Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Mudhammam]

I think this sums up my overall point rather well:

"We very often hear complaints of the shallowness of the present age, and of the decay of profound science. But I do not think that those which rest upon a secure foundation, such as mathematics, physical science, etc., in the least deserve this reproach, but that they rather maintain their ancient fame, and in the latter case, indeed, far surpass it. The same would be the case with the other kinds of cognition, if their principles were but firmly established. In the absence of this security, indifference, doubt, and finally, severe criticism are rather signs of a profound habit of thought. Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of this tribunal. But, if they on they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination." - Immanuel Kant, 1781

[pocaracas]

Jenny. You say the question of whether there is a God is a scientific one. What experiment do you think you could do that would test that?

That's because the god of today's monotheistic religions has been pushed beyond the reach of science.
Certainly, a god that interacts with a person, like it allegedly did with Abraham and Moses and Noah, must do so through some natural method, which would make it possible for science to investigate.
Alas, that's not the god you claim to exist, is it?

[Dystopia]

I think the sciences have taught us, correctly, to mistrust philosophy so far as it intends to either obscure rather than enlighten, and cannot be shown in any way to correspond with actual experience in/of nature.

Well first of all and before anyone tries to say it, philosophy is not a science, it has never been and it will never be, the first thing I learned about philosophy is that you can't define it, at most you could say it is one type of 'knowledge (sophia - Greek - Knowledge)'...

I beg to differ that philosophy should be mistrusted, philosophy shouldn't intend to give us scientific conclusions to explain the naturalistic world as we see it, but it should help us think about ourselves, our actions, our morals/ethics, our future, our ideologies, philosophy should try to answer questions that science doesn't worry much about answering, IE 'What is the meaning of life?'

[The Grand Nudger]

Or perhaps, more pedantically, a system(s) of generating statements that can be said to be descriptive of "knowledge". After all, we can manufacture an argument such that it conforms to the rules of the game but imparts no "knowledge" in and of itself. Much more than describing the world around us, it describes the limits of human perception and "knowledge" with regards to the same(the world around us, that is).

[Anomalocaris]

Acknowledge science is in principle capable of trumping anything in everything. It's only a matter of advancing science to the necessary level.

I don't mean to be patronizing; but, I think I should kiss you on the forehead and tuck youi in.

On more that just one count you are beginning to sound eerily like a priest fantasizing.

[Jenny A]

Jenny. You say the question of whether there is a God is a scientific one. What experiment do you think you could do that would test that?

Sorry, that was broader than I really had in mind. My apologies. The question is scientific only if god is assumed to have done certain things in a physical way in the past or present. In other words the existence of god as defined in some particular ways is a scientific question. For example, fundamentalist's view of the god as described in Genesis is within the realm of science. For example, we can ask what marks would be left on the world after Noah's flood, and conclude that there being no evidence of a world-wide flood and considerable evidence to the contrary that no such flood happened.

The more abstract and unconnected to particular events, the definition of god, the less testable until you reach the point where the existence of god would have no discernible affect on the universe at which point god would be absolutely untestable.

Many scientists have worked on the presupposition that God exists, and that science serves to understand the natural world that God created.

That approach contains no contradiction between science and religion provided that the god presupposed is not also presupposed to have created the world in a particular way or the run it in a particular way. Presuppose an order of events from Genesis (or any other creation myth), a separate and special creation of man, or any presupposition about the way the physical or worlds or has worked, and you get conflict. ----- I agree that many Christian, Jewish, deist, or other god-believing scientists do make this separation quite successfully and operate without conflict between science and religion.

So, as a scientist and Christian, I love how science helps us explore 'creation', and have no problem with letting science inform me about all aspects of God's creation. There is no conflict in my own experience. (But I do accept that there are some forms of Christianity, who have a particular view of the bible, who do have problems with science. That form of Christianity is pretty rare in the UK and Europe, but I get the sense it is much more common in the US).

I was taught as a child that science answers the how questions about the world, and religion the why questions. Viewed this way there is little conflict between science and religion. But conflicts are very common here in the U.S. due to a very literal view of the Bible taken by both fundamentalist Christians and Mormons.

I do have some questions about particular areas of study where science and religion appear to me to be in almost inevitable conflict. These have mostly to do with psychology and neurological function. It is possible to analyze, why we have particular moral instincts both scientifically and historically. Does looking at why we have particular moral instincts scientifically trouble you? What about looking at brain function when doing particular kinds of problems, such as reading, math, determining one's own feelings, ascribing feelings to others, meditating, and praying? Why do people believe in a god, can also be tackled scientifically--does scientific inquiry in the area trouble you? I'm not suggesting that these questions should necessarily trouble you, only asking if they do.

[The Grand Nudger]

The more abstract and unconnected to particular events, the definition of god, the less testable until you reach the point where the existence of god would have no discernible affect on the universe at which point god would be absolutely untestable.

-and also, by way of the same - absolutely irrelevant and utterly devoid of meaning. "God" as an empty box. No creation, no fall, no sin, no sacrifice, no redemption, no revelation.

[Michael]

I do have some questions about particular areas of study where science and religion appear to me to be in almost inevitable conflict. These have mostly to do with psychology and neurological function. It is possible to analyze, why we have particular moral instincts both scientifically and historically. Does looking at why we have particular moral instincts scientifically trouble you? What about looking at brain function when doing particular kinds of problems, such as reading, math, determining one's own feelings, ascribing feelings to others, meditating, and praying? Why do people believe in a god, can also be tackled scientifically--does scientific inquiry in the area trouble you? I'm not suggesting that these questions should necessarily trouble you, only asking if they do.

Hi Jenny,

No, I'm not troubled by any of those questions. In fact I think they are interesting questions that you raise. I spend quite a bit of time in meditative prayer, and I'm always interested in what is happening neurologically there. For example, I join with Buddhists once a week for mediation and discussion, and I'd be interested to know if our slightly different approaches to meditation have the same or different effects on the brain (I suspect it would be very similar). I'd also be interested in seeing any differences in brain activity between those that have faith and those that don't; I don't see that as a threat to faith, just as I don't see looking at brain activity differences between the blind and the non-blind is a threat to believing that people see things that are real (I'm not trying to stress the 'blindness' of atheism there; I just can't think of an example that does't in some way seem to suggest a difference in sensory capabilities between thesis and atheists).

---

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.

[Polaris]

Science and religion very much overlap...the only thing I don't really care about is the search for alien life...then again, I would think it a waste if I were an atheist as well.

[Mudhammam]

Science and religion very much overlap...the only thing I don't really care about is the search for alien life...then again, I would think it a waste if I were an atheist as well.

Have you any research papers pertaining to lab experiments on Titivillus or the holy wafer that you'd care to discuss further? I wonder what Prester John would have to say?