Does scientific knowledge contradict religious belief? Francisco J. Ayala, Templeton Prize 2010

Posted By on July 31, 2019



science and religion if properly understood cannot contradict each other science and religion are like two different ways of looking at the world two different windows if you wish by which through which we look at the world the world is the same there is only one word out there but where the two windows show is completely different science deals with matter with the origin and diversity of organisms we had to explain them the atmosphere and natural processes religion deals with purpose values the meaning of life the relationships between humans and their creator and with each other he properly understood there cannot be in contradiction contradictions arise only when there is a transgression from the proper field of each religion or science into the other field for example when religious interpretations are thought to imply scientific knowledge for example people who would read the Bible as if it were an elementary book of astronomy or biology or chemistry there's not what the Bible is the Bible is talk of religion a book about religious truths about our relationship we got on our religious life the same scientists sometimes assert some scientists few scientists fortunately that science can invade the area of religion that somehow science because it cannot prove the existence of God leads to the conclusion for example that God does not exist there's not the proper conclusions and science has nothing to say about the existence of God for that matter about any other religious values all our moral values or for that matter what aesthetic values economic values science has his field of knowledge is Israel and so does religion and so do by the way statics and economy economy and other fields you

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 42 comments

  1. A few simple question:
    Is the Bible a book of myths or an actual account of history?

    Is any religious text an actual account of history or physical reality?

    Can any religion involve claims about history or physical reality?

    If so, then it can contradict science.

    Christianity is a good example:
    It claims actual events occurred that can be compared to science, and guess what? THEY CONTRADICT. Science can and does contradict religion.
    Sure, it might not contradict all religions, but it does contradict quite a lot.

    Reply
  2. I can foresee athiests offloading their hate upon this honest scientist man because he does not call the Bible a book of myths.

    Poor athiests, I honestly feel sorry for them.

    Reply
  3. The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. – Einstein

    Reply
  4. Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. – Einstein

    Reply
  5. @anonbigmetalfan You watch his video on "Why do humans behave ethically?" No god involved. Religion/culture and biological needs. No god.

    Reply
  6. @anonbigmetalfan Science shows me that a creator is not necessary. All mysteries solved by science so far reveal no magic. None say "god did it." Many things in science, mostly in biology and psychology, are subjective and require strict controls to be studied and careful conclusions made. But it can be done. And it can be done with morals, ethics, and values. It has been done. No god required. There is no god in science because god doesn't exist.

    Reply
  7. @fly44d

    …..But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    PS Hitler was forming a religion around himself.

    Reply
  8. @fly44d

    ….Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval….

    Reply
  9. @fly44d

    'Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."'……

    Reply
  10. @ivlfounder Just spit it out. Make a statement and get off your high horse. You think you are being clever but you are looking pretty dense.

    Reply
  11. @fly44d

    Ever see close encounters of the third kind?

    Remember where the Indians said the music came from?

    Something like that. 8)

    Reply
  12. @ivlfounder On what makes rational sense! What promotes the greatest well-being of your family, community, nation, people. What do you think morality is based on?

    Reply
  13. @ivlfounder Huh? Ha ha ha… wondered when you were going to finally play your god card. Humans come up with the idea or discovery and implement or use it. Where is god in this? 1+1=2, the speed of light is 3E8 m/sec, evolution via natural selection, natural morals scientifically described…. no god seen. No god needed.

    Reply
  14. @ivlfounder No, I don't. Is any society always moral. No, it can't be because choices have to be made. I didn't say society always has to be moral. The recognition that a choice has to be made is important. If all individuals acted morally all the time, then there would be no need for societies to act immorally. So, what is the flaw you see?

    Reply
  15. @fly44d

    Till you realize I understand the idea of removing serial killers from society is a good thing though it's in conflict with your original statement.

    Reply
  16. @ivlfounder Causing suffering is always immoral. You posed the question of the serial killer. He caused suffering, he had to be removed from society. Society made the choice of which suffering it was going to tolerate. That makes the society immoral in that it had to imprison the killer, but it did a greater good by getting him out of society. So how many times and ways do I have to say the same thing?

    Reply
  17. @ivlfounder We as a society feel that removing someone from society and putting them in prison for causing suffering is justified. Is it moral? If there were a better way, no. Is there a better way? No. Then the society has to pick the least immoral of two choices. Again, we don't live in your black and white world. The basic question was, does science have anything to say about morality. The answer is yes. Is the world today moral in my view? In many ways no.

    Reply
  18. @ivlfounder So? The overall effect is to prevent and relive suffering, the killer brought on his suffering by being immoral. We can't relieve and prevent ALL suffering, but if we all acted that way, there wouldn't be a killer in a prison.

    Reply
  19. @ivlfounder The killer's suffering is nothing compared to what he caused. It is there. We don't live in your black and white, good vs evil, heaven and hell world. Sure he suffers, not as much as would be caused by his continued killing. There has to be a trade. Maybe it would be better if the killer was killed. Since there is no afterlife, he would experience no suffering. The problem is guaranteeing his guilt, we are not able to do that usually, too many mistakes are made.

    Reply
  20. @ivlfounder Again, relative to what they caused, no. That suffering never goes away. Removing him from society prevents more suffering than the killer's suffering. That is the ideal anyway. With humans involved, nothing is ideal so a balance has to be found.

    Reply
  21. @ivlfounder Relative to the suffering they caused, no. Not that they are actually suffering physically, just being deprived of their freedom in order to protect the rest of the community (which prevents suffering). If they were being racked up and tortured daily, that would be immoral.

    Reply
  22. @ivlfounder Science can tell you if what you do causes suffering. If it does, it is immoral. If it relieves or prevents suffering or gives pleasure, it is moral. Science can tell you about the suffering and pleasure. That simple.

    Reply
  23. @fly44d

    "Science has a lot to say about morals"?

    Science can tell you if putting poison in your aunts coffee will kill her.

    It can not tell you if it's right or wrong.

    Reply
  24. I am sorry. Science has a lot to say about morals, values, relationships between people. Even the relationship between people and their perceived "creator". There is total and constant contradiction between science and religion. Religion will die out as people learn that the explanations for values, morals and relations are much more satisfying without the god stories. And he gets a bunch of money for this? Wow.

    Reply
  25. Another atheist advocating NOMA – a million dollars for that ? It rather seems like a physician being bribed to defend smoking. This is wasted public relations money for a failed philosophy. The educated and intelligent tend to see right through this.

    Religion is safe from contradiction only when it hides in nebulosity to the point of irrelevance. At that point, why bother ?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *