Science and Religion Can and Do Mix, Mostly

coondoggie writes "A recent Rice University study found that in one of the more vitriolic social (and increasingly political) battlegrounds, science v. religion, there is more common ground that most folks believe. In fact, according to the study, only 15% of scientists at major U.S. research universities see religion and science as always in conflict."

Re:This just makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you know nothing of the Bible, if you think it was "...a book written originally for a nomadic group of shepherds..."

Despite the sales pitch, ignorance isn't bliss. Find out for yourself.

"Always"

[Galestar]

The keyword is "always". When you use an absolute, it will change peoples' answers. If you were to ask the same question in the form of "are science and religion sometimes/usually at conflict?", you will see a much different result. That being said, there is really nothing to be seen here.

Re:This just makes sense

[FauxPasIII]

> Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous; moral philosophy has been advancing since the bronze age, just like science. There's a reason that religions founded in that era endorse slavery, regard women as property, and practice scapegoating, to name just a few items; they are only as moral, could only possibly be as moral, as the men who founded them were. We can do better today.

Re:This just makes sense

[ShakaUVM]

>>I mean, discarding all of the scientific nonsense is a no-brainer. But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.

You're a bit out of date.

The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New. There's basically two laws you have to follow these days:
1) Love God
2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.

Everything else is details.

Re:This just makes sense

[ShakaUVM]

>>I've heard this interpretation before, but an awful lot of Christians still cite Leviticus whenever it suits, often while eating a bacon cheeseburger.

It's called cafeteria Christianity for a reason. =)

But if you want to get technical, the RCC divides Old Testament law into culturally-bound laws and moral laws, with the former not applying (like what clothes to wear) and some (like the Ten Commandments) still applying. But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40 [biblegateway.com]

Re:This just makes sense

[matunos]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -- Matthew 5:17

Sorry, buddy, you're going to hell.

Re:This just makes sense

[Tom]

Discarding scientific knowledge because of a book written originally for a nomadic group of shepherds is ridiculous.

Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.

There is one very, very, VERY important difference here. One of these is subject to review, testing and change when new facts emerge. The other is still stuck in 1000 BC.

Moral teachings that may have been appropriate for nomads in the middle east three millenia ago may or may not apply to modern day society. Some certainly still do (not killing sounds like a good general rule), some are utter bullshit in todays society - we've since abolished slavery, consider women equals, the role of parents isn't as important anymore, we're not all homophobes, magicians are entertainers not people we fear and want to put to death, and let's not even talk about the dietary guidelines.

People often point out the bible as a "source of moral teachings", but when you look at it, basically any of the actual rules that matter are independent of the bible and can be found in many other teachings as well, or are so obvious (again, killing) that it really doesn't put a good light on Moses people that it needed explicit mentioning.

No, friend, the bible is a horrible source of moral teachings. The good parts are massively drowned by crap, nonsense and dangerous psycho stuff. Only by ignoring the vast majority of it can you come to a worthy subset. And frankly, when you go to that effort, you can just as well write the same subset from scratch, and find much better reasons for it, in the same time.

Big Bang Theory proposed by a priest

[perpenso]

Actually, I went to catholic school. Jesuits, to be more precise. Out science lab teacher was a priest (quite an old one, 70+ years old). He used to say:

"It is not the duty of religion to say HOW things happen, but WHO is behind it. Science, on the other hand, will tell you HOW, but now WHO is behind it. I see no conflict whatsoever between the Big Bang and my faith. Between evolution and my faith. When I see Darwin's evolution, I see God's hand behind it."

Its not surprising one catholic priest would accept the Big Bang theory given that the theory was proposed by another catholic priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre [wikipedia.org]

Interestingly some leading scientists of the day dismissed the theory because it came from a priest, it "smelled of creationism".

Re:This just makes sense

[aintnostranger]

"If such a creator existed, it would be an immoral creator" Because he doesn't fit *your* definition of morality? "Morality is not imparted nor defined by the creator." Please explain. "Enlightened self-interest, to put it simply." That is not a rational foundation. That is survival instinct or something like that. "I've never seen any such thing happening, nor had a reliable account of it, so I entirely discount it." Same thing said most economists before 2008's crisis. You can discount it. But can you disprove it? Besides, my original point was not that you needed to believe the story of Abraham or not; it was about his action (taking his son to the altar to sacrifice him) being taken out of context. The story as it's told is not about a man who, without any previous encounter with God, is told to sacrifice his son. There's a context. If you are going to judge a story, you have to take it completely. You cannot take apart that context without changing the subject.

Re:Well, 85% of scientists are wrong, then.

[the entropy]

Can't really cite it as this is from personal experience. I'm Christian but I grew up in west Beirut(mostly among Sunni Muslims but I also have Druze and Chiite friends). One of my most anti-American/Israeli friends is a Chiite originally from a small town in the south whose family is involved politically with Hizbollah. In debates I couldn't even bring up *any* kind of not 100% fundamentalist idea without her saying that I was advocating we completely surrender to Israel. Yes, the indoctrination was that bad. And yet, she embraced Western values like women's rights or capitalism or various cultural things with no problem at all.

People are hypocrites, we know that by now.

Re:You demonstrate the flaw in the article.

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion and make it seem as if atheism is supported by science. For example, the idea that the Christian Church taught that the earth was flat and that Christopher Columbus had to fight against that religious bias in order to get funding for his trip was a creation of Irving Washington (an atheist) in the 1800s. The fact of the matter was that those who opposed Christopher Columbus did so because, according to thier calculations of the size of the globe, he would run out of food before he reached the Far East. Columbus had done his own calculations and concluded that the Earth was 1/3 smaller than it actually is. If the Americas did not exist, Columbus' opponents would have been correct. The premise upon which Columbus based his proposed his voyage was wrong. During the same time period (as Irving Washington), many atheistic archeologists believed that the Bible was wrong when it discussed the Assyrians (as a matter of fact, it was believed that the Bible had entirely fabricated the existence of the Assyrians) because they had not found any archelogical evidence of the Assyrians. It turns out that the Biblical record of the Assyrians is fairly accurate.