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

[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.