Are Science And Christianity In Any Way Compatible?

[SoftIce]

It depends on what flavor of Christianity we're talking about. If it's fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible - then no.

 

But, I don't see any problem if the type of Christianity we're discussing takes a more symbolic approach to the Bible. (Eg: many of the stories of the OT were just that, stories, and that a lot of the Bible is symbolic.) There are also more liberal Christians that do not believe the entire Bible to be divinely inspired.

 

Here's a site that shows different views on evolution from different Christian perspectives:

 

How religious conservatives & liberals interpret the Bible's creation stories

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_crest.htm

 

Comparing origin stories: Genesis 1 & 2 vs. the theory of Evolution

http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geev.htm

 

Of course, then you run into the issue of what should be considered symbolic and what should be taken as something that actually happened, but that's a topic for a whole other discussion.

[Guest Valk0010]

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

Depends on the christianity really. Are we talking about Pat Robertson, or John Shelby Spong? For Pat Robertson yes it is incompatible, for liberal theologians its a toss up.

 

 

And by compatible, I don't mean, that it its correct in anyway to hold those positions. The possibility of cognitive dissonance, shows alot of incorrect beliefs to be compatible. But are they rational, or correct? A easy example, is evolution and the bible. A correct understanding of evolution, and a accurate understanding of the bible, makes the existence of both views being valid, impossible, they are compatible because they can be held together in the same brain. But that doesn't mean its correct to do so.

[Guest Valk0010]

Also about the resurrection, sure you can't prove or disprove it, if your going to look at it generously. But does that mean you should believe just because you can't disprove it. No. If you can't prove your belief(if of course there dealing with fact claims like the dead can come back to life) you shouldn't believe them as far as I am concerned.

 

Can history or science, prove a anomaly. How could it? We don't know what can happen, with out having some reason to know, what is possible. The resurrection, by that standard, is out of the range of history because, while we know, say, that Ceaser crossing the Rubicon, could conceivably happen, without, some form of foundational bias, we can't say the same about the resurrection.

[florduh]

Many people who like to identify as Christian can believe damn near anything. The Bible is, in large part, Bronze Age superstition, so at least their basis for the religion, the book, cannot possibly jibe with known scientific fact. Once the Christian throws out his Bible as the reason and authority for his religion, sure, he can make his beliefs fit with anything. Beliefs that are called Christianity can and do mix with Voodoo, science, and even Scientology in some cases.

[Kaiser01]

I think they are as you can define what is metephorical in the bible by both the context of the verse, context of the whole bible and the natural world so things like the six days would be metephorical but origional sin is still incompatable.

 

But of course the kicker for me is God is completly unnessesary and Occams razzor does away with anything of the supernatural in most systems. i once heard a theologian say that both Newton and Adam Smith when one was writing the laws of physics and the other the wealth of nations, they claimed they where simply unvealing what God had put in place but what they unknowingly did was create a universe where God is unnessesary.

[Guest Valk0010]

If science or history is methodological natural then it has nothing to say about Christianity. Your going to have to find different reasons to disbelief it. Am I right?

[Akheia]

A summary of the long version is that Christianity isn't technically forced to make any claims that are contradicted by science. As Eugene has stated, fundamentalism =/= all of Christianity. Christian 'extras' can drape across our metaphysics like a warm blanket -- it wouldn't change the result of any experiment, but it would keep you warm in the dark. The fact that Occam's Razor tears that blanket to shreds doesn't change compatibility - any scientist can bring his blanky into work if it makes him feel better as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

 

Don't confuse compatibility with reasonableness. Compatibility refers to whether two sets of ideas can be held at the same time with rationality, and the test for rationality only looks at logical possibility. Christians have a set of unnecessary,* untestable, and inconsistent assumptions, but those assumptions don't necessarily interfere or conflict with scientific discovery.

 

(I will heart you forever for the blanky comment. That was awesome.) It sounds like you're meaning, perhaps, that science can co-exist with Christianity with enough rationalization, not so much that they are compatible, complementary outlooks. I think that's about the only way that Christianity and science are "compatible."

 

That scientists can believe irrational things on their own time is definitely true. The only useful way the word "compatible" can work in the context of science is with a deeply compartmentalized outlook. The two ideas are completely different in how they approach truth; they run like a pair of parallel roads. There's no reason they need to cross at all unless one tries to force Christianity into the same model as science--which is to say by proving its claims using the scientific method or otherwise trying to show that it is rational. These are losing propositions and would make Christianity completely incompatible with science. As long as Christianity is purely metaphorical, as long as its claims are understood to be purely mythic, then it can at least co-exist with a scientific outlook.

 

What I feel for is those scientists who are blindly battling for causes like anti-vaccination or ID; that's some serious internal conflict right there.

[Yrth]

A summary of the long version is that Christianity isn't technically forced to make any claims that are contradicted by science. As Eugene has stated, fundamentalism =/= all of Christianity. Christian 'extras' can drape across our metaphysics like a warm blanket -- it wouldn't change the result of any experiment, but it would keep you warm in the dark. The fact that Occam's Razor tears that blanket to shreds doesn't change compatibility - any scientist can bring his blanky into work if it makes him feel better as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

 

Don't confuse compatibility with reasonableness. Compatibility refers to whether two sets of ideas can be held at the same time with rationality, and the test for rationality only looks at logical possibility. Christians have a set of unnecessary,* untestable, and inconsistent assumptions, but those assumptions don't necessarily interfere or conflict with scientific discovery.

 

(I will heart you forever for the blanky comment. That was awesome.) It sounds like you're meaning, perhaps, that science can co-exist with Christianity with enough rationalization, not so much that they are compatible, complementary outlooks. I think that's about the only way that Christianity and science are "compatible."

 

That scientists can believe irrational things on their own time is definitely true. The only useful way the word "compatible" can work in the context of science is with a deeply compartmentalized outlook. The two ideas are completely different in how they approach truth; they run like a pair of parallel roads. There's no reason they need to cross at all unless one tries to force Christianity into the same model as science--which is to say by proving its claims using the scientific method or otherwise trying to show that it is rational. These are losing propositions and would make Christianity completely incompatible with science. As long as Christianity is purely metaphorical, as long as its claims are understood to be purely mythic, then it can at least co-exist with a scientific outlook.

 

What I feel for is those scientists who are blindly battling for causes like anti-vaccination or ID; that's some serious internal conflict right there.

Yes, that's how I was interpreting the word 'compatible,' which I realize may have been confusing and a mistake.

 

I think a scientific outlook can co-exist even with some literal forms of Christianity, though. I've heard Christian science profs explain to classes that science employs a 'methodological naturalism' -- essentially, that you cannot blame angels for your lab mistakes, even though its possible that angels did in fact mess with your experiment. And I can imagine and in fact remember people drawing time-lines in history, saying OK this is where God interacted with human history and this is where everything generally follows God's natural laws. It's a lot of rationalization, yes, but its also non-metaphorical Christianity.

 

If compatible means 'in harmony with' or 'complimentary,' then no, ha, no, Christianity would not be compatible with a scientific outlook, basically because science the evidence tyrant hates faith. : ]

[scriptor]

If science or history is methodological natural then it has nothing to say about Christianity. Your going to have to find different reasons to disbelief it. Am I right?

 

I think I agree with you here. Mostly.

 

To me, science and religion should be non-overlapping. Science concerns itself with the study of the natural universe, while religion attempts to explore the supernatural. Where we run into problems is when religious people make claims about the natural universe based on their religion (ie, "the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so") or when scientists make claims about the supernatural based on science (ie, "because of what we know from science, it is probable that God does not exist").

 

In other words, the question of whether Christianity and science are compatible or not depends on what you mean by Christianity. A liberal sort of Christianity that does not take a literal view of the Bible can be compatible with science. However, there are some things in the Bible that directly conflict with science. So, Christianity which takes a literal view of the Bible is in conflict with science.

[Vigile]

while religion attempts to explore the supernatural.

 

Since it made up the concept of the supernatural, it stands to reason science doesn't cover the subject.

[scriptor]

while religion attempts to explore the supernatural.

 

Since it made up the concept of the supernatural, it stands to reason science doesn't cover the subject.

 

On the contrary, I think that the belief that there is something beyond the natural world pre-dates religion. Religions are human attempts to access and explore the supernatural realm. Hence, to me it does not make sense to say that religion invented the concept of the supernatural. I think that people have an intuitive idea that there might be something supernatural, and this is why they invented religions.

 

Incidentally, it is entirely possible to believe in the supernatural independently of religion. You just lose your ability to access it.

[Vigile]

'Super'natural doesn't make sense to me. If it's not natural, I'd argue there's a good case it doesn't exist outside the realm of mere concept.

 

I'm curious what predates religion as it's my understanding that our earliest human artifacts indicate religious beliefs.

[Yrth]

while religion attempts to explore the supernatural.

 

Since it made up the concept of the supernatural, it stands to reason science doesn't cover the subject.

 

On the contrary, I think that the belief that there is something beyond the natural world pre-dates religion. Religions are human attempts to access and explore the supernatural realm. Hence, to me it does not make sense to say that religion invented the concept of the supernatural. I think that people have an intuitive idea that there might be something supernatural, and this is why they invented religions.

 

Incidentally, it is entirely possible to believe in the supernatural independently of religion. You just lose your ability to access it.

Then you should just call it the inaccessible natural, not the supernatural. How about the noumenon? I agree that 'supernatural' is an unworkable idea.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah. I agree. Supernatural means something that is above natural. But how can anything be above what is natural? To me, "natural" is almost equivalent to "something that exists" or "something that is real." So supernatural to me hints towards something not natural, not existing, or not real.

[scriptor]

I suppose I wasn't quite clear. When I say "natural" I mean something roughly similar to "the physical universe". So, "the natural" to me contains atoms, molecules, substances and structures, plants, animals, planets and stars and so on. It does not contain abstract constructs such as numbers and logical rules, and neither does it contain spiritual beings such as God.

 

When I say that I think people intuitively think there might be something supernatural, what I mean is that it seems as though our lives might have a purpose or meaning beyond ourselves. In any case, it's a nice thing to think. It also intuitively seems as though the universe and life might have been designed or planned. Of course, the fact that this intuitively seems to be the case does not actually make it true.

 

In my opinion, Religions are human responses to this feeling that there might be something more than the physical universe. That is why I say that I think the notion of "the supernatural" pre-dates religion. I think that religions arose out of a desire to access this "something more". And I think that people have always had this feeling that there might be something more, which is why the earliest human artifacts indicate religious beliefs. But I could be wrong about this.

 

Incidentally, it may indeed be the case that nothing supernatural exists outside of the realm of concepts.