Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in a society?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

If the science is not in why not just say "I don't know!" .

Saying "I don't know" just sounds lazy, like we're somehow destined not to know. We're curious, and we like to know what's going on and how it all happens. We may not know how it all happens yet, but many of us like trying to figure it out. As for believing that the Torah has the answers when we don't otherwise know the science behind it, it's not really hurting anyone; it's just a religious belief. -One that doesn't happen to interfere with adherents having careers in the sciences. It answers the question for those who aren't really that interested or are too young or under educated to understand the complexities of the inner-workings of the universe. Having an answer, even if it's a very simple one, helps some people sleep at night.

After reading your post, I can see how saying "I don't know" can come off as lazy; however, for some people it is an intellectually honest answer. IMO, from a scientific perspective, trying to discover the truth of reality via the various views and beliefs that humans hold and searching for ways to make reality conform to those ways of thinking, can also come off as lazy.  Hence, IMO, for some people, using an unbiased method that discovers truth as it is and can verify it via proof that exists independently of human thought patterns, is intellectually stimulating and rewarding, and the challenge of finding that truth despite the fact that it isn't fully known and understood yet, is meaningful and far from lazy.

[Aliza]

Saying "I don't know" just sounds lazy, like we're somehow destined not to know. We're curious, and we like to know what's going on and how it all happens. We may not know how it all happens yet, but many of us like trying to figure it out. As for believing that the Torah has the answers when we don't otherwise know the science behind it, it's not really hurting anyone; it's just a religious belief. -One that doesn't happen to interfere with adherents having careers in the sciences. It answers the question for those who aren't really that interested or are too young or under educated to understand the complexities of the inner-workings of the universe. Having an answer, even if it's a very simple one, helps some people sleep at night.

After reading your post, I can see how saying "I don't know" can come off as lazy; however, for some people it is an intellectually honest answer. IMO, from a scientific perspective, trying to discover the truth of reality via the various views and beliefs that humans hold and searching for ways to make reality conform to those ways of thinking, can also come off as lazy.  Hence, IMO, for some people, using an unbiased method that discovers truth as it is and can verify it via proof that exists independently of human thought patterns, is intellectually stimulating and rewarding, and the challenge of finding that truth despite the fact that it isn't fully known and understood yet, is meaningful and far from lazy.

When you're studying science, "I don't know" is appropriate, provided that you're asking the questions. But from a religious perspective, promoting a culture of "I don't know, the bible tells me so," isn't healthy or productive. -I realize that's not what Chimp3 was suggesting, but I guess I can go off on tangents sometimes. Sure, there are going to be those people who don't care. They're just trying to be a preschool teacher and pay their bills, and they're just not curious. ...But there are also people who stay awake at night pondering the deep questions and they do want the answers. Science and religion work just fine together provided that the religion doesn't stunt people's intellectual growth.

[Simon Moon]

If the science is not in why not just say "I don't know!" .

Saying "I don't know" just sounds lazy, like we're somehow destined not to know. We're curious, and we like to know what's going on and how it all happens. We may not know how it all happens yet, but many of us like trying to figure it out. As for believing that the Torah has the answers when we don't otherwise know the science behind it, it's not really hurting anyone; it's just a religious belief. -One that doesn't happen to interfere with adherents having careers in the sciences. It answers the question for those who aren't really that interested or are too young or under educated to understand the complexities of the inner-workings of the universe. Having an answer, even if it's a very simple one, helps some people sleep at night.

It is not lazy, when it is the only honest answer. And it is certainly a better answer than to appeal to ancient religious texts.

No one is saying that, before we even start to investigate, we should throw our hands up and say "I don't know". And it certainly isn't a response that means that we are not destined to know, only that we don't know NOW. It is a provisional answer, not a final one.

If the answer makes you feel uncomfortable, get over it.

The first thing that should come to mind after the answer "I don't know", is "let's find out". That is how discoveries and advancements are made. Not by getting answers from ignorant Iron Age Mid Eastern tribes people.

[Minimalist]

If the science is in, and it doesn't match what we think the Torah says, then we misunderstood the Torah. Whoops!

You see, that's why I tend to like jews (at least Reform Jews) better than any of the other angry desert god adherents.

A xtian, especially some of the dumber sort that we have around here are like tourists who open a map of London in New York and then insist that the city is laid out wrong.  It is more than them being dumber than a bag of rocks.  It is a failure to acknowledge that they could ever possibly be wrong about anything.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it's impossible. If people just be nice to each other then maybe. 


I think it's possible to hold scientifically proven worldviews while still being religious. 
After all, religion and science have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

So in my opinion - why not? It is possible. It's just a question of whether people are willing or not I guess.

Science and stupid have coexsisted for thousands of year. Not peacefully, religion won't have that.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I think a lot of conflict comes from "pro-science" people wanting to abolish religion since religion isn't scientific and from religious extremists that want to abolish science because it doesn't contain religion.

If people were to accept that religion and science are different then maybe that could present itself as a solution.
I don't think any religion or religious texts have ever claimed that they are scientific or pass them off as science to be subject to scientific scrutiny. I don't think what religion is trying to do is explain the unknown either because the only thing common in all religions is that it aims to establish a moral standard whether through love or fear is another story, but that is irrelevant either way anyway.

[comet]

Interesting. In my religion (I'm a Jew, btw), we're taught that Torah is the same as science, and science is the same as Torah. If the science is in, and it doesn't match what we think the Torah says, then we misunderstood the Torah. Whoops! We should then go back and try to figure out where we took the wrong turn so we can correct our misinterpretation of Torah. If however, the science is not in, then we default to what we think the Torah says.

If the science is not in why not just say "I don't know!" .

kind of like when a light bulb doesn't "match" a candle.  We definitely know its our understanding of the bulb that is wrong, not that we understand the "light" better and made use of that understanding to make better candles.

You do understand that, in the end, the universe made the better bulb right?

[FatAndFaithless]

I think a lot of conflict comes from "pro-science" people wanting to abolish religion since religion isn't scientific and from religious extremists that want to abolish science because it doesn't contain religion.

If people were to accept that religion and science are different then maybe that could present itself as a solution.
I don't think any religion or religious texts have ever claimed that they are scientific or pass them off as science to be subject to scientific scrutiny. I don't think what religion is trying to do is explain the unknown either because the only thing common in all religions is that it aims to establish a moral standard whether through love or fear is another story, but that is irrelevant either way anyway.

Bolded mine.  Uh...that exactly what many religions try to do.  They assert explanations of where we came from, how the world got here, how the animals and plants got here, what the stars mean, where we're going, what we're made out of, how to classify life, attempts at healthcare, and plenty of other asserted factoids about reality in their scriptures.  

It doesn't matter if a text has claimed to be scientific - if it makes an assertion about the world that can be investigated, then it is by definition subject to scientific scrutiny.  Someone can acknowledge this and still be 'pro-science' if they accept the scientific findings about the world despite what their holy book says, but the books themselves are certainly not pro-science (since they can't be edited or updated with the latest evidence).

It all depends on the individual in question's religion.  If they believe claims by their religion about reality that can be investigated and proven incorrect, but still believe those religious claims...then I would say that person is not being pro-science or scientific.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I think a lot of conflict comes from "pro-science" people wanting to abolish religion since religion isn't scientific and from religious extremists that want to abolish science because it doesn't contain religion.

If people were to accept that religion and science are different then maybe that could present itself as a solution.
I don't think any religion or religious texts have ever claimed that they are scientific or pass them off as science to be subject to scientific scrutiny. I don't think what religion is trying to do is explain the unknown either because the only thing common in all religions is that it aims to establish a moral standard whether through love or fear is another story, but that is irrelevant either way anyway.

Bolded mine.  Uh...that exactly what many religions try to do.  They assert explanations of where we came from, how the world got here, how the animals and plants got here, what the stars mean, where we're going, what we're made out of, how to classify life, attempts at healthcare, and plenty of other asserted factoids about reality in their scriptures.  

It doesn't matter if a text has claimed to be scientific - if it makes an assertion about the world that can be investigated, then it is by definition subject to scientific scrutiny.  Someone can acknowledge this and still be 'pro-science' if they accept the scientific findings about the world despite what their holy book says, but the books themselves are certainly not pro-science (since they can't be edited or updated with the latest evidence).

It all depends on the individual in question's religion.  If they believe claims by their religion about reality that can be investigated and proven incorrect, but still believe those religious claims...then I would say that person is not being pro-science or scientific.

Yeah, I agree. 
I wonder if a society where science and religion co-exist in harmony is possible. One can only wish.

[Lek]

Co-existence works for me.  Facts are facts.  But we also must remember that many things people considered scientific facts 100 years ago are not accepted as such today.  I also don't accept science as the ultimate method of discovering truth.  If science hasn't or can't provide an answer I'm open to pursuing that answer by other means and have found answers by doing so.