I just watched "Contact" for the second time...

[arib]

... and I'm forced to wonder:

Why do so many scientists, as well as many religious figures, see science and religion as diametrically opposed to one another?

I mean, I'm a fairly religious person, and science is something that's very important to me. In some cases, scientific acheivements don't adversely challenge my faith, they help me define it.

I'm sure I have more to say, but I'm tired right now. SO, I'll open the discussion up to you, my friends. What do y'all think?

Comments

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[arib.livejournal.com]

the main basis for religion is faith, you believe in something that cannot be proven or observed...

*shrug*

A lot of science can't yet be proven, either. Theories and such. Yet the scientific community regards them as true. Last I checked, it's still the Theory of Relativity, not the Law of Relativity, and the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution. (Mind you, both make a lot of sense to me, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll assume they're valid. Whether it's just blind science, or the way God chose to run the universe is an exercise I leave to greater minds than mine.)

the world would be much better off without religion

I strongly disagree, but that's another post for another time.

While I understand that this topic is pretty sensitive, and you may want to remain anonymous, I'd honestly like to know who you are. :-)

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Ari, I thought your degree was in a scientific field? (Question, not challenge).

Last I checked, it's still the Theory of Relativity

That's because the term "theory" as used by science is actually a technical term (lessee how well I explain this) meaning "long complex idea" more or less. It's more strongly meant to be true (or, more precisely, the best explanation for existing data that predicts new data) than just "this is my theory of how the butler killed Lord Cregg".

As for the larger question....I was raised by fundamentalist Christians, and have a BS degree in Biology, so I want to address this, but can't right at the moment.

A.A

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[arib.livejournal.com]

My BA is in Psych, whether or not it's a science is a matter for some debate, according to other scientists... :-)

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I think Psych counts, but then I wanted to major in Archaeology. :)

So. The question you asked, to wit: Why do so many scientists, as well as many religious figures, see science and religion as diametrically opposed to one another? I'm still working out my answer to this, but it goes like this at the moment:

Religion and science, though I think they have mostly different jobs, have both worked at answering some of the same questions ("how is the world structured?" "where did the Universe come from?" "why do we get sick and what do we do about it?" etc). In some branches of some religions (such as the fundie Christianity I was raised in) there's an "all or nothing" kind of idea, that one must belive as strongly that God made the world in 144 hours as that Jesus Christ is one's Savior and Lord. Such an impulse put Galileo under house arrest. So, an idea like that can lead the minds that hold it to think that religion is at odds with science and its different, sometimes conflicting, answers to these questions and its different philosophies and pathways underneath. I think much of scientists thinking religion is their enemy is a reaction to that.

As someone who has studied a bit of archaeology sometimes I share your anonymous friend's cynical view that religion is merely a form of social control. It's impressive what big pyramids you can get people to build for you if you've convinced them you're God. However, I usually don't think that way. I haven't settled on a religious path yet, but I do believe in the Divine, in something more to us and the world than the physical reality. My mother was trained as a biochemist, and like many scientists, what she learned in science fueled her religious faith (although how she still believed in straight-up six-24-hour-day Creationism is beyond me).

A.
at length.

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[mhw.livejournal.com]

I don't think they have to be in opposition, though oppositional people on both sides like to think they must :) Both are ways of structuring human experience, but they're at their best when they don't try to tackle each other's territories; scientists arguing theology are often just as laughable as theologians arguing science... Different disciplines, different tools, different foci of interest: different, not opposed.

Re: seems pretty obvious to me

[mhw.livejournal.com]

All theories are provisional; they may be overturned or radically revised at any time by one more little experiment. Scientific "law" is no more than a theory that has withstood so many tests at so many times that even the canniest scientist wouldn't like to bet a brass farthing that they'll be alive on the day that a "law" is overturned. Yet such "laws" are overturned, or at least revised, often enough; Newtonian gravitation - your "Law of Gravity" from schooldays - won't deal with extremes of mass and velocity, so Relativity is necessary. The "Law of Causality" has received several excellent shocks in this last century. And this is all to the good, and the sloppy use of the term "Law" in the context of science is only that: a sloppy use - not an attempt to claim that a theory is Universal, Eternal and Unalterable.