DarkHelmet wrote:I don't believe they are. They both seek to find answers to the mysteries of nature and the universe, but they go about it in completely different ways, and come to vastly different conclusions.
I do think the process of science is meant to understand, explain, interpret the world to the extent we are capable of perceiving it. And in doing so that knowledge which results often has practicable useful applications. It often enables control of the environment, to make prediction which will bear out with some reliability. The scientific method is not meant to rely upon or appeal to the emotions. The method seeks to be objective, deal with factual information in an effort to reach consensus appreciation of the environment.
Religion on the other hand I don't think is about seeking knowledge of the universe. It is meant to appeal to emotions of people, which can be used for comfort purposes, can be used to manipulate and control, can be used to form cohesive groups. A problem with it is that it discourages the use of critical thinking, by its promotion of faith as a superior quality to skeptical thinking and that faith should be employed when no or even evidence which might suggest otherwise, faith should be used. This is much more likely to lead to incorrect unreliable conclusions than using a rational scientific method of reasoning which discourages faith, bias, a closedminded attitude to new information.
So religion may serve a useful purpose, and it may have good teachings, may have good leadership and may offer as a result more benefits then negatives to an individual, to a society, to the world.
However it may also be a detriment to the individual, have poor leadership which cause more harm overall than good and be a detriment to society,to the world.
I think where we are at historically is that religious groups have been allowed perhaps favorable taxation has been one reason, but they have been allowed to become too powerful financially. And finances provde power. Finances can be used to promote an agenda to serve a self interest..not the best interests of others outside the group or those in opposition to the interests of that religious group. In some sense we are fortunate there are many religious groups which oppose one another, because that helps to control and keep any one of them in particular having too much control.
It is interesting that religious people really, really want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, and want science and religion to be compatible, but scientists don't care what religious people think of them.
Science has provided results which are observable and practicable and has a reputation of offering reliable explanations. People with a religious agenda who recognize this often seek to piggy-back that agenda onto science. So I.D. proponents seek to turn their theory into being a scientific one. Often religious apologists will argue how religion and science are both means of obtaining knowledge just different methods employes. I think it is quite a stretch to suggest ...that using assertions absent evidence...is a method of seeking knowledge, which is the extent of knowledge seeking that religion doesn.
Scientists tend to be the ones claiming science and religion are incompatible, while the claim that science and religion are compatible tends to come from religious people.
People who argue for religion wish to piggy back onto science, because of the reputation science has developed. Science truly does use a rational method of seeking knowledge..religion does not have a method of seeking knowledge. They can exist together in that as long as religion does not make claims which is in opposition to science. Science addresses the natural world, it says nothing about the supernatural. So if religion makes claims about the supernatural which does not interfere with science, science has nothing to say about it. A person can believe in the existence of a particular God and still use the scientific method in reasoning in other areas of life.
Are religion and science compatible? And why does religion want so badly to be accepted by the scientific community while scientists tend to ignore religion?
The religious method of seeking knowledge if one can even suggest it does that, is to rely upon assertions and faith in the absence of evidence and contrary to evidence, as well as good reasoning. It is the antithesis of good critical thinking whereas the scientific method is what good critical thinking is about. But religion appeals to emotions, and science does not.