Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 23, 2009, 12:09 (5548 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I believe that religion and science are compatible if religion is not used to twist scientific facts, and science is not used to promote claims it cannot substantiate. George has replied: "But surely this requires a redefinition of what "religion" means, and a considerable pruning in current religious dogma." - I agree, though perhaps it needs a definition rather than a redefinition. The question asked on the website you recommended is probably not precise enough, though I think we both know what was meant. There are so many religions, so many variations within the religions themselves, and so many different concepts of God that we can probably only discuss the question by confining ourselves to generalities. Obviously, fundamentalism of any kind will not be compatible with anything else. However, the main monotheistic religions all have in common a belief in a God who created the Earth and everything in it. Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident, since science has no objective evidence for such a theory. To that extent there is no reason why science and religion should not co-exist in peace and harmony. On subjects that affect religious dogma (like evolution), a Christian or Jew may simply acknowledge (as many do) that the Bible can't always be taken literally. They will still see God as being responsible for these events and the related processes. Other details, such as the omnipotence, omniscience, and loving nature of such a being are not the province of science, so the religious and the agnostic can quarrel amongst themselves on that subject, and science can just get on with examining how it all happened, or how it was all done. The choice of verbs will, of course, depend on the personal beliefs of the scientist.