Are science and religion converging?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An interesting article by Richard Dawkins makes some good points: http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html

First of all, No, Religion and Science are not merging, unless you count the increasingly loose definitions for God and aspects of metaphysical philosophy as convergence.

Dawkins: [If you count Einstein and Hawking as religious, if you allow the cosmic awe of Goodenough, Davies, Sagan, and me as true religion, then religion and science have indeed merged, especially when you factor in such atheistic priests as Don Cupitt and many university chaplains. But if the term religion is allowed such a flabbily elastic definition, what word is left for conventional religion, religion as the ordinary person in the pew or on the prayer mat understands it today--indeed, as any intellectual would have understood it in previous centuries, when intellectuals were religious like everybody else?

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? If we are allowed to re-label scientific awe as a religious impulse, the case goes through on the nod. You have redefined science as religion, so it's hardly surprising if they turn out to "converge."

Another kind of marriage has been alleged between modern physics and Eastern mysticism. The argument goes as follows: Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore, Eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum theory all along]

I think the article makes some good points.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,759 • Replies: 90

No top replies

I had to post this in two forums, and actually thought that it might have gone into "Philosophy/Debate" as well.

Is there a way to "cross post" items without having to copy them completely?

Thanks,

0 Replies

if one considers that both religion and science (or more precisely, scientific method) are aspects of human consciousness that attempt to search for truth as opposed to declaring and defining truth, then both are in accord.

one might consider this linguistic exercise:

parallel lines are either two lines that never meet, or they are two lines that travel in the same direction.

so too science and religion, and the inflection of the definitions of parallel lines is apropos.

0 Replies

Science was with alchemy, astrology, or with technology for a long time serving more secular purposes, while religion has a long history of human spiritual life. Scopes and manners are quite diferent between the two. Scientists can be religious or non-religious. However a single peculiar scientist, even though successful in his specialty, cannot define religious attitudes of other scientists.

0 Replies

Though they may toy with each other from time to time,
science can never be the harmonious with religion.

People who believe in religion believe in truth though ideology,
People who believe in science believe in truth through fact.

People who want to find truth through ideology want fact to support their views. They ignore/suppress facts which would go against their ideology.

The scientific method (the basis of science) has no ideology, and therefore cannot be biased to it. It has to be based on fact (through observation, logic, testing) to be correct scientifically.

Because of this difference, science and religion will always be at odds.

0 Replies

How dare he compare science to religion?, that's a dumb comment

Science is a search to understand the world

Religion is a consolation for the weak

Simple as that. Exclamation

0 Replies

Btw, the evolving of the religions is just for surviving, since people are starting to realize how false they really are, they are nothing but a man's invention, just another tool to help civilization grow, nothing else.

0 Replies

thats pretty big talk comin from a squid

0 Replies

Dux, That was pretty dogmatic, also, and that is the problem with many mainstream religions. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

In answer to the titular question, i would certainly hope not . . .

0 Replies

Dogmatic, how come????, it's just a pretty simple concept about religion, they are a plague, they are like cockroaches, they always evolve in a pretty fast range of time so they can survive, we manage to kill a few of their species but they keep coming new ones, & those who believe is becuase they need to, they can't bare how meaningless life can be, but at the same time how incredible important one's life is.

0 Replies

Until those with religious dogma learns to value each and every life, it would have failed as a man-made organization. c.i.

0 Replies

Science and religion use different instruments for perception of the world, but their contradiction is not so significant as it is believed to be. While scientist work on disclosure of the mechanisms underlying the different processes in the Universe, it is possible to say that they acquire knowledge about the Divine design of the material world created by Lord. And in certain cases this may lead to veneration of God and admiration with the wisdom of laws that the nature was endowed with by Him.

0 Replies

Saying that a god created the laws of physics is as hilarious as saying it created you.

Divine design????, get real, it's a wonderful world, however, not a divine design.

0 Replies

Perhaps religion can be said to be converging with science, as it gradually accepts scientific explanations for formerly mysterious phenomena such as storms, stars, disease and demons.

Quantum physics admits to the possibility that the act of observation can affect physical processes, but does not suggest that God was a necessary observer.

As long as the universe does not demand worship nor answer prayers, and God will not submit to scientific study, they will maintain their exclusive spheres of influence.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Science and religion use different instruments for perception of the world, but their contradiction is not so significant as it is believed to be. While scientist work on disclosure of the mechanisms underlying the different processes in the Universe, it is possible to say that they acquire knowledge about the Divine design of the material world created by Lord. And in certain cases this may lead to veneration of God and admiration with the wisdom of laws that the nature was endowed with by Him.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're Christian. When, in the history of Christianity, has the church welcomed scientific evidence that did not confirm things they already believed? And when have they not violently opposed scientific information that went against their pre-established views of the world?

I can think of some where they persecuted the knowledgeable, and made up facts. From old times to present day. (And don't worry, I'm not attacking Christianity. Any system where you have pre-concieved ideas about how the universe works isn't open to new ideas, and that sometimes includes the scientific community.)

The dark ages, medicine and the humors, the world being round, the earth revolving around the sun, the authenticity of the shroud of turin, evolution, plague as evidence of sin comes from g-d [you name it, from leporacy to the bubonic plague to aids], facts about abortions, facts about masturbation, facts about biological anatomy (the extra biblical rib was drawn into old anatomical models, although it does not exist), creationism... I could go on.

0 Replies

...you do go on...

If you live as if there is no God, and find that there is, you will have missed everything; if you live as if there is a God, and it ends up that there is not, you will have missed nothing. My opinion (and I know its not original).

It comes down to a choice - believe it or not, its that simple.

The reasons why some expend so many calories arguing the existence or non-existence differ from person to person. I can't prove to you there is a God - you can't prove to me there's not.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...you do go on...

If you live as if there is no God, and find that there is, you will have missed everything; if you live as if there is a God, and it ends up that there is not, you will have missed nothing. My opinion (and I know its not original).

It comes down to a choice - believe it or not, its that simple.

The reasons why some expend so many calories arguing the existence or non-existence differ from person to person. I can't prove to you there is a God - you can't prove to me there's not.

This was a debate about whether religion and science will ever able to harmonize. Not about belief in g-d. It is clear what your opinion is on the worshiping vs. not worshiping g-d subject. I don't understand your statement about missing everything and missing nothing. How can someone live as if there is a g-d? What does that entail that living as though there is not a g-d doesn't?

0 Replies

The only divine I'm familiar with is a heavenly meal. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

Couple of articles in papers here today, now suggesting that those who believe in religion are delusional.
Virgin births?
Walking on water?
Rising from the dead?

It's all a little far fetched.

0 Replies

Are science and religion converging?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know