• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why can't science and religion just get along?

I have been wondering why a lot of scientists, atheists, and other people I'm forgetting to name all have a problem with religion. I mean what's the big deal with believing in God or any other deity. I mean major atheist assholes say," Religion teaches people how to judge others who don't believe what they believe and they're all lies."

They say things like that because major religious assholes have said things like this:

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.

Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.
Source: here

What's more, four hundred years later, there are still major religious assholes saying things like this. Luckily for science, they no longer have the power they did four hundred years ago.

For now.
 
This is why I believe it takes both--unaltered and uncompromised--to fully understand ourselves and the world we live in. Why the two "must" be in opposition I will never understand, and I find it to be a terrible and unnecessary battle.


And Bingo was his name-O. This is essentially what I was trying to say in my original post. Thanks for saying it so succinctly.
 
I agree with the previous post that most people integrate both science and religion into their own lives and beliefs with no problem- as if there each subject has "fuzzy edges/unknowns" that allow the two to fit together.

It is the folks at the extremes ("There is NO WAY that there is a Creator" vs. "MY interpretation of the words of MY Sacred text is the ONLY possible Truth") that cause problems for those of us in the vast middle who think compatibility is possible (and desirable).

I once heard it described that science attempts to describe how the universe got to be here, while religion attempts to describe "why" the universe is here.

Kenneth R. Miller (author of "Finding Darwin's God") is a Catholic who teaches science and has some neat ideas on how religion & science can co-exist. Interested folks may wish to read some of his writings.
 
Science and religion are only in conflict when both parties have the wrong idea about the other. Scientists who think they have all the answers and believers who take their faith literally, they're equally wrong.

Of course, the long and painful history between the two doesn't help.

But in the mean time, I firmly believe (no pun intended. Well, not really :p ) that religion and science are not only equally valid, but necessary.
 
I have no problem with religion at all. I have a problem when people call me a selfish asshole for being atheist.

The only christians I've met all have asked me if I believe in god. When I reply no but say I respect all peoples faiths they nearly ripped my face off. I HATE those kind of people.

You can think whatever you want to think, but don't try to kill me because I don't think god is real.
 
Scientists who think they have all the answers
If they thought they had all the answers, why would they be Scientists? :rommie:

Science and Religion are in conflict because Science is based on reason and proof, while religion is based on faith and faith. Many of the religious are intimidated by the rigorous requirements of reason and become more and more hostile, to the point where they attack reason as a moral deficit. Therein lies the conflict.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why some people are actually against religion/atheism. I'm an atheist but I understand that people have always felt the need to explain how the universe works with either science, religion or both. In ancient times, they couldn't explain things with science, so they started believing in some kind of a god, gods or a spirit. I respect people of all faiths or a lack of it thereof for as long as they respect my atheism and others' faith.
 
I like science but I don’t get involved with religion because there are some crazy people who, well like I said I’m not getting involved with this any further.
 
I have no problem with religion at all. I have a problem when people call me a selfish asshole for being atheist.

At least from my own perspective, if someone is not being insulting, or otherwise being an asshole (i.e. behaving in some way that usually "earns" that name) then their belief isn't going to justify that name.

The only christians I've met all have asked me if I believe in god. When I reply no but say I respect all peoples faiths they nearly ripped my face off. I HATE those kind of people.

You can think whatever you want to think, but don't try to kill me because I don't think god is real.

Sorry to hear that happened. :(

Like I said above, when people can respect each other despite differences, I'm always glad to see that regardless of whether or not I agree. I think that both groups are very often on the defensive against each other because that respect is so rare that it's hard to believe sometimes that the other person actually MEANS it when they say they respect those who disagree.

And it's a great shame our society has reached that point.
 
People don't define their terms explicitly, and this causes confusion. Most folks addressing the failings of religion, particularly its impact on society, use "religion" as congruent with the institutional monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism in those forms that are most supportive of cultural norms. This is not the whole of religious impulse or religious belief.
 
^^ This is true. The term used should be "organized religion." Religion is seldom harmful on an individual level, but seldom helpful on an industrial level. :rommie:
 
I mean major atheist assholes say," Religion teaches people how to judge others who don't believe what they believe and they're all lies."

I have two things to say about that. One: In a sense, that person is being hypocritical. That person(which I will refer to as Todd) is doing the same thing that he said the religious people he was talking about are doing.

How so?

Yes, he was judging them when he said that they're judgmental, but that seems a little specious to me.
 
^^ This is true. The term used should be "organized religion." Religion is seldom harmful on an individual level, but seldom helpful on an industrial level. :rommie:

Actually, I think the term should be, "dogmatic religion." The conflict comes when a religion makes non-negotiable claims which are scientifically testable. For instance, the claim that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old is testable and can easily be shown to be false. A religion need not make testable claims. One that does not can not be in conflict with science.

Christianity/Islam/Judaism are fractured (especially Christianity) so there are going to be those of each of those pursuations who insist on a literal interpretation of their respective holy books and those who do not. The fundamentalists of any dogmatic religion are always going to be at odd with science (and reality) of course.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top