Why do science and religion always have to be different?

I would counter back with, what religion does conflict with science? Or is it just your perception of science and those religions that conflict? Is your perception of science based in fact or based on being taught that it was fact? Of those 'facts' how many of them actually are?

Intelligent scientists put stipulations in their work such as: if Hubble's Law is valid, then we can conclude a, b and c. Rather than concluding that Hubble's law is valid, they are stating that to their knowledge nothing opposing the validity of this law has been found. Unless you personally observe the science and draw your own conclusions, how can you verify the accuracy of these concepts?

Then of course you have the question of the origin of the universe, and my response to that is, where is the proof that my God or someone else's God (I could argue they are the same) did not put into motion the 'Big Bang' or Evolution? If God is really all-powerful no amount of 'science' can disprove his existence. You can theorize that is has been disproven, but who is to say he or some other entity (ie Satan) did not influence you to draw those conclusions? I can't speak for all religions or all individuals (because individual belifs differ despite the religion) on this matter, but I hope you see my point. Though if you want to continue this conversation, I would still be interested on hearing what religious beliefs you feel conflict with science.

SGT Kristin Wiley You bring up a lot of good points. As did 1LT L S. There are many facets to what you are saying. First a base line must be established. (Just for your information I am Deist, I do swing towards the christian prospective at times though) Now with that being state I really don't have a dog in this fight. But then I don't have to as my perception of religion if really relative to those who are bringing it up.

Now I don't necessarily take the bible for word. I agree with lesson in it but if you ask me if Sara was actually turned into a pillar of salt I really don't have an opinion as the lesson is delivered. I don't fear being turned into a pillar of salt. The regret of looking back is the punishment enough.

If you really want to challenge religion you have to have a base like. In science you must have factually data or information to form your conclusion of what you are trying to find. I am not going dive into the religion vs. religion piece. But one need not look much further than the earth. I don't think we should distance ourselves from science or ignore it. We should challenge it. One of my heroes is Thomas Jefferson. He wrote

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


He wasn't a by the book religious person. He lived the values but not by the bible. Itself. He even went as far to write his own version of the bible. He found what was important in it. Many don't. They cling to every line and attack anyone who challenges it.

The bible is not a scientific document. It is a religious text. You can't really use it in such a way to prove scientific facts. That was not the purpose. We know that the world is a lot older than the christian bible says. We know that Dinosaurs were around before humans. We know there were different species of humans. One could view these facts with their servile prejudices but would that just limit our ability to explore any research that is contrary to religion. Long ago it was thought that many illnesses were caused by daemons. We know a little bit different now. We also know that ailments can be passed from one generation to another. Is that cursing all generations or is that just a disease. I could go on about burning witches and the other stuff but I think you get the point.

1LT L S, twisting words does not win a debate. English grammar lesson: "You can theorize that is has been disproven, but who is to say he or some other entity (ie Satan) did not influence you to draw those conclusions?" A question mark is “the punctuation mark, used at the end of questions and in other contexts where doubt or ignorance is implied." Okay, then how about the use of parentheses: "Parentheses are used to enclose incidental or extra information, such as a passing comment, a minor example or addition, or a brief explanation." So from my three paragraph response, you're saying that an example I used in a questioning statement is somehow me saying "that others came to conclusions because Satan put those thoughts their head"? If your only retort to my argument is to take a question completely out of context, then yes we can say you ‘misunderstood’ my point.

CPT (Join to see), I don’t disagree with you. I think religion and science both need to be challenged. When we question things, it encourages us to seek the answers. Whether or not I agree with someone is irrelevant to the questions asked. I question many facets of both religion and science. My job in the military is to analyze data and identify bias. Science is made up of testable explanations, so when I find bias in those explanations of course I question them. Religion is a set of beliefs that despite the baseline will differ from individual to individual. These personal beliefs and scientific biases are what dictate whether or not there is conflict. As long as you can reasonably argue why you believe something, and don’t believe it blindly then I personally have no issues with differing opinions.

1LT L S, Are you giving grammar lessons?

Spelling lesson: Find the error in this sentence. "Maybe I misunderstood your point but I think it lacks basic Christian charity and judgement."

Matthew 7:1-2