Why can't science = religion?

This is a question I never quite understood. Why do these two concepts need to be seperate.

Science does not negate God. It is an attempt at explaining how the world works, not to prove a God doesn't exist.

And religion doesn't negate science, it's a way of life but that is no reason to ignore scientific discoveries or outright reject science.

I believe both are related. That God exists, and controls the universe through His actions. And science is our understanding of what God does. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?

Because, there is not one scientific discovery to this day that proves God doesn't exist. That has a legitimate case there is no God. Despite all the discoveries starting back all the way to fire, God has yet to be disproven.

Can I prove God exists? Not to somebody who doesn't believe. Nope. You cannot make somebody believe something, it doesn't work to well. I mean, truly believe, in the heart, not just in their words. This thread isn't about proving to Athiests God exists, it's about what it is about religion and science than prevent them from "working together". Felt it was necessary to share that, to keep the thread on topic.

 

Science does negate God.

Science gives us a perfectly reasonable answer to the creation of the universe w/o any super natural deity needed. And science comes with evidence.

 

Science = evidence.

Religion = faith

That's why.

 

Then how was the universe created?

 

Science doesn't negate a power that set the universes going, and that is so inscrutable as to be undetectable. That God might exist. A personal God that intervenes in men's lives for good or bad, on request. That sort of God with specific attributes that can be assessed in reality? That God has no chance.

 

The Big Bang.

 

And how did that happen?

 

This is another reason why science doesn't = religion.

Science doesn't fill gaps with a god.

 

Science = evidence of the forces of the universe, right?

Religion = faith that those forces are acts of God.

 

That's doesn't answer the question. How did the Bing Bang happen?

If you are so confident it wasn't God, then you have an answer for it. Thats how logic works.

 

I'm sorry, we don't have to disprove a god did it since there's no evidence that a god does. THAT'S how logic works.

 

Fact is, we dont know what caused the Big Bang.

But by saying 'god' did it, is resorting to the God Of The Gaps, which is a logical fallacy.

 

Science operates by a method requiring the application of logic and reason to observed evidence. Religion operates within the margins of human psychological frailties, dependent on poor logic and faith in unobserved realities.

They have entirely separate theoretical bases. One might even go so far as to say they are inherently contradictory--that a person cannot be true to both the scientific method and their religion. Inevitably they will be forced to compromise one in favor of the other, or to become as if two different people--a scientist-mind that operates at work, and a religion-mind that operates at home.

But in so doing it has revealed a startling lack of divine intervention; it has shown that no intelligence is responsible for so much that god was once claimed responsible for. God resides within the unknowns of the world; and as science reveals those unknowns, the room for God continues to shrink.

Except that is a reason--one people hold very strongly--to reject scientific discoveries that fundamentally oppose religious teachings. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Religions don't oppose technologies--usually, there are some exceptions in medical technology--they often oppose basic scientific research. Because it attacks the basis of religious theologies.

Except as science reveals, there is no intelligence in the actions observed in the universe around us, except that caused by living things like ourselves. This is the issue here. God as described by the monotheistic religions of the world cannot be this silent inactive observer of the universe--the only God that science has not demonstrated false. What would be the point in worshiping a being that takes no active hand in things, even were he to exist? It is that proposal that "He" controls the universe that's the problem, because there is no observed evidence that any such control is exerted.

I mean, sure, you could have a God who acts only to assure that the laws of physics are observed by all matter and energy, but that is not the god that religions discuss.

No, only a pile of scientific observations showing no evidence of any sort of intelligent omnipotent actor influencing the behavior of the universe. There is no way to disprove a deist figure that does not intervene in the universe, but there would be ways to observe a miracle-performing deity who violates the laws of nature.

That's the problem here. There's no evidence that any such figure exists, despite quite a lot of evidence being gathered in total. It would be one thing to hold out the possibility that god does exist if we had no large body of knowledge--but now that we've got a rather firm grasp of at least the basics of how the universe operates on a macroscopic scale... well, there's not much room for god in those gaps.

Yes, because your religion is held on faith, while science is based on evidence that any can observe. You ask why science and religion are separate--this is the core of the difference. It is why they can't work together. Because holding to a religion means rejecting science in at least one facet of your life--a rather important one, that colors one's entire worldview.

 

It would appear that humans ability to think in terms of what we now call "religion" preceded our ability to think scientifically. Religion had a head start on science and has proven to be a stubborn impediment to our understanding. Science isn't trying to destroy religion but religion has, in the hands of humans, attempted to destroy science.

They aren't equal because they employ different methods and are based on different mental states.

Religion requires the absence of doubt. Science requires doubt.

Religion rails against scepticism. Science uses scepticism.

Religion is metaphysical. Science is physical.

Religion is a human mental process. Science is an objective physical process.

The two couldn't really be more different one from the other. That's why it's possible for a human to be both religious and a scientist.

 

Then ask the question, reglion = science?

 

So, you have no idea how the Big Bang happened, however you are 100% sure it had nothing to do with God? Sorry, I don't see the logic here.

It's not the God of the Gaps theory, there is only one book that gives a hint (notice I said hint) of how the Big Bang happened, what caused it.

Do you know what book that is? It isn't a science text book, it isn't written by a scientist, and it's been around for 1400 years.

 

Qu'ran doesn't cut it.

 

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

The big bang was when spacetime "began" since there was no time before that point the answer to the question what caused the big bang, was before time, must be "nothing" since there was no time before time in which anything could happen.

 

Or more precisely, nothing that could be mesured in a timeline... Time isn't a constant. It can be quickened or slowed, by mass for exemple. Slow it enough and it will stop. Maybe this is what was before the big bang, a mass of matter and energy so vast that even time couldn't escape its grasp. And that mass, like a star, may have colapsed under its own weight and thus created the big bang. Maybe that mass was just a previous universe who had completed its expansion/retraction cycle, as some theory goes. Maybe we are in an unending cycle of expansion/retraction of the same vast mass...

Just speculating here... Yet, it doesn't need a god to work. If there is no time at one point then there is no begining... No ultimate begining. To have a begining you have to have time. Remove time from the equation and you have removed the creator also.

 

I am a bit reluctant to respond to this only because you and I sure others equate God to religion.....God is not into religion…...religion is manmade. But nevertheless, it’s not science that is against God......God created what scientist has discovered and talk about. The problem is some of them interpret what they discover to blind and dumb chance rather than to God who designed it.

 

So how can nothing cause something to happen? Can you prove that nothing can cause something to happen? I mean, if I put a bottle outside and no one moves it and its protected from the wind and the rain that if it’s their long enough it will jump up into the air caused by nothing?

 

I think this it is completely ignorant to think science and religion are meant to answer all the same questions. Science and religion coexist, but they are not the same, and they do not answer the same questions. They are two different sides of the same coin, that together can provide a total understanding of existence.

 

The only reason to say such a foolish thing is because one is ignorant of science, religion, or both.