3 ms·

Science and religion conflict because they're both seen as a source of truth. However, if we were mature about it we'd see that neither science or religion is

Science and religion conflict because they're both seen as a source of truth. However, if we were mature about it we'd see that neither science or religion is a source of truth, not of absolute truth anyway. The important part of science is the method of inquiry, the important part of religion is the method of building character. If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them.

gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago
Science doesn't care about 'truth', but about falsifiable explanations and predictions. This is a complete opposite of religion. Science admits there is a lot of things we don't understand, yet religion asserts a universal explanation of everything, God.
emilsedgh 11y ago
Science and religion conflict because they're both seen as a source of truth. Religion claims to be the source of [absolute] truth. Science seems to be most humble about it, always self-doubting, always open to better explanations. If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them. Religion is much more than [absolute] truth. It also claims [absolute] morality. Absolute rules. And that means their leaders, their belief and their rules are untouchable and will always be.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Good, in that case we're half way there, just need to have more guidance towards 'belief over truth' on the religious side.
marrs 11y ago
I don't think either science or religion are seen as a source of the truth. They're both methods established to help seek the truth, be it rational truth in the case of science, or irrational truth in the case of religion, but neither purport to provide absolute answers. I suppose between the times of Newton and Einstein you could say that science did purport to be able to provide all the answers, but I'm not sure that can still be claimed after Heisenberg.

gadrfgaesgysd 11y ago

Science doesn't care about 'truth', but about falsifiable explanations and predictions. This is a complete opposite of religion. Science admits there is a lot of things we don't understand, yet religion asserts a universal explanation of everything, God.

emilsedgh 11y ago

Science and religion conflict because they're both seen as a source of truth. Religion claims to be the source of [absolute] truth. Science seems to be most humble about it, always self-doubting, always open to better explanations. If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them. Religion is much more than [absolute] truth. It also claims [absolute] morality. Absolute rules. And that means their leaders, their belief and their rules are untouchable and will always be.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Good, in that case we're half way there, just need to have more guidance towards 'belief over truth' on the religious side.

marrs 11y ago

I don't think either science or religion are seen as a source of the truth. They're both methods established to help seek the truth, be it rational truth in the case of science, or irrational truth in the case of religion, but neither purport to provide absolute answers. I suppose between the times of Newton and Einstein you could say that science did purport to be able to provide all the answers, but I'm not sure that can still be claimed after Heisenberg.