Can Science + Religion Co-Exist?

[dreadfulpenny81]

The answer is YES.

A recent study from Rice University indicates that 15% of scientists at major research universities see science and religion in constant conflict.
They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U

Comments

[ytterbius]

I'm the person that Christians get warned about

[underlankers]

The one thing I'd disagree with is qualifying either Judaism or Sunni Islam and even Protestant Christianity as authoritarian structures. Both of them are in some senses *too* decentralized to qualify as organized religion of the Buddhism/Hinduism/Christianity sort. This is simultaneously blessing and curse.

[ytterbius]

Hmm, I don't really know the difference in this area between Sunni and Shia Islam, but Islam, itself is "Submission."

Id have to say that in general they are all authoritarian on some level. American Protestant Christians may not all bend before a single leader, but the different churches definitely have a hierarchy which is powerful, internally, at least.

There's definitely someone out there that is given a primary role in interpreting ancient texts, and defining God and God's Will.

Hinduism is pretty diverse, and I can't really speak to its centralized structure, but I'm surprised to see you list Buddhism as a highly organized religion. Of all of these listed religions, Buddhism is the least depending on a person learning and accepting the word of some human expert. Yes, there are temples, and teachers, but the journey is typically considered to be very personal.

[underlankers]

The difference is that Shia Islam is the more millennarian subset of the two religions and evolved the Mullah-Ayatollah-Imam triumvirate. All subsets await the return of the Imam but that takes some rather different forms, while the Imam is not there the Ayatollah is the temporal leader of the faith. The Sunni exalt individual reasoning and predated Protestants in this by several thousand years.

The difference between Buddhists and Hindus is that Buddhism has dogma and monastic orders, Hinduism embraces all-life. While it did create the caste/varna/jati system it has nothing of the organized bureaucracy that goes into Buddhist and Christian clergies.

[telemann]

Nearly all of the scientists - religious and nonreligious alike - have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.

Interesting.

[skull_bearer]

Well, yeah, it's kinda unsurprising.

[devil_ad_vocate]

I agree with Aronowitz, but she leaves out the element of popular media - which has little understanding of either, and has far too much influence on both.

[oportet]

Despite what religious people think, 100% of scientist aren't spending 100% their time trying to disprove God or any of God's word.

Despite what scientific people think, 100% of preachers aren't devoting 100% of their sermons to disproving evolution or proving cavemen and dinosaurs walked hand-in-claw.

They're both diverse fields, rarely do they conflict.

They both need funding, they both need believers, they both wear coats, and if you're really good at either maybe you'll get a book deal or TV show.

[a_new_machine]

1.) I do, but not the implication that I'm drawing from it. There are some areas where science is correct, and religion makes claims of fact to which it is not entitled by the evidence. "Un-gay" therapy, faith healing/reiki/assorted related religiously-derived woo, young earth creationism, anti-evolutionism, and the like are simply areas where religion is wrong. Those religions that espouse these elements are in direct conflict with our knowledge of science. Pretending like there's no way science and religion can conflict, or that any conflicts are unimportant, is not good for either religion or the religious. If you believe in those things listed above, you are incorrect and I'm not out of line for pointing it out.

2.) Some, yes. Some geologists are young-earthers bent on proving that Genesis is correct. Some biologists are likely influenced by their religion's opposition to the truth of evolution. But not any significant number.

3.) Little to none.