It's an age old question, but I'm curious about how the general public REALLY feel about this subject. Is it true that having faith means denying what has been proven to be scientific fact? Or do science and religion compliment each like many great scientist thought?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... Einstein

"Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control." Martin Luther King Jr.,

What are your thoughts?

Them don come again o.

Which is more important, water or air?

https://www.nairaland.com/593999/science-religion-unending-conflict#7622406

JeSoul: Gbam left right and center.

Honestly, I don't think our aim should be trying to 'reconcile science with religion'. In my understanding, Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Its aim is to understand the physical world all around us through observation and experimentation. Religion is also a kind of quest for knowledge -spiritual knowledge, a journey to understand the heart and soul and deeper purpose of life. And trying to apply one quest in the place of the other is what leads to the 'conflict' we see all around us.

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.

And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

Science should focus on what science can ascertain and quit commenting on matters far beyond its scope and reach - and likewise to religion.

and also.... https://www.nairaland.com/964581/science-religion-conflict-harmony#11123446

And there is a difference between science and scientism. Often the people given to trying to use 'science' to "debunk" religion are people given to scientism rather than truly to science.

Ah, reminds me of something I read somewhere . . . . .

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

For [Julian] Huxley, science was the basis of a ‘religion without revelation’:

What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organised and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.

JeSoul: Which is more important, water or air?

https://www.nairaland.com/593999/science-religion-unending-conflict#7622406


and also.... https://www.nairaland.com/964581/science-religion-conflict-harmony#11123446

your comparison doesn't fit in well here. Man cannot survive without water or air but can survive without religion. From your quote

How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

Are you implying that having faith means denying what has been proven to be scientific fact? It doesn't matter or it's irrelevant? I'll check out the links, thanks for your input.

These religious people are jokers


Religion is not important. Man can live a good life without religion.

Science on the other hand, is needed for our daily comforts. We are cavemen without science. Science is the reason that I am typing this comment and you are gonna read it.

Enigma: And there is a difference between science and scientism. Often the people given to trying to use 'science' to "debunk" religion are people given to scientism rather than truly to science.

Ah, reminds me of something I read somewhere . . . . .

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Is there anything wrong with using science to debunk religion? Lots of falsehoods our forefathers believed and some of us still do have been 'debunked' by science. But that's not my question.

Chris†Kid:
your comparison doesn't fit in well here. Man cannot survive without water or air but can survive without religion.

and man can also survive without science . But that wasn't the point of my comparison, rather both are important in their own respects.

From your quote Are you implying that having faith means denying what has been proven to be scientific fact? It doesn't matter or it's irrelevant? I'll check out the links, thanks for your input.

You're welcome sir. And no, I'm certainly noy implying that at all. I'm simply saying faith should focus on religious matters and science should focus on scientific matters - and we should not mix the two. I am a person on science myself - and also a person of faith.

Cheers.

Science has proven it with theory that the earth has survive billion years and religion say its only 6000 years, which of them do you believe folks?

I think both conflict as they both make metaphysical statements.

Science and Christianity/Islam, conflict along naturalism and supernatural lines.

Both conflict with what epistemological tools to be used

DID YOU BORN YOUR FATHER OR YOUR FATHER BORN? CAN YOU STAND AND SELEEP?

Kay 17: I think both conflict as they both make metaphysical statements.

Science and Christianity/Islam, conflict along naturalism and supernatural lines.

Both conflict with what epistemological tools to be used

Dafuq?


Why use big words to make a simple point?

trololo