Why do Fundamentalists say Science and Religion can co-exist?

[KlatooBNikto]

As far as I know, Science has its own rigorous methods of theory, observation and drawing conclusions. In Science there is no objective reality beyond what the human being perceives and experiences.

Religion ,on the other hand, erquires us to suspend Reason and accept many things on Faith.That very demand that we accept certain phenomena based on faith alone goes against the essence of Science.

The question then is: why does one even need Religion when we have the powerful tool of Science to observe and interpret our reality?

To put in simpler terms, why does one need Jerry Falwell when one has Stephen Hawking?

[Dookus]

1. well

I would argue that not very many fundamentalists feel that way. They believe the natural world is deceptive - either God tricks us ot test our faith, or Satan tricks us to make us lose our faith.

I've met precious few fundies who believe science and rationalism are worthy world-views.

[KlatooBNikto]

5. I was referring to a preacher on TV ( forget his name) that Religion is

not incompatible with Science. May be heavyweights like Falwell and Robertson have a different take on it.From the way they talk and their desire to come up with a pseudo-scientific explanation for the Creation of the Universe,the Biblical View of Human Creation and assorted scientific advances that impinge on religion, one would think that an effort is being made to cater to that segment of our population that does not readily swallow the Biblical Worldview and has a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Dookus]

13. ah

yes, there are many who maintain religion and science can co-exist. Even the famous paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book espousing that view, claiming that the fields are "non-overlapping magisteria", in other words, the questions of science cannot be addressed by religion and vice versa.

I tend to disagree. It is possible to define both endeavors so that they don't overlap, but that is certainly not reflective of the real world. Many religions DO make scientific claims (the creation of the Earth and its life forms, the great flood, etc.) and science is now beginning to encroach on areas traditionally addressed by religion. The field of evolutionary psychology, for example, is beginning to address some of the basic questions traditionally considered "religious", and combined with a greater understanding of the brain, "why is there evil?". Astrophysics, paleontology and evolutionary theory are answering the questions of "who are we?", "where did we come from?" and "how did we get here?".

Remember, religion is thousands of years old. Science is a few hundred years old. In that short time, science has answered far more questions with useful answers than religion ever has.

[zonmoy]

20. you can bet

that what they call compatibility with science is actually a twisting of science into a pretzel like shape to make it fit into their religious delusions.

[amazona]

2. the fundamentalists I know certainly do NOT say that

They say that science is a snare and a deception, exact words. Are you sure that you know real fundamentalists and not just some Baptist slackers or something. Genuine fundies are well aware that they are in competition in the marketplace of ideas and they waste no time in casting scorn on whole branches of science such as biology and geology. They don't seem to do so well with the math either.

Ever wonder how Christ could be crucified and die at 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon, he's already risen and out of the tomb on Sunday morning, and yet fundies think he was dead and buried and rose again after three days? That isn't even 48 hours, people.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[InformedSource]

8. Because science says that human being are not special, ...

do not have "dominion" over the other creatures, that the purpose of the entire universe isn't to test human faith. Science diminishes their grandiose view of themselves, tells them they are not "God's" agents on earth, denies them the right to play God and condemn other people's "sins" and generally reduces them to the level of everything else that's alive -- critters doin' their best to survive and get by. This view is very deep within them. They can't be won over. No "facts" can show them the error of their ways because, if they were to admit one little scientific truth, their entire personality structure would collapse. Their fear of this happening is what makes them potentially murderous when challenged -- witness the death threats to Sciabo's husband and the judge, witness the eagerness of the self-styled "right to life" people to execute their opponents.

They are not only wrong, they are dangerous, and thanks to President Junior and the other cynical panderers, they are gaining in power.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Yeah, I ain't never heard em say that. nt

[Warpy]

3. I know scientists who see the hand of god in everything

they discover about how this universe works. I know scientists who don't. It all depends on what's hard wired into their heads.

The danger comes when god is used as an explanation for anything. Once you start explaining phenomena by saying god did it, there is no reason for further inquiry; in fact, asking more questions becomes blasphemous.

So yes, when scientists who are believers start looking at how a god might have put the universe together, science and god can easily coexist. When the entire explanation becomes god, then they can't.

[AlienGirl]

4. Why need poetry or art either?

Mythos serves a valuable function for some people.

Tucker

[libhill]

6. I don't -

And that's like comparing Alfred E. Neuman to Albert Einstein.

[KlatooBNikto]

7. They are both Als.Don't you see some commonalities?

[libhill]

15. LOL

OK, ya got me :)

[Az]

10. The first person to explain things to people is not Stephen Hawking

Its their parents. And parents are the result of the teachings their parents gave to them. Religious tradition survives in this way (along with others).

Once a belief system takes hold in a person's mind it is difficult for competing concepts to gain a foothold. In fact that is why the fundamentalists are in large part so fanatical about getting their teachings into schools. If they don't keep the pressure and indoctrination up on the kids then the alternate teachings of science may be able to gain a hold that severes their grasp.

[KlatooBNikto]

12. Very good point.

[arwalden]

11. Because They Like To Lie?

[Tux]

14. People

Are basically hardwired for religion or specifically for a belief in god or no god, depending on it's strength. The rest is commentary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. I tend to agree with that, to a degree.

My dad never had much use for religion, and abhored the idea of a religious ceremony for his funeral.

My mom goes to services every week.

My oldest and younger sisters are both UU.

My middle sister is fundie.

I am an atheist. Tried a lot of things, but none of them took. Couldn't get past the fundamental belief that there is a guiding intelligence behind all this, for if there is he is either a sadist or is insane. I prefer no god at all to those options.

[signmike]

16. 2+2 = 4 / 2+2 = 5 - - Ignorance is Strength

[KlatooBNikto]

17. I thought Ignorance was Bliss or sorry,Rapture. Am I wrong? Do I need

to be excommunicated?

[Inland]

18. You know who you could ask about that? A scientist.

Science doesn't intepret reality for me so much, because frankly, I don't understand much of it. In fact, most of science I just take on faith. They say quarks and string theory explain a lot. Might as well say fairys and ghosts for all it means to me.

There are plenty of scientists who are religious. They could probably explain what is missing better than a bunch of pinheads on DU.

[KlatooBNikto]

23. The important thing is you believe in what science does not because of

faith but because of its proven track record of explaining physical phenomena.You and I may not be able to understand String Theory or Quarks but other scientists are constantly at work testing these hypotheses and, unless those peers accept these ideas it will be rejected. There is no corresponding mechanism in Religion.In fact, there cannot be.


Religious Faith confines us;Science liberates our minds.

[KittyWampus]

19. Science Has Its Own Fundamentalists. Many DU'ers, For Example, Are

unable to grasp even the simple Truth that they are Materialists clinging to assumptions about the Universe that are unproven and actually at odds with empirical facts.

[KlatooBNikto]

24. As For Example?

[Solon]

30. However, some...

Duer's simply can't grasp the fact that they shouldn't attribute inaccurate labels to others because of a few postings on a semi anonymous message board.

[OHdem10]

21. If this is not rhetorical,

The Catholic Church and some mainstream church's use this phrase
in explaining different issues. Example the "BIG BAng Theory" and
Catholicism do not collide on this issue--Rather the Church or
at least it did(Conservative Catholics are hi-jacking it) teach that th Big Big Bang Theory and Catholicism are compatible. It is a way
of saying belief in God does not cancel out Science.

I believe it was on Charley Rose just ecently A Scientist was a guest
who explained there are quite a few Scientists who believe in God.
One does not negate the other.

Could it have to do the educational level of those involved.???Could
it be that Denominations that believe in Literal Interpreatation of
af the bible and the bible is infallible may view Sciece differently.
I do not know.

[ananda]

22. lines are blurred

What the crazy creationist fundies have been doing the last several years is to infiltrate universities and the ranks of science in order to lend credibility to their biblical literalism. A good example is ID (Intelligent Design).

They have deliberately sought to obscure the boundaries between religion and science, and they are largely succeeding because they have managed to put a patina of academic authority on their ideas.

The whole thing reallyreallyreally sucks. Science and progress are real losers here.

And then.. look at what the fanatical fundie medical care practitioners and pharmacists are doing.. refusing to treat or give prescribed drugs to people because of their religious beliefs.

This is very very very bad.

Sue

[KlatooBNikto]

28. I think you have touched upon a point that is very important. The

religious nuts know that because of the very rigorous standards of proof required to validate a Scientific Theory, it has a greater credibility even among nonscientific people than religious mumbojumbo.So they are trying to give their claptrap theories like Intelligent Design a"patina of academic authority" as you have correctly called it. This is simply to snow the average American that Christianity is a Scientific Religion.


And as Mencken once said, "You can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American".I would just add one more item to Mencken's famous dictum. "or gullibility".

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Do pharmacists ascribe to the Hippocratic Oath? It seems to

me that refusing to provide prescribed medicine is a clear violation. If they don't like what their profession requires of them, they need to get a different profession. Otherwise, shut up and be a professional.

[Solon]

26. As far as I'm aware of, most don't....

Granted some try to distort science or religion in the vain hope of either disproving the process of one or proving the "truth" of the other. They aren't so much compatible as in they simply take up to spheres of thought in human experience, one can be explained with our eyes and ears, along with the process of self correction that is science. The other is more experiencial and not provable in a empirical way.

[Erika]

27. LDS (Mormons) believe evolution could have been God's

plan for creation of mankind. They do not believe evolution and Biblical creation are contradictory. Of course, they don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible as do many fundamentalists.

To me, science and religion can go hand in hand. However, science does not tend to control through fear as fundamental religion does.

[solinvictus]

31. Here is my view..

keeping in mind I'm something of a Gnostic about the whole deal. The Genesis story is not incompatible with science in the sense that a verse in the Bible explains the lack of meaning Time has to a presumably infinite being like God. A seven day creation is simply a metaphorical analogy to show the progression of time in God's eye; meaning it is very well likely that the five and a half billion years of Earth's existence means little to God.
Further, the Bible itself opens the possibility that we are another version of Earth and that there were other incarnations of life before us. In my view, that could well cover questions of evolution in the sense that Neandertal or other hominid species was some sort of Alpha test before humanity. Again, take the progression of time, the Garden of Eden metaphor, and interpret it through known science. Einstein himself seemed to believe in God because of his research more than his upbringing. I guess, looking at Hubble photos for instance, I can see Einstein's point: if you accept the possibility of an infinite universe or series of universes, it's not too big of a conceptual leap to accept the possibility of God.

[Dookus]

33. even if a day in Genesis is a billion years

the order is wrong. It's also inconsistent between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

The first chapter has the creation of plant life prior to the creation of the Sun. It has birds before land animals. Day and Night were created before the Sun.

There is ample evidence that things did not arise in the order Genesis claims - in either chapter 1 or chapter 2.

[regnaD kciN]

32. Because "science" is a specific category of knowledge...

...not all knowledge taken together.

There are many aspects of the world and human existence that science can tell us nothing about.

You say:

In Science there is no objective reality beyond what the human being perceives and experiences.

Actually, that's not quite true. In the specific, limited realm of science, there is no reality beyond what human beings can observe and measure. Not all of human knowledge fits into scientific observation and measurement.

From what I've observed over the past few decades, the problem arises when one realm of knowledge claims a right to take over a completely different realm. Example #1: religion invades science by claiming that the first three chapters of Genesis should trump observation of the earth's origins. Example #2: science invading metaphysics by claiming that, because evolution appears to be based (at least in part) on random mutations, that "proves" that there is no divine being or plan for the world.

[nonconformist]

34. Fundamentalists DON'T believe they can co-exist

That's the problem.

Moderate Christians do, and many believe in several "controversial" science theories such as evolution and the age of Earth. I think it's wonderful when people can be logical about certain absolutes and I commend them for it.

The Fundies reject science. They see it as a grand evil scheme designed to "kill God". Science is a pursuit of the truth, and the truth frightens Fundies because it questions what they believe at face value, no questions asked.

[adwon]

35. ...

Faith is a pretty universal characteristic of humans.

The essence of faith is not understanding the intricate details of a system but accepting that it works. It is essentially a series of assumptions.

Money is faith. It's backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

For most people, cars are an example of faith. Put the key in the ignition and it goes. Why? Who cares, it just does.

Individualism is faith. This particular faith is probably the most amusing of all.

The American belief (hint, hint) in democracy is faith. The best thing about American democracy is that pretty much any idiot can jump up and spout off nonsense. That's also the chief drawback.

The belief that science displays objective reality is probably a much greater leap of faith than any theism. That requires the assumption that the observer is both separate from the system being observed and is free of bias.

Religion does not necessarily require the suspension of reason. I invite you to try to explain the Trinity or the Incarnation without resorting to calling it a mystery. Or to consider the parables in their historical context. These are not exercises in dogma. Hell, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The belief that science reveals an objective reality is suspect at best. Can one demonstrate time? Not the passage, not the measure, but time itself?

Ancient metallurgists didn't understand the chemical changes that occur when making bronze, they just knew that it worked. They had faith in the process.

Hell, even Marxism-Leninism, a supposedly scientific ideology, was based on faith. The base assumption was that communists were on the side of history, that their victory was inevitable. Sound familiar?

Science can't explain turbulence. It can be described with words, but it's near impossible to explain mathematically. Yet, pilots can manuever through it without the assistance. They have trust (faith) in their abilities, on the basis of training and experience.



Science, religion, and philosophy are fairly serious aspects of the human experience. The fact that they are serious requires that they be treated with a fair amount of irreverence. I don't mean that they should be ridiculed or ignored, just that some things require needling to deflate an exaggerated sense of importance.

[leftofthedial]

36. one does not

need Jerry Falwell for anything

IMHO, religion is part of the problem

science is part of the solution