Religion and Science can't co-exist?

RbxT2-jAQzE&feature=dir
An excerpt from National Geography.

A shaman...helping a scientist....Irony?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Irony?

No.

Originally posted by Alliance
No.

Thank you! 😊

I feel like I'm missing the religious angle.

Are you talking about native religion and resources v. first world science and technology?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Thank you! 😊

Religion and science have coexisted for centuries.

Originally posted by Devil King
I feel like I'm missing the religious angle.

Are you talking about native religion and resources v. first world science and technology?

Well, the man is a shaman and he's trying to communicate with spirits. I would say that counts as a religious angle.

science and religion can definetly coexist. it just depends on the beliefs of the religion......if they directly contradict known facts or not. If one of the sticking points of a religion is they believe the universe is only 5 days old or is the size of Utah then no, they can't coexist.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well, the man is a shaman and he's trying to communicate with spirits. I would say that counts as a religious angle.

So you're talking about native religious practices being exploited by first world science?

Originally posted by Devil King
So you're talking about native religious practices being exploited by first world science?

That would put a negative spin on it. What I see is the opposite of what people claim to say when they declare that "religion is useless to science" (i.e. they declare religion as primitive ideas)

What I see in this video is what I've always thought to be possible...which is religion could (in some way) contribute to science.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
What I see in this video is what I've always thought to be possible...which is religion could (in some way) contribute to science.

Then I disagree with the thread title. Religion and science can co-exist. But, in this case, religion will only exist until science exploits it into no longer existing.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That would put a negative spin on it. What I see is the opposite of what people claim to say when they declare that "religion is useless to science" (i.e. they declare religion as primitive ideas)

What I see in this video is what I've always thought to be possible...which is religion could (in some way) contribute to science.

The problem here is that you are attributing the shaman's knowledge to religion, instead of acknowledging that the religion is a peripheral issue: if he gave a plant to a friend with a headache, it is most likely that his father (or whoever the previous shaman was) told him that it was a cure for a headache, not because a spirit told him to.

Originally posted by Jbill311
The problem here is that you are attributing the shaman's knowledge to religion, instead of acknowledging that the religion is a peripheral issue: if he gave a plant to a friend with a headache, it is most likely that his father (or whoever the previous shaman was) told him that it was a cure for a headache, not because a spirit told him to.

Right. So, in this case, the primitive religion (like there's any other kind) is actually trial and error science (like there's any other kind)

It wasn't the Shaman's religion that helped... It was his tribal knowledge...

I don't he means co-exist as in "Can they not kill each other?" Obviously, they can do that.

But co-exist in the sense of "Are they essentially in conflict with one another, or can they be reconciled with one another?"

There's 3 different views:
1 - They cannot co-exist and are in fundamental disagreement ("Conflicting Worlds" viewpoint)
2 - They can be reconciled both through religious belief and science, and do not need to be in conflict ("Same Worlds" viewpoint)
3 - They are in seperate realms, not related to one another, and do not need to be in conflict nor reconciled....like trying to compare botany and dentistry ("Differrent Worlds" viewpoint).

Type 1: Someone like Richard Dawkins would fall into this realm. Everything that there is to be known has the potential to be known, even if we will never reach that point. Religion, which naturally deals with that which is supernatural or paranormal, and not explainable, is in conflict with science because it doesn't make rational sense.

Type 2: Religious apologists and/or religious scientists would fall into this realm, attempting (and sometimes, but not always, succeeding) in showing how the two are not at odds with one another. Many Eastern schools of thought would agree with this, though proponents of type 1 would argue that if it is explainable through rational means, involving mystical explanations for it only obscures the truth. It should only be considered a philosophy, a set of guidelines for living life according to a set of principles. Because to mix religious belief with rational evidence is to obscure both.

Type 3: This basically stems from the idea that all religious thought is meant to be interpreted metaphorically as stories that can help humans through various stages of their lives and acheive happiness and harmony with themselves and the world around them. Once this is done, and religion is moved away from dogmatic belief, there is no conflict with science because the two aren't attempting to explain the same things two different ways. Botany/dentistry. Mythologist Joseph Campbell would be a proponent of this, and spent a lifetime explaining myths in this light.

...

Or maybe that's not what this thread is about.

😮