Can science and religion mix?

Its very difficult, although science and religion are very different, they got things in common, each one give us an "explanation" of our origins and where we are going, so i guess its up to each person to decide in which one will believe.
Personally i prefer science cause in my opinion its more objective, i mean religion has been distorted since a lot years, of course science too but i guess its more reasonable.
Dunno... dont misundertand me but i saw how the religion in bad hands can manipulate people to do stupid things, i respect each person believes and religion.
But dont think that will be possible, science and religion possibly cant be mixed, but they both can work to get a better life for everybody, for separate and respectfully ways, dont you think?

I'm interested in how religion PROVES those concepts.

It's a fact.

I would make an adjustment to this sentence like so: "I personally know it's just a theory made in an attempt to explain the huge amount of different lifeforms on the planet, and it seems to be working pretty good up to this point because there's a dickload of evidence to support it."

Also, be careful how you use the word "theory" as there are those who don't know what it really means in a scientific context.


Faith bro. You know how just a lil' bit o' faith > any kind of evidence, rationality, and logic, because HALLELUJAH!

pssshh, don't point it out, he'll notice! >_<

I think that without both, one would be left to completely go overboard. Left unchecked, either side would go to an extreme and be problematic. So rather than mix, they need to coexist and balance each other.

Well, that is the job description of priests... they tell you some old story, possibly even changing it to be more modern, and then they tell you what it means and what the moral of the story is.

So religious scholars (which includes priests) job description is just that: retrofitting stories to mean what they think it shold

Kind sir, can you please explain what do you mean by science going overboard, and just how religion checks(or whatever you call it) science in case that happens?

Well i think that religion has provided the basis for the system of morals in society, thereby keeping science from becoming a market for pure profit where testing dangerous things on people is not considered wrong.

Science checks religion by proving that modern science cures people, not miracles, and that faith alone will not sustain a progressive society. We could go nowhere without science.

It's not considered right in science either. There's simply no shits like right or wrong in science, only true or false. And market for profit has nothing to do with science, that's economy. The fact that it happens to use science doesn't mean that such practices is science in itself, much like religion is not morals itself.

And no, religion does not provide basis for morals. It just makes use of made-up beliefs to give reasons for idiots who need to be rewarded/punished to behave as if they have morals in them, that's all.

You are Wrong.

The only real thing religion really does, is providing a moral compass. The interpretations and understanding of these morals have been twisted many times in all major religions, but morals is what it all boils down to.

Now, good sir. you are inarticulate and stupid. you know nothing of religion and have an ignorant stance on it. i should know because i too once felt the same as you. Now, if there was no religion, science would run rampant. no body would challenge what they would be doing, other than with ethics, similar to morals. but most ethics stem from religious morals. An example of this is stem cell research. Its all the religious groups opposing this. and if they didn't science could market any benefits from it. and fyi, economics is a science of the market. so yea, economics does deal with science. Now religion, whatever your stance on it is, you cant argue that it was the base of society, beyond the nuclear family structure. the first major cities were centers for religions. coming forth from those cities governments. and where did those governing bodies get there established laws from? religion. It shows just how influential religion is. and yes the morals are part of it. as for a bunch of idiots needing reward/punishment to justify their actions, that exists in every aspect of life anyway. it just applies it to the one of the greatest questions of all time, where do we go when we die/what happens to us when we die? and it shouldn't be a big deal because it makes a lot of people better. because they strive to reach something and do good in the world. and those rewards and punishments are the result of the morals. they are the consequences. So sir, please, i beg of you to come into an argument educated next time.

And you don't see a problem with that?


Manipulation, you forgot the manipulation. Responding with "people twisted it to control others" is a shitty excuse as the book's main mode of manipulation is through fear and a promise of an eternal reward (that word eternal is pretty powerful to the gullible).

Also, the basis of morality? I think not. Weren't there societies before god decided to impose rules on them?


LOL!

And you know that how? Right, because you already came to the conclusion that religion is the basis for morals. I mean, that feeling that makes us, what is that word, oh yea, empathetic towards others surely came from religion.

Yes, I realized my mistake already. It was that I tried to use logic and reason to argue with a religious people.

Clearly this has caused allot of problems because of power hungry (or just plain insane..) religious people, but it is the way religion works. So I do see a problem, but all I can do is just hope that the people interpreting the texts have some common sense and are not power hungry.



I am to lazy to actually find a source for this.. But I am resonably sure that moral is fairly new concept, so while there were societies before any real religion were formed, the concept of moral was not introduced until later.




While Rob920 is basically just ranting, then you did actually not argue well for you position, you just stated your opinion. An opinion which was at most half correct.

My point is, it existed before we could name it.

lol, it was meant to be sarcasm since the beginning. -_-

because tbh I see no point arguing with people of faith, because faith by itself is not based on reason. bring thy arguments, no amount shall be enough.

Fag, I thought you were being serious.

Do not like insults, but still... ^this

Bah, stopped being serious some time ago. Saw no way to penetrate through the argument of sheer will.

@jens: insults? lol.

It's a nice sport though. Oh yea, we have to be "serious business." Er, you're wrong, I'm right, I have a list of scientific articles that say "Rbz is right again" (which I don't plan on posting), and you should stop being a big sarcastic meanie to the pious.