July 17, 2006
-
Are Religion and Science Separate? A Socrates Cafe topic
I'm, a host for this topic, so I'll be visiting any site that comments but here's my quick take:
I tend to look at Religion from the Sociologist's viewpoint: As a major social Institution of every culture that has ever existed; and one which each culture assigns certain specific responsibilities.
Traditionally, Judeo-Christian cultures have assigned Religion the duty of explaining man's basic moral responsibilities as well as explaining the underlying meaning and purpose of the universe. Religion is also, in our culture, the ultimate source of security and solace.
With the development of the concept of Rationality by the ancient Greeks and its further evolution into Science and the Scientific Method, part of Religion's role, that of explaining the evolution of the world and universe, came under considerable questioning and doubt. Gradually, over the past four or five hundred years Science has assumed more of this responsibility and religion has gradually (and somewhat reluctantly) acknowledged Science's supremacy in this area.
Science has seldom attempted to address the "Meaning and Purpose" questions about the universe, leaving that to Religion and the metaphysicians, but those of ultra-conservative Religious bent have always rejected Science as an explanation of how the universe has evolved and see scientific explanation as an attack on their religious views.
Religion and Science are by nature separate. They look at reality from very different viewpoints and have very different social roles. Science is really a tool and method used to examine the "real" world and has little or no moral content. The morality of Scientists is determined primarily by their cultural background which in turn is influenced by the religious moral teachings of their culture.
Any conflict between Science and Religion is actually an argument over their social roles - which are determined by cultural consensus.
Comments (18)
I'm linking me now
I think that religion has always been presumptuous with regard to reality, and I do not think they have ever really accepted the scientific process. Religion puts much more weight on ‘god said it’ than they ever will on the actual reality of the situation. It’s a metaphysical fairy tale.
Why do you believe that the assumptions inherent to science and the scientific method are not existentially relevant? (Regarding, "Science has seldom attempted to address the 'Meaning and Purpose' questions about the universe")
How does religion explain moral roles if separate from studies of reality?
Very similar to my own post. I agree with your assessment that science and religion are separate things. Trying to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fields of study, but that is where the comparison must end.
Has separating religion and science worked out well for humankind - with religious wars and conservative dismissals and rejections of scientific advancement by some faiths?
Isn't it time to attain a greater understanding of science into religion so that humankind may focus on what we have in common rather than focusing on the dogma that separates us?
I'm a Christian. I don't reject science. Most Christians and Jews that I know, do not reject science. Is it possible that this argument has been tainted by prejudice?
In my view, Religion and Science are not antagonistic - They are just different concepts with very different roles in our culture - indeed in most cultures.
The so-called conflict between them is mostly due to Religious attempts to hold on to a social role (explaining the physical nature of the universe) which our culture no longer assigns it. Moral and ethical behavior are determined by our culture and are generally administered and supervised by the Religious institutions. Their application to science has little to do with the Scientific Method.
but the underlying science should still be held as standard...
"I don't reject science. Most Christians and Jews that I know, do not reject science. Is it possible that this argument has been tainted by prejudice?"
Really you don’t have to outwardly reject anything, it's the things you accept that telegraph your beliefs, virgin birth, walking on water, miraculous healing, raising the dead, parting the sea, ect… If you truly don’t reject science, explain those in scientific terms if you can.
Any Conflict between ''Science'' and ''Religion'' assume these paradigmns--
That there is one religion with a single view of ''religion.'' Constant over time and place.
That ''science'' is uniform and in every arena uniform, without varience in understanding, equipment, information or means of viewpoint-ie. point of view.
A simple change in the means of viewing or studying a given field--say ancient maritime travel can radically change views of science and religion.
If you are religious GO TO COLLEGE. Even if you stick to your own denomination, your professors need to send their students off to Graduate School and to do this they have to get the hay out of their ears.
This is impossible if they sling terms like "science" and "religion" around with out pinning down definition.
The way these words are used here make me think some baptist roots are showing. A good check is to see whether thee school is funded by alumni or general donation. Alumnus are more likely to care about reputation and standing.
Personally I'd try to get my kids into a reputable secular college, but Mormons marry young, usually have one kid, at least, before graduation, and I might not get much support.
Ketja
Ketja: I'm not sure what you mean by the comment, "If you are religious GO TO COLLEGE." The fact that you SHOUT it with capital letters suggests that you think religious people lack an education, or have somehow put their brains on hold, and getting a college education can fix that. I think you will have a very hard time defending your line of reasoning, if someone wants to take you to task over it.
These last few comments demonstrate the attitudes toward science and religion which many people have. the idea that they are antagonistic seems to be caused by the assumption that they are somehow either similar or have similar roles in our culture - which is not the case. You can certainly be a committed scientist and also be very religious - as many practicing scientists are. I suppose the "..render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.." is something we might keep in mind.
Thank you for the comment. I don't know if you'll follow up the thread on my xanga, so I'm posting my reply here as well:
You're very right, the Arabs preserved knowledge while Europe went through the Dark Ages.
At this moment, I'm willing to cutch at straws to bridge the divides that exist between Islam and the West. If it is scientific truths that bring the twain together, I'm good with it.
But, on a more practical level, I think the roots of the divide run too deep and are too sensitive to be so easily resolved.
I have offered a similare seperation continuum in my entry on the topic. There are scientist that are religious as well...how do you think they reconcile the apparent conflict? If these two play seperate social roles is society schizophrenic?
As a sometime History teacher and social scientist, I tend to forget that sometimes many other people have trouble with my viewpoint.
As I see it, Religion is very much culturally defined - That is the people in a society define their social institutions, including Religion according to their environment and historic background Thus the elements of the institutions, including Religion vary according to their culture's definitions and needs - and that includes their perception of God or the "God" concept as well as the social responsibilities of the five basic institutions (Family, Religion, Education, Government, and Economic).
This viewpoint assigns no particular values to the different social interpretations, just tries to describe and understand them. To that extent it is, I suppose similar to the scientific method. Using this technique, we may be able to close the divide Jaded M mentions above. If we first recognize the differences without judging or valuing them, we can then look for points of agreement. The problem lies, of course, in the different social attitudes.
It's pretty hard to reach agreement with, or even understand, a group you feel is deluded or even evil because of their devoutly held beliefs.
boy, I wish I had time to go thru everyone's answers, this really interests me. I know mine is late in the game - extremely busy at work and my eyes are going goofy on me.... I did post a response to your comment. Thanks for your hard work!!!
Hi I just wanted to say thanks, you said you liked my user name. We have spoken before I know you and Robin And Rush from the cute couple site.:) I wish Chris would do another site.
We stumbled over here from the different web site and thought I may as well check things out. I similar to what My partner and i see consequently now i am following an individual. Look forwards to discovering your website repeatedly.