I have heard from a lot of religious people that "Science and religion goes hand in hand". I do not agree with this because religion is based on super natural beliefs that goes against scientific evidence. Now if you are religious and you believe in science, that is one thing. But you cannot say that your religion has anything to do with science or that it supports it. Religion is perhaps a pseudo-science that has failed us tremendously, it has made people turn their backs against modern science and it has only strengthen their extremely delusional beliefs. But if you say this, then religious people will say "Wow, you are arrogant!", but then what is wrong with being arrogant when you are right?


But what do you think? Do you think that religion and science shares anything in common? And what do you think about people who claims they do? 

Views: 809

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I've probably used this phrase to death, but so what - it works:

Faith Is No Reason.

From where I sit, the irrationality of superstitious belief and the rationality of reason and method and science have NO INTERSECTION SET.  To say that they go "hand in hand" is the wishful thinking of believers who attempt to validate their beliefs using flawed logic and an overinflated view of the importance of belief or spirituality.

So no, I personally hold not only that rationality (Science) and irrationality (religion) have nothing in common, but that to the degree which one is present with the other, BOTH are compromised.

Absolutely what he said.

Only in a democracy, and, perhaps, only in America could people think their ignorance is as good as other people's knowledge.  Faith is not only ignorant; it is also a flat-out evil--anti-science, anti-progress, anti-female, anti-human.
In some ways science was born out of religious thinking, in that, the search for understanding "of gods works" in the world around them lead many to examine the natural world. But only those with a modicum of knowledge and the free time to pursue such activities were the priests.
The cockroach in the cheese dip was that the knowledge gained could not contradict the tenets of the religion. Any contradictions would ultimately lead to suppression of the findings and the elimination of the blasphemous swine that posited such “ungodly” views.
Newton was a religious nut case (he was obsessed with the Book of Daniel and Revelation) but was the father of modern physics. Mendel, a monk, did the same with genetics. Even Darwin believed that evolution was the divine instrument of god.
However, today religion is actively at war with science and its weaponry is ignorance, deception and loudmouth, charismatic assholes feeding bullshit to the masses – it's fresh water against sewage and no matter how much fresh water one pours on sewage it's still sewage.

eh? hand in what?


I grew up very religious.  I was told that faith is the belief in things that you cannot see, but are true.  So i used to say to myself...if religion is true, and if science is mans best approximation of the truth, then the two must start to come together at some point.  I spent lots of time trying to reconcile "God's truth" to the discoveries in science.  It was one big rationalization session. It went something like this: The creation story in the bible story isn't that far off from how science says it happens...with the exception of the scale of time...and a few other things. Another one was, evolution is how god created everything in the world, but god is still in control of it. The questions started getting harder to rationalize in my mind, so i could no longer rationalize the differences.  They became just questions like, Anatomically Correct Humans have been around for about 125K years, but Adam and Eve just 6K. I wonder if ACH's had a soul? Till my questioning just got to be ridiculous like, How the ... did the duck billed platypus get to Australia after the flood, and why are they only in Australia. I decided that there was something wrong with my assumption of "if religion is true and if science is mans best approximation of the truth, then the two must start to come together at some point."  Upon closer inspection of the first part of my assumption I found out that religion is the part that failed me. Primitive crowd control.  Who'd have thought?

To answer your 2nd question, religion and science do have something in common.  Religion is a part of the branch of anthropology, and is very useful to understand how it relates to people today.  It's effects on economics, genetics, politics, psychology and many other branches are innumerable.  However, I think your question is more "do the claims of religion and science share anything in common," and my answer is only as far as the primitive man had it right.  So no.  Nothing. Except that it's a sin to run out of wine at a wedding party.


As far as the people that claim they do have something in common, I love them very much.  They are my friends and family.  I have been in their shoes before, but they either never asked the question or quit thinking too early once the questions start to get hard and chalk it up to the mysteries of god.  Mysteries of god is easier on the brain than cognitive dissonance.

Religion and science are nothing alike. 

Science is evidence and fact based.   If new evidence arises that casts doubt on a previous conclusion, scientists will examine the new evidence and if necessary they will draw a new conclusion.

Religion is faith based.  It has pre-existing conclusions and will ignore any evidence or facts that disagree with those conclusions.  It will also try to distort facts, research, etc, to fit with the pre-existing conclusions.


Religion and Science... commonalities... hmmm.


Both were developed by man.

Both evolve over time.

Both seek answers to questions (though one relies on wishful thinking and the other, factual evidence).

Both provide organization to daily life, though in different ways.

Both can inspire awe.


Um... but I doubt that's what those religious people mean, by hand in hand. You sure they don't mean hand to hand? :D

"but then what is wrong with being arrogant when you are right?"

You're falling right into a trap.

1.  Just because someone calls you arrogant does not make it so.

2.  You can be correct about something without being a dick about it.  That's what being arrogant is.

3. People who make a habit of being arrogant tend to remain so even when they're incorrect, or when their claims are dubious. This makes them even more insufferable.


"Arrogant - Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."


I'm thinking that religion is like a giant, collective defense mechanism...

Gallileo laid the foundation for modern science and one only has to take a look at history to know how he was treated by religion. Religious people did not learn any lesson from the fact that Gallileo had the last laugh. They also opposed Darwin and have been proved wrong again. They still want to believe that man was created by god and that the earth is 6400 tears old. In a country like America, where there is an agency like NASA, there is a Young Earth movement that does everything to oppose modern scientific theory of the birth of the universe. In this respect, the muslims appear only better because they are trying to prove that all that science says is in the Quoran! With this lone exception, religion always appears to be as distant from science as hell and heaven!

Madhukar Kulkarni.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service