Are Science and Religion Compatible?

Jerry Coyne and I had an interesting exchange yesterday that will appear in a brief video on USA Today's website at some point. The question related to the compatibility of science and religion. Can one accept the modern scientific view of the world and still hold to anything resembling a traditional belief in God?

My answer to this question is "yes, of course," for I cannot see my way to clear to embrace either of the two alternatives -- a fundamentalist religion prepared to reject science, or a pure scientism that denies the reality of anything beyond what science can discover. But my position seems precarious to me in many ways, since I am getting shot at so vigorously by both sides.

The events of the past few days have driven this home with great clarity. At the end of June, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an address emphasizing the importance of reading the Genesis creation story literally as a way to protect the Bible from attacks by science. Such a reading, according to the persuasive Mohler, demands that we affirm that the "days" of Genesis are 24-hour days, and that the earth, therefore, is less than 10,000 years old. His audience clapped when he made this point.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/31383-are-science-and-religion-compatible.html

I think Mohler's position has been indefensible for 200 years. I find it amazing that such a large group of people -- 100 million Americans agree with him -- can get themselves onto an intellectual island and float so far away from modern science that they can't see the shoreline any longer. But Mohler and his audience are not hillbillies with straw hats, smoking corncob pipes, drinking moonshine and laughing about "Darwin's dumb theory about ape-men." They are well-educated and intelligent. They have simply decided that the consequences of changing their traditional views under pressure from science are too great. They are protecting something they value that feels threatened.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383

Mohler's central point, however, was not that a young earth is essential or that science must be resisted. Few Young Earth Creationists would call themselves anti-science. His point is that the Bible must be taken seriously if one wants to be a Christian and, for Mohler, seriously means literally. And literally means the earth is young. And so much of modern science must be rejected in favor of a literal reading of Genesis.

Jerry Coyne, who wrote the excellent

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution Is True

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Another interesting article. Whilst I do not subscribe to creationism I do find one of the key concepts, i.e that of Irreducible Complexity, quite fascinating

"Science, as "lived and practiced by real people" who "believe" it, is quite different from the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation"
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383

A nice quote that reflects some of the discussion on the "Is there a God thread"

As I have already posted on that thread, personally, I have no qualms accepting both Scientific and Religious views of The Creation, as to me they represent different perspectives on the same thing

Yes, a very good essay, but I consider that they are different perspectives, faith, religion is one path and science is a completely different one.
Kant (modern philosopher of XVI century) already described that human nature tends to go far beyond its ratio can explain, and I was taught as roman catholic student, that with your ratio you can learn or reach to the assumption that there is a God, Energy, or whatever you want to name it... but the God reveals Himself, and that is what faith is.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
Though I do not follow or practice catholicism now, I still belive that..... and whatever you call God... there is One, with as many names as you want Him to have.
And it does not go against science... because the Bible is written with signs and simbles.... cannot take it literarily.....it´s full of metaphoras....we should read Carl Jung.... to understand what the Genesis means.... and so many of the stories Bible tells us....

thanks,
Otilia Ji
:happykaur:

Personally, I could not accept any religion that compelled me to check my brains at the door. I believe that having a functioning brain is the Hukam of Vaheguru and I am expected to use it. I could not accept a religion that compelled me to (pretend to) believe things that I know to be false. I also believe that any Supreme Being worth worshiping does not play silly mind games with us, such as planting fossils that appear to be millions of years old, but are really only a few thousand - or a few hundred - years old. (I am told the reason for this is to test one's faith. I also don't believe the Deity tests our faith.)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383

As for creation being measured in days (mind you, before the creation of the sun or the earth), I do not see how anybody with even the IQ of a dead hedgehog could believe such a thing. (OK, a test of faith, right?) In fact, my medical caregiver one day asked me if I believed God created the world in 7 days and in His own image. She could only smile that superior smirk at me when I said, "No and no." I didn't elaborate, of course, because my religion tells me to respect all people's religion, no matter my personal opinion of it. I believe that creation is an ongoing process that began when it began (probably at the Big Bang, if that theory is correct) and will end if/when it ends and Akal Purakh isn't a "he" and doesn't have an image and likeness to create me in.

People should be free to believe whatever they believe, of course and to practice their religion freely within certain limits. (Some practices, such as sacrificing virgins or adulteresses need to be prohibited). I do get seriously concerned when the law requires religious teachings - such as Creationism - in the schools. I wonder how a science teacher is able to teach something s/he absolutely believes is erroneous. Wouldn't that push her/his integrity to the breaking point? Or would the Christian fundamentalists be satisfied with it being taught as, "Some people believe..."? I seriously doubt it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383

When I was a child, my mother's family insisted I be educated in the Roman Catholic Church. This was in the days when Mass was in Latin and priests were almost God and little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned. Fortunately for my sanity, I lived with my Dad in a Sikh home and thus was presented with an alternative to the nonsense I was being taught.

So...does science need to be at odds with religion? Of course not, if one chooses a religion that doesn't call on its adherents to believe unscientific things.

QFT. The theory of natural selection is official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, a Christian faith.

Now that poses a different problem altogether. Should we rejoice because a scientific theory is officially sanctioned by the Roman Church? Does it indicate that at least one battle between science and religion has been won? Or....should we be asking ourselves how anything in science, including the theory of natural selection, should be accepted as a doctrine. Theories of science are always subject to revision.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383

It seems to me that natural selection, creationism and intelligent design have been used as a wedge by both sides in this argument about science and religion, each army having its agenda foremost in mind. Some scientists and most religionists have made natural selection, creationism and intelligent design "red herrings" in any number of conversations regarding the existence of God, evolution, and whether religion is good or bad for society. For shame on the scientists who have introduced logical fallacies into the dialog, and on religionists who are seeking ways to subvert the logic of science. Science and religion do best in an attitude of mutual respect.

Hi Tejwant Singh and all commenters.fficeffice" />
I read this article & the comments and I found them anti-Christian. That’s nothing new! First of all I want to say that many commenters and writer/poster are ignorant of many things, like Creation Science, Holy Bible and Christianity.

Let me write about the article. As a Bible believing Christian I believe Christianity and True- Science can co-exist. As I said the writer and many commenters are ignorant of Creationism. When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable, if you doubt my argument you may search it. Just because something seems to be billions of yrs old it doesn’t mean it is! Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them. Creationists are not garden school kids they are also PhD holders and Scientists from all fields of science. Many creationists are well known for their work, and their position in the community of scientists. The matter is that only you guys don’t know who they are because of your ignorance. Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang neither Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, Creationists can refute them all.

Today everybody tries to prove that Christianity is anti-science. But the fact is that it is not!! No creationist would call himself anti-science because they themselves are using science to prove their point. No Bible teacher would ever say that Bible (whole Bible) must be taken literally or allegorically. Bible is literal where it says it is, and it is allegoric where it says it is. No Creationist or Christian reject true or established modern science. If you think you are right and creationists are wrong then why don’t you have debate with them? Your problem is that you only listen / look Evolutionists and never creationists. If you are sincere then you must look both sides (without partiality) and then conclude. Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science.

Well, I am not a Roman Catholic but I want to ask Mai Harinder Kaur, “where did she leaned that little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned”? When you know nothing about Christianity how could you say such things?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct, though it is not a science book, nor was it written to teach science lessons but The Way i.e. Jesus Christ. Bible also promotes education and inspires to increase wisdom; the whole “Book of Proverbs” is dedicated for it.
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”
-- Dr. Donald DeYoung. Ph.D. (Physicist)
“Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” -- Hank Hanegraaff
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.weebly.com/science-and-the-holy-bible.htmlscienceandthebible.htm .

Waheguru ji ki Fateh
Brother Tejwant Singh has raised a very significant issue and has also answered his questions partialy.
Let me start the dialogue with a quote
"Knowledge is one ,its division into subjects is concession for human weakness".
Now why we want to compare and differentiate between science and religion?
If we have already taken positions then there is no point in discussion, and according to me the situation is really like this.
The point in disscussion is that of Christianity and not all religions.For example if we talk about Sikhism then many questions are already answered--Gurbani says that no one can tell when the world was created ,we have been in other Yonies(kayi janam bhay keet patanga)-Gurbani does not cntradict the theory of evolution and reveals the creation of world out of Dhundukara.
Actually out of such discussions we intend to establish our superiority and not understand others point of view,we really donot listen to others.
Science and religion do not clash with each other;their tools are different,they are trying to understand nature with their own tools.The Scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics were the ones who could feel the all prevading energy.
Please let me say that these are my views after being a student of science for 40 years and I do not intend to hurt the feelin of any one;I have been brought up by traditionl sikh parents and I am a firm believer of Gurbani and a baptised Sikh,my science has never shaken my belief but rather confirmed it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
With love to all the reders of SPN
Gian Singh Aulakh(Dr)

Respected DR.Gian singh ji,
Guru fateh. I really appreciate ur views & fully believe in it.Gurbani is really 100% scientific. The fault lies only with our perception. May god bless us with the right PERCEPTION , so that we shall never doubt the practical imlementation of gurbani.
guru rakha,
Sukhvinder singh

Dear Bittu Ji

Thanks for providing another viewpoint

I would like to reply to some of the issues you have raised in your post:

I would humbly request that forum members avoid using the Times Roman font as it is very small and therefore difficult to read. Use arial font if possible. Thank you.