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

[vorlon13]

Science says it's impossible for a person to do these things, but God is a supernatural being and is not subject to natural law.  Science has no way to prove whether or not God exists since it only can investigate the natural world.  Since Jesus is God in the flesh I'm not rejecting any science to believe that he did these things.  In that regard, today people are healed from terminal diseases and science has no explanation for how these healings occurred.

It's easy for science and religion to co-exist when all you have to do is chuck science in the bin at the first sign of its contradicting religion.

but what do we do with the internal contradictions on just the religious side ??

[Jehanne]

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.

In my opinion, religion and science cannot co-exist.  Religion claims are not empirically testable nor are they falsifiable, and there are an infinite number of such claims, which makes all of them infinitesimally improbable.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've never seen an example of a religious claim that isn't empirically testable, or falsifiable.  Not even the -religious- think that religious claims aren't empirically testable or falsifiable.  Not only is the entirety of "personal revelation from god", for example...an implicitly empirical claim....watch them empirically test claims of -other- religions, and decide that they are not only falsifiable..but falsified. 

I consider this one a lasting effect of religious hegemony.  People who don;t believe end up saying the same things that people who do believe had been saying for centuries..specifically in reference to having been "proven wrong" after all. That institution insists that even if they aren't right, you can't say that they're wrong.

[Omnisofos]

Not only is science corrosive to religion, religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial non-explanations and blinds them to the incredible, awesome and wonderful REAL explanations we have within our grasp.

[Succubus]

What on earth are you talking about..not being able to explain it?  The church explains it specifically.  The eucharist elements..literally - not metaphorically or symbolically...literally...turn into the blood and body of christ after a cantrip is uttered over it.

Science says: "lolno, still a cracker."

What he said.

[RoadRunner79]

Not being able to explain it, does not a contradiction make.

Perhaps you should be more specific.

What on earth are you talking about..not being able to explain it?  The church explains it specifically.  The eucharist elements..literally - not metaphorically or symbolically...literally...turn into the blood and body of christ after a cantrip is uttered over it.

Science says: "lolno, still a cracker."

"lolno"... lol. Is that an official academic position.
But on transubstanciation I don't hold to that, and don't think the little bit of scripture on it necessitates a literal change. So I wouldn't defend that. But I don't think you can make the case that there is a logical contradiction between science and religious belief. And if there is, then I look at the foundation for both, to see where I may be mistaken.

[The Grand Nudger]

"lolno"...  lol. Is that an official academic position.

Sure is.  

But on transubstanciation I don't hold to that, and don't think the little bit of scripture on it necessitates a literal change. So I wouldn't defend that.

Oh bullshit.  Firstly, you did try to defend it..and secondly, the religious do hold to that..in fact, the supreme authority of catholicism holds to that "fact" -infallibly-.  Fobbing it off as somebody else's silly belief does your position and character no service.  

But I don't think you can make the case that there is a logical contradiction between science and religious belief.

"lolno, still a cracker".  The case was just made.  Is it still a cracker?  I guess we both think so.  Transubstantiation was wrong, and logically contradicted science as well as reality itself..because magic spells can't..and don't, turn crackers into dead jews.  

End of.

And if there is, then I look at the foundation for both, to see where I may be mistaken.

No, you don't..lol.  You do what we just saw you do..up above.  I mean, sure, maybe you do something else entirely when no one's looking, and you only try to pull that shit when we're watching.........but...cmon?

[vorlon13]

if we do accept transubstantiation as actually occurring, we do have to wonder why every single celiac patient nevertheless cannot digest the Jesus biscuit . . .

[brewer]

Never under estimate a humans ability to ignore, rationalize or justify issues that should cause cognitive dissonance. 

Now I have Scarlet O'Hara in my head.

[vorlon13]

I've had Eminence Front running thru my head for 2 days now . . .