-
Isaiasb
48In this discussion I will briefly explain my personal beliefs then include some quotes that back my opinion. In the primacy of modern science, Roman Catholicism was it's founder. Men who were incredibly influential in science like Roger Bacon were active participants of the church. Theology was commonly called "The Queen of Science" and it still is. God guided mans discoveries, because through them we can see Him.
“Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.”
― Isaac Newton
"The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein
“The first thing we could say was simply: ‘I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth.’ The next step — at least for our contemporary consciousness — was doubt. There is no god; there is only an impersonal law that directs the fate of the world according to cause and effect. … And yet, we may with full confidence place ourselves into the hands of the higher power who, during our lifetime and in the course of the centuries, determines our faith and therewith our world and our fate.”
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you,”
-Werner Heisenberg
"The God who had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the same as the God of nature."
"uniformity is intended and accomplished by the same Wisdom and Power of which uniformity, accuracy, symmetry, consistency, and continuity of plan are important attributes,"
-James Maxewell
"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work."
-Nikola Tesla
There are many others like Buzz Aldrin who partook of communion on the Moon, these men were not perfect in their theology, but science and spirituality cannot be separate and only through Jesus can man be saved. -
wonderer1
2.2kCan it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author?
From the evolution of tetrapods.
Are you a young earth or old earth creationist? -
Tom Storm
9.1kscience and spirituality cannot be separate and only through Jesus can man be saved. — Isaiasb
This is a philosophy site not a site for proselytizing.
All you've done here again is provide a series of claims - this time in the form of cherry picked, disembodied quotes. There needs to be demonstration that any of the claims are true.
Here's a cherry picked quote response for you from Christian author and cleric Bishop Spong:-
Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense...”
― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel
Science is just a tool, an approach for acquiring reliable knowledge and getting things done. It doesn't really share space with religion, which serves other functions. -
simplyG
111The scientific method allows for scepticism whereas religion does not, to that effect they’re incompatible. Science can also be called into question whereas religion must have its claims accepted at face value.
Religion has not yet provided any vaccines to say viruses via their holy books nor has it really invented anything of notable use which science has such as electricity, the combustion engine, the aeroplane so in effect religion can hold humanity back via its dogmas which is what happened during the dark ages.
For me as a god believer it allows me to be more contemplative rather than preachy which is how you appear here. Even to me God is mysterious and raises more questions than he answers. -
Agree-to-Disagree
465Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) — Isaiasb
Not all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped. Examples from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_featuring_external_asymmetry
Birds
- the crossbill has an unusual beak in which the upper and lower tips cross each other
- the wrybill is the only species of bird with a beak that is bent sideways (always to the right)
- many owl species, such as the barn owl, have asymmetrically positioned ears that enhance sound positioning
Beasts (Mammals)
- Honey badgers of the subspecies signata have a second lower molar on the left side of their jaws, but not the right
- the caribou or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) has asymmetrical antlers. Adult males, in particular, usually possess one brow tine formed into a "shovel" shape
- the narwhal has a helical tusk on its upper left jaw
- the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) has a single nostril on its upper left head. The right nostril forms a phonic lip. The source of the air forced through the phonic lips is the right nasal passage. While the left nasal passage opens to the blow hole, the right nasal passage has evolved to supply air to the phonic lips
- the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) has complex and asymmetrical coloration on its head, with the jaw dark grey on one side and white on the other
Men (Humans)
- Humans show a systematic aurofacial asymmetry, meaning that the face (eyes, nose and mouth) are displaced to the left with respect to the midplane between the ears. In young children this asymmetry is on average 4 degrees and is easily recognized -
Agree-to-Disagree
465
One of the problems that I have with your question is that there are many different religions in the world. Are you referring to just Roman Catholicism, or all Christian religions, or some/any of the other religions in the world? -
Corvus
3.2k
I don't think Science and Religion contradict. They have different methods in their pursuit of knowledge. Science uses hypothesis, observation, evidence and verification for arriving at their knowledge, theories and answers. Religion is based on an individual's faith on the doctrine and belief of their Gods.
In history they shared and filled each other's shortcomings. Religious people tried to borrow scientific methods to justify and strengthen their arguments and claims. Science used Religious beliefs and entities such as God, as the creator of the universe etc, for the answers they cannot find.
Many famous scientists in history were not atheists or anti religious as your quotes, because they too were human beings with flesh and bones. When their bodies getting old nearing, feeling death they needed something to rely on spiritually. Even when they are young and healthy, all humans think about death and question their aftermath of deaths. Nothing really tells them about these topics apart from religion. Science was their academic and rational pursuit for truth in the material world. Religion was the therapy for human conditions and existence. -
wonderer1
2.2kMany famous scientists in history were not atheists or anti religious as your quotes... — Corvus
About those 'quotes'...
Wikiquote says the one attributed to Heisenberg is misattributed.
The second 'quote' has no attribution and Google doesn't seem to recognize it.
Finally, Einstein also said:
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
Gutkind Letter (3 January 1954), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear". The Guardian. 13 May 2008. Wikiquote -
Count Timothy von Icarus
2.8kThese are two incredibly amorphous terms and any contradiction will depend on how we define the terms. Obviously, some forms of religion contradict the well supported findings in the sciences, e.g. most forms of "young Earth creationism."
You can also see science purely as a methodology for discovering truths about the world, but often when people say "science," they also are referring to a set of metaphysical beliefs, e.g. physicalism, reductionism, etc. It really depends on who is using the term and what they mean by it. Some "science says," claims obviously contradict virtually all forms of religion.
But plenty of people have a religion that is totally compatible with their view of science. -
unenlightened
9.2kThe one true religion obviously does not conflict with true science, because the truth cannot be contradictory.
It's all the false religions and all the pseudo science that conflict. :wink: -
Corvus
3.2kIt is a pretty bad therapy, telling everyone that we suck at being humans, we deserve hell. God saves us even though we suck. — Isaiasb
The concept of hell is interesting actually.
If there were real hell for the dead, then some might find it consoling and comforting. Because if they are sent to hell, ok they might suffer horrendous punishments in there, but at least they may find a way to escape back to the earth, or immigrate from the hell to some other parallel universe to continue their new expat times.
And there are also some groups of people who enjoy the physical pain for their pleasure. For them hell punishment could be a godsend? :D
The real worry for the dead could be that there is no guarantee even for hell. An abrupt and eternal transition from a being to non-being is more depressing than possibility of being thrown into hell? Even suck, this world is the best place to be? :D -
Corvus
3.2kQuite compelling quotes from Wiki. I suppose there would be controversies on some of the historically famous and influencing scientists.
-
Alkis Piskas
2.1k
Interesting topic.
(BTW, you might want maybe to edit and complete the title of the topic as follows: "Do science and religion contradict each other?")
About Newton's quote: I wouldn't expect from any scientist or scientific mind, even in those early stages of Science, to use the symmetry of the birds --in fact, any symmetry in nature-- as an evidence of the existence of God. I find that too naive.
About Einstein's quote: He speaks about fanatic atheists. All fanatics are "slaves" of their beliefs.
In fact, whoever is guided by subconscious, emotions, irrationality and false data is as "slave" of them.
Fanatics are guided by hate towards something. Atheists are not necessarily guided by hate towards theists or theism in general. They may be just guided by rationality and pure logic. In fact, they can be even considered more rational and scientifically-minded than theists, because they base their beliefs on lack of hard evidence about the existence of a God. Whereas theists seem to ignore that lack and are based on other things --personal experience of God, religious emotions, deeply rooted beliefs, etc.-- which cannot be used in any way as a valid evidence of the existence of God and might even have nothing to do with rational thinking.
About Heisenberg's quote: "I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth."
I wonder who is really talking here? These words sound as coming from a priest teaching the Bible or Christianity, and indeed in a very authoritarian and hypnotic kind of way. Reason is totally absent here. Common reality is totally absent here. What is here are only deeply nurtured beliefs, most probably coming from childhood, having being raised in a zealously religious environment. (I can't even imagine my father, who was a deeply religious person, talking like that.)
I don't want to comment on other quotes. It already seems as if I'm trying to find faults and criticize everything that I read so far. But I'm not. In fact, I'm rather surprised to read all that, as I already mentioned in my comment of Newton's quote.
As for my opinion and answer to the topic is this: "No. Science and religion do not contradict themselves." They are totally different areas of study and knowledge. They are totally different frames of reference. They have totally different foundations. They are describing and talking about totally different things. They are experienced in a totally different manner and context. -
Agree-to-Disagree
465Mach’s dictum states that “where neither confirmation nor refutation is possible, science is not concerned.
There is no test that allows us to confirm or refute the existence of God. So the question of whether God exists or not is not something that science can answer. Belief in God is a matter of faith.
Religion can specify rules about what is right and wrong, which science can not prove or disprove.
Science can test the validity of some statements. It is possible that a statement made by a religion can be shown to be incorrect by science (i.e. there is a contradiction).
So science and religion can contradict each other for some statements. But there are other statements that science can't test (e.g. moral rules) so there can't be a contradiction for these statements. -
Wayfarer
22.5kAs already noted, it depends a great deal on what you have in mind by the two terms. Dogmatic religion and materialist science are mutually repulsive, but there are many other varieties of both.
Heisenberg was essentially Christian Platonist in his views, he used to carry a copy of the Timeaus around in his University days and remained Lutheran (unlike Neils Bohr who was atheist although not evangelically so). Newton devoted enormous amounts of time in later life to his rather eccentric commentaries on matters biblical and alchemical, although those writings are not regarded as much more than historical curiosities nowadays. James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday were both groundbreaking scientsts and devoutly religious, as this interesting New Atlantis essay shows.
There's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'.
I think the most important and difficult aspect of the question is to recognise the symbolic nature of most religious texts and also their existential implications, what they mean in terms of the living of life. Science itself is pretty removed from that dimension of existence. -
praxis
6.5kThere's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'. — Wayfarer
Some claim that Dawkins and crew believe that science disproves God but when you try to find them saying some such it’s not easy to find. What do they call that, a strawman argument? -
praxis
6.5k
New atheists like Dawkins claim there is evidence, like natural selection, that explains phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion, yes.
I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says thing like:
I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.
That’s a far cry from claiming that science disproves God. But then believers are not known for their honesty. -
Wayfarer
22.5kSome claim that Dawkins and crew believe that science disproves God but when you try to find them saying some such it’s not easy to find — praxis
The God Delusion (Dawkins) and Breaking the Spell (Dennett) are mainly about that, predicated on the claim that the theory of evolution undercuts the rationale for divine creation. -
Leontiskos
3.1k:up:
From Wikipedia:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." — The God Delusion | Wikipedia
It's simply not tenable to hold that Dawkins does not see science as undermining religion and the belief in God. Hell, just read the title of his book, "The God Delusion."
You almost made it to October. :razz: -
praxis
6.5k
Science undermines religion and the belief in God.
Science disproves God.
Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same?
It's easy to intuit that science may tend to undermine religion. How can science disprove the existence of God? No one says that, other than believers fallaciously trying to invalidate atheist arguments. -
Hanover
12.9kScience undermines religion and the belief in God.
Science disproves God.
Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same? — praxis
You're making a strained epistemological argument. When Dawkins says God can't be disproved with certainty, that hardly is a nod in favor of possible theism. He's making claims about certainty consistent with his scientific epistemology. That is, nothing can be known with certainty to the scientist. But this isn't a solipsistic claim because he does believe we can "know, " just not with certainty.
Like this: We know things about the universe exclusively through science. Through science we have no knowledge of God. We therefore know God doesn't exist.
We say what we know: "God doesn't exist."
We say "OJ killed Nicole."
Admitting each could be wrong doesn't mean we know nothing or suggest we truly harbor meaningful doubt regarding their veracity. Dawkins knows there is no God to the same degree he knows his hand is before him, but both could be wrong.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum