The 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” has opened up the age old debate on whether or not religion and science can work together.
This article says it’s the pressure to choose between science and religion that makes people resistant to accepting theories of evolution.
But does it have to be one or the other? Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God. Can you be a good scientist if you are religious?
Here are the findings from Pew Research Center poll on science and belief in God.
‘Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation — describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular — compared with 17% of all Americans.’
Have a read of this piece by Harry Eyres which finds that whilst religion may need science, we shouldn’t underestimate how much good science needs religion. Is science too arrogant?
Let’s take Islam for example. ‘Islam did ancient science brilliantly’ says Professor Perverz Hoodbhoy in Islamabad ‘but today Muslims lag behind. To catch up, they must demand the freedom to question.’
The relationship between science and religion is a vital one says the Center for Jewish Studies at Arizona State University. They find that religion gives fact depth.
Does proving religion wrong keep science motivated?
“Newton confessed from the outset he hoped to provide a scientific proof for God’s existence,” says Karen Armstrong in her new book The Case for God . “At a stroke, Newton overturned centuries of Christian tradition. ”
Can you believe in science AND religion?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
“Are science and religion compatible?”
I guess it depends on your religion or how you look at it. I think the most compatible view, if you believe in God, is that God made everything, including science and the rules of science, and he made us with brains so we can figure it all out. If you take a more literal view of religion, the bible for example, they become less compatible.
It is the question of how much of any holy text is interpreted as parable or fact. Consider the book of Genesis in the Bible. If you accept it as a symbolic story, it agrees with most or all of what science had concluded. It includes the Big Bang ( ‘let there be light’ ), coalescence of celestial bodies ( ‘he gathered the light’ ), and other details I don’t properly remember. It covers evolutionary dead ends and species ending cataclysms.
The biggest problem is when people feel threatened by what science can prove. The key concept or question that decides you position is the interpretation of the Biblical statement ‘God created man in his own image’. If you take it as meaning physical form, the following conclusions lead to inflexibly or an orthodox belief. If you believe ( as most I have met do ) it refers to us also being creatures with free will, the Bible is more of a lesson book than a rule book.
What nonsense. Science is not based on a believe system but verifiable theories about nature and improved version of it as the time goes by with better understanding . For instance in soil mechanics , some shear strengh theories of more than 200 years ago was challenged about 40 years ago by some school of thought ,but hardly adopted by many ,some claim to be not fully understood .
But religion is based on believe system and from hinduism of 10000 years challenged over several millennium and centuries, people evolved their own with their own messaia like budda,cofusious ,jesus ,mohammad, Gurunath and so on.
i have no problem with coexisiting in my mind about religion and science since i switch of one when i think of the other.
Why not ask the question:
“Are ‘climatology’ and science incompatible ?”
Recently a huge amount of skulduggery has been uncovered at England’s ‘Climate Research Unit’.
This included:
+ Fabricating data
+ Falsifying data
+ Destroying data
On top of that they deleted material that was subject to freedom of information requests, bullied colleagues and perverted the peer-review process.
Read a summary here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
“Religion” might be too broad. I can imagine a religion that does not require belief in a supernatural deity; such belief only possible by suspension of scientific method. One can believe in Jesus, say, without believing in his dad or immaculate conception or resurrection; all notions invented by men, none observable, measurable, repeatable, etc. Then if one believes in Jesus and his principles and devotes oneself to a Christ-like philosophy, there is no aspect of that in conflict with science. If someone claims to be informed by the voice of God, like Charles Manson or some TV evangelist, by what evidence should he be believed? There is nothing wrong with taking comfort in one’s religion, for some people it makes mortality easier to accept or relieves them of the burden of understanding difficult, but scientifically-explainable, concepts, but if it informs a fatalism or a relief of responsibility because God will take care of everything, then that can be pernicious. The obvious example being the notion that climate change is under God’s control so we might as well burn all the coal. I don’t, but if one does believe in God and that he created the Earth, wouldn’t one feel compelled to take good care of His creation? There are Christians who have adopted that philosophy; not incompatible with science.
I HATE that they put Atheist and Agnostic bundled together. They are VERY different things.
I’m my “religion” (which I made up), science can work hand and hand with a “God”. I think it’s harder with religions like Christianity.
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Patti in Cape Coral – I support your simple answer – it contains neither malice nor scorn and is open to discussion; something not easily come by in this “one side or the other” culture.
In my view they are defiantly compatible because ultimately they are the same thing via a different route. The huge, huge, huge problem with orthodox religion is that through misunderstanding and often deliberate distortion the real meaning/message has/is being lost. – IMHO. I find it easier to grasp the scientific route because it makes more sense to me and so label myself atheist, not that I reject the notion of a “God/creator, but because I don’t believe the established religious understanding/interpretation to be correct – at least for me. What others choose to believe, I have absolutely no quarrel – so long as their views are not detrimental to me or mankind in general.
Edit – my own post. I guess other views not detrimental to me or mankind is what everybody has said and look at the mess. Maby I should just leave it at – no quarrel.
” not that I reject the notion of a “God/creator, ” Sounds more agnostic to me.
Tom you are probably correct.
Absolutely, you can believe in science and religion. Ever heard of “The Tao of Physics”?
Both religion and science attempt to find answers to questions. Both disciplines err if they decide that all the questions have been answered.
“Religion gives fact depth”? Since when? If that’s true, then how come the latest film about Darwin was banned in the States?
Science does not need religion. Some people need to tack religious ideas onto science to give it an emotional gravity they would not be able to discover on their own. Perhaps they haven’t tried, or are afraid to step into this territory of uncertainty.
Declaring that religion gives science depth is an example of filling the subjective emotional gap with a fuzzy phrase. It doesn’t improve the science, it just attempts to blur the ever-expanding edges by just saying something, even if it doesn’t mean anything.
I think that it is the other way around; science gives religion depth. It explains certain details which might be vague or corrupted (as many religions are both).
“Are science and religion compatible?” No. The gods of most religions are supernatural… heroes, and have magical powers. Science deals with reality, real objects and the scientific method.
Supernatural claims, and magic can’t be tested. They are beliefs.
People need to use their heads; there is not one single religion that hasn’t been corrupted by someone in power for their own personal gains. No single book can give someone the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
No. If you have the view that god started the whole process of creating everything (or from whatever stage), it only lead to this – Who created the creator? If you then say, as many religious folk do, that god has always been here, then what is to stop the scientist from responding by saying ‘well, ok, the universe has always been here’. Now, we know this is not the case and science endevours to find out more. That is science. Religion, on the other hand, doesn’t want to find out more (doesn’t need to). That philosophy is the opposite to science.
“Religion, on the other hand, doesn’t want to find out more (doesn’t need to)”
If I understand correctly, you are spot on – Religions in the main are “ a how-to guide for living” They do not attempt to explain the existence of a God/creator or why anything is what it is except in the most basic format – “let there be light” etc. I guess it would have been pretty difficult 5000 years ago to explain e = mc squared. I prefer to think along the lines of “God” IS the universe – which is itself, part of, a continuum of, and/or result of what exists/existed before. Alpha and Omega.
It does not matter if science and religion are compatible or not, for such argument leads one to nowhere.
However, they must agree to disagree, and respect each other’s right to exist to satisfy the different needs of man.
(btt1943)
And to allow true religious freedom it must not be a part of government. Each will be free to grow without opposition.
It’s not so much religion or science which are the problem, but the leaders of each who make it an issue. It’s as if they want to spite each other.
The “creation versus evolution” debate is a perfect example. Evolution doesn’t have a creation argument whatsoever. By its nature it depends on something having already been created. It’s like comparing a fruit tree to a supermarket.
Unfortunately, we’ve got a lot of doctrinal fanatics from both religious and scientific areas who like to co-opt natural discussions and turn them into battering rams to reinforce their own position.
Any honest scientist will acknowledge that at the center and outskirts of our understanding about anything…exists mystery and wonder. It’s always been that way, and I believe it always will be.
On the flip-side, an honest theologian would agree that religious law is based on understanding and reflection on truth, and perpetual examination.
Because religion is based on belief and science is based on fact they will seldom agree on anything. The pursuit of belief requires great faith and many insulate the fragility of their faith by blocking out anything that might challenge their belief. This is most true in the fundamentalist churches of all beliefs where everyone but themselves are seen as enemies. The current boundaries of science are also now pushing the envelope and producing “scientific theory” marketed as fact so in a sense the two are coming together over the matter of faith in belief.
Religions say that God created everything for a purpose and gave humans a guide for living.
Science tries to prove what exists and speculates on how it came to exist (sometimes using unprovable assumptions requiring “faith”) and gives humans tools for living.
The two are distinct and separate paths, sometimes they may criss-cross over each other and may even be complementary.
The Quran says:
“Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?”
When scientists came along with the big bang theory, it expanded this picture and gave it depth and colour.
It was a catholic priest who came up with the big bang theory.
I am an Atheist however I had fully read the Christian and Devils Bible and I have also studied and trawled through loads of written Roman History and from that it does not take a Rocket Scientist to understand that the Bible is a book of Myths as are all the other Religious books, that all in essence have the same Myths within them, Therefore there is no need for Religious belief and the works of Darwin to be considered side by side, the weak may continue to believe their books and accept the horrors written within, if it makes life easier for them to live and for us who believe in fact and science to continue to know that we have thousands upon thousands of pieces of fact to prove Darwin and evolution and that those Religious groups have not one piece, even the Church admits there is No original Bible.
In past ages,science and religeon have been arch enemies.The religeons however,have always been bought to heel by sheer weight of scientific evidence.And nowadays they are using science in order to proove the exsistance of their god and creation,as their holy books suggest.So yes,science and religeon are comming closer together,or should I say,religeon and science are comming closer together? But don’t be fooled,remember that their gods will still have the final say on every thing.
I am a atheist and student of mathematics, but I see room for religion
Science and religion are not compatible, but the can coexist. Pure science often provides us with results but no interpretation. Here is the chance for religion.
Religion can challenge the interpretation of results, but not the results. The problems emerge when religion challenges scientific results.
Very short and simple enough that even the unlettered person of proper mindset can understand it: True science which depends solely on empirical proof and includes such practical disciplines as epidemiology always agrees with reasonable interpretations of scripture. Many so-called “scientific disciplines” (such as “astro-biology”) are come-lately junk pseodo-science entries which depend on disproven theories such as abiogenesis. They are ginned up for no other reason than to indulge in rank speculation intended to raise doubts in the minds of the unsure and far too-easily impressionable about the existence of the Creator.
Science and religion are not necessarily incompatible because they deal with different worlds (natural and supernatural), so you can be religious and be a scientist at the same time, it wouldn’t make much sense but it’s certainly possible.
I think it’s ridiculous that there are actual academics (no scientists though) making a living out of writing books about how religion is of value to science, because it just isn’t.
And no, Islam, like any other religion, wasn’t good at science, it just happened that cities with scientific centers in Iraq and Iran got conquered by Arab Muslims who didn’t interfere with these centers as long as their research wasn’t deemed blasphemous.
Consider this phrase:
“He was an honest man.”
Science is interested in the DNA of the man, what he looks like, all the physical properties that make him a man.
Religion is interested in all his actions and intentions, the purity of his heart, and all the spiritual and practical properties that make him honest, and suggests that it is a good thing to be honest.
Now consider this phrase:
“The earth is bigger than the moon.”
Science can tell you by how much and give you the dimensions of each.
Religion won’t offer anything useful (except metaphors?)
Depending on the question, either religion or science provide more meaningful answers.
Science and religion are different. Science needs evidence. Religion only needs to believe. Religion believes that the physical person was created in Gods image. But God is a spiritual entity, And only created us as a spiritual entity. The physical we adopted. And until this can be understood we will have general conflict in the physical plane of existence
By definition they are incompatible.
Religions are based on faith – i.e. acceptance of ancient beliefs without proof or question.
Science is based on questioning and the search for proof – and the continued challenging of accepted proofs.
By definition Science will never finally answer the ultimate questions of how, why, where it all began. But by not accepting the easy way out (the God option) it has uncovered the most beautiful and magical things about our origins, our planet and our universe – things which leave me with a sense of wonder and awe far more powerfull than anything I experienced during my strict religious upbringing.
I think the incompatibility stems from our default mind-set that see things as good and bad white and black and so.this duality in our understanding obscure the wholeness and the oneness of our life.
I would rather ask:
Are “the truth” and “religion” always compatible.
I am a christian & i believe God created man and the universe. How He did it is beyond the capability of man’s understanding. All we to do is to is not to try and figure out how God created us, but to saved.
Are science and religion compatible?
They are in reality one and the same.
Magic is only logic that we haven’t understood as yet. And what we cannot fathom, we tend to explain with our own belief of it. And since each one has his own truth, we are bound to have our own opinion too. Humanity has been doing this for time immemorial, long enough to create our own clubs of belief. Some of us, who are not so deeply inculcated in those beliefs, are able to give them up and be open to different opinions or for that matter none at all.
There is no conflict between science and religion. They are like two wings of the same bird. Human mind cannot progress without both of them.
The book I have recently written may help in this direction. The title is “Travels of the Mind” and it is available at http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TravelsOfTheMind.html
If you have any question I am most willing to discuss about this topic.
Ettore Grillo
I beiieve that this question is one that has to be asked from two points of view.
Science is compatible with religeon and most top scientist believe that a creator must have been involved with the original creation even if they have no particular religous beliefs beyond that. As a scientist I would argue that science is more likely to lead to you that poimt of view rather than the other way round and they are certainly combatible.Both Einstien and Newton were religous men.
The convinced religous sect follower will find science a threat to a blind belief based purely on religous doctrine. From the point of view of religous doctrine that is really power based and not knowledge based the two are and never can be, compatible. Doctrine has never welcomed scientific proof of anything that has disproved their beliefs as they see the truth in this case is a threat to their personal power base.
Everybody must face the fact that the truth is the truth and as science brings us closer and closer towards ultimate knowledge it may or may not fall in with any or all religous groups but then where is the profit in holding onto a belief that is prooved utter nosense anyway.
“Everybody must face the fact that the truth is the truth and as science brings us closer and closer towards ultimate knowledge it may or may not fall in with any or all religous groups but then where is the profit in holding onto a belief that is prooved utter nosense anyway.”
First of all, there is no truth. Science is based on deductions, which for the most part hold true. But think about it. Just because an apple falls downward from a tree 100 billion times does not mean that it will always fall downward from a tree. It just means that the chances of it falling any other way are infinitesimally small, and close to zero. So the term “ultimate knowledge” is essentially an oxymoron. The more we know, the more we know that we don’t know.
Now religion, on the other hand, is based purely in faith. The conflict arises when religion is seen as the “ultimate knowledge”, because it can’t possibly answer every question. It is more of a “guidebook” that provides meaning to life, which science can never answer. I agree that science is more likely to lead to acceptance of a creator than the other way around; that is because many people do in fact accept religion as the “ultimate truth”, which can be very dangerous.
Religion is good if it makes a better person, Science is good of it makes a better world we live in. Both have the plusses and minusses, people have been tortured and killed in the name of religion, an example “The Spanish Inquisition”,
Science has created weapons of mass distruction, military equipment, gas chambers that caused the death of millions of people and so on.
The question ‘are science and religion compatible?, I dont think so, they just contradict each other. One prays and kills the other produces instruments to kill.
I don’t think the problems lie in Science or religion but in individual opinion. Having said that, it is where human freedom is based. We are incapable of Seeing Eye to eye, which makes every individual unique and makes conflict unavoidable. The question is how we go about it. It is our ignorance that makes us believe that truth is objective or universal. If the majority believes a thing it does not make it true. That is the reason even the democratic system is suspect.
Science and Religion are not polar beliefs that cannot coexist or even merge with each other. Science has always validated and advanced religion, likewise, religion has fueled the advancement of Science. It is evident that in previous times, religion had placed its chain on the perimetre of reasoning, but we have moved out of the dark ages into the a revolutionized renaissance. The vatican has even caught on to their mistake and opened observatories and have religious orders geared towards scientific research. Also, a realistic as the big bang theory is, even though wobbly, a supreme being can be attached to it. God could have created the great collision of particles that created the cosmos. Religion isn’t an arcane view on life but is ever practical.
If what gets uncritically accepted as scientific is accepted merely because it provides the wantonly amoral with an excuse to indulge their most socially insalubrious appetites free from any moral consideration that it does great disservice. Media and academia have made it far too easy to get a distorted view of how “religion” should be perceived. Take the example of the widely-acclaimed “Piltdown Man”. This hoax conveniently provided things essential to the perperuation of two unfortunate delusions – Victorian pride at having everything worth having (including true “human beings”) before everyone else, and atheistic humanistic pride at having something to beat theistic belief down with. Acceptance of that lie held sway among the whole world’s most highly acclaimed scientists for nearly four decades and held worthwhile research in bondage to error for that long. What is held forth as science is often just faith in anything which can be used to deny faith in a Creator God and when science is abused in that way it does humanity no favors.
Most scientists agree on a lot of fundamental principles, ones that are fairly well-supported by objective data.
When religious people accomplish a similar level of agreement, let us know.
Science and religion go hand in hand. Darwin started his journey of discovery as a total believer in God. He finished as an agnostic. Therefore, it is by no means antithetical to science to conclude that the hand of God guided him in his endeavours.
Science is complemented by truthfull religion that go together as a horse and carriage.
It mutually confirms eachother.
Or, at least, it ought to.
There is strong cause to believe that religion is based partly on the ancient science of astronomy. There are strong correlations between the bible (incl. other religious text such as the Qu’ran) and the heavenly bodies, constellations including the zodiac itself. In some ways it ratifies the bible, but it also changes what we currently believe. The garden of Eden is based upon all the constellations. Even some of the apparent inconsistancies in the Bible are explained, such as how can John the Baptist be executed and yet be alive and kicking later on.
The Unspoken Bible website shows this clearly, although I’m uncomfortable with web authors strong atheist tone. Also, performing a web search for Solar Mythology will yield some astounding information.
Originally, the zodiac was also a method used to regulate annual activities. When a recognised pattern appears above the horizon, its time to plant, sow, reap, sell, hunt etc. and warns of the approaching winter.
What is still a mystery is the philosophical aspect behind the interpretation of heavenly events. Are we to disregard that and focus purely on the science. We are children of the earth, and the earth is a child of the universe. Every element of which we are made, has always been here in one form or another. Does all this prove or disprove God? That will probably be the eternal question.
This is a strange question really. It’s like asking if building a passenger jet should contain just sound technology, or an element of luck for those who believe in it (many more than believe in God).
Whether you believe in the supernatural, or not, is partially genetic – according to some scientists that is. But as scientists lack vision sometimes, religion gives them ambitions about what to discover and exploit. So we now have speaking in tongues, flying, healing the lame and so on, courtesy of science, inspired by God. Therefore, humans ultimate science and technology achievement will be to become as God, and recreate a Heaven and Earth, and mankind, in a test tube – and then turn it into a reality show. This will still not prove that God ever existed, or if God(s) interferes in people’s thoughts or lives, of course, or stop some religious people obstructing some science. Plus, there is little chance of the new Creation being perfect, due to budgetary and legal restraints, and the new Earth may well be forced to take advertising. So it won’t be too different. All of the failed attempts to make a new earth will litter the skies, and the new Earthlings will wonder why there are so many lifeless stars.
Vijay Pillai
“What nonsense. Science is not based on a believe system but verifiable theories about nature..”? All scientific inquiry is based on belief. All scientific efforts begins with premises based on worldviews and specific understanding of nature based on philosophy. Scientist generally only set out to search and proof what they already believe intuitively. The basic difference between science and religion (which by that I suspect people mean “Theology”) is language.
Vijay,
“Scientist generally only set out to search and proof what they already believe intuitively. The basic difference between science and religion (which by that I suspect people mean “Theology”) is language.”
You are missing out two vital scientific principles, which don’t exist in religion:- observable evidence, and repeatability.
Royal Society celebrate 350 years of establishing in 1660. Not a word mention of religious contributions to science. Newton to Hawking science has advanced tremedously following the ideals of newtion: if i have seen further it was by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Soil mechanics can claim that Engineering giants like Coulomb,Mohr,Rankine,Terzaghi,Taylor and Casagrande,Pokrovsky, left their permanent mark unsurpassed by other great geniuses like Peck, Skempton and Roscoe .
Religion and humanity are ultimately incompatible.
” Does proving religion wrong keep science motivated?”
Science is not in the business of proving religion wrong.
But science has driven “God” into a corner from which “God” cannot escape. There is no evidence of “God’ in reality, so “God” only exists in non-reality, in peoples imaginations.
Science keeps explaining things that once were attributed to “God”, taking away any reason for people to keep believing in “God”, Evolution being one of the best examples.
But I think that religionists ought to be studied scientifically by psychologists in order to find out where an awful lot of peoples mental and behavioral problems originate.
To be fair, i have experienced global warming for the past 30 decades and it is real. But massaging or manipulating data is not the best way to advance science whether for climate change or stemcell research. Unfortunately in the past decade or so, scientists have become more politicised and now form two camps one for and other against man made global warming .At the end of the day one can see with his or her own eyes, what we are doing to the planet via more co2 emission over last 3 decades sky rocketed and the need to bring the man made co2 emmision under control . like from coal fired power stations whether in usa or china or india or elsewhere and stopping the deforestation of remaining raiforest and finding alterative emplyment for the affected people, dramaticaly altering the wasteful ways of water,energy and so on and planting trees wherever one can and making backgarden a botanical garden with growing one ‘s vegitables using compost from one’s waste and so on increasing the use of solar and wind power and so on.
No, science and religion are not compatible.
Science is about making sense of the world, and religion, a belief in a supernatural (outside of what is natural) being, does not make sense. Science deals with reality, in the world of sense, religion deals in the world of non reality, of non-sense, “God’ only exists in the world of nonsense.