yet? …)
D.Bheemeswar said,
July 30, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Dear Mr. Richard,
Thanks for your message. In other words what I expressed is also the same. In fact Science has to learn how to take Religions into confidense. Only Spiritual people like can only inderstand these. Most of the scintists may agree that there is god or almighty, they have adopted science as means of discovering god. Where as god or almighty is the experience of the individuals who are in the art spirituality. this can be generalized as in science, as the same techniques may one type of observations to you and another to others.
however thanks for your kind message
with warm regards
dbheemeswar
Scavella said,
July 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm
The Christian God:
Hears and responds to prayers
Ressurects people willy nilly (although I must admit, zombies are cool….)
Hides in burning bushes
And science doesn’t? Go do more research. Oh, and you missed out impregnates virgins; but parthogenesis is not unknown in the human scientific record.
And science has already shown that zombies are real. Check out The Serpent and the Rainbow (the ethnography by ethnobotanist and anthropologist Wade Davis, not the film).
Of course, the way in which scientists interpret each of the incidences above is different from the way in which religious people do. I myself know a woman who was declared dead and placed (I’m told) in the morgue, where she woke up. She is still alive. Of course her death was a misdiagnosis; but it doesn’t change the fact that her children believed she had died, began to mourn her, and started to inform the public that their mother had passed away. Maybe people raised by Jesus, Elisha and Peter weren’t so different.
But I put it to you that if you looked in the record honestly you would find examples of everything you have decided “god” doesn’t do in more places than the Bible. The difference is in the explanations provided. My argument is that we don’t know enough to say that the explanations were (a) mutually exclusive or (b) correct/incorrect.
I’d argue that if your interpretations are that liberal, then it’s not really the Christian God that you believe in.
I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t judge my Christianity by the criteria that have been developed by American fundamentalism, or by late twentieth-century evangelism. You don’t know enough about me or the God I believe in to make that call, I’m afraid. That particular interpretation of God and Christ, while rooted in some protestant traditions, most of them classifiable as Puritan, is defined more by time, place and circumstance than by much of anything else. There is absolutely no justifiable reason, beyond the hogging of power by church leaders, to accept that the centrality that that tradition placed on the Bible as the literal, imperfect, infallible, omniscient and finite Word of God is even justifiable within the whole of Christianity.
An open reading of the Bible, jettisoning all the preconceptions about it, like “infallibility” as preached by late twentieth-century evangelism, or “divine inspiration”, or “scientific textbook” — all impositions, I believe, of a movement more interested in holding political power, racking up numbers of members, and making money than in any kind of divinity — can inspire all sorts of possibilities in which the natural knowledge of scientists and the mystical “knowledge” of theologians can meet and converse.
I’m not saying that my belief in the Christian God is correct, by the way. I’m just saying that the argument you’re bringing to challenge it is biased by (I presume) your own exposure/experience of “Christianity”. I’d prefer it if you didn’t.
kumarei said,
July 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
To people that don’t understand it. But technology is not magic. Lamps’ light does not depend on the phase of the moon (neither does most technology, with a notably hilarious exception). Science is repeatable, and demands evidence. There is nothing magical about it.
“even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level.”
Of course they can’t. We’re talking about a level of existence that is far smaller than anything the human eye can see, and acts according to far different physical laws. Is this hard to get your brain around? Practically impossible. Is it weird? Not a bit of it. Will we have a better grasp on it when the field is older? Of course we will.
While it’s perfectly fine to say that science inspires Theism, it can also inspire atheism, and if one follows the scientific method, I think that atheism makes more sense, due to the lack of evidence for God’s existence.
Richard said,
July 31, 2007 at 8:58 am
Scavella,
When I say “it’s not the Christian God you believe in” (a suggestion, by the way, not an assertion), I simply suggest that, perhaps the God you believe in is not the one as described in the bible. That’s not to say you can’t be a Christian, or that perhaps your God is found by a certain interpretation of the bible, but rather a suggestion that, if you WERE to accept many of the stories about God in the bible literally (which I understand you don’t), he/she doesn’t seem to be a God worthy of worship.
But again, I am a little confused (it seems to happen when discussing religion! Not sure if it’s my shortcomings, or just an impossible attempt to understand the multitude of differing opinions out there – an observation, not a criticism). You mentioned in an earlier comment that your “faith centres around the resurrection of Christ, which is startling enough in its audacity for me to be biased in favour of believing it”. Yet now you suggest that such occurrences are commonplace? (so much so, at least, that you’ve had a similar personal experience).
My comments above weren’t meant to ridicule your beliefs, or even a more literal interpretation of Christianity, but rather to suggest that even if science proved all these stores were reproducible (or, as you suggest, this has already happened to some degree – and I don’t disagree with you), this doesn’t mean that the “God” who performed these miracles in the first place is worthy of our worship, but rather the opposite – that, a God who demonstrates his power by doing things that we (as mere mortals) can easily reproduce seems, by modern standards, to have very little power indeed (hence the reference to Arthur C Clark’s quote above). While such actions may have appeared to be “magic” to early civilisations, we know now that it’s not.
I hope that’s slightly clearer?
D.Bheemeswar said,
July 31, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Dear Kumarei,
What you are talking is about scientific evidence for the experimentation’s to understand the universal truths, which are based on certain assumptions, everything is relative in terms. When this relationship of elements goes to or the assumptions goes to some thing called quantum, but this quantum can be as small as approaching to zero or as big as this universe. Actually all are comparison’s only. For example the magnetic effect of other nearer planets is smaller in comparison to sun and the that of stars is much smaller to that of planets. We can see and observe that some people on particular solar and stars combinations behaving very different than others. Of course there are influences of local societal structure on peoples behaviour. So It is a complex problem, but to some extent the horoscope readers simplify that and the probable behaviour of particular person is drawn.
But for everybody the stars effect is same for given day and time. The total behaviour depends societal influence on the individual, most of the people go with the wind, they are gone forever with the wind they are no good for the society. There are people who struggle against the wind the change the entire course of the world. There are some perverted minds, they fight for every thing without understanding basics of life, they are terrorists and anti socials. The modern science i do not think so can explain this phenomenon.
The Birth of Jesus has changed the trends of the western mentality,
Swami Vivekananda has changed the western mentality toward Indian spirituality,
Those who learn spirituality or understand the science of spirituality Believe in another Messiah coming onto this earth to change the scenario, the struggle between haves and have not’s. Haves have the spirituality, have not’s have the crooked mentality and brutal strength those who want to show their animal power against the struggling poor under the name democracy or communism.
What people basically require is some food (a piece of bread to eat) some place to protect their belonged ones. Whatever science you are talking about can not bridge this gap. Only spirituality can do that wonders. Only this Spirituality can bring peace, harmony and serenity on this earth.
With warm regards
D.Bheemeswar
Richard said,
July 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Only spirituality can provide food and shelter?
I thought science was helping us to produce more food for less money in shorter times… and ditto with shelter.
D.Bheemeswar said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Dear Mr.Richard,
We are able to produce more food grains due to science but such foods, do not have the essentials for the body metabolism. The rates of the food is going up only, it the same with the shelter which is ever increasing. If you see the health problems there are so many, mainly because nobody has time to have balanced freash food. People of the world about 50% do not have proper jobs, even if they are they are not satified, actually they do not know when they will be fired. If you look at the third or developing countries there hardly 20% of the people have jobs. Due to being individual approach most of the times it has become hand to mouth for most of the people those who are working. There is some individual freedom but not privacy, which makes the problems an individual is facing more and more.
D.Bheemeswar said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm
People are making the money more and more but they are spending it much more than that. Only the certain Industrial people are making more money. But no body can purchase the peace, harmony and serenity with that. Unless the attitude of the think brain changes from materialistic aspects to spiritual aspect. Neither our body is permanent nor our materials, they degrade after some time. It is the same case with that of our future generations. Running after the materialistic aspects one becomes mad. If we use the materials to the bare minimum requirements so to keep the balance of the nature everybody is in peace. Similarly most the people those who are using the religious cards more for perverting the peoples mentality, if they understand what is religion may stop these sort of preachings. They should learn more about the history of the origin of the religion rather than use it to beat each other. This restrain bring use harmony. Once the peace and harmony are established with some diplomacy serenity comes. Hence there may not be Cross border problems.
D.Bheemeswar said,
August 2, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Dear Mr Richard,
One point I want to stress is Spirituality brings commonness among the people/humans, by just praying and doing one cannot fill his belly, one has to do his work as per his background whatever it may be to earn something. Spirituality brings people together makes one feel belonged to each other; in such situations they share the problems and also solve them with ease. Nobody blames others for the wrong doings if any are there; it is an adjustment of life. Everybody enjoys the shares equally joys and sorrows.
Nobody can take his property or money along with him after demise. It is left to the people who are behind. Similarly nobody can take his spouse or women or men along with him or her. In a life one woman or one man is more than sufficient, whatever be the food or drink goes waste or is only for status, what one requires is handful of food a glass of water to drench the thirst. The body gets degraded or burnt of after the death. Only the energy that is running the body is gone into the vacuum, nobody knows where it goes or they cannot say from where the life comes. Science may say that genes are making the life. In Persian language the angels are called as GENEs, in Indian languages they are called Devas, in astrology they are called NADIs, in English you know that they are called as ANGELs. Those people who help others in need are called as Devanadi’s or Devas (Angels), those who just do their work are called as Manushyanadi (Humans) and those who terrorize or bulldoze others for the materialistic aspects are called as Rakshasanadis (Satanic). These are all based on the stars and planets under which a person has born or taken life. By practice or influence from the others one may change to any other Nadis.
Presently there about 80% are Humans; 19% are Satanic and remaining are Angels, of course we are all humans, but by their mentality and behaviour, these characters can be found out.
I think I am loud and clear. If one does not know how to give a life, he/she has no right to take the life away.
With love, affection and care we can build the human chains, those who can protect this world from all types of pollution.
kumarei said,
August 4, 2007 at 5:35 am
D.Bheemeswar,
Whether or not religion helps people to cope unfortunately has no effect on the true or false value of the religion. Many people believe in the power of prayer, that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t work, despite having the effect of comforting the one praying.
Also, you say that spirituality is the only way to get to peace, yet you mention that spirituality can also be used for evil. I would argue that the spirituality is immaterial here, that people who are not spiritual can be good and peaceful, people who are very spiritual can be violent and abusive, and vice versa. It doesn’t seem to me that being spiritual makes any difference, so long as you act in a morally responsible fashion.
I’m not sure what your argument was with what I posted, as I can’t figure out how your comment relates to mine. Were you arguing for some sort of chaos theory justification of astrology? That might be an interesting argument, if it hadn’t been shown over and over again by experiment that astrology is not accurate, but works using generalizations and the human penchant to believe.
The fact is that we can predict the physical world with some certainty. The world tends to be extremely consistent at each level. Of course, due to quantum theory, we know that some very odd things are quite possible. The problem is that they are so unlikely as to be practically impossible. Sure, if you had an infinite amount of time and never got old and a wall that never fell apart, and kept trying to get your hand through it, eventually it would go through. But if you restricted the time domain to the amount of time between the beginning and heat death of the universe, it wouldn’t happen. That’s how improbable it is.
So again, despite the fact that our universe seems to be built on a foundation of probability, those probabilities are not all equal, and we end up with a sensible, working scientific model.
For more information on what I was talking about in my post, I would point you to this video of Dawkins talking about our weird universe.
D.Bheemeswar said,
August 4, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Dear Kumarei
Thanks for your message. Spirituality does not mean that one has to always pray or wear saffron or white clothes or whatever dress they wear during praying. In a true true spiritual person does not go to violence rather he searches for peaceful solutions for the existing problems. Only the way some persons are using the religion as shelter for terrorising or bossing others has to be condemned.
with warm regards
dbheemeswar
keatchpotato said,
August 4, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi all,
I’m in my final year in school and creating a journalistic style piece on science vs religion for assessment.
I’m in the process of collecting information for and against both religion and science as a will be creating a neutral view giving pro’s and con’s.
So far some of the areas i will be discussing will be Darwinians theory of evolution against the religios point of view (and also intelegent design) , the history between Galileo and Copernicus vs religion, links between the truth to religion and facts, flaws of science and the validity.
It will be a general wide-rage piece that will give information to those undecided between faith or facts.
Can you please help, any ideas or information would help!
(sorry if this is a bit off the topic)
Regards Keatchpotato
D.Bheemeswar said,
August 4, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Dear keatchpotato
thanks for your comments.
I shall defenitely help you in this regard. give me your email address.
dbheemeswar, dbjeemeswar@gmail.com