Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Bombadil]

Meanwhile god has unleashed a virus that has killed at least as many as the atomic bombs, put millions more out of work and provided no real reason for it. Fine, AIDS was because of the gays, noted dude, but this one?

Again it's up to the scientific community to try and put a stop to another of gods whimsies.

The virus originated from an atheist state. Goodness, this "blame God" canard spouted ad nauseam sounds like a conspiracy theory from fringe groups!

The point is that science has saved far greater, far far greater, lives than religion. Medics at the front line are putting their lives at risk to save people right now whereas certain pastors are asking for people to send their stimulus cheques to them to, I dunno, help in the fight against the virus or something.

Notwithstanding god's various disasters he periodically sends our way to message something about something we can't quite tell.

[Ayytaly]

The virus originated from an atheist state. Goodness, this "blame God" canard spouted ad nauseam sounds like a conspiracy theory from fringe groups!

Surely God knew the virus would spread? I mean, I did. So it seems like it's something a god could have realized...

For a bunch of avowed atheists, you two sound like neurotic eschatologists with your "God spread the virus to test us!" comments. Not that science didn't use humans as guinea pigs to test biowarfare on before...

[Neutraligon]

Meanwhile god has unleashed a virus that has killed at least as many as the atomic bombs, put millions more out of work and provided no real reason for it. Fine, AIDS was because of the gays, noted dude, but this one?

Again it's up to the scientific community to try and put a stop to another of gods whimsies.

The virus originated from an atheist state. Goodness, this "blame God" canard spouted ad nauseam sounds like a conspiracy theory from fringe groups!

And Islamic terrorists have come from or are part of the government of Islamic states. More then that, any major new illness comes from where nature and humans interact in unhygienic or unsafe ways, whether from nations like China, Islamic nations, or nations in Africa.

[Albrenia]

Meanwhile god has unleashed a virus that has killed at least as many as the atomic bombs, put millions more out of work and provided no real reason for it. Fine, AIDS was because of the gays, noted dude, but this one?

Again it's up to the scientific community to try and put a stop to another of gods whimsies.

The virus originated from an atheist state. Goodness, this "blame God" canard spouted ad nauseam sounds like a conspiracy theory from fringe groups!

So now if a virus appears in a Muslim nation, it's an Islamic virus? What the fuck...

God has power over everything, even stuff done by atheists in atheist nations. At least if we're talking the omnipotent type of God, not the more superhero-y type of God like the ancient Greeks had.

[Bombadil]

Science under secular rule killed a lot of people.

A number of people have been killed with 'Science' as the direct motivator, admittedly. Those subjected to Nazi's hideous experiments and the like would be in that number. However, I'm not aware of modern-type secularism (religion has no political power but is protected as a freedom of the individual) having a body count at all.

Except, as someone noted previously, those experiments can't really be separated from the centuries of built up antagonism and persecution of the Jewish people by Christianity, so they're essentially a direct result of religion.

The growth of technology, however, has certainly enabled humanity to kill on a greater scale at greater efficiency than anything else. Alas the first use humans generally put technology to is to kill people, more often than not for religious reasons.

We all go to war with god on our side.

[Neanderthaland]

Surely God knew the virus would spread? I mean, I did. So it seems like it's something a god could have realized...

For a bunch of avowed atheists, you two sound like neurotic eschatologists with your "God spread the virus to test us!" comments. Not that science didn't use humans as guinea pigs to test biowarfare on before...

I don't think I ever said that. You implied it was the case with the virus's origin being in a atheist state. I was responding to that.

Maybe you should be clearer about what your point is?

[Atheris]

A number of people have been killed with 'Science' as the direct motivator, admittedly. Those subjected to Nazi's hideous experiments and the like would be in that number. However, I'm not aware of modern-type secularism (religion has no political power but is protected as a freedom of the individual) having a body count at all.

Except, as someone noted previously, those experiments can't really be separated from the centuries of built up antagonism and persecution of the Jewish people by Christianity, so they're essentially a direct result of religion.

The growth of technology, however, has certainly enabled humanity to kill on a greater scale at greater efficiency than anything else. Alas the first use humans generally put technology to is to kill people, more often than not for religious reasons.

We all go to war with god on our side.

except for the ussr but we don't talk about those people

[Bombadil]

Except, as someone noted previously, those experiments can't really be separated from the centuries of built up antagonism and persecution of the Jewish people by Christianity, so they're essentially a direct result of religion.

The growth of technology, however, has certainly enabled humanity to kill on a greater scale at greater efficiency than anything else. Alas the first use humans generally put technology to is to kill people, more often than not for religious reasons.

We all go to war with god on our side.

except for the ussr but we don't talk about those people

No, we do not.

[Albrenia]

Surely God knew the virus would spread? I mean, I did. So it seems like it's something a god could have realized...

For a bunch of avowed atheists, you two sound like neurotic eschatologists with your "God spread the virus to test us!" comments. Not that science didn't use humans as guinea pigs to test biowarfare on before...

Science doesn't have a will, so no, science never used humans to kill so much as a bug.

God, if He actually existed, would have a will, and would have used and 'inspired' humans into acts.

[Neanderthaland]

Except, as someone noted previously, those experiments can't really be separated from the centuries of built up antagonism and persecution of the Jewish people by Christianity, so they're essentially a direct result of religion.

The growth of technology, however, has certainly enabled humanity to kill on a greater scale at greater efficiency than anything else. Alas the first use humans generally put technology to is to kill people, more often than not for religious reasons.

We all go to war with god on our side.

except for the ussr but we don't talk about those people

There is no Marx but Marx, and Lenin Trotsky Stalin is his Prophet.

[Ayytaly]

except for the ussr but we don't talk about those people

There is no Marx but Marx, and Lenin Trotsky Stalin is his Prophet.

Mao's implementation of Lysenkoism reduced the carbon footprint.

Great Leap Forward, comrade!

[Bombadil]

except for the ussr but we don't talk about those people

There is no Marx but Marx, and Lenin Trotsky Stalin is his Prophet.

Ultimately the communists replaced one top down authoritarian with another. That's their problem.

Anyway, I'm glad we've all concluded that religion is not, in fact, compatible with science - well done NSG!

[Atheris]

There is no Marx but Marx, and Lenin Trotsky Stalin is his Prophet.

Mao's implementation of Lysenkoism reduced the carbon footprint.

Great Leap Forward, comrade!

"noooo!!! you can't just kill hundreds of millions of people and force them to make steel in their backyards!!!!!!"

"haha great leap forward go sproing"

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is no Marx but Marx, and Lenin Trotsky Stalin is his Prophet.

Ultimately the communists replaced one top down authoritarian with another. That's their problem.

Anyway, I'm glad we've all concluded that religion is not, in fact, compatible with science - well done NSG!

That's far from the conclusion reached though. Maybe it's not compatible with certain strains of Abrahamic thought yeah, but this thread has not even remotely proven religion is flatly not compatible with science.

[Mirjt]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

[Bombadil]

Ultimately the communists replaced one top down authoritarian with another. That's their problem.

Anyway, I'm glad we've all concluded that religion is not, in fact, compatible with science - well done NSG!

That's far from the conclusion reached though. Maybe it's not compatible with certain strains of Abrahamic thought yeah, but this thread has not even remotely proven religion is flatly not compatible with science.

There's always one..

[Neutraligon]

Ultimately the communists replaced one top down authoritarian with another. That's their problem.

Anyway, I'm glad we've all concluded that religion is not, in fact, compatible with science - well done NSG!

That's far from the conclusion reached though. Maybe it's not compatible with certain strains of Abrahamic thought yeah, but this thread has not even remotely proven religion is flatly not compatible with science.

Like I said previously, I think that they are incompatible since the core of how they work is incompatible, even if they are able to reach similar conclusions.

[Bombadil]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

I really think we need to delineate between co-exist and compatible, for this discussion to happen it really needs people to stick to a clear definition of compatible, which is 'working together', religion can co-exist separately from science if it wasn't so prone to meddling but it is not compatible, neither have anything to offer each other.

If someone can show me a way in which religion is crucial to scientific development, that cannot adequately be achieved by philosophy then I could possibly change my mind but I haven't seen anything like that so far.

[Atheris]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

I really think we need to delineate between co-exist and compatible, for this discussion to happen it really needs people to stick to a clear definition of compatible, which is 'working together', religion can co-exist separately from science if it wasn't so prone to meddling but it is not compatible, neither have anything to offer each other.

If someone can show me a way in which religion is crucial to scientific development, that cannot adequately be achieved by philosophy then I could possibly change my mind but I haven't seen anything like that so far.

The biblical worldview had a major effect on early science in Christian Europe.

[Bombadil]

I really think we need to delineate between co-exist and compatible, for this discussion to happen it really needs people to stick to a clear definition of compatible, which is 'working together', religion can co-exist separately from science if it wasn't so prone to meddling but it is not compatible, neither have anything to offer each other.

If someone can show me a way in which religion is crucial to scientific development, that cannot adequately be achieved by philosophy then I could possibly change my mind but I haven't seen anything like that so far.

The biblical worldview had a major effect on early science in Christian Europe.

You're conflating the fact that the biblical worldview was the dominant if not only, and often enforced, worldview in Europe at that time with being responsible for scientific development, one could easily argue that scientific progression occurred despite religion not because of it, it took breaking down hierarchical structure, the renaissance and the rise of rationality to advance science in the face of religious dogma.

It's a bit like those who say 'look at religious art', art HAD to be religious in nature back then, it took breaking from those strictures for art to truly develop.

[Albrenia]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

A good post, and I think that said 'cultural' religious people would like be a lot more compatible (in the 'working together' sense) with Science than their 'more faithful' fellows. The drive to understand the wonder of the universe and to seek answers, without an ironclad dedication to certain answers.

[Mirjt]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

I really think we need to delineate between co-exist and compatible, for this discussion to happen it really needs people to stick to a clear definition of compatible, which is 'working together', religion can co-exist separately from science if it wasn't so prone to meddling but it is not compatible, neither have anything to offer each other.

If someone can show me a way in which religion is crucial to scientific development, that cannot adequately be achieved by philosophy then I could possibly change my mind but I haven't seen anything like that so far.

I think that is a very helpful response to the overall question. I hope you do not mind, but I would to rephrase what you said as a form of criterion. If I misunderstood or misrepresent or otherwise inaccurate, than please correct me.

For religion and science to be compatible (according to the standards you set forth), the following criteria must be proven.

1. That it is at least possible for religion and science to coexist peacefully and without any serious conflict in some cases, but that alone would not be enough to prove their compatibility.

2. That religion must provide some useful characteristic, frame of mind, thought process, tendency, or something that can help scientific endeavor or that scientific endeavor requires. (Though if we are requiring that religion and science be useful to one another, is it enough that one is useful to other without the latter being useful to former, or must they be mutually useful to one another?)

3. Whatever religion provides to science must be uniquely from religion, and cannot some from other sources such as philosophy.

[Bombadil]

A while back I brought up a facet of the compatibility debate that I felt was being ignored, it wasn't addressed and I feel that is a disservice to the conversation, so I will bring it up again, in case anyone would like to evaluate it. It may be so mundane or inane a question that it is not valuable to respond to and if you feel that way please feel free to ignore it.

What about purely cultural religion? There are some who practice the traditions, and worship, and holidays of their religion, who hold the values of their religion, and find value in their religious texts or mythology or so on... but they do not actually believe in the supernatural aspects of that faith, or maybe even any aspect (such as alleged historical events) of their texts/mythology/whatever. Examples could include cultural Jews, a subset of people who refer to themselves as Atheist Christians, or Atheist/Non-Theist Buddhists, etc... This is different from studying or liking a religion, as it involves actually practicing it. My question is: is purely culture religion compatible with science? or is there some kind of incompatibilty inherent in the very practices, traditions, and values of a faith?

A good post, and I think that said 'cultural' religious people would like be a lot more compatible (in the 'working together' sense) with Science than their 'more faithful' fellows. The drive to understand the wonder of the universe and to seek answers, without an ironclad dedication to certain answers.

I mean.. I celebrate Christmas despite being an avowed atheist, but then even though that is the case I would bring nothing of my observance of some religious traditions into any scientific endeavour so, again, it's not really religion working with science.

I do think community and community events/traditions are important. A friend of mine converted an old cinema into a church and convinced me to come along and just see what it was like. One thing I really noted was prior to the service, the weekly connections made between a community, I think this form of glue is important.

The service was all blood and Jesus and moaning and chanting and I left after 10 minutes highly disturbed.

However that community glue can easily be replaced, traditions and common markers of time don't require religion, it's just that given our history they tend to.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A good post, and I think that said 'cultural' religious people would like be a lot more compatible (in the 'working together' sense) with Science than their 'more faithful' fellows. The drive to understand the wonder of the universe and to seek answers, without an ironclad dedication to certain answers.

I mean.. I celebrate Christmas despite being an avowed atheist, but then even though that is the case I would bring nothing of my observance of some religious traditions into any scientific endeavour so, again, it's not really religion working with science.

I do think community and community events/traditions are important. A friend of mine converted an old cinema into a church and convinced me to come along and just see what it was like. One thing I really noted was prior to the service, the weekly connections made between a community, I think this form of glue is important.

The service was all blood and Jesus and moaning and chanting and I left after 10 months highly disturbed.

However that community glue can easily be replaced, traditions and common markers of time don't require religion, it's just that given our history they tend to.

I disagree that they can be easily replaced. That's one area where purely secular and non-religious groups have pretty resoundingly failed. That sort of social glue is deeply important and at least in most western nations secular or atheist groups and causes have not really yet been able to find something that is as good as a religious congregation on that front.

[Bombadil]

I mean.. I celebrate Christmas despite being an avowed atheist, but then even though that is the case I would bring nothing of my observance of some religious traditions into any scientific endeavour so, again, it's not really religion working with science.

I do think community and community events/traditions are important. A friend of mine converted an old cinema into a church and convinced me to come along and just see what it was like. One thing I really noted was prior to the service, the weekly connections made between a community, I think this form of glue is important.

The service was all blood and Jesus and moaning and chanting and I left after 10 months highly disturbed.

However that community glue can easily be replaced, traditions and common markers of time don't require religion, it's just that given our history they tend to.

I disagree that they can be easily replaced. That's one area where purely secular and non-religious groups have pretty resoundingly failed. That sort of social glue is deeply important and at least in most western nations secular or atheist groups and causes have not really yet been able to find something that is as good as a religious congregation on that front.

I could agree with this to be fair, a single common point around which a community or nation gathers on a regular basis and simply checks in with each other. I'm not sure it relates to working with science exactly but I think there's something beneficial in terms of coming together, having a singalong and listen to some measured advice.

I'd like to think we could create something similar but, alas, in the UK at least it's football..