Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Godular]

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.

I would say that scientific learning at the time was in spite of, not due to Christian influence. Having a functional monopoly on higher education does not make them all-benevolent in their influence.

[Jedi Council]

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 am an avowed atheist, but I still celebrate Christmas, and other holidays that are commonly considered Christian. There are religious practices that have seeped into other aspects of culture because of its influence and historical importance.

But if someone say, goes to church, celebrates the major holidays, and goes through the motions without any actual belief or faith, are they even really religious?

In that case, if they lack faith, and thus the primary source of conflict with science, it's hard to say how it would effect them.

But again, I would argue that that is not really a religious person any more. And I think most people who describe themselves as "culturally jewish" or some similar term would say that they use said term for the very reason that they do not feel like they are religious.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

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.

Science has no will, but there are people who use it. Scientists generally study science in the hope of a better world.Because science can solve the problems of disease and famine. Science saves mankind.This is something religion can never do

[La Xinga]

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.

No, he does not have control of humans, unless he wants to. He allows people to be evil, because he knows no one wants to have strings on top of them. The day for the evil will come.

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.

Science has no will, but there are people who use it. Scientists generally study science in the hope of a better world.Because science can solve the problems of disease and famine. Science saves mankind.This is something religion can never do

Everything is in religion, and that includes science. The Jewish doctor Maimonides was a doctor, scientist, and a Rabbi at the same time! He even worked for the government! Science and religion are not total enemies, only when it comes to the history of earth.

And religion did, does, and will save lives!

[Upper Nan]

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.

Hold up a second. I'm an atheist, but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that art had to break away from religion in order to "truly develop" (whatever that means). Art most certainly developed even before the Renaissance. Hell, a lot of the art of the Renaissance--especially humanist art--was just backtracking to Antiquity. Regardless, art was hardly static during the Middle Ages or any other time of religious fervor. It developed just fine, it's just that the themes changed as social priorities changed. I guess you could call that "truly developing" if that's how you see it, but it's entirely subjective and hardly an indictment of religion in and of itself.

[Godular]

Everything is in religion, and that includes science. The Jewish doctor Maimonides was a doctor, scientist, and a Rabbi at the same time! He even worked for the government! Science and religion are not total enemies, only when it comes to the history of earth.

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.

And religion did, does, and will save lives!

I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

[Upper Nan]

Everything is in religion, and that includes science. The Jewish doctor Maimonides was a doctor, scientist, and a Rabbi at the same time! He even worked for the government! Science and religion are not total enemies, only when it comes to the history of earth.

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.

And religion did, does, and will save lives!

I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

I'm assuming they probably meant it in the more ethereal way of "Jesus saves," but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and instead presume they meant something along the lines of, "A drug addict 'finds Jesus' and decides to seek help and they recover from their addiction and go on to have a better life." Would that not be an example of religion saving someone's life?

[Albrenia]

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.



I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

I'm assuming they probably meant it in the more ethereal way of "Jesus saves," but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and instead presume they meant something along the lines of, "A drug addict 'finds Jesus' and decides to seek help and they recover from their addiction and go on to have a better life." Would that not be an example of religion saving someone's life?

I'd count it so, personally, in the case of someone stopping their own self destruction due to faith.

Not so much for the case of giving the credit to God when the doctors or one's own biology does all the hard work.

[Godular]

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.



I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

I'm assuming they probably meant it in the more ethereal way of "Jesus saves," but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and instead presume they meant something along the lines of, "A drug addict 'finds Jesus' and decides to seek help and they recover from their addiction and go on to have a better life." Would that not be an example of religion saving someone's life?

I suppose, though I'd just as quickly count it as 'Replace Jesus with Boobs for similar effect'...

[Upper Nan]

I'm assuming they probably meant it in the more ethereal way of "Jesus saves," but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and instead presume they meant something along the lines of, "A drug addict 'finds Jesus' and decides to seek help and they recover from their addiction and go on to have a better life." Would that not be an example of religion saving someone's life?

I'd count it so, personally, in the case of someone stopping their own self destruction due to faith.

Not so much for the case of giving the credit to God when the doctors or one's own biology does all the hard work.

And that's perfectly fair. I agree that it's particularly annoying when someone thanks God but not their doctor after a life-saving surgery. Sure, if you're a religious person and you want to thank your god(s), then do so but ffs still thank your doctor. There's no reason you can't be grateful for both of them.

I'm assuming they probably meant it in the more ethereal way of "Jesus saves," but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and instead presume they meant something along the lines of, "A drug addict 'finds Jesus' and decides to seek help and they recover from their addiction and go on to ha pve a better life." Would that not be an example of religion saving someone's life?

I suppose, though I'd just as quickly count it as 'Replace Jesus with Boobs for similar effect'...

While boobs are indeed quite powerful, I can't say I've really seen as many people turn their lives around for the sake of them (I've no doubt it happens--though it's probably more in the vein of, "I love the person the boobs are attached to and want to get clean for them").

All in all, I agree that religious faith isn't necessary to overcome struggles like addiction, but if that's the crutch some people need to lean on, who am I to begrudge them for it?

[La Xinga]

Everything is in religion, and that includes science. The Jewish doctor Maimonides was a doctor, scientist, and a Rabbi at the same time! He even worked for the government! Science and religion are not total enemies, only when it comes to the history of earth.

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.

And religion did, does, and will save lives!

I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

Wait wait wait, what do you mean by the first thing? It doesn't mean but it could be.

And.....did I say medicine?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

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.

Hold up a second. I'm an atheist, but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that art had to break away from religion in order to "truly develop" (whatever that means). Art most certainly developed even before the Renaissance. Hell, a lot of the art of the Renaissance--especially humanist art--was just backtracking to Antiquity. Regardless, art was hardly static during the Middle Ages or any other time of religious fervor. It developed just fine, it's just that the themes changed as social priorities changed. I guess you could call that "truly developing" if that's how you see it, but it's entirely subjective and hardly an indictment of religion in and of itself.

Western society has a strong religious tradition. Many of his arts are naturally related to religion. But art can't be regarded as science of this point. It's human science. In other societies, art and religion are not necessarily closely related.

[Upper Nan]

Hold up a second. I'm an atheist, but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that art had to break away from religion in order to "truly develop" (whatever that means). Art most certainly developed even before the Renaissance. Hell, a lot of the art of the Renaissance--especially humanist art--was just backtracking to Antiquity. Regardless, art was hardly static during the Middle Ages or any other time of religious fervor. It developed just fine, it's just that the themes changed as social priorities changed. I guess you could call that "truly developing" if that's how you see it, but it's entirely subjective and hardly an indictment of religion in and of itself.

Western society has a strong religious tradition. Many of his arts are naturally related to religion. But art can't be regarded as science of this point. It's human science. In other societies, art and religion are not necessarily closely related.

None of this is relevant to my comment.

[Godular]

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.



I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

Wait wait wait, what do you mean by the first thing? It doesn't mean but it could be.

And.....did I say medicine?

Religion is not in itself a cure. While a religious person might use it as a motivation to give up a bad habit or some other such thing, it is not an exclusive accomplishment.

[Dylar]

Wait wait wait, what do you mean by the first thing? It doesn't mean but it could be.

And.....did I say medicine?

Religion is not in itself a cure. While a religious person might use it as a motivation to give up a bad habit or some other such thing, it is not an exclusive accomplishment.

...I actually agree with that. Especially since many of my family members still suffer from depression. Religion definitely helps deal with it but it doesn't outright get rid of it.

[Europa Undivided]

They are not mutually exclusive.

After all, Leviticus said that we should not eat bats and that we should wash our hands.

[Geneviev]

They are not mutually exclusive.

After all, Leviticus said that we should not eat bats and that we should wash our hands.

Religion is ahead of science, yet again.

[Europa Undivided]

Everything is in religion, and that includes science. The Jewish doctor Maimonides was a doctor, scientist, and a Rabbi at the same time! He even worked for the government! Science and religion are not total enemies, only when it comes to the history of earth.

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.

And religion did, does, and will save lives!

I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

Good thing that the Bible is not a medical textbook and there are other books for that purpose.

[The Alma Mater]

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.



I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

Good thing that the Bible is not a medical textbook and there are other books for that purpose.

Then again, there are also other books for the purpose of history, morality and divining the workings of the universe.

[Godular]

Just because a religious person might utilize science does not itself make science religious in nature.



I'm sure medicines based on religion are so astonishingly effective... oh wait.

Good thing that the Bible is not a medical textbook and there are other books for that purpose.

Shame that while you are correct that the Bible is not a medical text, there are entirely too many people who rely on it for healing purposes, to exclusion.

How easily they seem to forget (or ignore) that phrase: ‘God helps those who help themselves’

[Geneviev]

Good thing that the Bible is not a medical textbook and there are other books for that purpose.

Shame that while you are correct that the Bible is not a medical text, there are entirely too many people who rely on it for healing purposes, to exclusion.

How easily they seem to forget (or ignore) that phrase: ‘God helps those who help themselves’

That phrase isn't found in the Bible. Ignoring it would be the right thing.

[Europa Undivided]

Good thing that the Bible is not a medical textbook and there are other books for that purpose.

Shame that while you are correct that the Bible is not a medical text, there are entirely too many people who rely on it for healing purposes, to exclusion.

How easily they seem to forget (or ignore) that phrase: ‘God helps those who help themselves’

Oh, you mean the ones that pretend to heal Corona in front of cameras?

We call them HERETICS.

[The Alma Mater]

Shame that while you are correct that the Bible is not a medical text, there are entirely too many people who rely on it for healing purposes, to exclusion.

How easily they seem to forget (or ignore) that phrase: ‘God helps those who help themselves’

Oh, you mean the ones that pretend to heal Corona in front of cameras?

We call them HERETICS.

What about exorcisms ?

[Europa Undivided]

Oh, you mean the ones that pretend to heal Corona in front of cameras?

We call them HERETICS.

What about exorcisms ?

I do not have the experience with exorcism to answer your question.

[Godular]

Shame that while you are correct that the Bible is not a medical text, there are entirely too many people who rely on it for healing purposes, to exclusion.

How easily they seem to forget (or ignore) that phrase: ‘God helps those who help themselves’

Oh, you mean the ones that pretend to heal Corona in front of cameras?

We call them HERETICS.

I call them morons.

Also fraudsters.

I feel similar about creationists, but that’s tangential to the point.