Does religion stand in the way of science?

One email I read during yesterday’s programme argued that the more religious a country the less it will embrace science and technology. Plenty of you responded immediately, including Count Iblis who wrote, ‘Religion is based on ideas that contradict science. This contradiction used to be purely academical in past centuries. But in today’s world, religion has become an obstacle to, for instance, medical science. This does have a real impact on all of us.’ Do you agree?

55 Responses to “Does religion stand in the way of science?”

  1. 1 Brett
    April 1, 2008 at 12:38

    ‘This does have a real impact on all of us.’ Do you agree?

    Sure it has an impact on all of us. But many of the moral / ethical stances which people take especially in the medical field are not only based on religion but also on belief and values based on life and personal ethical standards. The line is heavily blurred in the medical field in that regard. For instance, one cannot simply say that stem cell or cloning research is hampered solely by religion. There are plenty of people who wish to place limits or restrictions on medical or scientific advances which are not affiliated or motivated by religion.

    Perhaps in evolutionary science, religion may have had stronger hindrance.

    Many of the standards and morals in the arguments to place restrictions / limits seem to be rooted in religious beliefs and ideology, regardless of the religious affiliation or orientation of the people against the certain types of research. Such beliefs include ‘the sanctity of life’, among many.

    Religion is certainly a large factor in the limiting of scientific and medical advancement; but is not the only contributing factor. Iblis made a good point in noting that it is an obstacle.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  2. 2 George USA
    April 1, 2008 at 12:44

    How soon we forget-

    The USA that made the discoveries, developed the technology, went to church on Sunday across the land.

    I grew up in that country. I bear true witness.

    April 1, 2008 at 12:49

    religion really and regrettably stands in the way of progress of science to our detriment and we are all paying dearly for that. Considering the issue of stem cell development which religion is trying to stall.
    In my view, I believe we should learn to draw a line between the two. There should be no estreme.

  4. 4 roblockett
    April 1, 2008 at 13:47

    Not only does religion not contradict science, it founds science.

    I am not talking about any ehtical issues which might bring into question the legitimacy of a given scientific endeavor, but the principle of science itself.

    Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?

    The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality’s) characteristics. Is reality a living being or merely an impersonal material force? Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am. The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.

    Definition of God / 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god )

    So science is faith. And it is faith in logic. And that is a very interesting observation since now we must remember that, any logical equation or test requires at least two entities (or witnesses). The coherence of at least two entities becomes the third element in the equation. Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. No claim is scientifically valid without the testimony of at least two witnesses. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application.

    No test for authoritative revelation can be achieved with less than a triune equation. Logic is systemic by its very nature. Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the profound quality of self evident and logical propositions.

    Methodological naturalism is neither logical (philosophically), nor scientific (empirically) when exalted to the status of an absolute. The only absolute in science is logic and coherence. Logical coherence (non-contradiction) must be assumed to be reality (God), in the triune sense extrapolated to us by the apostle John. But before we analyze John’s witness, let’s bear in mind that the Greeks had several ‘terms’ for the English term ‘Word’. The one that John used is ‘logos’ which assumes ‘reason’ as part of its meaning. The term Logos is also the etymological root of the English term ‘logic’.[1]

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos), was with God, and the Word (logos), was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men…14 The Word (logos) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    So science is indeed a triune and monotheistic affair. Paul Davies understands the history of scientific thought very well. Even so, it appears that the connection is far more implicit than he, or many of us bargained for. Logic has always been so, long before we discovered its power and recognized its whole nature. Logic is our only authority. Without its coherent order, all things would become unintelligible philosophically, and fall to pieces materially.

    ‘Who’ is this holy, logical and coherent Spirit of truth that we are necessarily dependant upon and implicitly commanded to worship and seek as our only light and savior? Since this holy spirit of coherence is the only intelligible self evident truth, and our only way to finding God (reality), then if logic could speak, what would He say? Since logic is the way the truth and the life, wouldn’t ‘the logos’ Himself affirm such a thing?

    John 14:6 “…I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    John 8:12 “…I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

    For a hint at the illusion that deceived us, let’s go straight to the words of David Hume the 18th century empiricist/philosopher, who must take much credit for putting one of the final nails into the coffin of the philosophical foundations of science. When speaking about books like the Bible, Hume said the following:

    “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, ‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number’? No. ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence’? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”[2]

    Ravi Zacharius explains that Hume’s logic is fatally flawed because his own statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence. The empiricists like David Hume missed something vital. And the best way to see the illusion is to ask the question Dr. Zacharius asked when faced with Hume’s remarks. He asked, “How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless”?[3]

    In case you had trouble with that, I’ll put it another way. ‘How do we propose a philosophy that says that philosophy is meaningless?’ It’s like saying, ‘English is unintelligible’, or ‘words do not have any meaning’. Fascinating! It takes a spirit to deny spirit. It takes an intellect to deny intellect. And that is what we should expect, since the empirical world does not deny intellect. If anything, the rocks cry out that, ‘God is not mocked’.

    Our propositions concerning the empirical world must also support our own propositions as a real insight and as meaningful, otherwise we are all just speaking empty, dead, and incoherent gibberish.

    C.S. Lewis said it well, “To be ignorant and simple now – not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground – would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether.”

  5. 5 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 13:52

    had it not been for religion, and how it stifles progress, we probably would have had computers and airplanes hundreds of years ago. Early theorists about science were tried for heresy, as their beliefs contradicted that of the religious establishment. Remember that earth being the center of the universe thing? The church was wrong on that. Possible it or other religions could be wrong too? The whole God thing is a simple solution to a complex question. I at least have the honesty to say I have no idea why or how the universe got here, whereas religious people think they have all the answers based off of a poorly written book that ignores big things, such as the existence of other planets, dinosaurs, etc…. Look at the most religious countries on earth, where the people are most pious. Presuming it doesn’t have lots of natural resources, it’s going to be backwards, poor, and have virtually no scientific achievements. To the religious people, you can have morality and values without religion. If anything, I see, if the world becomes more religious, we will regress, and not progress. Remember the dark ages? it was called that because christianity had stifled just about everything. I think the Romans were more advanced than societies 1000 years later. I’d much rather live in a nation where we plan on going to Mars than a nation where you can be killed for being of a different group or say something not nice about someone who claims to have spoken to God.

  6. 6 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 13:54

    Seriously if you think about it, look how much time religious people waste, praying to a fictional deity. That’s evidence enough right there. I challenege you to show any proof to me that God exists. Remmeber the book you are citing to was written by people, and is poorly written too. The time wasted by praying could be used to do something actually productive. Case closed.

  7. 7 Xie_Ming
    April 1, 2008 at 14:05

    Does organized religion impede science? Yes.

    People are concerned with finding meaning and purpose in life, with their place in the universe, with values and with explanations for what they do not understand. These are religious or philosophical concerns. Only in the matter of explanations and consequent action does conflict arise.

    Religion is personal. Organized religion is political, wherein the power of the priesthood, the elite and the organization is paramount. Brahmism among the Hindus, the role of the Party in Marxist countries, the historical Roman Catholic Church, and the ulama in Islam illustrate this.

    To implement organized religion among the people, an ideology is constructed. “God” is said to have revealed the truths of the ideology to the prophet, who then relates them to the people. Specialists then “interpret” these truths into regulations which are claimed to be immutable for all time.

    Ideology represents facts with symbols which are far more easily manipulated than are facts. With ideology, the real world becomes an imaginary world. Yet, the specialists must continue with their claim of immutable revealed truth. Here, the great conflict with science arises, for science is constantly seeking truth and revising its beliefs as new information becomes available.

    With an artificial ideological system, the strained revelation must be protected among the believers, who must be kept from other sources of fact and belief. Thus, uniformity is forced upon the believers, who are told that they form a community.

    Preservation of the organization and the faith takes precedence over fact and science.


    Interestingly, a con man in upper New York state, around 1847, had an angel called “Moroni” [plural of moron] discover golden tablets with divine truths inscribed thereon. Several apostles (but no one else) witnessed the tablets. From this beginning, an eminently respectable and successful Christian church has emerged.

  8. 8 Brett
    April 1, 2008 at 14:11

    @ George:
    How soon we forget-

    The USA that made the discoveries, developed the technology, went to church on Sunday across the land.

    I grew up in that country. I bear true witness.

    And what about now? What about new advances and research into science and medicine?
    Discoveries and developments which fit into, or do not contradict or go against the lord’s word were, as you state, made in a predominantly Christian USA. But what about discoveries or research which do not fall in line with Christian values? Have Christians and other religious organizations / members stood by and let such research go on? Something tells me that answer is a ‘no’. Thus making religious followers both inventive, but only within their values, and restrictive in the scope of their discoveries and sciences. Any science / method which falls outside of the core religious values is, at the very least, resisted.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  9. 9 mohammed ali
    April 1, 2008 at 14:47

    Religion! This style of life or mean by which people are brainwashed does not only stand in the way of Science, but is an absolute impediment to progress as a whole. Medicine would have been far advance had it not being for backwarded interference of religious groupings such christianity or islam. I truly think that the world would have been far advance in development and technology in addition to medicine.

  10. 10 Emilio
    April 1, 2008 at 14:53

    The comment by Count Iblis was a high point in the discussion, yesterday. The premise of a society controlled by a common belief becomes fixated and those in power determine the direction the society will take.

    No society can grow and mature without debate and divergence. It is the extremes that force the middle to move forward. This requires individuals who are willing to become artists and explorers. This means writers who question everything. This allows for sub-cultures, which reject all the values of the society. But, most of all, this mandates scientists who push the horizon of all that we know.

    When the Papacy served as a political power in Europe, it determined what science was acceptable based on the feeble excuse of Biblical writings. Even though it took centuries for the Vatican to admit it, thinkers and tinkerers, like Copernicus and Galileo, won the day by proving scientifically that the Earth revolved around the sun. Without this opposition, Western Civilization might still be in the Dark Ages.

    The great Eastern societies in China, India and Japan found value in building their religions around spiritual thinkers. This led to great introspection, as the societies matured. And science was used almost exclusively as a means to protect and defend. The two outstanding examples of this are The Great Wall, built to deter invading Mongols, and the development of steel swords in a country that only built paper houses.

    Islam, founded in the Seventh Century, began as a means to conquer and organize the itinerant and isolated Arabs of the decayed Persian Empire. Under the guise of a religion, it set expectations of behavior on its followers as a way of maintaining political power. Certainly, combining politics and religion has had some benefits during certain historic periods. Yet, Islam continues to demand such absolute submission that the religious leaders expect to exert political power. By maintaining a Seventh Century mentality — and declaring a fatwa on any dissention — religious leaders keep a strangle hold on power. Witness the Theocracies which control the Middle East. Individual Mullahs have their own armies — armies who kill enemies, as well as followers who stray.

    Societies like those in the swath of countries from Morocco to Bangladesh allow no dissent and, thus, have no hope of progressing into the Twenty-First Century. Until the religion that controls the lives of these people centralizes its authority and, with that accumulated power, accepts, permits and encourages dissent and debate – adherents submitting their lives to that religion will remain backward, intolerant and violent. It is not just science in such societies that suffers. It is the growth of the individual, the development of literature and the contribution to the world as a whole.

    Until Islam matures, Arabs will be relegated in the history books as the society that invented the Zero. Important as that might be to computers, it is ‘nothing’ to hang your hat on!

  11. 11 Peter Dewsnap
    April 1, 2008 at 15:00

    George USA
    April 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm
    How soon we forget-

    The USA that made the discoveries, developed the technology, went to church on Sunday across the land.

    I grew up in that country. I bear true witness.

    George, I grew up in England, the country which has made more scientific discoveries and social advances than any other. There, religion does not stand in the way of science as it does here and always has done. Religion is a system designed to hold power over people. You will note also that the further south and west you go in the US, religion becomes stronger. At the same time, the level of education falls. Coincidence?
    Peter South Carolina

  12. 12 John in Salem
    April 1, 2008 at 15:02

    This is an April Fool’s joke, right?
    Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is based on a “supernatural” world.
    If someone can tell me how teaching our kids that evolution isn’t real will somehow make them more competent scientists I’d love to hear it.

  13. April 1, 2008 at 15:11

    Religion isn’t an impediment to science. It’s the interpretation of religion that makes science science and religion irreconcilable. In the Middle Ages, the Church was seen as anti-science. Galileo Galilei had to spent the remaining of his life under house arrest for his scientific beliefs concerning among other things that Earth wasn’t the center of the universe. At the same time the Muslim world had a flourishing civilization in Baghdad and Andalusia.

    Centuries later, the order was reversed with the Christian West saw its scientific advancement flourish while the Muslim world retracted from its glorious achievement.

    It isn’t religion per se that it is can impediment to progress, but it is the mentality of those who consider that religious teachings are supreme and there is no way to adapt them to modern times. As Goerge’s comment above (April 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm) rightly points out, the USA is one of the most technologically advanced countries and yet it is perceived as one in which religion has been a key factor since its foundation.

    Religion concerns the spiritual side based on (unquestionable) beliefs. Science is about the material side based on evidence. Religion is concerned mainly about after-life, science about this life. There are those who succeed in reconciling the two. They find time for prayer and scientific research. There are those who find religion as a myth when it talks about the origin of creation or simply nonsense when it talks about morality.

    There are people who can’t live without religion and for them science is a means to be physically stable and comfortable to achieve spiritual fulfillment. For example, they need a car to go to mosque or church as they take a plane to go on a pilgrimage to a site far from their homes.

    Spirituality and discoveries are what make humans special. They may sound at odds from time to time concerning for example the limits that should be set concerning among other thing human cloning or the use of contraceptives. But there are areas in which they can have common gaols which is fundamentally the happiness of the human race in a morally balanced environment.

  14. 14 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 15:17

    For those that need a good laugh this April fools day:


    I’m wondering if the people who invented the robotics used believe in God. I doubt it. Why doesn’t God post in this WHYS and correct us if we’re wrong by doubting him?

  15. 15 Jonathan
    April 1, 2008 at 15:28

    It is clear that evolutionary teachings are interrupted by Christian groups. There are even dinosaur fosils dating 6000 years ago at Liberty University in Virginia. Some class rooms in the States can make a choice as to whether they can be taught evolution in the class room. Its a little short of book burning but not by much.

  16. 16 savane
    April 1, 2008 at 15:29

    In my senior year of high school (which was run by nuns and I’m Catholic) I challenged Sr. Theresina about birth control. She said that it denies life the chance to happen. I argued that if birth control stops conception, then life wouldn’t know it had been denied, because it had not happened, which is different from abortion, where life had existed and been terminated! I also said that birth control stopped unwanted pregnancy, and therefore an unwanted child would not have to be aborted or subjected to a life of rejection or seen as a burden. I got suspended! My opinion hasn’t changed.
    Science: 1 Religion: 0

    Last year the head of the Catholic Church forbade IVF because it was ‘playing God’, and embryos created outside the uterus were ‘unnatural’. Yes, IVF is unnatural, but in my opinion, couples who can use IVF are determined parents who want to create life. I think that opinion would have gotten me suspended from school too!

    Science: 2. Religion: 0

    My sister-in-law has been an epileptic for over 20 years. She has been on and off her meds for the last 12 years. Why? Because as a born-again Christian and has been ‘healed’ several times and stopped taking her meds! She’s seizure-free for a few days (until any trace of her meds leaves her body), and then her attacks come back – always stronger. It’s traumatic. I once said to her “God made man, man made medicine, therefore, God made medicine as one of the ways he shows us his divine intervention – please give your meds a chance”. My in-laws reaction: I was the reason she is still epileptic because I have no faith (their intolerance of Catholics is mind-boggling).

    Final score:
    Science 3 Religion 0

    While I do believe in the power of faith and prayer, I believe that religion and should complement each other, not substitute each other. And I know they do because my children were born through science (through my OB-GYN) AND my faith and in God.

  17. 17 Jonathan
    April 1, 2008 at 16:18

    This is exactly why the secular need to be active about keeping church and state seperate. I would argue that the right to vote is not a right for people who belive in the mystical.. Perhaps a weighted vote for the unreasonable?? Ceratainly a judge would throw out their testamony!!

  18. 18 Kevin
    April 1, 2008 at 16:38

    While many people blogging here have gone on various personal tantrums a direct answer to the question that spawned this discussion is this, that yes religion gets in the way science and technology. But the real issue of religion goes much deeper than science or technology. For religion is the banner under which people are enslaved and stripped of their freedom. The basis of the religious establishment’s fear of science and technology is this; throughout man’s history when he has gained insight into the mysteries of life, via the application of science or technology, it has lead him further away from the idea of a god, and that frightens the establishment that has made vast fortunes off those poor, uneducated individuals, who through no fault of their own want something to believe in simply because they have been taught that the will to personal power or seeking control over the factors of their existence is “sinful”.

  19. 19 Rashid Patch
    April 1, 2008 at 16:49

    The hostile anti-religion polemics here are typical of “scienticism”. If “science” is about objective and impartial judgement, why are it’s partisans so filled with angry disdain? If you are convinced that religious people are fools, how is denigrating them less a waste of time and energy than their prayers to what you believe is a fictitious deity?

    The distortions of history by adherents of “scientism” are no less erroneous than those of proponents of “young earth” creationism – and since the historical periods they misrepresent are easily looked up, those distortions seem even more foolish.

    There is no conflict between science and religion. There is only conflict between fools who claim to support science, and fools who claim to support religion.

  20. 20 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 16:52

    Religion leads to overpopulation, and overpopulation leads to war. If you notice, only the most religious people have lots of kids. Many of these people are so poor, they cannot support themselves, let alone their kids, so they rely on handouts. These people become impoverished, though they probably live happier lives than the materialistic people in the west. However, it’s the religion that tells them that BC is wrong, and so they would rather have a child starve to death than have a child not be conceived in the first place. Such selfishness that it’s pathetic. So when you are overcrowded, the quality of life goes down, resources become scarce, and more chance for violence. The end of humanity will be basically people fighting for resources because we are so overpopulated due to religious fundamentalism. Back in the day when religion encouraged a lot of kids for good reason, it was because of high infant mortality. Now, there’s not so much of a problem with that, so we’re going to have a population crisis, thanks to religion, and when the world is totally messed up due to war, we’ll have religion to thank for us living underground in caves, wearing skins, rather than travelling to new planets. Thanks religion.. Religion belongs in the fiction section of a library, nowhere else.

  21. 21 Moses S. Pyne
    April 1, 2008 at 16:53

    Religion does not in any way stand in the way of science. Most nations of the world are opting for technological and scientific advancements. As science tends to focus on the composition of natural phenomenon as a way of reaching conclusions about the universe, technology most times refines the world, thereby making most religions to preach prosperity that will bring about better and easy living.

  22. 22 Ian from Arizona
    April 1, 2008 at 17:10

    Does religion stand in the way of Science? No. Closed minded individuals stand in the way of science. There are many people who believe in and practice religion and are scientist. Those who are against the truth, whether it be creationism versus evolution, or if prayer helps or is a waste of time, it is close mindedness that stands in the way of progress.

    Steve: In response to your comments, I cannot prove to you that God is real. It’s called faith, a believe is something that is real but unproven, and I testify that God is real. I ask you to prove to me that God is not real. Just as I cannot prove to you that God is real, you cannot prove to me that God is not real. God lives and believes in you, whether you believe in him or not.

    Xie_Ming: In response to your comments, there was another man whom I’m sure you would also call a “con man”. He lived about two thousand years ago and died for our sins. Just because you do not believe that Joseph Smith found another testament of Christ does not mean that it did not happen.

  23. 23 Anthony
    April 1, 2008 at 17:15

    That would be silly to think that God would post on WHYS. If He did, then everyone would KNOW that he was real, then there would be no choice. God gave us that choice. I believe life is just a test, so if He did, there would be no test.

    As far getting in the way of science by “wasting time with religion”, so does food, videogames, music, and crack cocain.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

    p.s. I just noticed that super tiny smiley face at the bottom left side of the page, lol! 🙂

  24. 24 Jonathan
    April 1, 2008 at 17:19

    There is a conflict between science and religion. Science is giving us a real picture of reality with no grandious assumptions like gods etc. I would argue that religion gets in the way of reason more than science. Political correctness aside, an iron age world view should not be tolerated these days. Maybe there is something out there, but to boldy say there is without a shred of proof is arrogant.

  25. 26 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 17:28


    In logic, you prove the existance of something, not the non existance of something. That would be like me asking for you to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist. It is YOUR job to prove God exists, not for me to prove God doesn’t exist. There is not a shred of evidence of God, and your faith isn’t evidence. Sorry.

  26. 27 steve
    April 1, 2008 at 17:30


    Doesn’t God normally get mad if people don’t believe in him? Hasn’t he be known to kill people who don’t believe in him, who don’t worship him? Sounds like a really wonderful deity, that kills those that don’t love and worship him. Sounds like very human traits, of desperately wanting to be appreciated. More evidence that we created God, and not the other way around. Is God really that insecure that he requires us to worship and believe in him without a shred of evidence? Does God really think we are this stupid?

  27. 28 George USA
    April 1, 2008 at 17:51

    Brett and Peter-

    Make believe history does not change real history.

    Science is a God thing,

    Most great advances is science in the USA and UK were made by a pack of Bible studying, Church attending, God fearing men.

  28. 29 John in Salem
    April 1, 2008 at 18:02

    Religion has its place, but if my child has a disease which might be curable, this fool would rather have someone working on the problem who believed in the concepts of mutation and natural selection.

  29. 30 Scott Millar
    April 1, 2008 at 18:04

    They very nature of being religious (three majors) gives you an automatic bias towards science. Being part of a group that claims the world was created and that there is a god, etc… means you approach science with your mind made up on paramount issues of how planet earth and its creatures function and also how they got here. If the overwhelming majority of an entire nation is religious this most certainly stands in the way of free scientific inquiry.

    -Portland, Oregon

  30. 31 Ana Milena, Colombia
    April 1, 2008 at 18:19

    @ Anthony
    [i]That would be silly to think that God would post on WHYS. If He did, then everyone would KNOW that he was real, then there would be no choice. God gave us that choice. [b]I believe life is just a test, so if He did, there would be no test. [/b][/i]

    *LOL* I totally agree!

    Sometimes religion does stand in the way of science but, in the same way, sometimes science is in the way of our believes and existance.
    The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Yet, this is one of the ways human beings try to rule themselves, just like politics… And even religion.

    I believe in God, and I think science has been an excellent complement to discover how amazing God’s creation is; technology has also offered a great sample of human intelligence. The problem is when science is expected to be the whole truth, taking for granted there’s a creator and an explanation for everything.

    Some religions or communities, on the other hand, take steps to demonstrate the opposite with very extreme reactions. That’s not suitable, either!

  31. April 1, 2008 at 18:34

    I really think that the discussion “Does religion stand in the way of science?” needs to go from the blog to the show. This is an important topic and should be discussed with the broader audience.

    While most people on the blog seem to be “anti-religion”, science has proven, and is in the process of proving that religion has benefits. I apologize for not having the information in front of me, but there has been studies done in hospitals that praying for patients helps in their healing. This is science proving religion.

    Religion doesn’t stand in the way of science, just as science doesn’t stand in the way of religion. It is closed-minded individuals that stand in the way of progress. I think this distinction needs to be made because not all scientific discoveries are progress and not all religions are against science. A historical example is the record keeping of Islam before the dark ages that helped bring about the renaissance. The Vatican currently has an astronomical observatory, as another example. Religion is not against science. Closed-minded individuals stand in the way of progress, whether scientific progress or religious progress.

    Ian from Arizona

  32. 34 Jonathan
    April 1, 2008 at 18:56

    There is science and then there is science. Im sure the mechanism for mind-body health can certainly be explained in scientific terms. But to say that prayer is some how proving that relegion is working in tandem with science is a little far fetched. Meditation has shown to be beneficial as well, but we dont have to be buddhists to feel those effects. We can only argue from what we know for sure. To prove something is science. It has credibility. We need universal laws in order for us to get along in this context.. Science provides those laws…

  33. 35 George USA
    April 1, 2008 at 18:57


    I see that smile face at the bottom: it made my day with this dreary topic set up to bash the faithful.

    Clearly the lack of facts in history text books have left the barn door of reality open, and all the facts of history, plow horses of heritage, foundation of culture, corporate history of nations, framework of social interactions, expectations of better tomorrows based on victories of yesteryear have galloped out the back.


  34. 36 akjournalist
    April 1, 2008 at 18:58

    I’ll go one further, I’ll say that what most people call “religion,” with all its man made ideas and customs, stands in the way of a true relationship with God.

  35. 37 Xie_Ming
    April 1, 2008 at 19:10

    Let facts replace faith-based assertions:

    Any form of positive belief help sick people. The reduction of stress measurably improves the immune response. (Example: it will help to have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

    As to the unsubstantiated assertions concerning the Essene Jesus: anyone sincerely intered should obtain Martin Larson’s
    “The Story of Christian Origins” (Village Press 1977) and read some of Elain Pagel’s research. [More references on request]

    For the overall picture, see ” Ideology’s Handbook” (Athabascan, 2005).

  36. April 1, 2008 at 21:00

    Does religion stand in the way of science?


    Prince Pieray Odor
    Lagos, Nigeria

  37. 39 Jonathan
    April 1, 2008 at 21:04

    A higher power is a reasonable assuption. One that has evolved thru time like we have, but has been evolving longer or a shorter path etc.. This I can begin to imagine. But an immutable being at the helm of all creation is escapes my brain.

  38. April 2, 2008 at 07:22

    Ok, let’s get some facts out. Evolution is a “Theory” Not fact because there are missing links. Can you say “Theory”?

    Next, science proves itself wrong on a daily basis. What was considered fact yesterday in now obsolete today.

    Teaching evolution (theory) as fact is the same as teaching an unproven religion, so stop being two faced.

    Laws are based on moral standards. We have to have laws. Without them, there would be no science.

    Repeated, Laws are based on moral standards. Most moral standards are based on religion.

    So, without religion, you have no science. So then where would you be?

  39. April 2, 2008 at 11:13

    I don’t think religion and contemporary science contradict each other. If you read through the Bible in the New Testament’s Synoptic Gospel of Luke, written by Luke a physician, you will find instances in which he refers to incidents where in Jesus Christ healed persons healed people of their infirmities. If Luke a physician, can accept the place of Divine intervention in the world of science, what then are we talking about? I know a good number of Medical Doctors and scientists of great repute who are Christians and acknowledge the crucial place that religion holds in science. I don’t think these two contradict one another in anyway.

  40. 42 Xie_Ming
    April 2, 2008 at 12:00

    No religion is “proven”.

    By continually developing new facts, science proves itself right every day,

    No other explanation comes close to evolutionary theory- e.g., the practice of medicine increasingly depends on evolutionary genetics.

    The dogmatically ignorant do not comprehend the difference between “theory”, “law” and “hypothesis” in science.

    Nor, as illustrated above, are they able to form the most elementary expressions of logic.

    The above post indicates the degree of stupidity and backwardness that revealed religion brings with it. Stagnation and regression are inevitable in a land so oppressed.

    The above indicates that primitive organized religion not only impedes science, it destroys it.

  41. 43 Brett
    April 2, 2008 at 14:52

    @ George:

    Brett and Peter-

    Make believe history does not change real history.

    Science is a God thing,

    Most great advances is science in the USA and UK were made by a pack of Bible studying, Church attending, God fearing men.

    Ros Atkins
    …But in today’s world, religion has become an obstacle to, for instance, medical science….

    Key word, in today’s world… Yes, religion is an obstacle to medical science. Not in every aspect, but in certain areas of medical science, it is an obstacle. Prove me wrong on this in regards to stem cell research, cloning research, IVF, etc. Go on George… No leaning back on historical advances in science which were in line with Christian and religious values. Show me how in CURRENT medican science fields such as IVF, cloning, stem cell research and the like (practices which contradict some religious beliefs and ideals) that religion is NOT an obstacle to science.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  42. 44 Brett
    April 2, 2008 at 15:10

    Oh my goodness!!!

    Talk about current events!


    Religion standing (or at least trying to) in the way of science.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  43. 45 Jonathan
    April 2, 2008 at 17:10

    The term “theory” in terms of evolution really should be changed such that some people can understand it. There is no dispute among serious biologist about the notion of natural selection and mutation. The term theory for those people who just arrived back from recess, is used to describe the whole body of knowledge that encompasses the theory of evolution. And its this body of knowledge that is growing and growing.. Its a work in progress. But its fundemental ideas are not in question. Everything in the science of biology only mkaes sense in light of evolution. Genetics to behaviour. Why is it so hard for people to understand that we come from the earth, and no placed here!

    @ Brett. Do you know find yourself in this debate a lot coming from VA? I could hardly belive my ears when I heard about Liberty University in Lynchburg.. Perhaps its not like that all over…

  44. April 2, 2008 at 17:29

    I do not agree that religion particularly Islam contradicts medical sciences.My reasons are:
    The quoran beside being a religious document that guides the life of a muslim is also a compendium of sciences like biology,astrology and many others within gamut of sciences that mankind depend on to improve livelyhood.
    If there are contradictions and obstacles to sciences today,they are from followers of religions for their inability to study and comprehend their books of religion and their sciences,medicine and astrology.Afterall mankind is fond of shifting blames on nature/supernatural phenomenon to cover its weaknesses and inabilities.

  45. April 3, 2008 at 02:57

    Some scientists are really the follwers of satan,The Bible says homosexual is sin which led both Sodom and Gomorah to destoration by HOLY CREATOR but most westerners scientists and politicans are supporter of these evils all around the world.As Bible says people were creat by HOLY GOD but scientists say people were animal from beging.Who then take care of these crops like maize, rice, bean,etc and domastic animals when the human being were still animal because this crops and animals will never be a live without human being looking after them?Most scientists are try to teach satan way of lair so that the whole people in world will confuse and lose, so that people will think that there is not ALMIGHTY CREATOR of universe.But the HOLY GOD of Abraham,Isaac and Jocab will punishes all these evil and lair.

  46. 48 John van Dokkumburg
    April 3, 2008 at 10:03

    If we like it our not , but we need to accept we dooing wrong on many fronts and science can measure that , wrong has a impact on our health , so why not taken our privilage seriously ? We need a middle classefide law from God .

  47. April 3, 2008 at 18:12

    There is always a conflict between Religion and Science. In science you leave your beliefs behind.

  48. 50 George USA
    April 4, 2008 at 02:20


    God created the whole shooting match.

    There is no science that is not just documenting God’s handiwork of creation.

    The Bible works- the laws of the Tora were found to be totally compatible with what we have now come to understand through Science as perfect public health measures.

    You may not understand it today, but science eventually discovers what God did and how it fits,

    so if you want to be on the cutting edge of science, read the Bible and apply it.

    By the way, I am a physician by training.

  49. 51 Zainab
    April 4, 2008 at 05:41

    Hello, how are you all,
    Religion does not stand in the way of science. In Islam; religion is science (because it is based upon deep sight and depended upon proof) and science is religion (because it is an obligation on every Muslim -male and female).
    The first verse of Qur’an has came to order reciting: “Read! In the name of your Lord Who created[1] – created man from a leechlike mass.[2]”
    The Qur’an has called in many of its verses for increasing science and encouraged scientists, and it has discommend ignorance. “It is He Who has raised among the unlettered people a Messenger of their own, who recites to them His revelations, purifies them, and teaches them the Book and Wisdom, though prior to this they were in gross error” ,[2:62]. “O Lord! Increase my knowledge.”[20:114].
    Prophet Muhammed (s.a.w) said that one can obey Allah by science, and can worship Allah by science. The good of this life and Hereafter is with science, and the worse of this life and Hereafter is with ignorance.
    One of the scientific facts in Qura’n is the matter of Gravity. Allah says: “It is Allah Who keeps the heavens and the earth from slipping out of their places. Should they ever slip, none can hold them back besides Him; certainly He is Most Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving.”[35:41]
    This verse indicates that gravity is not only between earth and what are on it. But between earth and other planets, each planet attracts other planets strongly and in a fit rate.
    yours truely,

  50. April 10, 2008 at 10:20

    Born a Muslim, Brought Up in Europe, Studied Bible

    TEHRAN – Perhaps the first thing God would say if we met Him, would be: “Keep well away from religion.” It is true that Divinity is offered as an ‘O’ level subject in Britain. Youngsters of eight or nine can enter Seminaries in Islam. In Judaism also, the prophet Samuel was dedicated to the Temple at the tender age of seven.
    Perhaps I have been luckier than most since my God speaks English, a vintage man. The Christian Church in the Middle Ages reconciled itself with the Jewish Faith and obtained Arabic translations of Plato and Aristotle in the bargain. All this at the price of gruesome campaigns of bloodshed and carnage at the time of the Crusades. Strong-arm tactics, the rack and torture during the Inquisitions, further gave the Church the ascendance and enabled it to rule Europe for the next 500 years.
    However, where would we be without religion? Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nitszsche and Arthur Shopenhauer would be nowhere. Notions of Zeitgeist – the spirit of the age – or the Supreme Idea mean nothing without Faith. Einstein himself admitted that providential inspiration led him to the theory of relativity.
    The general advice should be, keep well away from annulets, charms, trinkets and the rest, but look for scholarship: Whether in science, in churches, mosques or synagogues, particularly when a priest, a prelate or rabbi is concerned, demand palpable proof and irrefutable evidence.

  51. 53 Xie_Ming
    April 10, 2008 at 14:15

    Einstein explained his comments and explicitly complained about those who tried to attribute supernatural beliefs to him.

    He was and remained an atheist.

    One can have faith in a secular religion, such as Marxism.

    Posters who cannot define “God” may have even more difficulty in defining “faith”, but perhaps we can call it “irrational conviction”.

  52. 54 Jeff in Portland
    April 10, 2008 at 22:08

    If people believe in fiction,
    we shouldn’t trust them with reality.

  53. 55 RestlessPilgrim
    April 20, 2008 at 02:27

    Could a method ever be designed to analyze supernatural processes to see if they had any measurable effects on nature.
    Could supernatural processes ever be empirically validated?
    Has a method ever been designed?
    What would some of the elements be in a design method?
    Would it ever be possible to test theories that the supernatural and the natural interact?
    Would it be possible to test a theory that the present life force inherent in nature and living beings is supernatural?
    Would it be possible to test a theory that the life force inherent in nature and living beings did not originate naturally?
    Would it be possible to test a theory that the world is not a closed system of natural causes?
    Would it be possible to test a theory that the observers of natural phenomenon are both natural and supernatural and they in effect exist both within the natural and supernatural?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: