Hi everyone, I have a question, what is the true relationship between science and religion?
In the past, When scientific theories are not very mature, religion held the power of interpretation of the world. Religions believe that the world was created by God, human was designed by God, and the sun, moon and stars are controlled by God. But now that science has disproved these claims, we all know that the universe was created by the Big Bang; Humans evolved from apes; The sun, moon and stars move because of gravitation.
Therefore, some people can say that religion is the stage product of the immature development of science, and religion and science are opposed. But then again, we can see that there are some famous scientists, such as Einstein, Newton, Frank Yang scientists say that they have a quasi-religious belief, seems to believe that there is a creator in the world. Is that a bit of a contradiction?
What do you think of science and religion？
Science and religion will merge to create a techno cult of transhumanistic martyrs worshiping machines during mysterious cyber rites that will be conducted on the internet
Religions believe that the world was created by God, human was designed by God, and the sun, moon and stars are controlled by God. But now that science has disproved these claims,Not really...
- Science does not disprove that God created the universe, it gives more weight to alternative versions like Big Bang, and even at this point, the BigBang is not a theory of the creation of the universe, but to describe its origin. Funnily, it was modeled by a Catholic priest first and named "Big Bang" by people opposing this model and mocking it because they thought that the Big Bang was an attempt to say that God created the universe.
- Science does not disprove that humans were created by God either. The Evolution of Species by mean of natural selection aims to understand the Evolution of species, not the origin of life. In Fact, Darwin himself did not see a contradiction between his work and religion, or at least God.
In other words, God could perfectly have created human by creating the universe and its rules and, as an omniscient being, predicted that the very disposition of his creation would lead to the Evolution of species in such a way that Homo sapiens would emerge from it.
- I have honestly never heard of religious saying that God controls the Sun and stars, albait it might be possible, but again, you can set a view on religion and God allowing both sciences models and religious beliefs to coexist.
What do you think of science and religion？To answer your question more directly: Both are complementary. If it's true that, sometimes, religion is just giving an explanation to a question that has not been answered, the nature of the questions asked in religion and science are differents. Very commonly, and not wrongly in my opinion, we say that science answers the question "how" whereas religions answer the question "why?".
For instance: Why life ? => God. How? => Evolution of species.
I would say that both are not exclusive and can even be complementary. In my opinion still, there is no doubt that religion is comforting us when facing things that we do not understand.
As for Einstein and some other scientists, they are not necessarily religious. I think Einstein is more of a theist who believed in the existence of a "Nature" God, close to Spinoza or the Stoics (maybe Diogenes would explain this point better than me, and provide corrections). The belief in God is actually subject to philosophical questions that are not restrained to religions only and Spinoza wrote a very interesting treaty on the matter... which ironically look more like a mathematical treaty than your average philosophy book.
PS: Humans didn't evolve from apes. They are apes.
Edit; On my part, despite I would call myself a Catholic, I feel very close to this last view on God and I feel closer to God when I study biology. Note that this is my very personal case though, for when I was a bachelor, I remember a religious girl felt the opposite way and felt that biology was leading her away from God.
As strong believer in God, I say: science and religion doesn't exclude each other. It fits together, except situations where one or another scientist/priest tries to negate something with just theory. Or if one believe too much in "what is said/written" in the book, too literally.
Not really...
- Science does not disprove that God created the universe, it gives more weight to alternative versions like Big Bang, and even at this point, the BigBang is not a theory of the creation of the universe, but to describe its origin. Funnily, it was modeled by a Catholic priest first and named "Big Bang" by people opposing this model and mocking it because they thought that the Big Bang was an attempt to say that God created the universe.- Science does not disprove that humans were created by God either. The Evolution of Species by mean of natural selection aims to understand the Evolution of species, not the origin of life. In Fact, Darwin himself did not see a contradiction between his work and religion, or at least God.
In other words, God could perfectly have created human by creating the universe and its rules and, as an omniscient being, predicted that the very disposition of his creation would lead to the Evolution of species in such a way that Homo sapiens would emerge from it.- I have honestly never heard of religious saying that God controls the Sun and stars, albait it might be possible, but again, you can set a view on religion and God allowing both sciences models and religious beliefs to coexist.
To answer your question more directly: Both are complementary. If it's true that, sometimes, religion is just giving an explanation to a question that has not been answered, the nature of the questions asked in religion and science are differents. Very commonly, and not wrongly in my opinion, we say that science answers the question "how" whereas religions answer the question "why?".
For instance: Why life ? => God. How? => Evolution of species.
I would say that both are not exclusive and can even be complementary. In my opinion still, there is no doubt that religion is comforting us when facing things that we do not understand.As for Einstein and some other scientists, they are not necessarily religious. I think Einstein is more of a theist who believed in the existence of a "Nature" God, close to Spinoza or the Stoics (maybe Diogenes would explain this point better than me, and provide corrections). The belief in God is actually subject to philosophical questions that are not restrained to religions only and Spinoza wrote a very interesting treaty on the matter... which ironically look more like a mathematical treaty than your average philosophy book.
PS: Humans didn't evolve from apes. They are apes.
Edit; On my part, despite I would call myself a Catholic, I feel very close to this last view on God and I feel closer to God when I study biology. Note that this is my very personal case though, for when I was a bachelor, I remember a religious girl felt the opposite way and felt that biology was leading her away from God.
Indeed, faith is not the concern of science but philosophy. What we today call the “metaphysics” of Aristotle, he himself famously called “theology”. Prior to Plato and Aristotle, the writings of the pre-Socratics were filled with speculations about the nature of God, or the gods. For example, Thales claimed that “all things are full of gods.” Ancient Platonists, if asked to summarize the essence of the philosophy of Plato, would answer that it was a way of life directed towards homoiosis theou—becoming like God.
The Stoics believed the universe was guided by a divine Logos. While “Logos” in Greek Philosophy often just means human reason or an argument, the word is also the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Davar” or Aramaic “Memra,” (the divine “Word” of God) which, in the later parts of the Hebrew Bible and in the Targums (Aramaic translations or paraphrases of books of the Hebrew Bible), began taking on many of the characteristics associated with God.This term “Logos” later shows up in the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria , who describes the Logos as a kind of “second god,” the “first-born Son of God,” and the “eldest angel” (archangel)
Plato also famously divides all of “being” into two realms: (1) the “visible” (particular, concrete things like people, trees, animals, etc.), which is temporary and perishable, and (2) the “invisible” (the abstract ideas or “Forms” or essences of things), which is eternal and unchanging. St. Paul seems to explicitly make use of this framework in 2 : “For the things which are visible are temporal; but the things which are invisible are eternal.” Again in Timaeus, Plato describes his highest principle, the “Form of the Good” as “the Creator and Father of all” and thus, in a sense, even higher than both of these visible and invisible realms. Again, St. Paul also speaks of God creating “all things, visible and invisible” in Christ. And famously, along with St. Paul and other New Testament authors, even Jesus himself is recorded as referring to God as “Father,” a title very rarely used for God in the Hebrew Bible or the Jewish tradition more generally, but appearing in Plato and repeated constantly in the New Testament.
Another Platonic theme found in the New Testament relates to Plato’s saying that to “find” God is difficult, and “to declare him to everyone is impossible”. Elsewhere he repeats that the highest principle is too difficult to grasp, so that we must reason instead about His / Its “Offspring” instead. We then find in multiple New Testament authors this familiar Platonic idea that we cannot have direct knowledge of God (“the Father”), but must have recourse to His “Offspring” or “Son” for any knowledge we would have of Him, the Son being an “image” of the Father.
We should keep some crucial fact in mind, similarities between Greek philosophical texts and Christian texts are not always obvious in English translations. For example, the Greek “ὁ Θεός” is typically translated as “God” (Capital-G) in the New Testament but “the god” in Plato’s dialogues. Likewise “ὁ λόγος” is typically translated “the Word” in the New Testament, but as “reason,” “argument,” or “account” in philosophical texts.
There was no separation into two distinct compartments of “philosophy” versus “religion” at this point in history. We’ve seen that the reputation of closed-mindedness about religion among philosophers results from a misunderstanding of one particular school of thought that has somehow managed to overshadow nearly the entire history of philosophy from antiquity to the 20th century. The truth is that most philosophers throughout history have had religious beliefs of some sort, and many of the non-religious minority have been interested in, even consciously influenced by, religion.
Last but not the least, philosophy and faith are attitudes towards the truth, science is rather a path leading to the truth. Between the terms, there is neither a "versus", nor a "co-operation."
Science and religion will merge to create a techno cult of transhumanistic martyrs worshiping machines during mysterious cyber rites that will be conducted on the internet
Praise the Omnissiah!
But, to be serious
Religion has a few different purposes and can be substituted by other institutions for at least one of these purposes (example: purpose: explaining the world; substitute: science). As humanity progresses religion loses significance and is replaced by substitutes.
Scientific progress and widespread education lead to more critical thinking and to people questioning the authority of religion.
Science may be the main cause of religion losing popularity, but it won’t replace it.
I‘m mostly focusing here on Europe and the Catholic church.