The Relationship Between Science and Religion

[Mundungus Fletc]

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?

Clearly some research has to be restricted - if you want to know how long someone can survive in icy water the obvious way to find out is to put someone in icy water. That is clearly immoral. Amongst current research I find the use of embryos deeply worrying.

2. What impact has religion had on scientific advances? Has organized religion held up the progress of scientific advancement?

It's cut both ways. Most of the old universities in Europe were founded as religious institutions to prepare men for the priesthood. The methods developed for the study of theology evolved into the Scientific method we know today. But there are problems when the Church gets too closely involved - Galileo for example (though it has to be remembered that the entire scientific establishment was calling for him to be condemned because he completely overturned the then scientific view of the universe (Aristotelianism))

3. What do you think the relationship between religion and science should be?

I believe Science is the best method we have to understand God's creation but science can tell us nothing about faith just as the Bible is not a handbook for understanding how the world was made. They are separate ways of looking at things.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by chparadise

If you do think that science and religion don't mix, do you think it's OK for religious figures to step up and voice their opinions that certain science research not be conducted?

They are entitled to voice their opinions. What they should never do is use their position to threaten and bully parliamentarians as occurred last year when Archbishop Pell threatened Catholic MPs in NSW if they voted to overturn a ban on embryonic stem cell research.

"Top New South Wales MPs are planning to defy Sydney Archbishop George Pell, who has threatened to deny communion to Catholic politicians who vote for an expansion of stem cell research."

ABC

Originally Posted by Mundungus Fletc

Amongst current research I find the use of embryos deeply worrying.

Despite the name the cell clusters used in embryonic stem cell research aren't embryos.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Mundungus Fletc

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?

Clearly some research has to be restricted - if you want to know how long someone can survive in icy water the obvious way to find out is to put someone in icy water.

That doesn't mean to drop them in icy water and see how long it takes for them to die.

You can put them in a tank of cold water and measure their core body temperature and see how it reacts, and then remove them from the water before they die and use the information you've got to calculate how long before their body temp drops to a fatal level.

And there are also accidents where people have fallen through ice etc and been immersed in cold water for long periods. Studying these events can also provide data.

[RemusLupinFan]

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?
I am a scientist by nature, but I do believe that there are certain things, or more accurately, ways of testing things that should be limited. I don't like the idea of anything that causes suffering and/or death to an organism. I do know that many tests on animals (such as toxicity) yield vital information, but those are the kind of experiments I think should be restricted.

2. What impact has religion had on scientific advances? Has organized religion held up the progress of scientific advancement?
Organized religion has usually had the affect of halting scientific progress. There are numerous examples in history of scientists proposing then "heretical" ideas, and subsequently being punished and/or killed for it.

3. What do you think the relationship between religion and science should be?
I believe each should have its own sphere of influence, that the two should stay separate. Perhaps that's easier said than done, but I think some effort should be made to make a truce between the two.

[Tiberius]

I'm remided of the case where there was a prisoner due to be executed, and he said he wanted his body donated to science. So after his death, his body was surrounded with resin or something, and then the top millimeter was shaved off. A photo was taken, then another mm shaved off, and so on all the way down. This gave an incredibly detailed look at the interior of the human body, and with each slice scanned into computer, they were able to create a detailed 3D representation of the Human body. Such a thing would have been quite difficult to do, as it isn't often that middle aged men die in a way that doesn't distort their body (such as an accident or a disease). He was an otherwise healthy man.

[mariebeth83]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I'm remided of the case where there was a prisoner due to be executed, and he said he wanted his body donated to science. So after his death, his body was surrounded with resin or something, and then the top millimeter was shaved off. A photo was taken, then another mm shaved off, and so on all the way down. This gave an incredibly detailed look at the interior of the human body, and with each slice scanned into computer, they were able to create a detailed 3D representation of the Human body. Such a thing would have been quite difficult to do, as it isn't often that middle aged men die in a way that doesn't distort their body (such as an accident or a disease). He was an otherwise healthy man.

That's pretty interesting, and it's reminded me of my uncle, who is a Catholic Priest. He has already made arrangements that when he dies his body will be donated to science for research. Obviously he is deeply religious as he is a priest, but he also acknowledges that religion shouldn't get in the way of scientific progress. Although he might be one of the few.

[Tiberius]

Yes, sadly there are many people who reject science in preference for what their religion tells them. It's good to see that there are people who accept science as well as religion.

For those of you who are interested in the above story of mine, the Wiki article on it can be found HERE.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by chparadise

Science and religion have been intertwined throughout history. Many of the most famous scientists of all time have been deeply religious men and women, who viewed science as a way to explore the world that God created. More recently, scientific advances have often gone up against religious beliefs, with a common question becoming "Should this research be done, since it violates religious teachings". The controversies over stem cell research are one example of this phenomenon, but it is certainly not limited to this one hot-button issue.

Discussion questions:

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?

2. What impact has religion had on scientific advances? Has organized religion held up the progress of scientific advancement?

3. What do you think the relationship between religion and science should be?

More questions may be added as I think of them, and I think that there is room for discussion of more than just what I outlined in the discussion questions.

1. No. Unless the research itself causes more harm than good.

2. A negative one, I think. Organized religion IMO translates into dogmatic, unyeilding and provides no leeway at all IMO.

3. Nothing. I don't want any relationship between science and religion. I believe religion is for the soul. Science is for the development of physical comforts of living in every sphere. Where is the connection and why should there be one?

Any religion should I think concentrate on how not to drive its people away and how to make its people happier, contented and peaceful.

The duty of science I think is to increase our standard of living in all fields, starting from basic living, to medicine to defence, to technology, to I&B, to computers and so on.

I cannot honestly see any connection between the two, and cannot believe there should be one.

[Overdose]

Where is the connection and why should there be one?

Presumably when science begins investigating the nature of consciousness and feeling and therefore ultimately this concept of a 'soul'.
However, there is nothing that should bar science from doing so.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by Overdose

Presumably when science begins investigating the nature of consciousness and feeling and therefore ultimately this concept of a 'soul'.
However, there is nothing that should bar science from doing so.

I agree. There is nothing that should bar science from investigating the soul or indeed religious concepts.

[Tiberius]

The trouble is that religious ideas such as the soul are untestable. Due in no small part to the fact that there is no definition for such things. So, if science tries to test it and gets a negative result, then it can be explained away by saying that we weren't testing for a soul after all, just using an incorrect definition of a soul. As such, negative results can be constantly explained away.

Philosophical and religious ideas are untestable by science.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The trouble is that religious ideas such as the soul are untestable. Due in no small part to the fact that there is no definition for such things. So, if science tries to test it and gets a negative result, then it can be explained away by saying that we weren't testing for a soul after all, just using an incorrect definition of a soul. As such, negative results can be constantly explained away.

Philosophical and religious ideas are untestable by science.

Let science try, test and find the soul to be untestable or even as an entity it cannot find to exist. Let it try and find a definition and fail. Because it has failed, let it say, such a thing may not be possible in the realm of science and it may be false even. I feel that should make no difference to religion.

For science, it is all about proof. And that's the way it should be IMO, because the subject deals with tangible conclusions and it needs that to advance in its research. It is all about increasing out material comforts and for that science has to demand proof.

Religion is about faith. How many of those who believe in God have actually seen HIm, or experienced Him in all his entirety?

Almost no one. Yet so many believe, because they have faith. They see miracles that happen in their own life, because of that faith in a power that they believe is superior to them in all ways.

They confide their problems to that power and they take solace in the faith again, completely sure that help asked would be given.

They have knocked and they believe and have faith that the door shalt be opened to greater understanding.

They have asked and they believe and have faith, that they shalt receive; a solution to their problems and their despair. Religion it is all about faith.

That has nothing to do with proof, nothing to do with experiments and observations and conclusions.

If science can give us the reason about a God, that is fantastic; but whether it can ot not, should not be the basis of belief of a religious person. For him, it is his faith, that moves mountains for him, faith that eases his problems and faith that comforts and it is the faith in his God, Teacher or Religion that heals his anguish and raises him from an ordinary man to a great soul.

Science has nothing IMO to do with all of this. I still feel both can and should co-exist togther with religion not hampering the research of science, but rather religion I think, should try its best to strengthen the belief of its people and keep them from turning away from it and being disillusioned by it.

[ComicBookWorm]

Personally, I don't care what faith or beliefs that people do or don't have. It has nothing to do with science. People can believe what they want, no matter what their personal faiths. I only object to religion when it tries to interfere with the operation of science. I only object when religion tries to dictate what is taught in public schools. Religions can teach anything they want to people in their places of worship or their homes or private schools, but that's where their authority should end.

Science can't tell religion what to do or believe, and religion shouldn't tell science what to do. The murky area is what it considered ethical or not. Since there are hundreds of faiths, there can never be one single viewpoint of what religions might consider ethical. Therefore, the society as a whole will have that input, not just one religion or another.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

I only object to religion when it tries to interfere with the operation of science.

I agree. I also think religion should keep out of science's business and instead concentrate on its own role in society.

[BabyCarrot]

I still have the belief that philosophy should have usurped the role of religion a long time ago.

[Danio]

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?
To be honest, I'm not really sure. Obviously there are some things you could do in the name of scientific research which would plainly be wrong but usually all that's ruled out by ethics committees and the like. I don't really agree with the idea of destroying viable embryos, but then I think that if I or someone I loved was really ill, and stem cell research could provide a cure, I might not think the same (or maybe just not care so much about the embryo)

2. What impact has religion had on scientific advances? Has organized religion held up the progress of scientific advancement?
Probably religion has both helped and hindered science over the years. Halting scientific advancement isn't always a bad thing anyway - the nuclear bomb was a scientific advancement but not necessarily a good thing!

3. What do you think the relationship between religion and science should be?
Well I think it's good to have both, especially as science is always going to be limited in what it can tell us about life and "big" questions like the existence of God, as such things can not be proved or disproved according to scientific standards.
I don't think life is that simple that you can separate science and religion and keep them compartmentalised. There are scientists who are religious, and we need some kind of moral framework to regulate science. Like it or not, nearly all moral beliefs have their basis in religion. Besides, if the scientific community deliberately or accidentally alienate the religious, all they will succeed in doing is encouraging hostility and ignorance and fear. I don't think religion should have a monopoly over science or dictate to it, but that goes the other way too and some scientists are very snobbish and scornful of religions; it doesn't help anything. At the end of the day all scientists are human and there is more to being alive than science and what can be proved or disproved.

[DancingMaenid]

1. Based off of your religious beliefs, do you think that some forms of scientific research should be restricted?

I don't have any religious affiliation. I do have spiritual and moral beliefs, but I don't feel that people's personal beliefs should influence science. I do have ethical concerns and feel that testing should do as little harm as necessary and, in the case of testing on humans, that all parties are consenting. These standards tend to be accepted by most boards, anyway.

2. What impact has religion had on scientific advances? Has organized religion held up the progress of scientific advancement?

In the past, many institutions of higher learning were run by churchs, and that can't be ignored. I also think that, in some cases, religion may have inspired people to try to learn more about the world. I do feel that religion inhibits progress at times, though, both in the past and in the present. In the past, you saw it in cases where the church rejected and punished ideas that went against church beliefs, and today I think it occurs when religious groups attempt to stop stem cell research, for example.

3. What do you think the relationship between religion and science should be?

I used to say that religion and science need not be in conflict. Now, I would change that to spirituality and science need not be in conflict, because for some people, being religious means adhering to church tradition in such a way that does conflict science. For instance, some people believe very strongly in interpreting the Bible literally, even if some parts can be argued as conflicting science. So whether or not religion and science conflict depends on a person's religion and their expression of it. But I personally believe that the spiritual and natural are one in the same. We simply can't test the spiritual as well.

If you do think that science and religion don't mix, do you think it's OK for religious figures to step up and voice their opinions that certain science research not be conducted?

I think they're definitely entitled to their opinion, and entitled to voice it.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Danio

I don't really agree with the idea of destroying viable embryos, but then I think that if I or someone I loved was really ill, and stem cell research could provide a cure, I might not think the same (or maybe just not care so much about the embryo)

Despite the name embryonic stem cells aren't derived from embryos, but blastocysts

[Danio]

But don't blastocysts develop into the embryo and placenta? Well, I just meant the destruction of something that could develop into a human baby, so I included blastocysts in that.

[Wab]

An acorn can develop into an oak tree but they aren't seedlings.