Jump to content

Relationship of Science and Religion


Recommended Posts

IÔÇÖm going to by carry this over from: So it begins: Kansas school board redefines science.

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

I'm watching some people here make sweeping generalities to the effect that religion is anti-science and religious people want to return to the dark ages when in fact science before, during, and after the enlightenment was conducted by people who felt that the nature of that discipline was to uncover the wonders of God.


Exactly right.

I know I said I was done with this topic, but I had to back up Zane on that one.

I had no idea you were such a scholar, Marlowe. Most impressive.


Okay, I'm going to address this to both of you. I'm not trying to be antagonistic but to answer this issue in the way I've understand it. I'm not quite sure if the issue about generalities was aimed at me, let's assume that it was. I offered generalities in the beginning because I'm more than sure most know the repression by religion of the scientists and scientific thoughts and I kept away from specific cases to keep the post as short as possible. I'm not talking about the individual scientist, most were as religious as they come as can be examined here Isaac Newton.org, but the religious hierarchy; the ones at the top that control, to most extent, what the millions of followers hear, read and think.

As for the dark ages, I never said that todayÔÇÖs religious or religion wish to return to those times (well maybe some). However, there is a real danger of that by-product if we allow religion to call the shots again on scientific thought and power over the scientist.

Wikipedia: Religion

quote:

Many early scientists held strong religious beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the sun, but also said that angels may have to give the planets a push from time to time to keep them going. Sometimes, however, conflicts arose between science and religion. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific discoveries are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for unacceptable scientific theories, while Galileo was tried and forced to recant the theory that the earth goes around the sun. The modern Roman Catholic Church accepts most current scientific theories, but still reserves the right to make the final judgment.

That statement says it all. If I might add to that, a majority of Religions accepted most current scientific theories in time (well as long as it fits in with their beliefs). Sometimes it takes generations for the acceptance. However, think of all the progress lost because of the repression of those discoveries. If you will note the statement of the last sentence in the paragraph, "still reserves the right to make the final judgment". Repression is still there. Which is why, IMHO, Religion should not have a relationship at all with science. Science should be allowed to come to whatever conclusions the evidence guides us to even if that conclusion is, without a shadow of doubt, that God does not exist or even the other way around (which we wouldn't need to worry about repression from the later).

Getting back to Isaac Newton:

MSNBC. Isaac Newton: Dark Secrets.

quote:

MSNBC

ÔÇó Nov. 14, 2005 | 8:40 p.m. ET

Newton renewed: Even the best scientists can believe weird, unorthodox things. For an example, you don't need to go any further than Sir Isaac Newton, who was one of the world's most brilliant scientists as well as an alchemist and closet heretic who believed the world would end in the year 2060.

Both sides of Newton's life are explored in "Newton's Dark Secrets," a docudrama premiering on PBS' "Nova" series on Tuesday. The title may make it sound as if the show is about some sort of "Da Vinci Code" conspiracy ÔÇö and admittedly, there's something to that. Newton believed that he was privy to secret insights, and he put great stock in arcane scriptural references and anagrams. (One of his favorite Latin anagrams for "Isaacvs Nevtonvs" was "Ieova Sanctvs Vnvs," or "Jehovah's holy one.")

But "Newton's Dark Secrets" is really about how Newton (1642-1727) was able to create the foundations of modern physics in spite of his weird ideas, or even because of those ideas.

"I think that his early optical theories owed a debt to alchemy," said Bill Newman, an Indiana University professor who has spent years studying Newton's alchemical roots.

Alchemy is often thought of as a pseudoscientific quest to turn base metals into gold, or to do other virtually impossible things. But in the 17th century, alchemists were the closest thing to a modern-day chemist. They learned how to break substances down into their constituents, then synthesize those constituents into novel materials. Newman tried to re-create Newton's alchemical experiments, and "despite the negative image of alchemists as being incompetent in the laboratory, most of the experiments we tried worked."

Newman said it's clear that Newton adapted alchemy to his investigations into the nature of light. Just as Newton broke down and built up compounds in his alchemical experiments, he used prisms to separate sunlight into a rainbow spectrum, then recombine those colors to form white light again. "These experiments are recorded side by side in his laboratory notebooks," Newman said.

With the support of other scholars, Newman has put together a Web site titled "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" that goes into the alchemical connection in much more depth, and he also expands upon the subject in a Q&A on the "Nova" site.

Newton also held strong and unorthodox views about religion ÔÇö in fact, his anti-trinitarian, crypto-Arian beliefs could have gotten him fired, if not jailed. But he was generally able to separate his scientific theorizing from his religious speculations, Newman said.

It's instructive to note that on at least one occasion when Newton mixed religion and science, he turned out to be dead wrong, at least from the perspective of modern quantum physics. In Query 31 of "Opticks," he wrote:

"All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation."

Nowadays, the mainstream view is that matter is made of fuzzy stuff or strings that are by no means "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable." But even in the case cited above, Newman said that the phrase "it seems probable to me" signaled that Newton knew he wasn't on solid scientific ground.

"The entire content of the 'Queries' is usually taken to express Newton's personal point of view, but a point of view that he realized could in no way be taken as a point in fact," Newman said.

You don't need to subscribe to Newton's religious beliefs to appreciate his greatest achievements ÔÇö his pioneering work on calculus, his discoveries in optics and his groundbreaking theory of gravitation. But at the same time, "Newton's Dark Secrets" demonstrates that you can't understand Newton's scientific career without considering his religious side as well.

"Ironically, that's very anti-Newtonian, because Newton argued that God had to be present," Newton biographer Gale Christianson says during the show. "You couldn't read him out of the universe."

A guy with strong religious beliefs ... who didn't let religion determine how the science was done? Are there any lessons there that could be applied to the debate over evolutionary biology and intelligent design? Feel free to let me know what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the ironic thing, at least to me, is that I believe religion is the far weaker entity between the two. Science deals in tangible verifiable results, thus I tend to think that if the average person were going to choose one over the other, they would defer to science. Religion, being faith based as it is, is a tougher pill to swallow.

In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite.

Let us hope the lessons of the past don't repeat themselves. As for science, there is no worry there. I've yet to see groups of scientists gathering in local neighborhoods handing out pamphlets or sticking little notes on doors in apartment buildings proclaiming the Universe lives. Repent now to save your soul for the universe was born from a big bang. The day I see that is the day I will tell you to worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's like you implied earlier when you alluded to the concept of some Christians believing the earth is only 9000 years old.

Science has pretty much proven that this not true. What often happens is that (though not the intitial intention of the scientists by any means) scientific evidence is wielded as a weapon against religion. That's more of what I was referring to.

Essentially, when science disproves something religions have come to accept as dogma, it does not invalidate that religion in my view, but only serves as testimony to the woefully inadequate understanding we humans have of the divine.

So, getting back to the original point, the earth being 5 Billion years old does not necessarily disprove Genesis, but it makes us aware that there are holes in our understanding. I wrote a term paper on this very topic in theology in college. I guess I was a pioneer in the intelligent design theory class in public schools!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

You know, the ironic thing, at least to me, is that I believe religion is the far weaker entity between the two. Science deals in tangible verifiable results, thus I tend to think that if the average person were going to choose one over the other, they would defer to science. Religion, being faith based as it is, is a tougher pill to swallow.

In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite.

You'd think so. But, humans arn't logical beings as a default and religion offers many things that science doesn't, such as explaining away the unknown (even if it is the same answer all the time) and gives them a higher purpose, plus a few other things depending on the religion in question.

Not that I am saying that you can't be logical if your religious as the opposite is kinda of true ironicly (For the really hard core type logic).

quote:

Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in wagering that God is. Consider these alternatives: if you win, you win all, if you lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then, to wager that he is.

Blaise Pascal

French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662)

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Essentially, when science disproves something religions have come to accept as dogma, it does not invalidate that religion in my view, but only serves as testimony to the woefully inadequate understanding we humans have of the divine.

I wish your thinking was in the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...