Do Science and Religion Conflict?

The folks at Pew have a new poll out about views on Science and Religion. One interesting bit of data is that religiously observant people (that is, folks with more connection to religion) are less likely to see a conflict.

Read the whole thing. Then, come back here and check out the Science and the Bible pages.

5 thoughts on “Do Science and Religion Conflict?

  1. I’ve always found it awkward that “lapsed” Christians or agnostics will argue vehemently with me that I’m not a good Christian if I accept the plausibility of scientific theories of creation (universal or specific). It’s as if the tautology threatens the existence of GOD.

    I think the difference is that I accept the plausibility. I’m pretty sure that unlike AGW, the “Big Bang” is still just one theory; and not “settled science” snerk.

  2. God asks us to worship Him with all our heart, soul, and mind. He gave us this mind to understand His universe. The Bible tells us Who, and why the universe was created. It doesn’t tell us how or when. Just try explaining quantum mechanics and a few billions of years of timeframe to nomadic shepherds with only enough math to perform basic arithmetic. I dare you.

    If the Earth appears to be 4+ billion years old, it’s because it probably is. I won’t discount the possibility of an error. After all, Physics once rejected the Big Bang theory over the steady state*. But God is not the author of lies and so I cannot believe that God would create an Earth that is only 6,000 years old but *looks* 4+billion.

    *The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic Scientist (OMG, Religion contaminating Science with Creation Myths!!!1!1!Eleventy1!1!!!)

  3. Science is just an epistemological method that makes no reference to a metaphysical position (and they said I’d never use that philosophy course in real life). In other words, science is just a method of gathering information. It makes no claim about the nature of reality itself. In fact, to take the furthest extreme we can go, the scientific method would work equally well if the entire world was an illusion; so long as the illusion always gave the same results in experiments, there would be no way to tell the difference on scientific principals between a real world and such an imaginary world.

    Once we realize that religion is speaking of metaphysics (what reality is) and science is speaking of epistemology (how we know stuff), then saying there’s a war between science and religion is like saying there’s a war between calculus and Greek grammar (just because calculus sometimes uses Greek characters doesn’t mean they’re in the same arena).

    Now is there a war between naturalism and religion? Yes, because it’s hard to have a religion that’s not supernatural, and a supernatural worldview is at odds with a natural worldview. But the scientific method of looping hypothesis -> experiment -> observation -> hypothesis works even in a supernatural worldview.

Leave a Reply