10 Answers

  1. Science and Religion can and should interact in a mutually beneficial and productive way to solve very acute problems of development and survival of people and society.

    The destructive science-religion conflict has disastrous prospects for science, religion, and society as a whole.

    The main REASON FOR the CONFLICT is the lack of effective leaders of science and religion, who can and should solve the problem of interaction not in the traditional military-political destructive way, but in a cultural constructive approach.

    The limit on civil wars has long been exhausted.

  2. Of course, science and religion are not antonyms and are quite compatible with each other. In general, this juxtaposition became popular relatively recently and the Church itself was partly to blame for this. At a time when she wielded unduly great political power, she considered herself entitled to make judgments that went far beyond the scope of her competence – in particular, concerning the natural sciences. And when these judgments turned out to be obviously false, the Church, alas, lacked the modesty to admit that it was wrong in a timely manner. It continued to insist on its own misconceptions and thus drew an artificial line between religion and science in the mass consciousness. Now we are reaping the benefits of this misguided policy and we see that the popularization of science leads people to distance themselves from the faith – which, of course, is very sad.

  3. Because an atheist is not a synonym for an intelligent and literate person with a well-developed logic and erudition (as they often like to imagine, comparing them to obscurantists-believers). Among atheists, there are also many people who did poorly at school and university, skipped classes in logic, philosophy, history and scientific methodology, but they really like to tap on the keys, defending their “position”, which they can not even really formulate.

    Let's take it in order:

    1) Science does not exclude religion, religion does not exclude science. These are two completely different trains that run on different rails and do not interfere with each other. Science is the study and description of the surrounding reality, identifying patterns. Religion is a set of practices that promote (in the opinion of practitioners) rapprochement with a certain higher power (“by God”). Science is based on the scientific method, religion is based on faith. Religious practice does not prevent people from doing science, and scientific practice does not prevent people from doing religion. Some people combine these two activities.

    2) Creationism does not contradict evolution, and evolution does not contradict creationism. This phrase, if I had my way, I would tattoo on the chest of all the experts from 8 “A” participating in this absurd dispute on both sides. Evolution explains the process of formation of some biological species from others, in particular the emergence of Homo Sapiens from other primate species. Creationism tries to answer the question of why I exist in the world. Who created me? For what purpose? What mission did you give me? How did it happen that the entire chain of events over many years has led to the fact that I exist on this earth? Evolutionary biologists and creationists (by the way, these are often the same people) look at the emergence of a person from different angles-as if from the outside (a person like one of the biological species) and from the inside (a person like Me). Such an” inside view”, by the way, shares creationism with solipsism – both concepts can neither be proved nor refuted (which does not prevent alternatively gifted “specialists” from regularly trying to do this).
    Putting the question as “Creationism OR evolution” is like arguing whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth. (Well, how many of my mother's astronomers will now say that the correct option is the first?)

    3) Dinosaurs don't bother anyone. They lived and died out. They don't have to be in the Bible, they don't interfere with the Bible, they disappeared long before the authors of the Bible were born. Please get away from the dinosaurs…

    So there are a lot of stupid people who amuse themselves by spitting at each other from both sides of their imaginary barricades. But where are the smart people? They don't see any barricades, they calmly go about their business .

  4. Anonymous user. Today is not your day. Atheists do not oppose SCIENCE – RELIGION , but exactly the opposite, they oppose RELIGION to SCIENCE.

    For people who adhere to the theory of the materiality of our World, SCIENCE is the highest way to learn the laws of nature and society.

    RELIGION, in their opinion, introduces erroneous and unsubstantiated postulates, as well as hinders the development of new scientific paradigms of the creation of the World and its development.

    The modern scientific theory of the origin of the universe through the big bang of matter and expansion, does not agree much with the described creation of the World by God in 7 days.

    Try to combine them and write down what happened in the response.

  5. As far as I remember from philosophy, science and religion are two ways of knowing the world around us. And it was the church leaders who put them one at the peak of the other (and even then not all, in the end, all scientific discoveries-from heliocentrism to the fact that you need to be vaccinated – were approved by the church:)) so what if after so many hundreds of years, a consensus was reached? This means that everything is fair, no one is trying to destroy anyone 🙂 (individual fanatics will not be considered here, this is a different opera)

  6. Science doesn't say anything for sure. It assigns a certain probability to any statement to correspond to reality or not. The word “faith” in science, if not a curse word, is at least outside its vocabulary. Some knowledge in science is so well established that the probability that it is correct tends to one. But it never reaches.

    Religions, on the contrary, postulate and consider certain statements to be infallible. This is precisely the incompatibility between science and religion. As soon as religions start to doubt, they will cease to be religions. They will not become science either, they will become literature. Science alone is a method of learning and using knowledge.

  7. Religious people often confuse Faith, Religion, and Church.

    And these are very different concepts.

    There is no contradiction between Faith and Science. They're about different things. Science is the experience of humanity, presented in a convenient form. Faith is a system of answering questions that cannot be answered from experience.

    Religion packs Faith into myths and treats them in an extremely broad way. Often getting into the territory of Science. Here contradictions are inevitable. Mythology contains a lot of statements that clearly contradict experience. This is what most disputes revolve around between adherents of a particular denomination and atheists.

  8. Partly from the fact that science is now presented in such a way as to replace religion. This is typical of the current ideology. Ideologies of liberation from questions. At the same time, this approach in itself is anti-scientific. Since science is contraindicated to treat it as a religion. Science deals with knowledge, knowledge is believed by doubts. Questions of science require knowledge and testing of this knowledge. Now the attitude to science as a faith is being imposed. “If we tell you that it is from scientific sources. You must accept it as it is. It is a sin to doubt science.” Because of this anti-scientific approach, science attracts more and more charlatans and is overgrown with fakes instead of a lawyer with doubts about knowledge. This approach is much more harmful to science itself than to the religions that science is opposed to.

  9. See, science is a system of proven knowledge.

    Religion is a worldview.

    Two different concepts and, of course, they can not be opposed to each other.

    However, something( maybe God?) it tells me that this is not what the author wanted to know.

    Perhaps he wanted to ask why atheists oppose religious knowledge to scientific knowledge.

    Here you can really compare.

    I will be Captain obvious, but I will say that religious knowledge is based on” super-temporal”,” infinite ” truths and extra-rational experience. It is aimed at affirming and confirming the original dogmas, the creed.

    While scientific knowledge needs, to quote Wikipedia, “logical validity, evidence, reproducibility of cognitive results.” It is always ready for refutation.

    Do you feel a contradiction? Think for yourself, decide for yourself.

    The answer above, by the way, is typical for a representative of a religious organization. Jehovah's Witnesses and creationists would say the same.

  10. Why do atheists oppose religion to science? Are they antonyms? Are they incompatible?

    If you look at it quite broadly, then religious consciousness is one of the forms of social consciousness, human consciousness on the path of historical development; modern atheism or some of its representatives should be engaged in the dissemination of scientific knowledge as such, since in our time not all believers are so “unreasonable”… A person, in principle, tends to fill the void of a worldview (his own observation, since the brain “completes” the picture of the world due to lack of knowledge, is easily verified).

    In fact, even with the disappearance of ecclesiastical influence, there were many social injustices caused by the very environment of the past, its morals, for example, the class perception of one person by another, racial perception and similar things, because, for example, biology and understanding of human nature, as it seems to me, were not sufficiently developed to answer questions of external differences…

    It's just that some people point to religious perceptions and religious institutions as the most obvious shortcomings, but they are not the causes of all evil, they are a private form of ignorance or delusion, you just need to work with people, give them information, engage in questions or films… something like this)

    Ah, the last one)

    Moreover, even the understanding of “god” as such is not the same for everyone, there is, as I remember, such a thesis in thinking: “if we cannot define the very concept of “god”, then what are we actually talking about?”, i.e. the boundaries of the concept are not defined, which means that it cannot exist as an object of conversation, consideration…that's my answer)

Leave a Reply