Science and religion: could you help me with more examples, please?

[onimolap]

I want to show DCs that science and religion are not always and inherently at loggerheads.

I know the example of Georges LeMaître, the Catholic priest who was the father of the Big Bang theory.

Can anyone help with further examples?

CockneyDad - I don't understand how you can see such a clear divide between what science seeks to explain based on evidence and rationality - I.e. The nature of living organisms, including human beings, the nature of the universe and the forces within it - and the content of religious beliefs, which as you say cover cosmology, the nature of the human condition (as well as a number of supernatural claims).

It is not that 'parallels can sometimes be drawn' but that they are describing the same thing. And they say contradictory things about it.

I started the thread because DS was told that the two were definitely incompatible. I want to show him that it is not a question of exclusive incompatibility and opposition. Plenty of food for thought in the posts! Many thanks to you all.

I think the order of creation of creatures in genesis matches the order of evolution? I mean water creatures then land creatures then humans ( by which I mean "modern humans).
Speaking of which, why did evolution occur at all? If single celled organisms existed quite happily, what need was there to evolve?

Some descriptions in revelation seem to describe volcanic eruptions, shame that was written after Vesuvius erupted or I would have been really impressed! (off track there, bucket loads of soz).

No, Genesis doesn't match the order of evolution. According to Genesis there were plants on the earth before there was life in the seas. Fossil evidence suggests otherwise. Genesis also says that there were birds before there were land animals. Again, the fossil evidence is very much against that.

Single-cell organisms evolved (in brief) because of random mutations spurred on by competition for resources. The organisms that had a mutation that made them better at getting a certain important resource overwhelmed the rest. Those, too, eventually got competition from other mutated organisms. Wikipedia's got some good introductions to various topics on evolution.

Onimolap,

I might be late with this, but here is something that might interest you. It shows how science and religion were never at loggerheads and infact complimented each other (though it should remembered that religion in those days was very different to what it is now).

Brainstem, Spinal Cord Images Hidden in Michelangelo?s Sistine Chapel Fresco

Michelangelo: Secret Scientist

A scientist can be religious, but the philosophy and methodology of science and religion (theistic ones anyway) really aren't compatible.

Possibly the only way to avoid loggerheads is to adopt Steven Jay Gould's concept of two magisteria, but that may be seen as a bit of a cop out.

After turning off last night I thought of a case which demonstrates the religious scientist versus 'religionist science'.

ID is one of the most obvious cases of science and religion 'at loggerheads'.

In the (in)famous Dover School trial where ID was tried and found wanting, the witnessess against ID included religious people. For instance, the 'scientific' basis of ID was demolished by Kenneth Miller - who is a devout Catholic.

It is only since the late C19th (and particularly in the US) that religion and science have been "made" to look like they're at loggerheads. A faction of evangelical fundamentalism drove this, and is the force behind ID etc. Good point about the Dover School Trial, Grimma.

My issue with Gould's NOMA position, is that I understand that the two "seem" quite separate domains, but personally I see the one as wholly underpininng/enveloping/suffusing the other. And theologically God is in creation, not apart from it. The incarnation tells me that, if not everything else.

Dandy - I think where the 'magisteria' comes in is that, while you may see God in creation, you wouldn't try to override scientific evidence with religious dogma if there was a conflict between the two.

Well, I would agree with that then. But when reading Gould, he seems to imply they have nothing whatsoever in common ie. religion principally as an ethical system superimposed or running alongside on a scientific world and , whereas I see God implicit in the whole thing.

But what you said, yes.

"ScotlandR: Darwin was a Christian, he was training to be a parson (sort of a vicar)."

Not at the end of his life he wasn't. The loss of Annie finished any possible religious beliefs he might have still been harbouring.

It caused some friction between Charles and Emma who was a devout Christian to the end of her life.

I think Darwin lost faith in a beneficent God, yes, and termed himself an agnostic, but he did seem to retain a kind of deistic belief. He said "I cannot...be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force". He could not see the hand of a loving God in it either, but he still contributed to his local church and Sunday-school and approved of the good works being done by Christians in his locality.

He also wrote in 1879, three years before his death, "It seems to me absurd tto doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist...In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

He seems to have believed in these last years that the Universe did not come about by chance, but by some means purposed by God/a God, whose hand is no longer at the tiller, hence more of an agnostic deist.

Another great example of the complimentary relationship between science and religion.

When I'm feeling really bored I have a look at the American Intelligent Design & Creation "Science" (my italics) websites. These provide hours of laughter, but they are also a good indication of what some christians really think about science. Star with answers in genesis.

Oh I mentioned the Big Bang upthread. I didn't realise then it was actually a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

And at the time it was rejected by some people not for religious, but for scientific reasons. Of course although some evidence has promoted the theory, it's not the end of the story, and the guys promoting Non standard cosmologies might turn out being right

Oh for Gods sake, lemaitres mentioned in the OP!! Apologies.

Science and religion are incompatible. One is a based on what we would like to be true as humans and the other is based on what is true objectively. If you look at the human race dispassionately and from an outsiders point of view, you would ask;
why do all societies have a religion of some sort? (and in the absence of religion they will invent one eg. South Sea Islands Cargo cults)
why are all religions very similar? (rites of passage, morality, death)

The answer is that being predisposed to being religious is an evolved behavoir that will either increase our chance of survival in adversity (by giving hope and faith) or increase our chance of procreating (we discriminate in favour of people that we percieve are in the same groups as us). These two factors that drive evolution - survival and sexual selection. Incidentally evolution does not have to produce perfect results - just results that are good enough to exist in the environment.

That is all I'm afraid. Pocklington and the others have built a career on speculation but in reality the whole of theology is a complete waste of effort. Science, particularily genetics is moving so quickly at the moment that many questions about human behavoir will be understood much more clearly in the coming decades.

We must make our own meaning in life - get used to it - it is actually liberating.

As advances in science demonstrate that particular bits of religion are untrue those bits tend to be abandoned (as creationism mostly is now). As long as religious people are happy to change what god did to match what science shows actually happened there is no problem.

Thanks onagar, I was hoping someone would bite. A good example of what you say is the Church of England - where from what I understand not believing in god is now compatible with the churches doctrine. What is the point?

I accept that generally religion is good for our society - most religions encourage altrusitic, thoughtful and moral behavior. What rankles with me is the dishonesty of their position as alongside doing good you have to believe a load of things that cannot possibly be true. And the motivation to do good is so that you will be rewarded later after your death. Isn't it morally better to do good with no expectation of any reward - isn't that real altruism?

I forgot to add to my original post that I have talked about all this with my 3 children and it has lead to many interesting discussions. I work in science and I would say that scientists are usually really interested only in their special area. To say that scientist x was religious and therefore this fact means that religion is compatible with science does not follow.

Where on earth does it say in the Church of England's "doctrine" (whatever that may be deemed to be) that 'not believing in God' is now compatible with exactly what?

The motivation as a Christian to do good is nothing to do with rewards of heaven. Christians believe in grace, not earning your way into heaven. That is specifically something Jesus warns against.

Things that can't possibly be true - depends what you're talking about here.

Well put, ElBurro.

Science and religion are incompatible (except in so far as the former is starting to explain the latter).

However - and perhaps this is what the OP really wanted - scientists and religious people do not necessarily have to be at loggerheads. Some religious people do proper science. Many religious people adapt their beliefs to encompass what science discovers - thus, in the UK most Christians have no problem with evolution or cosmology.

The conflicts come when some religious people are mired in believing old books rather than fact, or when they try to impose an arbitrary morality with no solid ethical basis that there is loggerheading (the latter is of course not just versus scientists but you tend to find with arbitrary 'moralities' such as anti-homosexuality that science undermines the spurious rationales given to try to shore them up)

Dan - I would guess El Burro is referring to the 'sea of faith' movement which 'aims to explore and promote religious faith as a human creation'.
AFAIK there are quite a few Anglican vicars who are non-realist theists - its a broad church which has these on one theological wing and fundamentalist evangelicals on the other.

Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell, DBE, FRS, FRAS (Astrophysicist) is a Christian of the Quaker variety.

www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm