Public / Society
Public / Society
For general philosophy discussions.
This group is available to everyone except Jordan Peterson.
Note: By posting in this group you confirm that you are not Jordan Peterson.
Group photo philosopher: Rosa Luxemburg
Cover photo philosophers: Bertrand Russell / Leon Chwistek
Science and religion are not compatible.
- OrganizerMarch 25, 2021 at 22:08
What science does is put forward hypotheses, and use them to make predictions, and test those predictions against empirical evidence, then scientists make judgments about which hypotheses are more likely, given the data. The incompatibility between science and religion doesn’t mean that a person can’t be religious and be a good scientist. The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility. You can be religious, and you can be a scientist at the same time, and I’ll laugh at you 😂
- MemberApril 12, 2021 at 02:33
That is a bit of a false dichotomy. While you provide some important examples of how they may be considered incompatible you have actually failed to construct an operable definition. So it might be possible to define them as mutually separable but as both an information scientist and depth psychologist that has delved into these murky waters, I would contend that science is a religion. In human psychology we have more basic instincts than these academic differentiators. At the core we have an innate sense of wonderment on how the world is made up and how we fit into it. Science and religion both evolve from this curiosity. They are mythologies, or stories that tell us how the world works. Now your implied distinction is important but not probably as distinctive as you might make it out. Science actually isn’t a thing–Science does not say things, doesn’t do things, isn’t even authoritative. We use the word science as short hand for the scientific method (as well as to indicate a body of knowledge in a specific field). The scientific method actual begins with something quite nebulous we call intuition, assumption, or the educated guess where highly educated people form hypotheses based on prior inquires plus something deeper in our psyche. The main difference between a scientists guesswork and a laymen’s is a decade or more thinking about that one subject. The scientific method then creates a criteria to independently test in a reproducible format to determine if a hypothesis is true or sufficiently true until the next hypothesis. In science nothing is actually absolute, just our most educated guess based on the tools at hand. Religion is a bit murkier and in its formal institutional form I am actually not far from your argument–blind conformance to a dogma in satisfaction of the institutional mandates regardless of facts and externalities of other sources, is certainly bonkers, i.e., incompatible with the scientific method. However, that actually isn’t an encompassing definition of “religion” which can also be defined as an ineffable search for truth based on authenticity and curiosity. I am already writing way too much so I will leave it at that question mark rather than going further. There is way more beyond these simple frames, but just to state there are more shades and colors in this discussion than scientific truth and religious dogma.
Log in to reply.