Do you see science and religion in conflict?

[SeekerOfKnowledge]

I do not see any conflict in science or religion itself, it is what some religious leaders and scientist make of it that creates the conflict.

When you delve into science a bit, or into art... how frequencies create music and colors, how tiny potions of energy turn into an object perceived as solid, how tiny "yes" and "no" decisions or tiny dots can create a whole world when there are enough of them, how an author can create a whole universe with just 26 symbols (more or less, depending on the language and letter system)... I won't even mention quantum physics or noetic sciences.
Brain activity is electrical energy that can be measured. Thought and emotion create magnetic fields, the magnetic field created by emotion being much stronger.

When you look at what the human body consists of or what any "matter" consists of... or how the already mentioned frequencies make musical notes and colors, how can you not be in awe? Isn't it a miracle? How can you listen to music, these frequencies which are in mathematical harmony, and not believe in God, or what ever you want to call it?
My personal interest in science started early, as a kid I had watched something at TV about chemistry where a liquid changed its color. Isn't that a kind of magic? When I heard of negative numbers for the first time I was fascinated: how can there be less than nothing?
Oh, and all the different creatures that existed during the ages, the different world views, art styles, music styles, ways of life and what not in different places and eras!

This world is a place of wonders. We just sometimes forget that.

Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rawnrr

Religion is the earliest form of science formed by our ancient ancestors in their attempt to understand life and the world around them.

As our knowledge base grew, some continued to look further into understanding while others held dogmatically to what was believed earlier, and this is where the division arose.

This dogmatic clinging to old and outdated beliefs is still happening in the in the science world as new ideas emerge only to be shot down because they go against some theories that came before.

Yes. As Max Planck put it "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, " (wikiquote).

It seems to be a common process in humans to want to grow in understanding, but are afraid to let go of old outdated concepts created by earlier explorers out of some reverence to the ideas simply because they are old.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello Rawnrr and all.

Reasoning can change direction with less discomfort than changing belief I think.

There may well be deep rooted considerations concerning personal and cultural identity which accompany holding a belief.

Where this is the case the prospect of this identity component being removed will naturally be of concern to the person affected.--Possibly to the extent of closing down enquiry and questioning.

Tru dat .

I think it probable that anyone, any of us, in a similar predicament might do the same.

Just love the other I think.

petex

[pluralone]

I think science and religion are like maps, science representing the physical and religion representing the spiritual. (With some overlap on both sides.)

Huge difference between looking at a map and experiencing the territory, and yet they're often confused as one and the same.

Thank you Alan Watts. =-)

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by satorimind

I think they are complementary. One is the book of nature, the other is the book of faith.

I like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quote from his great book, "The Great Partnership":

"Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean."

xx

I don't think there is a spiritual world and a physical world. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think there is one world. One thing I see happening is we tend to think the physical is mundane and unspiritual. I sense the opposite. The physical seems more spiritual to me than anything people usually call spiritual. We just don't see it because we're used to it and also are taught not to see it. Science is a breakthrough in human evolution because it sees the value in validating instead of assuming. This is the true path to finding answers, as well as understanding and experiencing spirituality imo.

[Rawnrr]

The spiritual world is not separate from the physical, it is part of it, as much as the physical world is a limited aspect of (what we cal) the spiritual one.
I think the word "spiritual" has many connotations that make it feel like we are speaking of something separate, because alot of fantasy and mystery has been attached to it, but it really is just another aspect of the whole we call life.

[RodCodd]

Originally Posted by satorimind

I think they are complementary. One is the book of nature, the other is the book of faith.

I like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quote from his great book, "The Great Partnership":

"Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean."

xx

I like the old adage...

Science achieves empirical ends by empirical ends;
Religion achieves non-empirical ends by non-empirical ends;
Magic achieves empirical ends by non-empirical means.

The problem is that science has no place for the subjective in its framework and so the 'self' literally disappears from view. And religion, in practice, frequently tips over into magic by its literal belief in miracles and 7 days creationism. They need to keep to their own non-overlapping domains. Science deals with the objective world, religion with the subjective. This involves a revision of our notions of what religion is. We have to read it as a form of art or literature. If you view it this way the question of whether there is a conflict between religion and science becomes as meaningless as asking whether the novel as an art form conflicts with science. However, I admit that this entails a revisionist theory of religion. ROD

[Steven]

Both are hampered by internal and external politics unfortunately (but what man-made constructs/groups aren't?).
Neither of them like you to cross the boundaries or rock the boat.

It's unfortunately very easy to be blacklisted from either by asking the wrong questions.

[paperw1ngs]

Originally Posted by satorimind

I think they are complementary. One is the book of nature, the other is the book of faith.

I like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quote from his great book, "The Great Partnership":

"Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean."

xx

I think science and religion can be inherently conflicting within themselves. If you follow any one book whether based on "science" or "religion" too closely feeling that you can release all your self-discovery, belief, and inherit wisdom at the door in favor of a written word there is a problem. No book can ever be your personal blueprint to life. We are all on our own unique individual journey and there's no doubt that either can help a person but people must be able to take everything they read with a grain of salt unless it resonates at their core. I liken science to religion all the time in that people follow them so blindly and will fight for their meaning so strongly, but neither can be your sole path to god or wisdom but moreso a supplement in your journey. They can work harmoniously as our universe is a paradox even if they are sometimes conflicting. Most importantly people need to learn to think for themselves..

[Shivani Devi]

It depends on the religion and the science.