Whom should you believe in - God or science?

Answer 1

One View:

God is one thing and science is another. They do not match.

I chose not to believe in God for the time being because its existence doesn't make sense. It's like an enemy of reason (using this from Richard Dawkins). I am far from the idea Richard Dawkins has of religion, but I agree that he is right in some good views...

The wrong side is that religion makes some people get "blind" and deny science, some deny what for me is right, some deny the certainty science has given to us.

Science gives you proof, science is the one that comes up will all the great ideas to help you, you are healthy because of science, you have a home because of science, you wear clothes because of science.

We live in a world where everyone has their own ideas, and sometimes they try to seek other people with those same ideas to not feel alone, and I find it very hard to say out loudly that I do not believe in God, but yes in science.

To believe in God or to believe in science is a choice. You either believe in one or another completely. But people in general don't want to give up on either one of them, because they recognize that they are both very very important for life to continue. To believe in a God gives them hope, to believe in science gives them certainty.

So yes, it is possible to believe in God and the truth of science knowing they don't match up, because people choose to not think about it too much.

Another view:

I do believe in the God, and I believe The Bible agreeswith science. For instance, there is a verse in the Bible that says the earth is a circle. Isaiah 40:22. That verse was written long before the people in the Middle Ages in the Roman Catholic church taught that the earth was flat. If they had read the Bible and believed it they would have known better. There are other scientific facts mentioned in the Bible. I have never found a Bible verse that says something that science does not agree with, other than the theory of evolution.

Another view:

Don't confuse scientific facts with the interpretation of those same facts.

I suggest reading Dr Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood". He is a scientist who became a Christian partly because of the disparity between scientific facts and the interpretation of those same facts. (Barry Setterfield's discoveries have really tremendous ramifications).

Another view:

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However, religion has to adapt, and believers can no longer claim their ancient scriptures as literal fact.

In earlier times, religious leaders feared the spread of science, because they knew that science would undermine much of what Christianity taught. Even during the nineteenth century, decyphering of the language of the pyramids was delayed because religious leaders feared that the hierglyphics would prove that the Egyptian civilization had continued uninterrupted through the time ascribed to Noah's Flood.

The Bible states that man was created in his present form just 6,000 years ago. Read literally, that rules out evolution, but Christians really can and do believe in theistic evolution.

Consider for example the position of the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis(1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.

And the position of the Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has said that Darwin's theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."

Another view:

Science constantly looks for "how" things work, "how" planets move, "how" our brain works. But even if science finds out everything about how the human brain functions (every chemical reactions done in our head), it would still haven't answered "WHY" our brain works the way it does. Science has chosen many years now to ignore such questions. Religion looks for that "why" questions, for the purpose human has in the world and so on.

Another view:

Of course you can. True science is just an explanation of God's creation. God created everything (including science).

Another view:

If you truly think that you can't believe both God and science, then you don't understand God. True religion istrue science. You may ask, "But what about science that contradicts the word?" Just because something's currently taught as science doesn't mean it's true. I mean the world used to be flat, and the sun used to revolve around the Earth. Are either of those true? No, but they were taught as science. God works by the principles of science, he created the earth by the principles of science: Look at the theory of evolution -- now look at the account in Genesis of the creation. Everything's in the same order: The earth formed, land comes out of the water, plants then animals then finally man... Is it a coincidence that "evolution" occurred in the same order? NO. The evolutionary theory needs some work, but it's got the basic idea down. My point? If it's true science then that's what it is. If the scriptures say it but science can't prove it, just wait, the proof will come.

Another view:

People make a huge fuss over the un-bridgeable gap between science and religion/faithzperiodz Here is a perspective that may make sense, and I hardly think that even the staunchest fundamentalist would strongly disagree.

If you are a person of faith, then clearly you 'believe' in God, and this belief is belief at a special level: it is called faith. Faith is being sure of what is hoped for, and being certain of what is not seen. So of course, believe in God. There is also no problem or conflict whatever for a person of faith to acknowledge the usefulness of science. Keep in mind that science deals with the observable [distinct from the hopes and the things unseen that are addressed through faith], and a great deal of useful medical, engineering and technological knowledge has been developed out of good science. No person is required to turn to science for all the answers to every possible question regarding life. But it makes no sense at all for anyone to reject out of hand anything remotely connected to science. Think of how utterly impossible that would be, even if you wanted to do it.

Accept whatever is useful that comes out of science, and reject what is not useful. In the long run, that is what scientists do, even if it appears otherwise in the short term. I have no trouble grasping that a scientist may have difficulty giving up an approach to which he/she has devoted a professional career, just because some 'upstart' has come up with another view. This is purely human, and there are some famous examples.

So, believe in God, and accept the usefulness of science. Isn't this a harmonious way to think of it?

Another view:

I got my PhD in a hard science about 20 years ago. While completing my degrees and since then I've associated with a lot of people immersed in science. Contrary to what seems to be the popular picture, I've found that MOST of the scientists I have talked with believe in God. It seems that the more we learn in science, the more we realize how little we know. Just as an extension of that thought, suppose we kept going and learned everything including how to create life and cause stars and planets to form - wait, you really did consider it didn't you - so if you can imagine humanity reaching that point, what is so tough about imagining another being actually pulling it off and having all the necessary knowledge to do those things? To my way of thinking God just has all the "science" worked out, including some very metaphysical things like what will make us happy in the eternities. Science seeks to form theories that can successfully predict outcomes and match observations. As we progress in science we can make more accurate predictions and match observations better, but no good scientist believes that we have perfect explanations for everything. Even the things we term "Laws" of science just boil down to very good models for describing what we observe and have been successful as foundations for building other models.

One problem we have is that pretty nearly all religions right now either claim that God once spoke to man but now does it only through written texts - and then argue about who has the right interpretation, try to incorporate all beliefs into an amalgam under a "whatever you believe is just as good as whatever someone else believes" umbrella of acceptance even when the beliefs are contradictory - which is basically chaos, or suggest that rather than seeking some omniscient source for perfect information that man is in a state of continual growth as he discovers and learns the secrets of the universe. No wonder it seems like a belief in God and a belief in science would be contradictory!

Another view:

Logical analysis -

Assumption 1: There is a physical reality

Assumption 2: There is a metaphysical (more than or not physical) reality.

Assumption #1 does not have to exclude or include assumption #2 just as parallel lines do not have to intersect.

Sorry if this is a bit abstract - but it is the foundational problem with most of the arguments that are "pro" or "con" on this issue.

Another view:

Yes - You can, some may not agree, but if I can you can, most people do not believe in both, but there is nothing to say you can't, God doesn't say science is false, and science can't prove God false, it just doesn't have proof of it, so you can believe in both if you want.

Another view:

Yes you can, but it must be True Science: it must use the Scientific Method truthfully. Basically, the scientific method is where observations/tests/experiments/data/evidence is gathered to support something put forward, and if it is disproved solely by factual empirical data that particular line of reasoning is dropped; facts are facts and should never be interpreted to make them fit some dogma: otherwise it is not True Science but Manipulated Science.

Religion is by definition non-scientific because it is about indirect, often non-factually-verifiable and spiritual things. It is hypocritical of Scientists to say they can talk about Religion and God, yet Theists and religious believers don't have the same right to talk about Science when it impinges on Religion. This is particularly so when talking about Origins. Science is supposed to be impartial and non/neutral theistic but it often isn't. It depends how conclusions are reached: it depends on non-interpretation of data. Just as Science should believe just the bare facts and all of them and not interpret them at all, so Theists should also believe everything that God tells them in His Fact-Book (ie the Bible) and not interpret them at all either.

The trouble is science can also become a religion, just as religion can also become humanistic, since both come from dis-belief in what they purport to believe in and interpretation to suit. However, True Science is in perfect agreement with True Religion: with the above proviso you can believe in both.

Another view:

You can, some may not agree, but if I can you can, most people do not believe in both, but there is nothing to say you can't, God doesn't say science is false, and science can't prove god false, it just doesn't have proof of it.

Now the main thing the Bible disagrees with science is evolution, God created life, then evolved the monkey into man to create man, we may have started as dust infused with necessary life compounds, but we ended up as a man, it doesn't say in the Bible that we didn't look like a monkey half way through our molding, think of it like we were clay and halfway between man and dirt is the disfigured figure, that was a type of monkey.

Another view:

Yes you can, because some people do it is obviously possible so the single answer to this question is yes.

Proof: A poll showed 40 percent of the scientists believed in some kind of god in a 1997 poll, therefore it is possible to believe in both, this is not an opinion because it is proven possible to believe in both because some people do.

Another view:

You can believe in anything you want. That is the nature of belief.

Another view:

You can not believe in science and God unless the science is related to the Bible and the teachings are biblical because God says you can not have two masters.

Another view:

God created science. science is merely the study of what God created. So yes, you can, because you can not say science makes sense, but God does not, because you would be presupposing "sense", I mean, where do get "sense", to you pick it off a tree. and you can't say, science gives us sense, because now your presupposing "science". and you can't say, man "studies" and gives us "science", because now your presupposing "man". Man is faulty, so how do know which man or men to trust? " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge..., -The Bible, Proverbs 1:7

Another view:

Both science and religion revolve around ignorance. The difference, however, is that science is dedicated to eradicating ignorance, to uncover the truths of the universe, whereas religion enforces ignorance, as uncovering the truth of the universe would remove all sense of mystery and the supernatural, which is where their gods and deities reside.

If you can seek to fight ignorance, and yet also enjoy the mystery while it lasts, then yes, you can believe in both. Up to a point.

Another view:

I pose that the answer is "yes". I think that Catholics believe in God and science. I really like the answer above that states that science is the study of what God created.

Another view:

Yes, I personally believe that God created something first, then helped everything evolve. The bible is not always 100% true to the word, it is symbolic many times. Perhaps the Creation, over 6 days, was really only 6 days to God, millions of years to us. Makes you think, huh?

Another view:

I look at the design of each thing, plants, animals, people etc. and have this in my heart. designer creates design. everything declares that there is a design and it is not random. I love science because it shows the wonders of God. When God Stretched out the Heavens/universe Millions of years were created in a moment of time at that fraction of a second when time began. The Word of God is always true. mans interpretation of Gods word is the failure. Listen to the scientist when they speak and they almost always use words like design.

Another view:

The scientist Sir Isaac newton was also a Christian and wrote over a million words on theology: I wonder what he would say?

Another view:

I want to believe God is the one who made the universe. Just because science says the Bible is wrong doesn't mean there isn't a God does it? I think maybe people wrote the Bible based on faith. Then King James came along and made some changes. I'm sure when you tell a story to someone else, you tend to exaggerate and embellish it to make it sound interesting. I want to believe that is what also happened with the Bible without feeling like a blasphemer.

Another view:

Scientific Creationism is a branch of Creationism that provides scientific support of the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis.

Another view:According to Hinduism there are seven basic kinds of thinking, Each of them is associated with a Hindu god.

They are,

1. Dreaming - Indra

2. Illusion - Shakti

3. Reasoning - Brahma

4. Natural thinking - Vishnu

5. Determination - Shiva

6. Status altering thinking - Shani

7. Compulsive thinking - Yama.

The seven kinds of thinking are just seven steps in which a dream is converted into an action.

Instinctive thinking is associated with the supreme Hindu god Brahman. The above seven gods are supposed to spring from Brahman.

Hinduism and Science:

1. Brahma is the Hindu god of creation or invention. Scientific reasoning is derived from Reasoning. In reasoning a few causes result in a few effects. In science a cause is associated with just one effect and an effect with just one cause. Thus, Science is an integral part of Hinduism.

2. Each Hindu god can be considered as just a scientific force and thus a Hindu can be perfectly Atheistic and scientific.

3. In Hinduism it is believed that 'I' and the Supreme Hindu god Brahman are one and the same. Thus, Brahman can be studied scientifically.

4. In science we divide the seven kinds of thinking into two parts and call the first half as Conscious thinking and the second half as Subconscious thinking.

5. There was never a conflict between god and science in Hinduism because science is an integral part of Hinduism.

God and Science:

God is like an image in the mirror and science is like an object in front of kind. Thus, a scientific minded man should never ask to prove materialistic existence of god.

Thus, a Hindu can be a ultra orthodox and yet be absolutely scientific and would never feel the transition from one to the other.

The creation account given in the Bible is proven everyday. Animals still reproduce after their kind and fruit trees and vegetables bear fruit with seeds to reproduce after their kind. Science says that it has to be reproducible in the science lab. Evolution cannot and will not ever be reproduced anywhere.

Evolution has been proven in all the experiments with fruit flies, to name a few.

I know I'm speaking to an audience of ignorance, but I have to keep beating my head against this wall until it falls.

It's about DNA.

The DNA determines how things develop.

If the DNA changes, something new happens.

It's not that hard to understand.

If the bee likes red flowers and the bee is the most prolific fornicator of flowers, then the flowers would all like to be red.

Flowers like to be fornicated.

Another view:

Yes, you can believe in God, in science, or in any thing that you wish/want to believe in.

- If you wish to get to the truth of what is, then seek out the truth for yourself in every sensible & rational way. God will reveal Himself to you in ways that no unbeliever will ever comprehend because they lack proper faith and the desire to know the truth that God offers--they rarely seek out God seriously.

- The one true God of the Holy Bible is a deity, a perfect spiritual being, the creator of our universe, and the source of all things. God is not limited by the laws of our universe and testable by science. Think about it... can any scientist test or prove that you have a soul or a spirit? How about even test/prove what secret word you may be thinking at a given time? The best they can do is scan your brain & show some electro-chemical firing & speculate what you MAY be thinking. Spirituality, philosophy, meta-physics, etc, exist because science has serious limitations when it comes to matters of the super-natural.

- Science is a methodology, a systematic, empirically derived knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. As such, it is but a tool for mankind to use in the physical & material world (but not in the spiritual realm). It cannot detect/test things of a spiritual source. It (science) is also sometimes used unwisely by some atheists in a vain attempt to discredit the archaeological, historical, & anecdotal evidence of generations of people who have had spiritual experiences.

- Evolution is a false theory. It is easily falsified by the "irreducible complexity" argument. It also provides NO credible or verifiable evidence of how DNA came into existence or a path of how it has evolved. If given a pound of every element in the universe and put out into nature with all the natural forces of the universe (electromagnetic radiation, heat, rain, wind, pressure, etc), NOT one single evolutionist can create DNA from the raw building blocks of the universe. Ask one of them to create a living ant. They can't do that either from the raw materials--not even with a lab, equipment, & the DNA blueprint of the ant. But, watching them in videos, you will hear/see them making speculative claims of how a particular feature of one creature 'evolved' from some other creature (or extinct creature). It's all wishful thinking based on false premises. If they don't present credible facts/evidence to support their 'evolution' claims--as they should--just tune it out as you would all other bunk that you see/hear.

Answer 2

You should have no problem believing in God while being a true scientist. As already stated elsewhere, science looks for the "how" and religion for the "why". They are two complementary things. Many scientists believe in God - among them the best logician after Aristotle (Godel) and the director of the Human Genome Project (Collins). Godel has even written a logical proof of God's existence. Many things in our lifes point that there is a higher purpose in the world - that has not been refuted by science. It IS a LOGICAL thing to say. My LOGIC says to me that I more than dirt and dust. In the same way many scientists have FAITH that the new 11-dimentional theories will explain the world. Moreover, who says that Logic is better than Insinct? We have our logic and out instincts to guide us [http://www.geocities.com/spiros_lidar/index]. Religion can be logical in the same way science can be relied on faith. Science looks for hard evidence, but religion is also based upon "soft"/spiritual/logical evidence. == Without god there would be no science. Why not both? Religion and science do not have to be in opposition, but religious people refuse to consider the views of scientists and scientists refuse to consider the views of religion. Scientific evidence has proven that not everything in the bible is correct, but it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. Each person can choose to interpret the bible however they choose - whether deciding that it's all a pile of absolute garbage, that it is the Word of God and therefore true to the letter, that it is partially correct, or just an interesting book. It is possible to be religious and follow the Bible without opposing science or refusing to accept it. God is based on Supernatural. Science is based on Natural Laws; I'm a Natural Man, therefore, I go for Science.

There is no conflict between God and science. The conflict arises between different views of the world. As many have stated, whether God made the world or not makes not the slightest difference whether or not a rocket works or not. The difference it makes is the attitude a person brings to their work. Thus an early Russian astronaut said he looked for God in space and could not find Him. Christian astronauts have read the Bible from space and marveled when they have looked at the earth from space and given glory to its maker.

The laws of physics and gravity do not change whether one believes or not. Many Christians who believe the Bible to be literally true are also PhD. scientists some being world-leaders in their field such as Dr Damadian who invented MRI and Dr John Baumgartner an expert in plate tectonics.

The idea that there is some kind of conflict between faith and science comes from excluding God from the world (itself an unscientific presuppositional conclusion). Yet modern science itself as we know it began through people believing in an orderly universe created by a wise God. In fact the assumption of an orderly universe makes all science possible and often testable and repeatable.

True science is on the side of those who believe in creation since belief in the alternative itself requires the unscientific belief that life arose from non-life. This is against the scientific law of biogenesis - life only comes from life, not non-life. Pasteur proved this over one hundred years ago. Even if man succeeds through a complex series of experiments in making 'life' in a text tube this cannot logically prove that it arose by chance processes. What we observe leads to the conclusion that everything in the physical world has a cause. No-one would look at a Cadillac and say it evolved, yet the world is far more complex, even the tiniest cell.

Answer 3

Sure. I know many of them in my church, alone. I am very scientific in nature, and believe in God. Some of us also believe that God created evolution, maybe to keep improving on His work. I am in a mainstream world denomination church.

Answer:

All members of class of people, no matter what it is, do not believe in the same thing in the same way. This is especially true in the case where the questioner has qualifications on the question such as "in the same way that I do." In this case both the group "scientists" the verb "believe" and the object in question "god" have enough undefined aspects to make the question impossible to answer.

For any one particular scientist the answer could be:

• Yes
• No
• By my own definition of a god
• Perhaps ... but I don't care
• Perhaps ... but I would be against whatever it represents
• etc.

It should be noted that there is no science that represents trying to prove there is a god. It lies outside of sciences work of observing and quantifying the real and physical universe. Even if a scientist believed in god, dragging divine action in to explain the unknowns would not be an option.

Answer 4

Of course you can believe in God and still be a scientist. Many scientists have been believers in God. Both the fathers of modern physics and chemistry who are Galileo and Robert Boyle were devout Christians. Gregor Mendel, the biologist who formed the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance was not just a scientist,but a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST.The scientist,Georges Lemaitre, who first proposed the big bang theory was also a Roman Catholic priest. Isaac Newton who was the cornerstone of the scientific revolution was a devout Christian who made inspiring writings on theology.Max Planck, who is considered the founder of quantum mechanics,was a Christian and served as an elder in his church in 1920 up to his death. There's really no conflict between religion and science and personally i don't think there ever was in the beginning.Charles Darwin is just one scientist.There's really no barrier separating religion and science.You can believe in God and still be a scientist.There's nothing stopping you.I think its better you go watch a video on YouTube titled "scientific proof of GOD part 1"Maybe that will convince you.

Answer 5

Sure you can. Whether or not magic and god are real remains a mystery. No matter how advanced science becomes we can neither prove or disprove either's existence.