Are science and religon compatible?

[_EAllusion]

I think you want to ask if science and religion compliment one another.

[_marg]

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.

I'm not so sure there is such a wide divide - in my view, both "religion" and "science" involve truth, and the search for it.

I think religious groups, individuals may claim religion is a search for truth...but I don't agree that making an assertion absent evidence and even counter to known physicals laws qualifies as an intellectual [i]search[i]. There is no reason ...to reason that relying upon assertions is likely to lead to a reliable conclusion. In fact the opposite, relying upon wishful thinking, gut feelings, solely one's emotions has no reason to suggest it will lead to reliable conclusions. So I don't agree with you that religions seeks truth. I think religions claim truth and are not concerned with being objective, with seeking consensus through rational enquiry, unlike the scientific method.

There is at least written evidence (including hostile witness evidence) that there was a person named Jesus, for instance, and that this person is claimed to have said and done certain things.

I'd think good critical thinking would involve an effort to determine if those claims are true, regardless of the emotions involved.

Good critical thinking should involved an effort to determine if those claims are true and when one employs good critical thinking one finds that the evidence is very weak to support claims made solely in the N.T.

[_marg]

By ""compatible" I mean do science and religion fit together and support one another.

No they don't. As more knowledge of how the world operates is determined via science, religious claims have been shrinking. Religious claims exist where science has no say or no suggestive explanations. So historically god of the gaps arguments have been used where science has nothing to say. God of the gap arguments are mere assertions, unsupported with good evidence and reasoning. The benefit that religion offers is emotional, not intellectual.

[_Inconceivable]

Historically, no.

There is a scientific pattern here that ought not be overlooked.

[_AlmaBound]

I think religious groups, individuals may claim religion is a search for truth...but I don't agree that making an assertion absent evidence and even counter to known physicals laws qualifies as an intellectual [i]search[i]. There is no reason ...to reason that relying upon assertions is likely to lead to a reliable conclusion.

You won't get much of an argument from me here. Some of the physical assertions made, particularly within Christianity, though not restricted to it, are replete with occasions that run counter to physical laws. The miraculous is commonplace in most religious traditions, verifiable only through written testimonies of those who claim to have witnessed those events.

In fact the opposite, relying upon wishful thinking, gut feelings, solely one's emotions has no reason to suggest it will lead to reliable conclusions. So I don't agree with you that religions seeks truth. I think religions claim truth and are not concerned with being objective, with seeking consensus through rational enquiry, unlike the scientific method.

I'm not sure there is much of a difference here - sure, in the end, a person decides to either believe the evidence, whether derived from witnesses or from a geological record. But I don't think a conclusion necessarily has to be based on emotions.

Both, to my mind, rely upon rational inquiry in the search for truth.

The evidence may be irrational, witness testimony to such events and that sort of thing, but in the end, a search for the truth is the final destination of both methods. Emotions may play a part in the conclusions, but I don't think conclusions are necessarily dependent upon them.

It is either truth or fiction that Jesus died on a cross, regardless of an emotional connection to that claim.

Good critical thinking should involved an effort to determine if those claims are true and when one employs good critical thinking one finds that the evidence is very weak to support claims made solely in the N.T.

Agreed. Though I wouldn't restrict the claims to the N.T. The O.T., Talmud, Book of Mormon, and other religious traditions scriptures all make claims that are subject to verification.

I guess the question might be better phrased as Pilate is said to have asked: "What is truth?"

[_marg]

In fact the opposite, relying upon wishful thinking, gut feelings, solely one's emotions has no reason to suggest it will lead to reliable conclusions. So I don't agree with you that religions seeks truth. I think religions claim truth and are not concerned with being objective, with seeking consensus through rational enquiry, unlike the scientific method.

I'm not sure there is much of a difference here - sure, in the end, a person decides to either believe the evidence, whether derived from witnesses or from a geological record. But I don't think a conclusion necessarily has to be based on emotions.

Both, to my mind, rely upon rational inquiry in the search for truth.

Well this is my argument. If religion's methodology is "faith" that methodology requires absolutely nothing more than an assertion to warrant it. That is the antithesis of the scientific method. The scientific method requires it's theories to have predictive value, explanatory power, and o be logically consistent with the reasoning and evidence warranting the conclusion/theory.

Religion does not require rational inquiry...the scientific method is rational inquiry.

The evidence may be irrational, witness testimony to such events and that sort of thing, but in the end, a search for the truth is the final destination of both methods. Emotions may play a part in the conclusions, but I don't think conclusions are necessarily dependent upon them.

The method which religion uses yields unreliable conclusions at best, utter nonsense at worst. It's possible that claims it makes are true but by what standard can that be determined if there is no evidence, if the claims are merely assertions unsupported objectively by any stretch of the imagination? Just because religion claims or you claim religion is a search for truth does not warrant assuming that methods employed by religion is likely to reliably come up with truths. In fact when "faith" is encouraged and then used, individuals don't sort through and determine whether the claim is rational or not. They do not rationally evaluate the claim.

It is either truth or fiction that Jesus died on a cross, regardless of an emotional connection to that claim.

But if you rationally examined the evidence and found there was little objective evidence other than the source texts which are mere assertions and run counter to natural physical laws, are inconsistent with one another, if you objectively rationally evaluated that claim..you should reject it...because it is an extraordinary claims and the evidence to support it does not even come close to commensurating with the sort of claim being made.

Good critical thinking should involved an effort to determine if those claims are true and when one employs good critical thinking one finds that the evidence is very weak to support claims made solely in the N.T.

Agreed. Though I wouldn't restrict the claims to the N.T. The O.T., Talmud, Book of Mormon, and other religious traditions scriptures all make claims that are subject to verification.

However not all claims are necessarily meant to be taken as literally true. They may have been intended metaphorically. But yes, I would include all sacred books which make claims which are inconsistent with evidence, which lack supporting evidence and which make unsupported extraordinary claims.

I guess the question might be better phrased as Pilate is said to have asked: "What is truth?"

You've lost me on that one.

[_AlmaBound]

But if you rationally examined the evidence and found there was little objective evidence other than the source texts which are mere assertions and run counter to natural physical laws, are inconsistent with one another, if you objectively rationally evaluated that claim..you should reject it...because it is an extraordinary claims and the evidence to support it does not even come close to commensurating with the sort of claim being made.

Someone dying on a cross is not counter to any physical laws. That much might be considered to be true.

Resurrection, on the other hand, falls within the extraordinary, as you state, as does walking on water, feeding five thousand with a few fish and loaves, and etc.

There are, however, some evidences that there was such a person who did die on a cross. That much could be seen as scientifically accurate, within the bounds of truth, from either a religous or scientific view, couldn't it?

[_marg]

Someone dying on a cross is not counter to any physical laws. That much might be considered to be true.

You can not consider that as factually reliable information when the source is limited and biased with an agenda. If the Jesus person was so profound at the time, where is the contemporary information outside the source text N.T. by writers of the day to support this.

Resurrection, on the other hand, falls within the extraordinary, as you state, as does walking on water, feeding five thousand with a few fish and loaves, and etc.

Well what the resurrection stories and those others do, is enable one to appreciate the writers were likely unreliable in accuracy, perhaps truth.

There are, however, some evidences that there was such a person who did die on a cross. That much could be seen as scientifically accurate, within the bounds of truth, from either a religous or scientific view, couldn't it?

Sure, many people died on crosses, whether such a person lived as described has weak evidence in support.

I appreciate from your perspective that does not appear to be the case, but you are likely relying more upon faith than rational inquiry and upon information which was presented to serve an agenda and never went through the sort of process that scientific theories go through before accepted consensus.

[_moksha]

Science and Religion are indeed compatible, with science expanding the boundaries of religion through knowledge of the physical Universe and religion encompassing the whole through the metaphysical realm.
- Moksha, Still Searching for Cookies, pg.3, 2003

[_AlmaBound]

Someone dying on a cross is not counter to any physical laws. That much might be considered to be true.

You can not consider that as factually reliable information when the source is limited and biased with an agenda. If the Jesus person was so profound at the time, where is the contemporary information outside the source text N.T. by writers of the day to support this.

In part, what you say above is how I see the two as related - it remains that the evidence is what is looked at in order to come to a conclusion.

Well what the resurrection stories and those others do, is enable one to appreciate the writers were likely unreliable in accuracy, perhaps truth.

Maybe. I've wondered if the miraculous events described weren't of a "spiritual" nature, as Martin Harris might say.

I appreciate from your perspective that does not appear to be the case, but you are likely relying more upon faith than rational inquiry and upon information which was presented to serve an agenda and never went through the sort of process that scientific theories go through before accepted consensus.

Actually, to me, if there was no such person as Jesus, the whole thing would be nothing more than a morality story - a commentary on the O.T. with a manufactured fulfilment of what was interpreted as a sacrificial Messianic figure, perhaps in an attempt to explain the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and subsequent diaspora of the Jewish peoples while providing unique teachings about righteousness that seem to run counter to the accepted norm, complete with metaphorical examples and "parables" as storytelling devices.

I'll concede the point though - at the end of the day, I do believe that there was such a person as Jesus, based on the evidence, however limited, provided.