Here
and
Now

opinions

Education can solve religion-science conflicts

16 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

Answers to prayers CAN be tested.

Can any sane scientist claim that life evolved on earth through natural selection, taking multiple steps forward, each time with extreme precision but that all this happened by chance.

Would any scientist like to throw 26 Ludo dices and see if he can get the alphabet A-Z every time for numerous times.

I don't believe any scientist can claim that he has discovered without inspiration, though he may call it a brain wave rather than guidance from the One in whose hands the scientist was a tool.

The Bible, The Quran and other scriptures lay the fundamental bases of human knowledge. Man is then expected to toil for his needs - technological and otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more one studies science, the more clearly one sees the fingerprints of God. There is no conflict between science and religion. Science just describes the world God created. As a man of science and a Christian, I see no problem with going to Church on Sunday and to the lab on Monday.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Science has its uses, but to disregard The Creator is pure arrogance...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Johannes Weber

Just to clarrify I'm not promoting the old theory and it fell out of favor for a number of very good reasons. It was a fun model though, I've always prided myself on learning as much as I can about theories and practices that have been long removed, as evidenced by my little collection of turn of the century medical equipment and a few book shelves of material that would set a physics or psychology student back a few years by sheer virtue of how wrong some of them are.

When it comes to contemporary physics I know enough to navigate most journals without having to look though my refrence materials but I've always had a soft spot for those poor old theories that nobody pays attention to anymore. Considering my course of work has nothing to do with the field I'm happy with the knowledge that I can muddle through a conversation on the topic. Plus quantum mechanics has a good healthy number of eager students far more capable than myself to plug away at it and so few around to preserve the old stuff. Plus it's nice to have a hobby that generally requires explaination. But since you've got me cornered on the physics front maybe you'd be more impressed by my inventory of 1920's Violet Ray generators?

But I digress, yes there is plenty of room. I just hope people will stop beating each other to death over the matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If a human-sized, long-white-bearded god in a long white robe (Ha!) molded mankind in one day, why "on earth" did he/she/it put hair on our chests (males) and provide toenails (males & females)? What good is that / are they? Oh, I certainly believe in Intelligent Design, but c'mon, people, that big a design (the universe and beyond) requires billions of eons to create, which may be but a few seconds from The Intelligent Designer's perspective. I am perfectly comfortable with evolution/creation side-by-side. To me, both are so obvious and complement each other. Simplistic sugar-feed? Perhaps, but I'm at peace! ;-)

Those whose work it is to look through microscopes and telescopes surely must conclude that someone/something is behind the curtain directing it all. For every answer the scientists discover, two more questions pop up. Understatement of the millennium: Evolution takes time; time we miniscule, pin-headed humans can't even begin to perceive.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@TheQuestion:

You can always find a more complicated model to explain something which the general world of educated physicists accepts as truth. However, you will never, ever find anything as simple as special relativity to explain the properties of space-time in the nearly flat case. And you'll be in hideous trouble do do general relativity in the ether.

Oh, by the way, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are absolutely not dry, but extremely fascinating. However, they are too complex for average Joe or (wannabe Joe in that case). Referring to ID or the bible is much more simple since it alleviates the need for active thought.

Science leaves a lot of space for religious answers, like the meaning of time before the Big Bang or physics beyond the Planck scale. Or even the question, why the Planck scale has its specific length. The best ID would be the one we actually find in modern physics, which is still too hard to solve for us physicists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not well versed. What I do know it was disproven, and relativity explains most of how we perceive space-time today.

Has more to do with the propagation of light and energy. And while it may have fallen out of favor it has never been fully discredited. On the surface the model makes sense but the theory as a whole was carved out of mainstream physics via occam's razor.

Americans distrust of science is possibly due to discerning it as a threat and danger to cherished beliefs and fundamental values.

Perhaps they dont like the hubris of modern science and way it threatens to unweave the rainbow and take the magic and mystery out of life.

If people actually studied the religions they practice and/or mock they'd find that there need not be any conflict at all. If anything the religious community should be the foremost supporters of scientific discovery as it helps us better understand the work of divinity. In my own church the doctrine of Vatican II and declarations made by John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been very encouraging in terms of scientific promotion and education.

And I'll have you know that my rainbow is quite intact, if anything my years of dabbling have made the universe a more mysterious place than ever before.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Does your god promise to answer prayers? That can be scientifically tested.

Nuh, unh, it says right in the Bible that God won't be tested. Check and mate, Mr. Atheist!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

science can thrive alongside religion

The scientific mind is partly descended from the most observant, reflective, and self-abrogating aspects of religious scholarship. What have changed over the centuries are the methods and materials at our disposal. Both religion and science concern themselves with finding answers to big questions. However, religion has stagnated because it refuses to face any challenges to its own existence. That, of course, may one day also happen to science as we know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans distrust of science is possibly due to discerning it as a threat and danger to cherished beliefs and fundamental values.They are also probably distrustful of its democratising power,just as conservative elements distrusted the ascendancy of human logic in the eighteenth century which ironically helped spur the French and American revolutions. Perhaps they dont like the hubris of modern science and way it threatens to unweave the rainbow and take the magic and mystery out of life.Paradoxically many anti evolutionists happily embrace GM technology.The idea of Intelligent Design is not from the Bible,but a pseudo scientific notion aimed at challenging evolution.I always wonder if mankind does become extinct through some disease or cataclysm-will there be a second coming?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"...to bet I'm one of the only people in this hemisphere that is well versed in the long dead theory of luminiferous aether. Quantum theory it terribly dry by comparison..."

I'm not well versed. What I do know it was disproven, and relativity explains most of how we perceive space-time today. And I'm a liberal arts student, and live in the southern hemisphere.

...John Bardeen even if he darn well deserved it...

I did learn something today. Thank you for ridding the world of vacuum tubes Mr Bardeen!

In topic though, it only seems to be fringe groups, groups looking for personal gain that are exacerbating this issue. I'm Catholic too - I apologise for what happened to Galileo. As for evolution - maybe it was a bunch of black monoliths...possibly sent by god?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm not entirely sure what everybody is raving about. I've been a Catholic for my entire adult life and I've never had a problem with evolution, though I've always been more of a physics dabbler anyway. When they start getting into the heavier protein chains I start to lose interest fairly rapidly. Defunct principles of physics on the other hand is far more engaging. I'm willing to bet I'm one of the only people in this hemisphere that is well versed in the long dead theory of luminiferous aether. Quantum theory it terribly dry by comparison.

The only way to make your religion compatible with science is to emasculate your holy book and your god into impotency.

That’s utter nonsense. As with any other social order organized religion adapts to developments in science and culture. While I attended a public school my nieces and nephews attend a Catholic school and have been well versed in evolution. One of them is only in fifth grade and they're covering stuff I didn't get to until well into college.

My priest gave a fairly engaging sermon on the subject recently which centered around the idea that humans were created with a neigh infinite capacity for development and understanding. We learn because that is what we were meant to do and we do it well.

If your god through his holy book makes any claims that can be assessed by science, then there will likely be a genuine conflict.

Nowhere in the bible, or the torah, or the Koran, or any of the books on any major religion is there a guarantee that an entity will do any such thing.

I feel that the title of this article is spot on but I take issue with the substance. It only focuses on teaching students to understand evolution which, at its most basic level, isn't to terribly difficult to comprehend while ignoring the more subtly complex issue of religion. I've seen religion and science synergize effectively and how faith can drive innovative thinking.

Now I'm not of the opinion that science and religion couldn't operate in the vacuum of the other. Science could move without faith and history has proven that religion can do so in the absence of science. But I'd argue that all parties involved are far happier when they work together towards the common purpose of a better future.

...plus I like my Saint's days. Nobody ever cracked open a bottle of Four Roses single barrel for John Bardeen even if he darn well deserved it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Education can advance science without bashing religion?!

The very essence of religion is unscientific. Believing in magic and mythology, and pulling "facts" out of thing air. Sorry, Jesus, but science is by default going to rip religion to shreds because science values truth - real truth proven through rigorous experimentation and theories based on scientific observations - and religion values fairy tales.

Pardon me generalizing a little. I have no problem with spirituality, or people getting spiritual value out of religion. But all of this "it's not science vs. religion, it's science AND religion" absurdity is excusing premodern mythology that doesn't belong in this day and age.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Widespread rejection in America of climate science, and denial of climate change is linked with the “street fight” over evolution, speakers told an audience of mostly American scientists and educators.

I have no idea why this sentence is included in the article. Why is it relevant to evolution?

some of the most significant scientific breakthroughs were made by religious people

You know why, don't you? They had a chance at a good education... not because they were religious.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The only way to make your religion compatible with science is to emasculate your holy book and your god into impotency.

If your god through his holy book makes any claims that can be assessed by science, then there will likely be a genuine conflict.

Does your god promise to answer prayers? That can be scientifically tested.

Does your god promise to heal the sick? That also can be scientifically tested.

Can you ignore the resulting conflicts? Only by committing yourself to intellectual dishonesty and actively anethesizing the cognitive dissonance.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Basic understanding of science needs active use of the brain while passive consumption of religious prejudices doesn't. And religion doesn't teach tolerance for those with other worldviews at the lower ranks. It is definitely something for advanced practitioners...

The majority of people around the entire world is insufficiently educated. This is a problem in most developed countries. It starts already with people not understanding the basic operations of the technology that governs their daily lives. Since it happens also in Japan, I guess You can't blame religion for ignorance. It's a deeper trait in humans, which is amplified by religious zeal. SIGH! Scientists have a hard time with their fellow human beings...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites