Science and Religion: No Relation

One of my first posts is titled, "What Are Elements?" Admittedly, it's not very in depth or well written. I was testing the waters, and trying to determine if there was any interest in science on hubpages. I'm still undecided on how much of a demand exists for science articles, but I'm pretty sure there is only a minority audience. A hubpage member named Shahid Bukhari is the lone commenter on my very brief primer on elements, and he is insistent about debating religion even though I tried to explain science and religion are unrelated.

To anyone who feels like writing similar comments on my articles, let me re-share what I told Shahid (who, by the way, utterly ignored my reply and chose to write a long, ranting and condescending message about what he feels is an enlightened position instead).

This is my comment:

"Hi Shahid.

I don't understand why you're discussing religion in response to a post about elements. Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. Both are means used by people to explain our universe, but one is based in faith and feels it already has the answers. The other, science, approaches understanding of our universe by asking questions.

Scientists use the scientific method to test a hypothesis. The resulting data is analyzed and a conclusion is made. However, this is not the end, because the experiment must be repeated by other scientists and the results have to be analyzed further. A good scientist does not approach a problem by assuming he already knows the answer. Anyone who uses the scientific method in this manner loses credibility immediately. A scientist questions, and this is all.

So, if you're confusing me with celebrity atheists like Richard Dawkins who have discovered there is probably more money and fame in bashing religion than simply keeping their fascinating posts as members of the science community, then you should probably reconsider what it means to be a scientist or a person interested in science. I do not have all the answers, nor will I ever, but I am a firm advocate of *questioning everything*!

I will see if I can follow-up on your questions in a future hub and better explain atoms. Thanks for your comment."


More by this Author


Comments 9 comments

arthurchappell profile image

arthurchappell 5 years ago from Manchester, England

While there are areas where science and religion collide, it is wrong for religionists to gatecrash any thread dealing with science just to offer propaganda for the faith or God/s of their choice. Hopefully your threads on scientific subjects will attract the readers you want


topquark profile image

topquark 5 years ago from UK

I agree, the scientific method can shed no light on questions of religion. The very definition of faith is that it does not require evidence, whereas science relies on evidence to back up its theories. They are two very different methods of trying to explain the world. I would love to see science grow on hubpages.


alexfantastico profile image

alexfantastico 5 years ago from Victoria, Australia

Science and Religion do share a common ancestor. The Church once ordained (not sure if that is the right word?) all science. Right up until science discovered theories which clearly disproved large amounts of the Bible, after which they went their separate ways and became very different entities. So you're point still stands of course, the guy who commented on your Hub has a few screws loose. But I just wanted to point out that religion and science are "related" in a sense.


Jalus 5 years ago

I am a huge science fan. Appreciate the information - thanks!


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

Islam and Science are Totally Compatible ... In Fact, Islamic faith, requires the Muslims to See ... try Understand, The Law ... in the Applied ... of Creation.

The Lost Secular's Science needs, the Foundations of Truth ... It has to Begin now, within an Islamic Understanding of the Existential Reality.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada

Well if you can't beat them, join them. I'm a philosopher with a science background and a love for history as well as a fascination for religion. So that's what I combine in my hubs.

Hub pages is full of militant theists and militant atheists who all try to use science to make their points. Particularly the people who believe in ID and the fundamentalists. We have to correct them or at least get the correct information out so they aren't making fools of themselves and perhaps even learning something. ;)

Admittedly I'm a bit of militant atheist myself, so playing with the militant Christians is fun for me. It isn't fun for everyone, I'm sure.

But you are going to get a lot of those comments as you go along. And I see you already have on this one. My advice is just don't reply if you are uncomfortable with it.

You also have the option and right to delete unrelated comments. You can even remove your comment box. that would be a shame.

Just don't let it bother you and keep writing science hubs. You never know, you might plant a seed and actually teach some of them something.


jwood00 profile image

jwood00 5 years ago from the other side of morning Author

Hi Slarty. Communication becomes muddled on the internet without the aid of smilies, but I was not actually offended by Shahid. I'm originally from the southeastern U.S., so I'm used to religious zeal. I admire your attempts to educate people, but I wonder why it should be our responsibility. The education system in my country should be restructured, and there should be more emphasis on multiple areas of science and math from early on in a person's education. Ethics and other philosophical classes would be beneficial as well, though there would be a tremendous potential for crossing the church vs state line.

I clicked your links on your profile, and I think I know you from a certain purple yahoo group owned by an atheist actor.. :-) I'm sort of embarrassed to admit that, though, since you appear to have put far more thought into your articles than I have.

Anyway, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment on my article. :-)

PG


jwood00 profile image

jwood00 5 years ago from the other side of morning Author

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering feedback. I have not had time for hubpages since I've been back in college.


olodarkwriter profile image

olodarkwriter 5 years ago from Arkansas

Sorry, I don't agree with your premise either. Religion and science have some major similarities. As you said they are both attempts to explain the universe. But you say they are vastly different in that science asks questions and religion is based on faith. True, but the inverse is also true. The asking of questions may not be as important to religion as it is to science, but is definitely a feature of religion. But my primary thought is that you and many others totally misunderstand the concept of faith. Religious faith is NOT, as has been said tongue in cheek, believing in something you know isn't true,or more seriously, blind faith. God offers plenty of evidence for his existence, if a person is willing to see it. The problem is that most scientifically oriented people start with the assumption that there is no god, which is of course completely unscientific. Or, they start with the assumption that the existence of God and spiritual truth must be proven by the same methods as truths are proven in the physical world. This is a denial that there IS a spiritual world, which is also pretty unscientific. How can you say there is no God, no spirit realm, no anything without evidence that it isn't there?

The evidence God offers comes in two forms, the very physical world we live in, and the Holy Spirit. I simply can't blow God off when I ponder the inner workings of a cell, or the stars in the sky, or a lemon, or anything. When I walk into a Walmart, I don't remotely consider the possibility that all that is in it is the result of time, chance, heat and pressure. Obviously intelligent beings designed and created the merchandise. The evidence for many scientific answers to the questions of the cosmos simply don't answer the questions. Skipping all the way back - where did everything come from in the first place? Hawking's answer - the universe created itself out of nothing - pure gibberish, completely, ridiculously unscientific.

You probably have no understanding of the role the Holy Spirit plays in "proving God." An explanation of it would likewise be meaningless to you. Man is a spiritual being as well as physical, and just as we can communicate in the physical world, we are able to communicate in the spirit world, with God in the person of the Holy Spirit. Can you prove that with the scientific methods of the physical world? Of course not, Does that mean it isn't true? Of course not, unless you start with the unscientific premise that you KNOW there is not a god or a spirit world. .

Another huge problem in people's thinking is assuming there is no aspect of faith involved in science, that science is all hard, cold facts, an idea that I find disingenuous. The big bang, evolution. Steven Hawking's recent statement that universe could have created itself from nothing. Come on, don't tell me there is no aspect of faith involved in accepting these ideas. Having been both a Christian and a science teacher, I have concluded it takes MUCH more faith to accept these ideas than it does to believe in God and related concepts.

Anyway, instead of your premise, I would say that science and religion are intimately tied together. The spirit world is a manifestation of the creativity of God, and so is the physical world.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working