Is the Debate Between Science and Religion Unnecessary?

[Diogenes]

My friend Gary Conkling writes about the potential conflict between science and relgion.
Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and relgion?

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion. The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real. Scientists focus on questions while zealots settle for answers, sometimes based on dubious evidence or misconstrued history.

There is a path through the tension. Scientists don’t have to dismiss a greater force and zealots have to rely on faith rather than crypto-facts. We could someday figure out how the universe truly works, but still never know how it came to be. The desire – and for many the desperate need – to know there is something larger out there larger than life as we know it can yield an emotional calm and an enhanced ability to deal with very real and present distress.
....
Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe. The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress ... UfIEseHtLQ

Is there a religion that seeks truth, rather than declaring it?

[Runner]

My friend Gary Conkling writes about the potential conflict between science and relgion.
Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and relgion?

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion. The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real. Scientists focus on questions while zealots settle for answers, sometimes based on dubious evidence or misconstrued history.

There is a path through the tension. Scientists don’t have to dismiss a greater force and zealots have to rely on faith rather than crypto-facts. We could someday figure out how the universe truly works, but still never know how it came to be. The desire – and for many the desperate need – to know there is something larger out there larger than life as we know it can yield an emotional calm and an enhanced ability to deal with very real and present distress.
....
Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe. The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress ... UfIEseHtLQ

Is there a religion that seeks truth, rather than declaring it?

The only religion I can think of that fits under that category would be Atheism.

As far as I know, they're still seeking it.

Haven't found it yet.

Also, Modern Science doesn't seek Truth, it declares it ... and expects its adherents to take its claims on faith.

Which the vast majority do.

[Jose Fly]

Also, Modern Science doesn't seek Truth, it declares it ... and expects its adherents to take its claims on faith.

Which the vast majority do.

For example?

[Runner]

Also, Modern Science doesn't seek Truth, it declares it ... and expects its adherents to take its claims on faith.

Which the vast majority do.

For example?

Any claim that science makes about space, the medical field or current medicine, the origin or man or the earth, etc., etc.

Almost nobody tests any of these claims for themselves, they simply embrace them by faith in their chosen religion.

Science.

Those who do test the claims of science do not remain adherents to the faith.

Science does not support the Bible in the vast majority of concepts because it is incompatible with Biblical Truth.

What agreement does darkness have with The Light?
2 Cor. 6:14

[Jose Fly]

Any claim that science makes about space, the medical field or current medicine, the origin or man or the earth, etc., etc.

Do you have specific examples where scientists merely "declare" something to be true?

Almost nobody tests any of these claims for themselves

Most people lack the necessary education and experience to do so. Of course if they were so inclined, they can always learn the material and read the relevant published papers.

They simply embrace them by faith in their chosen religion.

Science.

Science is a method, not a religion.

Those who do test the claims of science do not remain adherents to the faith.

Science does not support the Bible in the vast majority of concepts because it is incompatible with Biblical Truth.

What agreement does darkness have with The Light?
2 Cor. 6:14

So you see science as "darkness"? Do I have that right?

[Runner]

Science is a method, not a religion.

Science is a religion to those who take its claims on faith without doing empirical testing for themselves to discover what is true and what is not. For the vast majority of the world, science is their religion.

It's just a fact. That's what a religion, a faith, is.

So you see science as "darkness"? Do I have that right?

Anything that makes claims that are diametrically opposed to the Truth is darkness.

[Jose Fly]

Science is a religion to those who take its claims on faith without doing empirical testing for themselves to discover what is true and what is not. For the vast majority of the world, science is their religion.

So to you, everyone who doesn't personally test and confirm for themselves that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun has science as their religion. Even if they're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc.?

Anything that makes claims that are diametrically opposed to the Truth is darkness.

I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in using a computer or phone to post that "science is darkness" over the internet.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you have specific examples where scientists merely declare something to be true?

[Runner]

I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in using a computer or phone to post that "science is darkness" over the internet.

No hypocrisy. I don't take anything science claims on faith and I don't worship technology. It is used as a means to an end. The modern world exists within a sea of information devices. I utilize said devices to continue to spread the Truth of God's Word as a faithful Christian is expected, and inspired, to by God.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you have specific examples where scientists merely declare something to be true?

There are a hundred and one million examples throughout history. Take your pick.

Science corrects itself publicly in the mainstream almost daily.

Conspiracies that were sneered at a decade ago, and earlier, are now accepted as common knowledge to be true.

Medical claims, as well as many other categories, from a decade ago, or earlier, are now accepted as common knowledge to be false.

You really don't have a leg to stand upon against this point.

[Diogenes]

....
Also, Modern Science doesn't seek Truth, it declares it ... and expects its adherents to take its claims on faith.

Which the vast majority do.

I disagree with these statements. Science does not 'declare' truth; just the opposite. You can read almost any peer reviewed scientific paper and rather than declarations of 'truth,' you will find cautious judgment and statements of probability along with recommendations for areas that need further study.

As for "...expects its adherents to take its claims on faith," the opposite is true. When scientists write papers describing their experiments, their audience is other scientists, people they know will not accept anything on 'faith.' This is one of the reasons they disclose their methodology and publish their raw data, not just conclusions. In fact, they often do not couch their findings in terms of a 'Conclusion.' Rather, they conclude with a section called "Discussion." This is not just semantics. They discuss their findings rather than announce a "conclusion."

You could see this yourself by simply reading one of these papers. An example of the "Discussion" from a paper I read recently:

Turning to the remaining hypotheses proposed, we note the difficulty of disentangling cohort and period effects. While our results support the claim that the main drivers of Flynn effects are environmental and vary within families, we are unable to identify the causal structure of the underlying environmental effects: Exposure occurring in any year will affect all cohorts below conscription age, but sensitivity to environmental factors may differ by age, and environmental effects may decay at different rates after exposure. The study design cannot distinguish between such possibilities, which also implies....

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/p ... 3115#sec-2
Would you seriously describe this as a "declaration of truth?"

[Jose Fly]

No hypocrisy. I don't take anything science claims on faith

So have you personally verified all the science behind computers, phones, and the internet?

There are a hundred and one million examples throughout history. Take your pick.

Name one.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Have you personally verified that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun?

[Diogenes]

Do you have specific examples where scientists merely declare something to be true?

Runner wrote:
There are a hundred and one million examples throughout history. Take your pick.

This is disingenuous. If there are 'millions' of examples' it should be easy for you to pick one. YOU are the one making the claim that scientists "declare truth," so you are the one who needs to support your claim with an example.

What you may be referring to is generalities in the media, rather than actual statements by scientists. Take an actual peer reviewed scientific journal article, cite it properly, and quote from it, showing where it "declares" something to be the "truth."

Runner wrote:
Science corrects itself publicly in the mainstream almost daily.

Conspiracies that were sneered at a decade ago, and earlier, are now accepted as common knowledge to be true.

Medical claims, as well as many other categories, from a decade ago, or earlier, are now accepted as common knowledge to be false.

Your own statements contradict your conclusion. Rather than declare something as truth, the scientific method involves collecting data and describing findings based on that data. New techniques and discovered errors result in new findings. If you actually want "a leg to stand on," quote actual scientific statements from peer reviewed scientific journals, rather than vague claims and conclusions that sound as if they came from biased blogs or pseudo science nonsense from sources like AIG and the Discovery Institute.

Anyway, here's another example of how scientists do not "declare truth," but are proud to change their positions when new facts warrant it:

The changing recommendations during the Covid-19 pandemic on things such as whether to wear face masks has confused the public and caused them to lose faith in science.
But changing your mind based on new evidence is a badge of honor in the scientific community.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-sci ... agree.html