Biinje asked:


I think Science and religion can stregthen each other, for example, Evolution theory and creation theory can go hand in hand. While Christian accounts give the outline of how God created the world, science tells exactly how it was done.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” – Albert Einstein.

17 Responses to “Are science and religion in conflict or is there a compromise?”

1. mtchndjnmtch on March 27th, 2008 5:13 am

   Can’t have one without the other.

2. Rasputin on March 30th, 2008 10:59 am

   One commonality I see is that both eventually require a leap of faith. Science can take you much further back in the creation of the earth, for example, but there comes a point where it too runs out of answers.

3. pat from ohio on April 1st, 2008 3:27 pm

   It was once considered heresy in the church to claim that our solar system is heliocentric, how wrong they were back then. Religion has no role in science.

   The biggest difference is that religion attempts to make the “evidence” fit their hypothesis and science will look at the evidence before coming to any conclusion…there is no compromise

4. aaron.brake on April 4th, 2008 2:47 am

   I think the two are separate entities, and most of the time are completely separate from each other, some science leaks into religion (the nature of man/universe/etc), some religion leaks into science (cosmological argument), but for the most part religion deals with the noumenal, and science with the phenomenal.

5. Gee on April 6th, 2008 1:03 am

   Neither Science, nor religion is the whole picture. Science is incomplete, and religion is inconsistent.

   And they are both only parts of the whole.

   [add] To those of you who are staunchly married to either science or religion, let me make a subtle point.

   If your devotion is science: You must be aware that science is not a finished product and that there are forces, phenomena and concepts that we are only now just beginning to comprehend. Do you seriously think that the theories of today will remain unrefined as our understanding grows?

   To those devoted to Religion: I can only say that religion, like many things in life, evolves. Many of the religions of today bear little resemblance to their origins. Consider that when you pray to your god/s tonight.

6. John R on April 7th, 2008 12:58 pm

   Science and religion address two entirely different spheres. Seeking scientific proof of religious dogma only shows a weakness of faith.

7. sluggy on April 7th, 2008 3:35 pm

   There cannot be a compromise because although you can find some parts of religion which do not conflict with some aspects of science, there are many outright contradictions where one or the other must be false.
   In your example of creation and evolution you can avoid conflict only because they cover two different areas, how life began and how it changes. If you were to look at creation and the scientific theories of how the universe and life arose there is no way to avoid contradiction.

8. Happy HollyDaze on April 10th, 2008 9:05 am

   I tend to agree with Einstein on that quote–though I know many others will not.

   I think Einstein meant that no matter how many things can be proved scientifically, there are still those things that no one can explain.

   I agree with you that science and religion can strengthen each other. For instance, I believe in evolution, but also believe that was in God’s plan.

   I suppose I’ll receive hate mail for this answer.

9. phoenixstripes2002 on April 13th, 2008 12:19 pm

   Perfect example is the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code). It signifies the ordeal between Science and Religion.

10. Deb D on April 13th, 2008 4:32 pm

    I think faith can be strengthened by knowledge. It is science that brought many atheists to know God, and become Christian. Further, I believe God prefers us to make an educated decision to know and follow him. After all, he gave us a brain.

11. Century25 on April 15th, 2008 11:25 pm

    Science is based on theories that require repeatable, proven facts.

    Religion is based on.. really nothing. That is why it is called “faith” based. If you believe in the word of someone that wrote down something centuries ago.. that is your choice. But.. there are no data to back it up.

12. MJR on April 18th, 2008 12:59 am

    If you want to throw around Einstein quotes, here is another one:

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” –Albert Einstein, 1954

    The conflict between science and religion is at the epistemological level. Epistemology is the philosophy that seeks to discover how humans acquire knowledge. Religion holds that faith is an acceptable means of acquiring knowledge. That is, knowledge that can be ascertained without use of the senses. Science holds that knowledge flows from the senses. Wether you believe that science is evil, science is reconcileable, or that science is the only truth, depends wholly on your faith. Because faith does not require evidence of the senses, your decision was made psychologically, thus there is really no way to convince you of anything other than the conclusions that you have come to internally.

13. Lizzie Art on April 19th, 2008 10:42 am

    they should go hand in hand…learning about the complexities of science makes one understand that there should be a creator of all these and that things could not happen just by chance

14. megalomaniac on April 19th, 2008 12:01 pm

    Religion and science don’t even have to be adversaries. Its only when we treat religion as science and science as religion that we run into trouble.

    And for that reason we do run into trouble needlessly. They have completely different ‘truth tests’ and can’t even really be compared directly; one is based on empirical evidence and one is based on faith.

15. Yaoi Shonen-ai on April 22nd, 2008 1:43 pm

    This all began because evil Boethius told his school, the Scholastics, “In so far as is possible, join faith to reason.” We’ve been trying it ever since (1600 years) and arguing about it ever since.
    The Franciscan Wm. of Ockham had it right when he said there is no theological argument for, nor scientific proof of, God’s existence, and that belief must be based wholly on faith–which it was before Boethius.
    Boethius ruined faith by injecting a factor that could not prove or disprove God’s existence; and in doing so he ruined reason by tainting it with faith.

16. Sophrosyne on April 25th, 2008 12:30 am

    If religion makes claims about the world that can be tested, and when tested lead to conclusions that conflict with the claims of the religion, then the religion must change it’s claims to fit the evidence. If religion does not do this, then it is worthless. If religion does do this, then it is perfectly compatible with science.

    If science remains a method for ascertaining truth then it will remain a viable tool. If current scientific paradigms become dogma, then it is just as useless as the religious kind.

17. David M on April 25th, 2008 8:02 pm

    Religion is INSIDE science but each variety does not reach the right conclusions. In fact as science never reaches the ultimate conclusion, there is a lesson for everyone there. Best to be an agnostic which is the stance of every true scientist.