Can science and religion mix?

And said veil seems to be very effective.. so many people just accept religion as a mainstay when it's an issue plaguing the modern world. So much violence and stupidity committed in the name of "God".

This veil also seems to deter any verbal criticism of religions. You can harshly criticize something produced by a person and it's all well and good, but you criticize religion and you have committed "blasphemy". As Richard Dawkins put it, when you criticize an actual human being, their feelings can be hurt but blasphemy is a victimless crime. (paraphrased of course)

Greetings, as this is my first posting on site.

All that's been said before is accurate, so I'll just throw this great example I've once read from my college science textbook.

Trying to study something using science is much like a man with no knowledge of watchmaking trying to figure out how a pocket watch works without the ability to take it apart. Of course, the only thing that can be seen is the moving of the watch, what it is made of, and the sounds coming from the interior of the watch. While that person can guess as to how the watch may operate, there's no sure fire way to be absolutely certain as to how it functions. Now, what if that person wants to try and make another pocketwatch completely from scratch?

This is basically what science is all about. We observe things in nature, and attempt to reproduce it in a controlled manner (experimentation), then attempt to intergret it into a useful manner (applied science). Of course, to understand the world in it's totality is impossible as we live in this universe, and cannot just take it apart to see how it ticks. As Rbz said, we cannot be absolutely certain, then, that the acceleration of gravity is really 9.8m/s. We can only observe and attempt to create a valid theory explaining as to how it MAY work, and check to see if it conforms to reality at every occurance, disproving it when it does not.

To me, Religion seems to be basically the beginning of the process of that man trying to understand how the watch works. With no experience in any sort of engineering or mechanics, he'll probably end up making wild assumptions as to how the watch came to be and how it continues to work. But as the man observes the watch some more, he may start to try to test it, such as checking to see if the timepiece actually keeps time accurately, and observing how the sound coincide with movement of the hands. Eventually, he may craft a theory that is so close to the true mechanism of the watch that he is able to create another pocketwatch, and will then discard all previous notions of how the watch may have worked.

Religion to me, seems like humanity's first attempt to theorize how the world came to be and how it works. Of course, originally it must've been pretty barebone, but as time goes on and the story gets passed down from parents to children, the plot thickens, and eventually results in the religions we see all over the world today. In true scientific manner, I'll offer a supporting statement: ever notice how nearly all of the ancient religions from around the world all attempts to explain how the world was created, even though most of them arose independently?

Religion isn't bad though, as it also incorporates ethics in its rules as a way to urge its believers to act in an appropriate manner, which back in the days and even now serves its purpose quite nicely. So if science exist as a way for humanity to empower themselves and religion serves to guide our action to be ethical and empathic, I see no reason why the two cannot co-exist in wonderous peace.

I love the watch analogy very nicely put.

I don't agree, however, on your views of religion. Religion may have started with man attempting to explain things he doesn't understand but those days are long gone. It is now used as a tool to manipulate, control and deceive the masses and has become more of a way for a man, who doesn't have all the answers, to act like he does have all the answers (through God).

I also do not believe that people "need" religion to develop morals. While it is true that the core teachings of a religion usually incorporate some common human morals, I don't believe in religion and I have my own set of morals. It is not impossible for human beings to realize "hey, this would be a lot easier if we didn't go around killing each other and taking each others' things" and I don't believe religion is needed to instill this idea into human beings. (by the way, these basic ideas and 'honoring your parents' are the only real morals found in the "Ten Commandments". All of the others deal with god himself and how he prefers to be treated). Of course I am using Christianity as the main example, but this mostly holds true for just about any other religion and its beliefs.

Well, everybody will form their own paradigm on how the world works and what part of it is broken. You probably had some horrible experience with someone who is deeply religous but unable to perform critical thinking, instead opting to just use their religion as the ultimate support (bible thumper anybody?). I, of course, also had similar experiences, and it is extremely frustrating to try and argue logically with a person who is entirely unwilling to consider your evidence or views.

That said, religion isn't always used as a way to deceive and manipulate, nor are members of a faith always misled. Although throughout history religion has been used in such a way, it does not sum up religion as a whole (avoiding generalization from anecdote).

Neither you nor I am correct in any sense, as it is simply the way we view the world, which of course makes us unique from one another. But I guess in the end it's just a matter of how it is used. Just as science has now given humans the power to fly us to the moon (apollo) or destroy our world (nuke), religion also has its great accomplishments and moment of terror.

The key is that we mustn't allow ourselves to fall into the all-too-easy trap of claiming sides and fighting it out, as that will just help to push the argument into oblivion, replaced with empty violence. We must approach discussion like this one in an flexible and logical manner that is free of emotional decisions (ie: critical thinking) so that we may be entirely unbias when we make our own judgments on issues such as this. If the entire world can do that, things like religous extremism would likely to fade away, to be replaced by peaceful discussion.

While I really would like to do away with religion as a whole, I am a peaceful person by nature so I would never commit violence in the name of my beliefs. Instead I am all about debating like a civilized human being and presenting ideas and facts to support my beliefs and if those things aren't enough to convince people then at least they were informed and I have done my part. =3

I had similar experiences... how can people be so ignorant? Or in her case intelligent but stubborn and blind? o.o

I had a similar experience in Biology. Or rather, the teacher was trying to teach evolution... and the kids in the class refused to study it because of their "beliefs" which was just a clever way to get out of work. It caused such a mess and pissed me off because I really wanted to learn... -.-

Of course, I also live in the bible belt so... I was highly outnumbered.

Well, that's why critical thinking is so necessary in a peaceful society. Without that, we can fight on just about any topic without actually solving anything.

I understand where you're coming from though. Incidents like Galileo's imprisonment is quite a gaffe on the church's part. However, that was due to their mistake of arguing with their emotions instead of with evidence.

Of course, any sort of new discovery that contradict the previously established notions will be quickly met with scepticism and an unhealthy amount of ridicule initially. Nevertheless, if the evidence behind said discovery is sound, it will eventually be realized as people become accustomed to it and it is found to be appliable and practical.

This is not only observed in conflicts between science and religion, but also inside the scientific field itself. An example would be the inital discovery of electrons by J.J. Thompson. Before he found the possibility of electrons, there was no concept of subatomic particles in the field. So when he first introduced the possibility of something even smaller than an atom, most of the fellow scientist reacted in disbelief, and a few even thought he was just pulling their legs. Of course, now we know that electons exist, but back then it was an alien subject, and many scientist back then felt that it had no place in the estatished norm of the field and rejected the theory without even looking at the evidence.

Such a trap of prejudice is easy to fall into, so we must do our utmost to resist hanging on to our believes in blind faith, and instead look for evidence.

Religion tries to mix with Science, but Science don't want to mix up with Religion they don't belive in god religion belives in god.

That's not always so. There are plenty of scientists who identify themselves as "religous", but have no problem pursuing work in their own fields. Religion, being faith based, is quite adaptable. They've undergone much change in the face of immovable obstacle, like the change from the geocentric view of the solar system to the heliocentric one, again thanks to Galileo. Once they opened that can of worms, they had no other options, and opted to adapt rather than reject their own belief. So it is very possible for religion to mix with science as those who are flexible in their believes (from a psychological perspective) will be able to essentially wield the power of both worlds without significant issue.

Actually when religion refutes scientific discoveries (such as saying the world is only 6,000 years old) that does not mean that religion is being the cooperative side. Hell, the only reason science rejects some religious beliefs is because they haven't been proven (or otherwise disproved) by scientific finding. But religion dismisses things because it conflicts with what "god said".

The thing is, when we meet those who are religous but not enlighten, they'll refuse to listen to anyone and will only try to make others agree with them.

Such a person will tarnish the reputation of the more moderate and explorative religous members, and make others detest religion as a whole.

But that's labelling a whole group by the actions of one ignorant member. We shouldn't say that all religous are refutive of science, just as we don't say that all science says is correct, as several theories have been proven wrong before, despite popular belief in them (ex: phrenology).

And not all religions throw out scientific findings, but most of them do. All of the major ones at least. Or maybe the religion itself doesn't, but all of its influential members do. That's enough to do harm to the world.