Since the Origin of Science is Religion, Can They Really be Separated?

Even the most basic knowledge about the origin of science makes it obvious that science was born in early religion, and has been nurtured by religion for most of its history. Yes, as knowledge of science has grown there have been frequent conflicts between what I have referred to as bad religion and bad science.

Before Gallileo, there was a tendency for the hierarchical Christian church (at least the Roman branch) to confuse the astronomical teachings of Plato with the Christian teaching that the Universe is created by God. Furthermore, some Christian groups who claim to be "fundamentalists" (while ignoring what both Saints Peter and Paul taught about the fundamentals of Christianity) insist on a dubious interpretation of one of the many creation stories found in the Bible and see a mistaken conflict between the principle of biological evolution (particularly the Darwinian theory about evolution) and the Biblical teachings.

In addition, many people think that the difference between these dubious interpretations of scripture and modern science amounts to a proof that there is no God. On the other hand, other people only see modern science as explaining the details of God's work. Dr. Archibald Wheeler, one of the most important cosmologists of the 20th century, insisted that the universe demands an observer. Dr. Carl Sagan saw God as the physical laws that give rise to existence, and referred to atheism as stupid.

I personally argue that the details of religion are a matter of faith, and believe that consciousness is a genuine topic that needs to be studied in relation to the existence of the universe. Science may give us some hints as to the essential nature of God, but I do not see any possibility for eliminating the role of revelation in religion.

So, I think that I have tossed the ball into the court, let's have some fun.

 

A few hours ago I realized that I had failed to subscribe to Gateway. I wrote my 10 posts, waited a few hours, checked to see if I had been rated, and realized that There was a step that I had managed to miss. I sent a message about the problem, but got no reply. If you are rating me, please rate the above post, not this one.

 

Your approach to science can be perfectly valid as a framework for religious scientists. However science is an activity of the civil society that occurs in a secular context.

Put simply, because religious people choose various frameworks, and many working scientists like myself are atheists, science per se is kept separate from religion. This is a necessary part of the separation of church and state.

Each person and each scientists makes their own accommodation between science and spirituality. I personally favor Gould's notion of non-overlapping majesteria.

 

I would just like to clarify something here. Dr. Carl Sagan did not refer to atheism as stupid. He did say that "by some definitions atheism is very stupid." There is a world of difference between stating that "by some definitions" and stating that something "is." Sagan was not implying that a lack of belief in a god is stupid but that claiming to know that there is no god is stupid, and in that is the world of difference!

 

Yes just because something originally started somewhere doesn't mean it has to continue in the same path. For example Science has blasted forward since freedom of religion and goverment etc came. Meaning Freedom is what brings science to blossom. People who are afriad to speak their mind will not contribute to science or society. Meaning if the religion tries to quite down the people who are speaking truth or teaching new ways to see things it will not be in the good for science.

I guess my point is the origin to science and development is people who aren't afraid to try new things.

 

Astrology gave origin to the field of Astronomy. Yet, we scientists don't have problems on separating both. One makes predictions that have no scientific basis and the other is backed by a huge amount of scientific evidence. I think the same can be said about religion and science, in a way. Religion came before science and maybe it opened the doors for science to come, but I'm not so sure on that. But even if that was the case, there is no denying: religion, when compared to science, is a very primitive way of trying to give answers to questions about nature. Sure, religion can still be used as a guideline for living your life, providing moral and ethical values, but this is not the primary goal of science; the goal of science is to provide better models to describe nature and religion fails at this.