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?

[Miles]

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

"Necessarily"? No. I can well imagine a religion whose tenets never encroach on science at all. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Unitarian-Universalist religion comes pretty close.

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion.

Unfortunately, yes.

The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real.

I'm not aware of any scientist who hasn't resolved the differences between the two, more often than not by simply ignoring conflicting religious claims. The only tension I've ever seen has arisen within the religious half of the issue. Other than writing to clarify science's position on an issue I don't recall any scientist caring enough about religious claims to give a hoot. That's left to dabbling nonprofessionals like ourselves.

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.

Just to be clear, if the "greater force" is in any way supernatural, then for scientists this would be a personal matter, not professional.

Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe.

Really! You'd pick probabilities over facts? . . . Okay.

The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

Agreed, as long as they don't intrude into each other's domain, and I've never seen science take such a route. Religion on the other hand sometimes likes to cast some scientific constructions as matters of faith.

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

Personally, I don't see a religion seeking anything but control over as many followers it can. As for truth, I can't think of any religion that doesn't believe they already have it all.

.

[The Barbarian]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

[Miles]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

Hmmmmmm. I find their incompatibilities arise quite naturally sans any prodding, both having quite opposite approaches to issues. More often than not belief sits mired in complacent acceptance---If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me. Whereas science strives to resolve matters with observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence.

..

[theophile]

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

Don't seeking and declaring go together? Jesus, for example, declared himself to be the truth for those seeking it, and I see new truths declared in the news by the scientists seeking them all the time.

Seriously though, I think both sides have strong, truth-seeking cohorts, even as both sides have, let's call it, ignorant parties who will obstinately deny the truth being declared if it has even the slightest perceived conflict with their beliefs. (And sure, religion probably has much more of this behavior happening on its side than science.)

IMO it comes down to different truth-domains where each finds their place. i.e., Anything to do with the natural world: this is the domain of science. Anything outside the natural world, by which I don't mean supernatural stuff like ghosts or the existence of God, but rather moral truths, like right and wrong, who or what we can depend on (/trust!) in life, etc.: this is more properly the domain of religion.

So religion should accept what science says is true regarding the natural world. Science should at least have an open mind to what religion says on more supernatural affairs. And both science and religion should continue seeking truth across the board no matter what has been declared.

[Diogenes]

Don't seeking and declaring go together? Jesus, for example, declared himself to be the truth for those seeking it, and I see new truths declared in the news by the scientists seeking them all the time.

No they do not 'go together in the least little bit. I don't believe Jesus ever declared himself to be 'the truth.' This bit of nonsense comes only from the anonymous Gospel of John. Science at least strives toward truth. Religion strives to prove IT is truth.
Each religion claims to HAVE the truth, to BE the truth. If you already believe X to be the truth, you only defend that position instead of strive for truth itself.
Science as a whole seeks truth, even if it is different that whatever current view is accepted. Samuel Taylor Coleridge put the religious problem well when he wrote on loving truth above all else:

'He who begins by loving Christianity, better than truth,
will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than
Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.'

[william7]

No they do not 'go together in the least little bit.

I have to agree on this in light of the fact that one side thinks humans evolved by chance, and, with a little help from science, humans can evolve into a godlike machine leaving flesh in blood humans on the ash heap of history. See, for example, https://defeatthebeast.weebly.com/a-hig ... babel.html

[brunumb]

No they do not 'go together in the least little bit.

I have to agree on this in light of the fact that one side thinks humans evolved by chance and with a little help from science humans can evolve into a godlike machine leaving flesh in blood* humans on the ash heap of history. See, for example, https://defeatthebeast.weebly.com/a-hig ... babel.html

You might be confusing science fiction with science.

*flesh and blood (you're welcome)

[william7]

You might be confusing science fiction with science.

*flesh and blood (you're welcome)

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. On the off chance you’re suggesting that what I’m saying isn’t accurate you need to look at the link I gave. Or, watch the 60 Minutes You Tube video “Yuval Noah Harari: The 2021 60 Minutes interview”, at
Atheist computer scientists are working on a powerful quantum computer AI god and on brain computer interfaces for humans as we speak. This has been in the mainstream media for some time.

[PolytheistWitch]

The only people who mix science and religion are those that believe every word in a sacred text is fact. That's not every single theist and it's certainly not every religion.