Thought of the day

The phrase “science and religion are compatible” is impressively dishonest. Not only is it blatantly false, but virtually no religious adherent would agree that all religions are correct. If it is recognized that not all religions can be correct, then the utterance of the compatibility phrase is inherently misleading – “religion” is not what the person espousing the view means at all. Instead he means science and his religion are compatible. Otherwise he’s claiming all religions are compatible, undermining the ultimate goal people have by using the phrase: to promote their own particular religion, hiding its obvious conflict with science.

It’s also worth noting that religion isn’t simply in conflict with the results of science; religion is also in conflict with the spirit of science. Whereas science offers methodology and a way to discover what is true, religion only offers faith – science’s biggest antagonist.

Advertisements

20 Responses

  1. They will never be 100% compatible but i don’t find science in conflict with my religion. I can’t speak for anyone else or any other religion, but it is true for me.

  2. What religion is that? Please do tell. Does anyone else know about “your” religion?

  3. It appears that WordPress subscribe web link is broken. I get a blank browser window, no matter what browser is used, even Safari on the iPhone 4.

  4. Ha! Fair enough. I am a roman catholic. I know you’ll shout and scream but I am perfectly content having spiritual truths separate from temporal truths, AND keeping them separate.

    I’ve said before that I figure science is the study of the biggest machine ever, the universe.

    The only difference is you think it to be created by pure chance and I don’t.

  5. Of course there are a ton of RCC dogma incompatible with and that conflicts with science.

    There are no spiritual truths. There is no evidence of them.

    Only in your mind is there only one difference. I don’t care what you think or who you worship or which delusions you suffer with. The overwhelming evidence proves that religion and science are incompatible. Your denial of reality is expected. It is the way you need to cope. Sorry for yor loss.

  6. Still trying to get notification working.

  7. You say there are no spiritual truths because there is no evidence of them? Two very different statements there.

    There may be no empirical evidence, but many people perceive prayer to help or are relaxed and comforted by church services. Perception is everything.

    Keeping them separated is the key. I didn’t have a problem separating my religion and my studies when working on either of my degrees.

    If science and religion are so incompatible how than can we explain the discoveries made by professional churchmen over the past centuries?

  8. FYI, Its not working for me either.

  9. Perception is nothing. Reality is everything and all there is. One can be at peace with it and not have to look without.

  10. Oh, now I’m not so sure science is with you on saying perception matters for nothing.

  11. I am a roman catholic. I know you’ll shout and scream but I am perfectly content having spiritual truths separate from temporal truths, AND keeping them separate.

    Your ‘spiritual truths’ say a person was born of a virgin. This is empirically false. There is a conflict. Even if you divide truth by labels.

    The only difference is you think it to be created by pure chance and I don’t.

    No.

    If science and religion are so incompatible how than can we explain the discoveries made by professional churchmen over the past centuries?

    This post is about philosophical incompatibility. The fact that people can hold contradictory views says nothing of what has been presented here.

  12. The world is full of philosophical incompatibilities.

    Science can only speak for what there is proof of, it cannot weigh in on what there is no test for. Those are the things that are simply out of sciences bounds.

    I can see very little of consequence that is a detriment to science coming from religion alone. For everything there are also secular foes, you will never get everyone to agree on what the correct course is, with or without religion.

  13. And how does my believing in what at worst is a statistical long shot harm science? Speaking of a male virgin birth that is.

  14. Your believing it is no problem because you are (mostly) rational. It is those who try to teach it in public school along with other religious dogma instead od science who are the problem. The US is a secular nation with freedoms guaranteed for all, not one specific whoosh cult.

  15. It is odd to talk about them as if they are both singular entities that may or may not carry some overlap. I guess the closest we can get to that is religion is an ontological issue while science is an epistemological one. In that way it’s useless to talk about incompatibility, instead asking how someone reconciles the epistemology with their ontology.

    But from what I can gather, it’s the findings of science that really make it hard for some to believe. If science showed creation on a young earth and a radiance of humanity only going back some 6000 years, would YEC believers still be denouncing science? I’m betting not. It’s not the process (after all, they still use cars and electricity and medicine [mostly]) but the findings that seem to hit home. They can complain about methodological naturalism but it’s the findings that they are upset about.

  16. When religions make empirical claims (a cracker becomes the blood and body of Christ, that a person can rise from the dead, that prayer heals people from disease, etc) then it is setting itself up for a conflict with science, who’s turf it has trod upon.

    There are some religious claims, and indeed, some religious groups, that do not violate this barrier (Deism, for instance). However, MOST CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELIEVE THESE–they believe in miracles and prayer and other things that are scientific, empirical claims.

    As for the RCC, I’m always shocked when people say they are still a part of this church. Is the prohibition against prophylactics in Africa, flat-out lies about AIDS, the persecution of gays, the inequality of women and sheltering child molesters not enough to make you leave? Seriously? I think that says a lot about their commitment to “spiritual truth” (whatever that means…).

  17. No one has to believe!

    And I’ll happily reaffirm that I am a catholic. How many people depend on the church for aid services in Africa?

    I’m shocked to hear people are still part of the democratic party for similar reasons.

    Good thing no one needs anyone else’s approval to do what they wish. If people don’t believe in condoms you can’t force them, and don’t blat on about education would show them the light, look at our teen pregnancy rate.

  18. How many people depend on the church for aid services in Africa?

    About the number at risk of catching HIV because of the Catholic dogma that comes with aid…

  19. Yes they will not get aid if they wear condoms. That’s the way it works.

    If you take a look at the catholic charities website you’ll find practically nothing about religion. I know right, the idea that charity and evangelizing are mostly kept separate is crazy.

  20. Nate–plenty of charities exist that don’t deny rights to gays, or women, or prophylactics to people or shelter child molesters. Your position is nonsensical.

    Also, teen pregnancy rates are the highest in abstinence only states.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: