3 ms·

Of course, there is a conflict between religion and science. They are based on competing and inconsistent methods of acquiring knowledge. On one hand, the empir

Of course, there is a conflict between religion and science. They are based on competing and inconsistent methods of acquiring knowledge. On one hand, the empirical scientific method, and on the other revelation, authority, and faith. Whether you're a Biblical literalist or a Church of England progressive, your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. But this doesn't mean that science and religion necessarily have to be at war, or that one has to lose for the other to win. Human beings aren't perfectly logically consistent. We're quite adept at compartmentalising our minds so that we can apply one set of standards here and another there. A single human being can be a biblical literalist and a coldly-logical scientist at the same time.

beojan 9y ago
> your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (in fact, science can't tell us what is true and what isn't, it can only tell us what is more likely to be true and what is less likely) and there are some matters outside the scope of science.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  In particular, inductive reasoning starts reaching its limits when observability, reproducibility, and complexity are issues. Sometimes we invent things to push those boundaries (calculus, computers, drug trials on animals), but some complexity can be proven to be incalculable. And some results (The Milgram Experiment) are too terrible to reproduce to be worth the scientific knowledge they could offer. I think there's plenty we should be eager to learn, but I think it's realistic to think there are areas where "less incomplete understanding" is the best we can hope for.
- krapp 9y ago
  >We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (...) For the sake of argument, accepting that as true, why should religion then be accepted as the arbiter of truth for those matters outside the scope of science?
  - Fjolsvith 9y ago
    Because there are a lot of religious TV and Cable channels.
  - beojan 9y ago
    Or philosophy. Ultimately you get to choose your religion.
humanrebar 9y ago
> ...your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. "Not supportable", "not true", and "contradictory" are three different concepts. > Whether you're a Biblical literalist... How does biblical literalism contradict the scientific method and other forms of scientific inquiry?
dorian-graph 9y ago
There not as competing or inconsistent as people often think. Faith is similar to the scientific method(s). You have faith in God not purely because he's god, but because he's proved himself to be god. We learn more for ourselves as we go along. An example is from university. In first year you'll have a math lecturer who knows a lot, but you're just starting out. They'll at times ask you to take their word on it, but they invite you to study it out yourself. Sometimes you can't yet to get know though, because of ability, time, etc. And if they're so at odds, why throughout history as religion (and those practicing it) been 'scientists' themselves?
- beojan 9y ago
  > In first year you'll have a math lecturer who knows a lot, but you're just starting out. They'll at times ask you to take their word on it, Math is perhaps not the best subject to illustrate this. Math lecturers tend to prove everything they teach.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
    Except axioms.
- krapp 9y ago
  >You have faith in God not purely because he's god, but because he's proved himself to be god. Convincing yourself that God exists, even believing that God exists, in no way proves that God exists.

beojan 9y ago

> your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (in fact, science can't tell us what is true and what isn't, it can only tell us what is more likely to be true and what is less likely) and there are some matters outside the scope of science.

humanrebar 9y ago
In particular, inductive reasoning starts reaching its limits when observability, reproducibility, and complexity are issues. Sometimes we invent things to push those boundaries (calculus, computers, drug trials on animals), but some complexity can be proven to be incalculable. And some results (The Milgram Experiment) are too terrible to reproduce to be worth the scientific knowledge they could offer. I think there's plenty we should be eager to learn, but I think it's realistic to think there are areas where "less incomplete understanding" is the best we can hope for.
krapp 9y ago
>We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (...) For the sake of argument, accepting that as true, why should religion then be accepted as the arbiter of truth for those matters outside the scope of science?
- Fjolsvith 9y ago
  Because there are a lot of religious TV and Cable channels.
- beojan 9y ago
  Or philosophy. Ultimately you get to choose your religion.

humanrebar 9y ago

> ...your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. "Not supportable", "not true", and "contradictory" are three different concepts. > Whether you're a Biblical literalist... How does biblical literalism contradict the scientific method and other forms of scientific inquiry?

dorian-graph 9y ago

There not as competing or inconsistent as people often think. Faith is similar to the scientific method(s). You have faith in God not purely because he's god, but because he's proved himself to be god. We learn more for ourselves as we go along. An example is from university. In first year you'll have a math lecturer who knows a lot, but you're just starting out. They'll at times ask you to take their word on it, but they invite you to study it out yourself. Sometimes you can't yet to get know though, because of ability, time, etc. And if they're so at odds, why throughout history as religion (and those practicing it) been 'scientists' themselves?

beojan 9y ago
> In first year you'll have a math lecturer who knows a lot, but you're just starting out. They'll at times ask you to take their word on it, Math is perhaps not the best subject to illustrate this. Math lecturers tend to prove everything they teach.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  Except axioms.
krapp 9y ago
>You have faith in God not purely because he's god, but because he's proved himself to be god. Convincing yourself that God exists, even believing that God exists, in no way proves that God exists.