Religon VS Science

Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?

I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?

No.

It all depends on what religion you are talking about. If you are talking about Christianity... 😆

Thats just Christians and Science.

There is a conflict, Establsihed science is centered on materialism (Everything can be explained in terms of matter). While Religion itself revolves around vitalism ( belief in exsistences, that surpass the physical life).

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
There is a conflict, Establsihed science is centered on materialism (Everything can be explained in terms of matter). While Religion itself revolves around spiritualism ( belief in exsistences, that surpass the physical life).

There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

Originally posted by Regret
There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

I believe that much of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet. However, I am only talking about Buddhism, not Christianity.

When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.

- Bertrand Russell -

Originally posted by Regret
There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

Well since you do not represent the scientific community you cannot speak for them, honestly there is a conflict.Any scientific feild that ventures out of the established materialistic view is considered a psuedo science. so it's safe to say Science vs religion is really Vitalism vs Materialism.

Originally posted by Storm
When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.

- Bertrand Russell -

Right, I'm sure no man of science has never fought each other because of different views. 🙄

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Well since you do not represent the scientific community you cannot speak for them, honestly there is a conflict.Any scientific feild that ventures out of the established materialistic view is considered a psuedo science. so it's safe to say Science vs religion is really Vitalism vs Materialism.

You are rather narrow in your view. If something exists then it is in the realm of science. If there is anything to religion in any way then it must have some form of substance/material. If any religion is true, then the "spiritual"/supernatural is merely material aspects that follow laws we are as of yet unaware of.

American Heritage Dictionary

Science
NOUN:

1
a The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

If there is a phenomena then it can be studied through science. Religion is not exempt from this. It is not in conflict, it merely claims that it is capable of observing this phenomena while science has yet to observe them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that much of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet. However, I am only talking about Buddhism, not Christianity.

I do not believe in anything that has no substance. All spiritual/supernatural experience or phenomena is of a physical substance that as yet science is unable to observe.

So, I agree with you, although I would alter your statement to this:

"I believe that all of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet."

I also would have to qualify it with a statement that I am speaking to my belief and not other Christians' belief.

Originally posted by Regret
You are rather narrow in your view. If something exists then it is in the realm of science. If there is anything to religion in any way then it must have some form of substance/material. If any religion is true, then the "spiritual"/supernatural is merely material aspects that follow laws we are as of yet unaware of.

Perhaps you've never been in a religion but when has religion ever centered around anything material, yes there are substances but religion is centered around spiritual government and physics.

Originally posted by Regret

If there is a phenomena then it can be studied through science. Religion is not exempt from this. It is not in conflict, it merely claims that it is capable of observing this phenomena while science has yet to observe them.

<Sigh> it seems you failed to see my point, Science is established around materialism. the scientific method isn't really capable of analyzing concepts that deal with vitalsim/idealism. The scientific community is a a "Scienctism" type of body. It makes no sense for them to be able to analyze Religion with that type of philosophy.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Perhaps you've never been in a religion but when has religion ever centered around anything material, yes there are substances but religion is centered around spiritual government and physics.

Sigh> it seems you failed to see my point, Science is established around materialism. the scientific method isn't really capaable of analyzing concepts that deal with vitalsim/idealism. The scientific community is a a "Scienctism" type of body. It makes no sense for them to be able to analyze Religion with that type of philosophy.

I am a religious person.

The problem is that you, like most people, view spiritual/supernatural occurrence as something that is nonexistent, not being made up, but being separate in some way from the reality that science deals with. If something exists it is made up of something. If it is made up of something then there is something to study. If a religion claims that there is nothing there to study then they have claimed that their religion is false. Scientists view this in a similar manner, they are merely more rational than the religion is. Scientists say, we have, as of yet, been unable to find support for the spiritual/supernatural.

My point is that not your opinion is in error. You are using the terms materialism, vitalism, idealism, etc. as a means of separating existence. If there is any truth to religion then something exists. Both groups tend to separate the two because both are threatened by it. Just because people are intent on making stupid statements does not make them right.

Originally posted by Regret
I am a religious person.

The problem is that you, like most people, view spiritual/supernatural occurrence as something that is nonexistent, not being made up, but being separate in some way from the reality that science deals with. If something exists it is made up of something. If it is made up of something then there is something to study. If a religion claims that there is nothing there to study then they have claimed that their religion is false. Scientists view this in a similar manner, they are merely more rational than the religion is. Scientists say, we have, as of yet, been unable to find support for the spiritual/supernatural.

It hasn't found anything because it has limited itself to a materialistic P.O.V. How would science analyze concepts of thought or the soul. The scientific method can't be used to analyze products like the soul. And we all know that the scientific community has a Scientism view that revols around materialism. So if everything doesn't fit into their neat little view on things it doesn't exsist.

Originally posted by Regret

My point is that not your opinion is in error. You are using the terms materialism, vitalism, idealism, etc. as a means of separating existence. If there is any truth to religion then something exists. Both groups tend to separate the two because both are threatened by it. Just because people are intent on making stupid statements does not make them right.

Seperating exsistence, my friend did you know that it' has been scientifically proven that everything your five senses interacts with is just a mere signals your brain sends and not the original. everything you see, smell,taste,touch, and hear are signals. that's what our exsistence is and science merely describes and help us understand this world that we can never truly percieve. we can never interact with the original,because we have no way of analyzing it. so to say materialistic science can be applied to anything outside our sense's makes zero sense. because in the end you can't even be sure what your seeing is even real just like you can't be sure what your not seeing isn't real.

Science and religion do Not have to conflict with one another.

Science uses "applied common sense" (observation and logic) to explain the What and How of the universe. Technically speaking, whether a (transempirical) God exists or not is simply not (empirical) Science's concern. Religion, on the other hand, relies on "faith" to grasp the Why of the universe, the "Meaning of Life," which many associate with "God."

Problems arise when one tries to do the other's job.

Can Science and Religion work together to give a broader picture of reality than either alone? Depends what you mean by Science and Religion.

Science: is it defined by Method or by nature of proof? If by nature of proof--meaning strictly empirical--then No, they can't work together. But then, you're really dealing with Scientism and the problems inherent with a strictly empirical POV. If you define Science by Method--and that the tools used and data collected should reflect the domain being studied--then I would say, at the very least, that the potential exists for Science and Religion to complement one another...provided that Religion means a mindset that is open to Truth and not cemented shut by ego-serving dogma.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

As I have said many times. Science and religion were same thing until the enlightenment.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right, I'm sure no man of science has never fought each other because of different views. 🙄

Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign.

I have no doubt there are scientists who have hated each other - but no matter how they feel emotionally they can't prove or disprove a theory based on their feelings. They wait, and apply evidence. Science is littered with failed theorem, but not theorem that have failed due to one persons hate for the others theory, but theorem that could not stand up to the standards of evidence.

Religion, meanwhile, has long had a "might = right" mentality. Just ask the pagans. Oops. I forgot, when Christianity declared itself the only true religion the pagans got squashed. Not based on evidence, but upon the strength of the Christian then Islamic nations.

Ultimatly Bertrand Russell was dead on the money there based upon the historical trends both science and religion have shown.

As I have said many times. Science and religion were same thing until the enlightenment.

Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign.

Not to mention pipet tip missiles attacks in the late 90's and the mass-distillation of 1932.

Originally posted by mattrab
Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?

I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?