There are many people who desperately want religion and science to be compatible, having been one of them I see why they want this.

However wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.

Usually people try to make this work by explaining away (or trying to) where religion and science contradict eacch other (eg. by saying genesis allows for evolution).

I've happened to entertain the idea that this goes deeper; that religion and science are fundementally opposed.
The basis of each goes against what the other stands for, i.e. science is based on free inquiry and needs to be questioned in order to function properly where religion requires faith and does not do well when questioned.

What do the rest of you think?

Views: 592

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would tend to agree with you though I would differ on your views at some levels. You may want to discuss offline with me at kontimjerry-at-gmail-dot-com

The primary virtue in religion is obedience and the primary virtue in science is reasoning—these two cannot be joined together in matrimony. When religious people want to criticize science, they begin by saying that scientists are all obedient to their profession and its claims. They rarely try to defend religion as being the product of reason.

To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason. —Martin Luther

That quote is scary and disturbing and would be even if a religious person had not said it.

Science is based on rational thought and testable principles.  Religion is based on irrational belief in magical people or creatures, mythology and superstition.  The two will never be compatible.     

It depends on what your definition of "religion" is. If you consider ONLY the judea-christian-semitic faiths (Judaism - Christianity - islam) as "religions", then of course you will find these "religions" to be at loggerheads with science. However, if you expand your definition to include Hinduism (Vedic tradition) into the category of religions, then you will be pleasantly surprised to see that these contradictions vanish.


If you wish to have a serious discussion, then you may write to me on kontimjerry-at-gmail-dot-com

As a number of people have pointed out, it is the primary monotheistic religions that are fundamentally incompatible with science.  I posted some of this a while ago, but it is pertinent here.  And I happen to be actually be a scientist :)

There are (at least) four basic reasons why monotheistic religion is completely irreconcilable with science, and always will be.

1.  The "Word of God”.  Montheistic religions are all linked to some ‘sacred text’ whose teachings are sacrosanct and immutable.  By definition, the ‘truth’ is contained therein and cannot be changed or improved upon.  There is no room for advancement of knowledge (modification of assumptions, refinement of theory, elaboration of mechanisms, enhancement of understanding).  This is complete anathema to the enterprise of science, which cautiously avoids assertions of truth and speaks only of the consistency of observations with hypotheses.

 2. “God did it”.  The concept of ‘creation’ of the universe by some omnipotent diety is not a theory of any kind, but a non-explanation that is untestable and leads immediately to a pointless, infinite regression (if so, who created god, etc?)  It fails Popper’s first essential requirement of a scientific theory because it is both unfalsifiable and untestable.  Furthermore, it is a proposition of no practical utility because it provides no framework for elaborating understanding.  It has no predictive power and no useful applications, all properties we demand from actual theories.

 3.  “Have faith in god”.  The contention that one should accept anything as truth without evidence is contrary to the essential logic of science, and yet religions demand faith in their doctrines without evidence of their veracity.  The substitution of faith for reason requires that one stop thinking critically and analyzing data.  Faith amounts to an abdication of intellect and is clearly incompatible with the basic tenets of scientific inquiry.

 4.  “God’s will”.  All doctrines of religion seem to hinge on the assumption that god has some design or divine purpose for the world, the human race, and even individual humans, and demands particular codes of behavior and forms of obeisance (often involving self-abasement, self-mutilation, blood-sacrifice, ritualized cannibalism, and other primitive rites) so that outcomes will be favorable for the pious.   Herein lies the fundamental reason why believers feel compelled to reject evolutionary biology – it requires an element of chance, or ‘contingency’ in evolutionary parlance.  No matter how many times you might re-start the evolutionary clock on earth, you would always obtain a unique and different result because many chance events influence outcomes.  The idea that events unfolding under natural laws are in any way subject to an element of chance is precluded by belief in the will of any god.  Religions require, nay demand, a teleological world view – everything must happen for a reason, and all processes are ‘guided’ toward some predetermined outcome by an ‘invisible hand’.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence for teleological processes – not in biology or in any discipline of science.  That’s why we have Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics – the position of an electron in an atomic orbital can only be described as a probability function – we are forced to accept a degree of uncertainty as to its actual location at any time.  That’s why we must account for stochastic processes such as genetic drift and founder effects in evolutionary biology, and accept that singular chance events such as asteroid impacts may have had dramatic and irreversable effects on the evolutionary trajectory of life on earth.   

In summary, whereas the existence of religion is competely superfluous and inconsequential to the enterprise of science, religion cannot afford to be oblivious to the obvious intellectual power of science.  Thus, proponents of religious beliefs have always sought, and will always continue to seek, validation for their mythological delusions within the realm of science. 




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service