Why are this two always incompatible on each other? And why they dont correlated on each other? For what reason.
Relgion and Science are both good for the human beings. I don't see any contradiction in both of them if seen in true perspective and if understood correctly and truthfully.
Science tries to understand and be compatible with religion and religion tries to do the same with science.
The problems arise because god works in mysterious ways and isn't compatible with either one.
It's OK, you may be a religionist.
The sense of humour gene gets removed by the invisible one.
Heard any funny Imam mahdi jokes lately?
You would if you were a peaceful Ahmadi Muslim with no compulsion.
Seatle67, they are not incompatible. In fact, they are complimentary.
If you speak of the religion of Crusades, Inquisitions, and sadistic proselytizing, then I'd have to agree that these are not compatible with science, any more than the self-indulgent ridicule form of skepticism of some scientists is "compatible" with science. Both are full of ego and are toxic. Both of these abominations are incompatible with science and the true spirit of religion.
The religion of Moses parting the sea, of Gautama Siddhartha reaching Buddha-hood, and Peter walking on the Sea of Galilee, even if only for a moment, these are expressions of truth. Understanding them and approaching them is what true religion is all about.
Science is also about understanding and approaching some form of truth.
The key difference between science and religion has to do with their realms of operation.
Science deals with the realm of continuity (space, time, energy and matter). That continuity leads to predictability. Without that predictability, science wouldn't work.
Religion (or better, "spirituality") deals with the realm of discontinuity -- things like forgiveness, creation, inspiration, epiphanies, and the like. It also deals with the quest for re-awakening the spiritual immortal within each of us.
Many of the techniques used in science (logic, reason, and perhaps even mathematics) can be used in the study of spiritual things. I have done this in my research, including an analysis of the anatomy of a miracle.
The problem with science is that it has adopted the wrong paradigm for contributing directly to paranormal, spiritual or creational studies. This paradigm is "skepticism" which, contrary to the tenets of scientific method, include a rather potent bias -- "doubt." Science could survive quite well without this, if it only adopted a new paradigm, say one of "restraint" or "humility." These would serve just as well in keeping the scientist from jumping to the easiest conclusions.
Perhaps the biggest barrier in both religion and science is that of ego. This is likely the source of all evil and has maimed religion and frequently distorted science.
Do scientists fudge their data? All too often, according to one report I read. The fact that some scientists were condemning vehemently the study of NASA scientists about arsenic-loving microbes show the ugly side of skepticism. There's no need for this egotism. And perhaps a bigger example of ego run amok comes in North American anthropology and the "Clovis first" dogma. Some scientists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon for fear of what they'd find there that could ruin their careers. That type of dark age mentality does a disservice to science and humanity.
Humans are basically good. Egos are basically bad. Do the math. Humans without egos are pretty nice folks. In this kind of climate, religion and science working together can do some wonderful things. Galileo did pretty good, until he and the church let ego get in the way. Isaac Newton did pretty good, even coming up with his own biblical timeline.
Faith and facts. Faith doesn't need facts. Facts do not necessarily allow faith.
Religion is based on faith and myth. Science based on facts and evidence. Compairing the two is like mixing apples and oranges.
How would one consider comparing a 2,000 year old myth to the results of peer reviewed cross-reverenced scientific theory?
One must be refutable to even get up, the other claims to be irrefutable.
One has evidence for it's belief that are as tangible as the text appearing on my screen, medical break-throughs, real hard evidence in the treatment of cancers, the list is near endless.
The other is a fear based controlling myth designed to keep the great unwashed of the time under the control of "the word" from a few sexist goat herders.
Actually, there have been scholars and philosophers over the centuries that reconciled the two quite nicely. The danger comes when personal views on both sides are too narrow to allow other opinions. Neither the religious or the scientific is constrictive by nature, in fact those who are remarkably spiritual or remarkably logical are often the greatest free thinkers. Narrow-mindedness comes only when you assume that your answer is the only one.
You can be religious and not a scientist, religious and a scientist, atheist and a scientist or atheist and not a scientist. I personally know many people in all for categories. This any "incompatibility" can't be all that limiting to human freedom and self-determination.
Read quantum physics, they pretty much can't explain what they see without saying something about a God or creative intelligence
Did some searches and found the only ones saying that were believers who didn't have a clue about quantum physics.
Oh yeah? I have heard that they just can't explain matter at the smallest levels in the realms of science
I have personally read and heard authoritative quantum physicists say, I have no other way to explain what we see going on here, other than something like an intelligence governing it all, or a God, but they just about say, there is definitely something
You know, there is a whole world of difference between saying "I don't know" and saying "I don't know, therefore my ignorance is proof of God".
The first comes from scientists that are trying to understand the world - the second comes from the religious that have no concept of how science and evidence work hand in hand. No scientist worth anything at all would ever make the second statement; that is reserved for the religious method of "proving" something.
Typical statements might be "I don't understand how the universe could come from nothing and therefore God made it" or "I don't understand how something as complex as an eyeball could evolve naturally and therefore God did it". Neither provides facts or evidence (outside of the speakers admitted ignorance) and both are logical fallacies, but both are commonly presented on a daily basis. Just not by scientists.
This is a straight faced lie - quantum physicists say nothing of the kind anywhere.
There are a group of kwontum fizzisists wot write long words they don't unnerstand, they are not hte same thing at all.
You seem to think you know exactly what and how a million or so people, from all over the world, are going to say or speak. Very exacting, your statements are....
Interesting perspective you have of yourself.
Science only confirms the priciples already existing and working in the Universe; they don't produce any new laws that didn't exist already and which the Universe has to follow now.
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say,...
by aka-dj4 years ago
I found this via a post on facebook. Thought it worthy of reposting here, since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument.I guess the "scientists" are not...
by John Chandra4 years ago
I find science to be fascinating because it really puts things in perspective and don't know why people hold such bias towards it when it comes to conflicting with religion in some way when it only is trying to further...
by Horvath György4 years ago
How did science get so focused on the material, and why is materialism on shaky ground? Here is Bruce H. Lipton (Curriculum Vitae - http://www.brucelipton.com/curriculum-vitae/) , talking on the felonious suppression of...
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by Jason Menayan7 years ago
This is about religions (obviously not all of them, but most of the evangelical sorts, apparently) that insist that faith supersedes science, and "worship" of science is somehow something the faithful should...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.