Are science and religion in conflict with one another?

Answer 1

Why - HowReligion examines the "WHY" - Science examines the "HOW". AnswerReligion is based on faith.

Science is based on empirical evidence.

I agree with both of the other two answers. As for why do science people and religious people disagree it may have some to do with humans fighting for power, control and influence over other people. Ancient "Holy Books" are NOT science books, however it is likely that the original authors saw their writings as based on observable and verifiable facts of nature and wrote their rules of conduct in an attempt to optimize human behavior before "God" or ( the nature of Nature itself). The " rule" Thou shall not kill is not "to be taken on faith alone" but was viewed by the authors as optimal behavior for humans given the nature of nature itself. Killing other people tends to upset their family members and is therefore a good way to get yourself killed, clearly not optimal behavior. ditto, lying, cheating , stealing, ET. etc. These facts are not "taken on faith alone" but are considered by some to be "observable", based on "empirical evidence".

Answer 2

It seems as if they are in an unending conflict.

AnswerAbsolutely not, if one adopts real science and true Christianity. As a scientist and Christian I sometimes despair at the rhetoric on both sides claiming that the other is wrong.

Let's look at science first.

Science is based on having an hypothesis or theory, examining evidence for and against it, and, if the evidence always backs up the theory then it becomes a scientific law. The main (possibly, only) theory that 'contradicts' what some believe is Christianity is that of evolution, which states that life on earth evolved rather than it was created in six 'earth' days as stated in Genesis. As this literal Biblical account contradicts the wealth of information and evidence that supports a universe of 13 billion years old and the formation of life by evolution, some scientists label Christians as crackpots believing nonsense in Genesis.

Yet, science isn't as objective or infallible as some (like Dawkins) would have you believe.

When I was in research (thankfully salaried by a company) I was well familiar with others who were beholden to research grants to maintain their lifestyle and employment. And also familiar with some who were tempted to skew results to prove a particular point or another to the benefit of their benefactor. The layman can see the fruits of this when the media states that 'scientists have shown' that something or other is bad for your health, when in a year or two's time the opposite is shown. So science is not the infallable, impartial discipline that some claim it is. It should be, if all research were undertaken impartially, but it isn't.

Secondly, we must look at the religious point of view, and, specifically, Christianity. There are some Christians who insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Creationists like this often do more harm to Christianity than good, as any rational human can see that the literal interpretation of Genesis is untenable, and therefore brand, as a result, all Christians as deluded crackpots. Sadly Creationists do not appreciate that Genesis was written in the original Hebrew as an allegorical poem and was never, not even in Biblical times, expected to be taken literally. Yes, there are great truths in Genesis, and it is still God-inspired, but it is not and was never a literal account of how the world came to be. Paul only mentions Adam and Eve in passing, and then only allegorically. Jesus doesn't mention Genesis, nor Adam and Eve at all.

Even more sadly, there are some so-called Christians who piously insist that unless one believes The Bible literally (and usually the King James version only) then one cannot be a 'proper' Christian, and judge others as not true Christians, heretics or worse. Rather than regard the Bible as a god, the majority of Christians put the Bible in its rightful place; as a God-inspired tool that points us in the direction of Christ so that Christ is central in the Christian's life and not words in a book, nor arguing over minutiae of chapter and verse.

So, if science is to be true to itself, and Christianity is to be central to one's life, there is little, if any, conflict between them. Science explains admirably how the universe came to be, and how the laws of nature, placed into the universe at the moment of Creation, continue to maintain that universe and to ensure that life not only exists but flourishes. Moreover, modern science, and especially modern theories like the Anthropic Principle, point to the extreme likelihood of design rather than chance in the creation of the universe. And if design, then a designer.

Religion, and specifically Christianity, on the other hand, explains why the universe should bother to exist in the first place - as an act of unconditional and supreme love of a Creator for his creation.

And these two complement each other admirably rather than conflict.

Answer 3

Science thinks that religion is largely made of superstition. Religion thinks science is way too unconventional. But it really depends on maintaining a balance. Many scientists practice a religion! Science is based on the scientific method (see what happens, state why you think it happens, test it and adjust your original assumption to fit) while religions typically take the teachings of a person from long ago and promote this as the only truth. Because of the nature of science it has proven many once-universally accepted "truths" to be completely false; because of the conservative outlook (and the biased teachings of their senior members) of many religions some of their adherents believe science to be either evil or corrupted by heretics and agents of evil. In short, by their very natures they will be at conflict, and this is amplified by the stubborn refusal of all people to accept when they are wrong.

Answer 4

They are not, although their adherents sometimes are! 'Science' is the elimination of falsehood by means of the scientific method; thus, it never claims to have 'the truth' - science starts with an hypothesis (an idea which conforms to observation, but which can be tested and possibly demonstrated to be false, or inadequate) and which, by repeated experiment, may one day reach its highest validation; the Theory (something which has a great deal to confirm it, and no experimental contradiction). From then on, it might be tweaked a bit to incorporate later discoveries, but almost impossibly unlikely to be abandoned.

Those who are religious must be forced to agree that, if their religion is the highest form of truth, no experimental evidence will contradict it. But it is all too true that the explanatory stories of our origins, nature and destiny - what might be called the ur-hypothesis of a particular religion - has been elevated, without examination, to the status of unquestionable truth. Similarly, I have heard more that one scientist say, 'It used to be THOUGHT that...(whatever)... but now we KNOW that...(new, improved 'whatever')'. No, we know no such thing. We are nearer, but it's only a better idea; next week, another scientist may upset the whole idea.

If such a thing as Truth there be, I think it has three levels;

1. a synthesis of our understanding about the way the world works, what actually happened/ is happening/ will happen, etc. - the realms of Science, History, Psychology, etc. Subject to the scientific method. There may be an 'absolute truth' out there, but we won't ever be sure that there isn't one last tweak that we haven't found yet.

2. Personal truth; how we relate as individuals to the world as described above. Subject to change and development, as it is dependent on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual, the time, place, where it applied, etc., but can only be validated by the individual.

3. Transcendent, ultimate truth. Some mystics/spiritual leaders have claimed to have reached this form of truth, and their nature, transformed by this experience, led many to believe them. Unfortunately, they could only express it in terms of the above two types of truth. This means that well-meaning instructions on, for example, healthy living (absolutely valid in the time/place they were expressed) are adopted by later generations as unchanging, infallible expressions of the will of the deity. What should have been liberating becomes a prison, through inability to question and experiment. At this point, Science and Religion part company.

Answer 5

A:The leaders of most religions are sensible enough not to challenge scientific knowledge. The Dalai Lama has said that if science decides on a theory that conflicts with Buddhism, then Buddhism must change. However, Judaism and Christianity, to a lesser extent Islam, sometimes insist on beliefs that do not go hand in hand with science.

The main concern is with creation. Stephen Jay Gould proposed the concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). He said that the domain or magisterium for science is the empirical realm - what the universe is made from and why it works the way it does. He said that the magisterium of religion includes the ultimate meaning and moral values. These magisteria are nonoverlapping - science does not comment on the ultimate meaning of life, while religion should not comment on the natural world. On this view, science and religion can happily coexist.

Answer 6

no not really because religion is your beliefs and your culture unlike science were it has to have proof and a theory.

Answer 7

Science is proven