Not really. Modern science as a philosophy revolves around the testing of falsifiable statements. Religion, meanwhile, is entirely centered around unfalsifiable statements that can't be tested in anyway.
There is a fundamental impasse that conflicts science's empiricism and religion's mysticism. Trying to reconcile them would be like trying to reconcile snowboarding and doing your taxes. It's only religion that is really interested in reconciliation because religious entities feel existentially threatened by science invalidating their doctrines.
Ehhh, I think that's just a modern view of science vs. religion from the Age of Enlightenment after the Reformation led to a rise of more religious fundamentalist views amongst Protestants and Catholics. We've often seen scientific thought in western churches as "Existence was created by God with a set of rules, and we need to understand those rules in order to fully understand God's creation" before that
Obviously depends partly on the religion and its doctrine, but for all intents and purposes, no. Science is supposed to be rooted in empirical, observable facts backed up by troves of reproducible evidence. That might not always be the case in practice, but it means anything which demands acceptance and truth without evidence is categorically irreconcilable.
This is why fanatics consistently insist on “““evidence””” that their faith is correct (Lazarus bacteria, intelligent design, Jesus on toast, etc.) while rejecting any evidence that contradicts their faith as exaggerated/misattributed/fraudulent (fossils, geologic strata suggesting Earth is billions of years old rather than thousands, etc.)
both atheists and religious are very hung up on mythology and "testing" miracles, they're oblivious to the real reasons for continued religiosity, namely life's mysteries like time, consciousness, the afterlife, self and other. They can be explained, but not in terms that connect with the average person... and it's all about communication. A religious person gets the same euphoria as an atheist about the same subject, via different methods. That will continue
Yes, quite easily since they occupy entirely different domains. People just need to stop being retards about it and leave each to their respective areas.
Should not the question from a philosophical standpoint be -- should science and religion be reconciled?
If so or not, why?
Substantively, the question is -- should a method meant to ascertain empirical information about reality be reconciled with a belief system rooted in the supernatural.
>in the next decades, science is going to create an entity more intelligent than us and our lives will revolve around it >the difference being that you won't be able to ignore it if it asks you to sacrifice your son
It's not science's fault god can't enter this world. Technology, sure. Religion is holding out until we configure a world it can return to
Not really. Modern science as a philosophy revolves around the testing of falsifiable statements. Religion, meanwhile, is entirely centered around unfalsifiable statements that can't be tested in anyway.
There is a fundamental impasse that conflicts science's empiricism and religion's mysticism. Trying to reconcile them would be like trying to reconcile snowboarding and doing your taxes. It's only religion that is really interested in reconciliation because religious entities feel existentially threatened by science invalidating their doctrines.
not everybody is a scientist
No, and certainly not the seething religious homosexuals on here
And not everybody is a theologian. What's your point?
what do you guess my point is, friend?
You don't have one because the OP is talking about two systems coexisting and you're bringing up individual laymen like it matters.
you're a moron
Ehhh, I think that's just a modern view of science vs. religion from the Age of Enlightenment after the Reformation led to a rise of more religious fundamentalist views amongst Protestants and Catholics. We've often seen scientific thought in western churches as "Existence was created by God with a set of rules, and we need to understand those rules in order to fully understand God's creation" before that
Brutal truthbomb
Obviously depends partly on the religion and its doctrine, but for all intents and purposes, no. Science is supposed to be rooted in empirical, observable facts backed up by troves of reproducible evidence. That might not always be the case in practice, but it means anything which demands acceptance and truth without evidence is categorically irreconcilable.
This is why fanatics consistently insist on “““evidence””” that their faith is correct (Lazarus bacteria, intelligent design, Jesus on toast, etc.) while rejecting any evidence that contradicts their faith as exaggerated/misattributed/fraudulent (fossils, geologic strata suggesting Earth is billions of years old rather than thousands, etc.)
both atheists and religious are very hung up on mythology and "testing" miracles, they're oblivious to the real reasons for continued religiosity, namely life's mysteries like time, consciousness, the afterlife, self and other. They can be explained, but not in terms that connect with the average person... and it's all about communication. A religious person gets the same euphoria as an atheist about the same subject, via different methods. That will continue
Yes, quite easily since they occupy entirely different domains. People just need to stop being retards about it and leave each to their respective areas.
Should not the question from a philosophical standpoint be -- should science and religion be reconciled?
If so or not, why?
Substantively, the question is -- should a method meant to ascertain empirical information about reality be reconciled with a belief system rooted in the supernatural.
>a method
I should have said the method.
There is no other.
I also should have said "with belief systems" as OP was not specific.
>in the next decades, science is going to create an entity more intelligent than us and our lives will revolve around it
>the difference being that you won't be able to ignore it if it asks you to sacrifice your son
No and they don't need to