

Ask HN: Science vs Religion: how is it compatible? - olalonde

How can science and religion be compatible (without some heavy twist of the mind)?<p>I'm aware that talking about religion is taboo and I hope this will not degenerate into a flame war. The reason I'm asking here is because I know HN has a very rational and intelligent audience. Yet, many of you are religious and I'd genuinely like to hear your perspective.<p>EDIT: I personally believe they are incompatible because they reach to different conclusions: age of the universe, Darwinian evolution, dinosaurs, etc.
======
noonespecial
Theist here:

Science and religion both address certain and different parts of our
existence. Science is the tool we use to look at our universe and ask _what_ ,
religion is the tool we use to look at our universe and ask _why_.

For example, science is perfect for looking at our earth and asking "what is
it, what caused it, what's in it?" etc. Religion is perfect for asking "why is
there a universe at all?" (or more succinctly, "why is there something and not
nothing?")

The problems start when you use science, or religion to ask or answer the
wrong questions.

Example: You can't use science to look for God because science only works on
everything in the universe. If there is a God worth the title, he/she/it is
not going to be in there. If you do, you're just going to find a whole lot of
universe, like a character in "the sims" trying to use game elements to prove
there's a player.

Example: You can't really use religion to ask where the earth (and life) came
form (what caused it) because its just one link in a (perhaps limitless)
cause-effect chain that is the universe, fully defined within its own context.
If you do, you end up with a cartoon-like image of a tiny god, contained
within the universe using his god-powers to create static creatures to try to
outsmart the big bad universe. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it
doesn't do much for the concept of God.

The big problems come when people _militantly_ use the wrong tool to answer a
question. Then you get people staring up at stars that emitted their light 100
million years ago and insisting that it all started 6500 years ago, and
insisting that they be allowed to teach that to your kids on your dime. And
there begins the heavy twisting of mind.

If you carefully think about the goals you are trying to achieve with each, I
don't feel that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible.

Edit: Had to search a bit for this Einstein quote but here is:

"There is no conflict between science and religion. Science asks what the
world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become" - Albert
Einstein

~~~
jamesbritt
'Religion is perfect for asking "why is there a universe at all?" (or more
succinctly, "why is there something and not nothing?")'

How so? This sounds like basic philosophy. Why would religion have something
to add that is lacking in non-religious philosophy?

I am assuming here that religion and philosophy are not identical, that there
is some set of qualities that makes a philosophy religious. As best I can
tell, those qualities are predicated on claims of the supernatural. (Zen
Buddhism is possibly the oddball here, but generally when people are talking
about religion, and specifically the conflict of religion and science, they
mean theism or theist religions.)

So, before I get my head around the idea that religion is somehow suited for
explaining anything, I have to ask, Why religion at all? Positing supernatural
beings doesn't seem to have _any_ explanatory power at all, let alone helping
explain why there is something other than nothing. All it seems to do is sweep
the question under the rug.

~~~
noonespecial
_So, before I get my head around the idea that religion is somehow suited for
explaining anything_

It isn't. Religion may indeed be a subset of philosophy, one of many answers
for "why is there something and not nothing?". The simplest answer is and has
always been "because there is", but many find this unsatisfying. Cosmologies
are like that, you kind of have to pick one and they're all a little bit
unsatisfying.

The question however, was "How can science and religion be compatible?".
"There's no need for religion at all" isn't really an answer to that
particular question, even though it does open a fascinating debate along
another path.

~~~
jamesbritt
Then let me adjust my question. You say that religion is perfect for asking
"why is there a universe at all?"

That's a role for of all philosophy. What makes _religious_ philosophy perfect
for it? How does the introduction of supernatural claims improve anything?

' "There's no need for religion at all" isn't really an answer to that
particular question,'

That's not what I said; I asked why religion at all. If there's a conflict in
science and religion, it's that religion typically encourages believing things
absent reason (i.e., basing actions on faith).

~~~
noonespecial
Maybe I should shoot a little narrower then. Religion and science _can_ be
compatible so long as the don't try to overstep their respective bounds.

 _"That's a role for of all philosophy. What makes religious philosophy
perfect for it? How does the introduction of supernatural claims improve
anything?"_

Like I said, it isn't, it doesn't. Science and philosophy are compatible too?

 _That's not what I said; I asked why religion at all. If there's a conflict
in science and religion, it's that religion typically encourages believing
things absent reason (i.e., basing actions on faith)._

Of course it does. Its a big problem. Not all religions or religious people
make this error.

We're really talking about falsifiable things here. Science sticks to
falsifiable claims. Religion sticks to non-falsifiable ones. They get along
fine. Philosophy is welcome at the table as well, at any time.

------
roundsquare
One way they are compatible is by picking and choosing what to believe in.
This seems to be the most common approach I've seen, though its often done by
not looking too closely at the topic.

However, I imagine you want something more satisfying than that. What you're
saying makes sense If A and B reach contradictory conclusions, than one of
them must be false. However, I think a lot of problems come from thinking that
we understand reality. We're just starting to scratch the surface so we may
discover things that allow us to accept both science and religion.

The analogy I like is of the guy who tried to see how much it rained by
throwing spaghetti on the wall. Thats the wrong tool to use. Maybe logic/our
brains are not powerful enough to answer these questions.

(Apologies, this is not the best explanation of what I'm trying to say).

------
rms
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/)

My belief is that science and religion are reconcilable, but by the time you
become a rational theist, what's the point of still being a theist? You'll
have already rationalized away most of your core beliefs, like a God that is
_really_ answering your prayers.

By the way, you can discuss this at Less Wrong with an obnoxiously rational
crowd, but you'll probably get mercilessly downmodded because the question is
answered already in the existing writing. Doing some more reading on Less
Wrong should help make you more confident in your existing answer to the
question.

------
rudin
Well I am going to separate religion into its main components and decide on
each one.

The community aspect. Going to a church. Helping your local community etc. All
this stuff is totally compatible with Science of course but it is another
question if it could succeed without the other religious aspects.

Morality. Science, through Darwin's theories, does explain why we are moral
but this is separate to teaching people how to be moral so this area is
compatible as well.

Creation stories, miracles. Science destroys these. Philosophy is probably the
wrong approach to deal with the question of existence, it will leads towards
untestable hypotheses and so towards religion. Let Physics go at it for a few
hundred more years.

------
known
Religion is like investing in _Lottery_. Science is like investing in _Stock
Market_

------
tokenadult
_The reason I'm asking here is because I know HN has a very rational and
intelligent audience._

To ask a serious question, also not intended to start a flame war, how do you
know that?

~~~
olalonde
From discussions that usually happen on HN. Don't you share the same
perception?

~~~
dirtbox
My perception is that religion is never mentioned, because it has no bearing
on any subjects discussed.

~~~
olalonde
Agreed, although you're not answering the question.

~~~
dirtbox
Okay, I'll bite. I'm atheist, but open minded to all things. No heavy twist of
mind required here.

The Christianity you seem to prescribe to (due to mentioning Darwinism, age of
the universe and so on) seems, to me at least, a slightly more fundamental
branch of thinking that's far more common in North America
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.h...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html)

Incidentally that's certainly not meant as any kind of slight against anyone
as I respect and accept everyone's beliefs equally, it's just that the line of
thinking where two such notions should be branded as incompatible is quite
alien to me.

------
dirtbox
I'm more interested in the reasoning behind believing that the two should be
incompatible.

~~~
olalonde
It seemed obvious to me but I guess I'm biased. Perhaps I should have
explained my arguments.

------
tokenadult
_The reason I'm asking here is because I know HN has a very rational and
intelligent audience._

To ask a serious question, also not intended to start a flame war, how do you
know that?

~~~
Fahim
Rationality and intelligence go out the window when it comes to discussions
like these.

~~~
olalonde
Perhaps rationality goes out the window when the stakes are too high.

------
scorpioxy
In my opinion, religion is not compatible with Science. Faith is.

At least incompatible when discussing the level of details that religion
usually talks about. I'm not a fan of that.

------
lsc
science and religion are compatible if, and only if, you use religion only in
areas where science does not provide useful answers. (of course, this is
something of a moving target.)

------
stonemetal
I am Buddhist my religion specifies no conclusions regarding the age of the
universe, evolution etc. If you meant Christians well my wife is Catholic and
while they are a little slow on the up take (aka Galileo). They currently
support Darwin etc.

The sub set of people who have issues with the age of the universe, evolution
etc. are merely uneducated in both matters of science and religion.

------
known
_"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool."_ \--Mark Twain

