Is Religion Completely At War With Science, Or Are They Complementing Each Other?

Considering the scientific developments that have taken place over the centuries, one might argue that the Universe is just but an outcome of evolution, both biological evolution and the broader evolutionary world-view, which encompasses even the physical entities.Religion, on the other hand, teaches that the Universe was created by some Intelligent Being somewhere whom we do not understand fully. These are two extreme positions and I am often perplexed on which position to adhere to. What should we believe? Should we believe that the Universe and even the human beings came to be through the process of evolution? Or should we believe that the Universe was created? Which one is which?Science bases its arguments on empirical evidence achieved through experimentation and verification. Religion, on the other hand, works through faith. Does this mean that Religion and Science are constantly at war? And if not, how can we reconsile these two extremes?{Title edited to change from all capital letters. Also added blank lines between paragraphs. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-04-2004 08:15 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

IMHO, the two are complementary. Science deals with the HOWs while religion deals with the WHYs. I see no conflict between the two.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When religion maintains that certain beliefs must be considered "Revealed Truth" and those beliefs are amenable to scientific investigation then conflict is all but inevitable.So, if there is a conflict, it is the result of religion placing itself ahead of science - in the domain of science. If religionists are wise enough to accept that such a stance is foolish then there is no need for conflict.

You're assuming all scientists believe your version of the HOWS but alas, that's just not the case.

By the same token, if there is a conflict, it is the result of some scientests placing their views ahead of the logic and common sense of creationism, in that there's too much complexity for what is observed not to have had an intelligent designer creator to effect it all, a creator who is capabable of effecting the existence of things observed, showing appearance of age, being created suddenly.Hi Joseph. Welcome to EvC town. Nice to hear from your continent.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

I've heard this aphorism before and, I have to say, I think it's utter bull. Science can not only deal with 'why?' but it can answer it a whole load better than religion can.Want to know why you eyes feeling gummy in the morning? Ask science. Want to know why Bush won the election? Ask a statitician. Want to know why your car won't start? Ask an engineer. Want to know why someone commited a crime? Ask a evolutionary psychologist. Want to know why little jimmy died of cancer? Ask a doctor.Of course, I don't want to give the impression science has all the answers; it doesn't. But where it does it gives not only better answers than religion but more complete and more reliable ones.

In other words you believe that scientists are wrong because they actually put the knowledge won through decades of hard work over your uninformed opinions. Common sense says that that is absurd.And you know full well that this "argument" of yours is being discussed in another thread - and you have yet to adequately defend it.

Perhaps they seem complementary, but what if a portion of the religious belief contradicts the findings of the scientific community?I mean, why are you a Christian and yet believe in the evolutionary development of life on earth?Is there some part of that religious belief that makes it more plausible than...say...Shamanism, Islam...or...Fundamental Christianity?You surely had to make a choice...by what criteria did you do so?I am new to the board so these questions may have been answered by you before.I think this War/Complementary decision is individual, depending upon the willingness of the believer to adjust his belief in the face of scientific information/evidence.

---

Gravity, not just a good idea...It's the Law!!

I would hope that you are just being sarcastic in your post. I have seen enough of your replies to know that you are deeper than that.Seemingly obvious: Science can determine the mechanism by which something occurs but religion describes the reasons why those mechanisms are allowed to occur at all. ie: Why does this universe exist? Maybe for the spiders....or kittens.edited for spelling errors...at least the ones I could find.This message has been edited by LinearAq, 11-04-2004 10:38 AM

---

Gravity, not just a good idea...It's the Law!!

No, I'm not being sarcastic. I have yet to see religion answer a 'why' question more satisfactorily than science can. Can religion? I haven't seen it do so. I've seen religious people say they know such things but I've never seen them give an answer that stood up to any scrutiny.

By the same token, when you brought it up here, you knew full well that your argument is being discussed in that other thread and imo, you have yet to adequately defent it.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

quote: "Can religion? I haven't seen it do so. I've seen religious people say they know such things but I've never seen them give an answer that stood up to any scrutiny."By what criteria can you make that judgement? Scientifically? Many people here have said that science can't make that call (not sure about you specifically). The justification used to say that evolution doesn't conflict with religion is the line...evolution justs studies the process, and makes no attempt to address the impetus of that process... Can we use science to study the supernatural? I would have to limit it to the places where the supernatural affected natural. Then the explanation would be unknown, needing further investigation.Besides that, the big WHY's are necessarily individual, since people have individual relationships with God.

quote:

---

By the same token, when you brought it up here, you knew full well that your argument is being discussed in that other thread and imo, you have yet to adequately defent it.

---

Ah, back to the "don't criticise Buzsaw, or Buzsaw will falsely accuse you of doing what HE is doing" tactic.Fact: The only "repeat" on my part was a brief rebuttal to your "argument". Which YOU raised in this thread.Fact: I have adequately responded to your attack on my points in that thread. Not that there was any difficulty when you rely on inventing strawmen and making false accusations of "brainwashing" rather than honestly discussing the issue.

Ok, both of you.There is no need to start fighting over it here.You can both take it back to the other thread. Drop it here!