Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

[kowalskil]

Can science and religion coexist peacefully? This is a good question to start an interesting discussion. See how it was answered by many smart people at my website:

  http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/donotmix.html

P.S.

To coexist peacefully means not to fight with each other. It does not mean that every scientist must be a deist (believer in God) and every deist must be a scientist.

To accept is not the same thing as to tolerate. Mutual tolerance is sufficient for peaceful coexistence of science and religion.

Many atheists (those who want "to convert" others) are neither scientists nor deists; the same applies to many proselytizers.

Some people are comfortable with believing in God; other people are comfortable with rejecting God. That is OK with me. Why should we criticize each other?

Some people are comfortable with being scientists; other people are comfortable with rejecting science. That is also OK with me. Why should we criticize each other?

Why should we not tolerate each other? What is gained from fighting each other (sometimes burning and killing each other)?

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, NJ

[Sophus]

Religion was our first attempt at science as a species. They both ask the same questions but answer them very differently through a very different process. The scientific method is the one that provides us with real results, and it is the method all scientists must adhere to whether they personally are religious or not. I think religion and science are two sides to the same coin, and while I do strongly agree we should be able to coexist peacefully as people I don't think that implies religion and science can ever be friends.

Some people are comfortable with being scientists; other people are comfortable with rejecting science. That is also OK with me. Why should we criticize each other?

In many instances I think it's right to live and let live. But rejecting science for superstition can be dangerous. Is it ok to let a parent refuse their deathly ill child proper treatment because they believe they will only be healed through the power of prayer? Is it ok to continue to pollute the earth and ignore the climate crisis because some percentage of the population believes that God promised He wouldn't end the world that way?

Furthermore, critical thinking allows for progress. Science doesn't need religion to be critical of it; science is critical of itself. Religions, however, rely on unquestioning faith. Why shouldn't we open ourselves up to criticism?

Why should we not tolerate each other? What is gained from fighting each other (sometimes burning and killing each other)?

I don't think there is anyone here, or among the outspoken atheist intellectuals, who are advocating for religious members to be burned or killed.

[i_am_i]

It seems to me that science has given humanity a great deal more than religion has. It's religion that continues to foster an anti-science agenda, while science keeps on trying to answer questions and solve problems.

What would it take for religion and science to "coexist," an official statement from some representative of all scientists that states that science is not about disproving God's existence?

The last word in science will never be written, whereas the last word in religion was written thousands of years ago. You might as well ask if interstate highways can accommodate covered wagons.

[Tank]

It seems to me that science has given humanity a great deal more than religion has. It's religion that continues to foster an anti-science agenda, while science keeps on trying to answer questions and solve problems.

What would it take for religion and science to "coexist," an official statement from some representative of all scientists that states that science is not about disproving God's existence?

The last word in science will never be written, whereas the last word in religion was written thousands of years ago. You might as well ask if interstate highways can accommodate covered wagons.

Personally I don't agree with the underlined as I think institutionalised superstition (religion) saved humanity from a sticky end at the mercy of cognitive dissonance. I also think that for a minority of people religion has ceased to be useful in their world view, but for the vast majority this is not the case. One has to survive before one can do anything else and like it or not in times of oppression religion and faith can keep people focused and alive in a way secular world views can't. Simply because there is no emotional core in secularism, there is nothing to bind people to it. I'm not blind to the ills that dogmatic religious behaviour brings but without religion I don't think humanity would have survived becoming aware.

In a material sense of understanding the way the world works I agree that institutionalised curiosity (science) trumps religion every time. It is a tool that has proved its value over and over again and will undoubtedly continue to do so. Until of course we create our own robot overlords and find ourselves in zoos for our own protection  

To the OP 'Can science and religion coexist peacefully? Yes. There have not been that many recent examples of believers putting scientists to death or failing to exploit scientific advances to advance their own agendas. Theists benefit materially from science just as much as atheist do so on the whole they don't have a problem with it. The issue arises when dogmatists try to get the upper hand and it has to be said that in this area the dogmatists are almost exclusivity theists. When one reads the works of theists that are science deniers, such as Ken Ham, one really has to see that for some people religion and science are at war for the very 'soul' of humanity. People like Ham have to be opposed most virulently, but not through violet confrontation. I can't remember a scientist ever burning a theist to death however much they really wanted to!

Unfortunately  the very strength of religion, its emotional exploitation of its followers becomes its greatest weakness and danger when faced with science. Science is the ultimate myth-buster and destroyer of superstition so it does erode belief and in doing so threatens the world view of many theists. Science can survive along side mainstream religion as long as theists accept that reality wins out over superstition and most of the time they do. Science is not intent on the destruction of theism, that's a side effect brought about by the fact that religions are based on myths. However for extremist fundamentalist theists science is something to be feared and destroyed as it ultimately challenges and eventual destroys their world view, and people will kill for their world view.

So in the final analysis science can co-exist with religion but for some people religion can't co-exist with science.

Welcome aboard Ludwik!

Regards
Chris

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why should we not tolerate each other? What is gained from fighting each other (sometimes burning and killing each other)?

False equivocation.

Also, it would seem more helpful for religions to learn to tolerate each other.  They already tolerate much of science, so long as it supports their view or their ability to expound it.

[Heretical Rants]

Hence the "Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an"  

Anyway, in regards to the title question, I have seen no indication that science and religion were not coexisting peacefully.  Science has nothing to do with religion, so how can it be opposed to it?

[Inevitable Droid]

- other people are comfortable with rejecting science.

I would deem rejecting science mentally ill, since it would entail rejecting empiricism and logic, and thus rejecting the evidence of our own eyes and our own cognitive faculties.  But a theism that took science as its scripture, or a theism that had no opinion on scientific matters, would be tolerable to me, not for my own use, but as used by others.  Likewise, a non-theistic adoration of the excellence of some abstract principle, for example truth, would probably be tolerable to me, so long as it supported science, or at least stayed out of science's way.  Oh, and if some nutjob founded a church on hope in robotics, I'd high-five the guy.

[legs laney]

of course science and religion can coexist peacefully, silly rabbit.  you don't see anti-science protestors in front of cancer research labs.  just because some believe in a god doesn't mean they don't believe in what science can do and vice versa.  

scientology is a religion that promotes science (although it is not their "stand out" component); is it not?

[Sophus]

of course science and religion can coexist peacefully, silly rabbit.  you don't see anti-science protestors in front of cancer research labs.  just because some believe in a god doesn't mean they don't believe in what science can do and vice versa.  

scientology is a religion that promotes science (although it is not their "stand out" component); is it not?

Do they really? Real science? Aren't they leading the anti-drug campaign filled with myths about marijuana?

[McQ]

Just out of curiosity, are you, the original poster, actually Professor Ludwik Kowalski? Or are you someone trying to drum up business for his new book? If you are Dr. Kowalski, welcome to the forum and thanks for the question.

Sorry, but I have to ask, as the link you provided is to a short page that itself has a dead link in it. I'll get back to the question at hand after I hear back from you.

[legs laney]

of course science and religion can coexist peacefully, silly rabbit.  you don't see anti-science protestors in front of cancer research labs.  just because some believe in a god doesn't mean they don't believe in what science can do and vice versa.  

scientology is a religion that promotes science (although it is not their "stand out" component); is it not?

Do they really? Real science? Aren't they leading the anti-drug campaign filled with myths about marijuana?

have no idea what campaigns they are running and am not that familiar with them, but know they do believe in science and scientific breakthroughs.

[Tank]

of course science and religion can coexist peacefully, silly rabbit.  you don't see anti-science protestors in front of cancer research labs.  just because some believe in a god doesn't mean they don't believe in what science can do and vice versa.  

scientology is a religion that promotes science (although it is not their "stand out" component); is it not?

scientology really has nothing to do with science. The founder L. Ron Hubbard was a bit of a nutter who apparently took too much and too many mind altering drugs while on a search for spiritual enlightenment. These factors combined with a planet sized ego and a prodigious ability to write led him to spawn a word view called Scientology. One where one could achieve enlightenment through self knowledge. Scientology has the same relationship to science that Islam has to the emancipation of women I.E. it thinks it does but in reality it achieves the exact opposite.

[Inevitable Droid]

of course science and religion can coexist peacefully, silly rabbit.  you don't see anti-science protestors in front of cancer research labs.

But we did see theists slow the progress of stem cell research.  And we do see theists trying to have schools tell students that Young Earth Creationism has the same intellectual standing as modern Darwinism.

Theists who accept science as the authority on astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology, or who have no particular opinion on those five subjects, are generally tolerable because they generally are of a mind to peacefully coexist not only with scientists but with everyone.  I'm not exactly sure why these characteristics correlate but they seem to.  For example, most Reform Jews accept science's authority with respect to the five subjects listed, and most Reform Jews are of a mind to peacefully coexist with pretty much everyone, barring aggression from the other side.  The same is true of the Evangelican Lutheran Church of America.  Neither group is any threat to science, scientists, or scientific education.  I don't see how they avoid or ignore what seems to me to be the inevitable cognitive dissonance, but that's their problem, not mine, and they seem to deal with it somehow, without flying planes into skyscrapers, or blocking the progress of potentially lifesaving medical research, or trying to interfere with the public school system.

[Inevitable Droid]

Here's a theism that has no problem coexisting with science:

[youtube:2z8e9b86]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZ7CAKNizo[/youtube:2z8e9b86]