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

[FatAndFaithless]

Yup, another way to avoid any conflict is to say that any scientific discovery or advancement only shows how great god is in the first place.

Side note: Collins isn't the head of the HGP any more (since that's over), he's actually the Director of the NIH as a whole.  I work at the NIH and I've met him a few times.  Immensely intelligent man, I just think he tacks on God too much - though that literally never comes up ever in decisions or discussions at the NIH.  He's a scientist doing science, just with some private views that I think are misinformed.

But that just illustrates the point.  If you can structure your religious beliefs in such a way that there is no conflict by definition (science being a demonstration of god, for example), then sure, you can't disprove that.  But that claim that science is a demonstration of god is itself unfalsifiable and untestable, which is the only way to go if you want to make the round peg of religion fit the square hole of science.

Collins said he was converted to Christianity after reading CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity". I guess it did not take much. That book is dull yet so many Christians find the statement that Christ was a liar, insane, or the Son of God to be  a brilliant piece of logic. Merely a myth , maybe?

Well, he also cites his experience of hiking by Niagara Falls and seeing three frozen streams as indicative of the Holy Trinity.  When he's doing science he's an objectively brilliant man.  The religion part seems to just be in entirely separate area for him - which is fine as far as science is concerned in terms of not being a "conflict." The key point is that his religion doesn't make claims about reality that can be investigated - which is the only way that religion can "coexist" with science.

Him and Hitchens were actually pretty good friends.

[Aoi Magi]

Science and religion can coexist, cause "Science deals with reality, religion deals with everything else"

[Edwardo Piet]

Science and religion already do co-exist in society. So I certainly do think they can. If something is already happening that presupposes its ability to happen.

Are science and religion compatible? Not when religion tries to do science like creationism/intelligent design. Not when religion makes claims about the natural world.

When religion simply says God is undetectable and intangible and defines him in such a way that he's indistinguishable from his non-existence... that's perfectly compatible with science because it's identical in practice to God not even being there.

So, the answer is, religion is compatible with science only when it makes claims that have nothing to do with reality. But when it makes claims about the natural world then it's not compatible with science.

When it does make claims that are incompatible with science... it can still co-exist in society with science. It just shouldn't.

[vorlon13]

coexist = religion continually getting a bloody nose from so many wrong predictions about nature of the universe however ??

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. It's unfortunate that it coexists in that way but it nevertheless does.

I wish religion would fuck off. Look what happened to Galileo.

[Whateverist]

Frances Collins is a Christian fundamentalist and the Director of The Human Genome Project. He seems to be able to juggle his religion and scientific work.

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

I could call him an irrational twit but he is way smarter and more rational than me.

He is a fine example to show that one who embraces theistic beliefs can also participate in doing real science.  There is no necessary barrier.  It just so happens that many fundamentalists hold too many empirical claims as basic to their theist beliefs.  It is that rather than their belief in a god that makes them at odds with science.

---

Yup, another way to avoid any conflict is to say that any scientific discovery or advancement only shows how great god is in the first place.

Side note: Collins isn't the head of the HGP any more (since that's over), he's actually the Director of the NIH as a whole.  I work at the NIH and I've met him a few times.  Immensely intelligent man, I just think he tacks on God too much - though that literally never comes up ever in decisions or discussions at the NIH.  He's a scientist doing science, just with some private views that I think are misinformed.

But that just illustrates the point.  If you can structure your religious beliefs in such a way that there is no conflict by definition (science being a demonstration of god, for example), then sure, you can't disprove that.  But that claim that science is a demonstration of god is itself unfalsifiable and untestable, which is the only way to go if you want to make the round peg of religion fit the square hole of science.

Collins said he was converted to Christianity after reading CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity". I guess it did not take much. That book is dull yet so many Christians find the statement that Christ was a liar, insane, or the Son of God to be  a brilliant piece of logic. Merely a myth , maybe?

My suspicion is that he was raised in a Christian milieu but focused primarily on science.  Later, perhaps triggered by reading Lewis, he found that he was disposed to embrace theism?

[Anomalocaris]

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.

It has coexisted.   So evidently it is possible.  But just like the US and USSR appears mutually utterly inimical and yet coexisted for 45 years, coexistence does not mean refraining from undermining the other.

Science could not really be science if it does not undermine religion, while religion, to keep from being undermined itself, will strive to undermine science.

In no imaginable case could the one completely undermine the other because each of them answers a different extremely deep seated emotional need that exist in the human population.  Where there is demand, a supply will materialize.

However, nothing says answering emotional needs evolved over 560 million years are necessarily beneficial for survival of the species, or to the reduction of emiseration of the specie, in the next 100,1000, or 10000 years.

So the more relevant question is, which of the two, science or religion, if successful in undermining the other to a much larger degree than the other is able to undermine itself, would be more conducive to the long term survival of the specie, and the reduction in the long term emiseration ofbthe specie. The answer is almost certainly not religion.

[mlmooney89]

A teacher gave me that book in high school.  It did not make me stronger in my faith, because I found Lewis should have stuck to writing about Narnia.

I adore the Narnia chronicles so much they are one of my favorite series. Mostly because all the hidden meaning behind it. It is the only children's book he did but don't worry it's still VERY religious. I mean the whole series is actually about Jesus and once looking for it I had a fun time finding all the clues. Being an atheist didn't take the fun out of the hunt for me personally.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

A better question would've been

"Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in an individual?"

Once you realize religion has absolutely nothing to do with science or scientific scrutiny I think yes. Both are very different so it can't be very difficult to be "pro-science" while still being religious.

[FatAndFaithless]

A better question would've been

"Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in an individual?"

Once you realize religion has absolutely nothing to do with science or scientific scrutiny I think yes. Both are very different so it can't be very difficult to be "pro-science" while still being religious.

That entirely depends on the religion of the individual.  If that individual claims to be pro-science but also claims the world is 6000 years old, there's an explicit conflict there. Whereas someone like Francis Collins is obviously both an excellent scientist and a theist.

Some individuals' religions might "have absolutely nothing to do with science or scientific scrutiny" (like Collins), but many absolutely do have to do with scientific scrutiny because they make assertions about reality that can be investigated and evaluated.