The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[elguanteloko]

Hi, folks.

There is much talk about the possible conflict between science and mormonism lately here and I wanted to contribute to it.

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable. This is NOT to say they are wrong but while Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

Example: God exists.

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that. Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion offers very little in this respect. Again, this does not mean God doesn't exist or that prayer doesn't work but it does mean those claims are simply unjustified. Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence? Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

[Jeff K.]

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable. This is NOT to say they are wrong but while Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

I think that is why they call it religion and not science.

[Jeff K.]

Science is almost never completely right and always seems to be changing. Is that grounds for rejecting it or simply understanding it is distinct in that it speaks to the mechanics of how things are done versus the reasons why things exist.

[blackstrap]

Because people demand answers of scientists that require a knowledge of the unknown and often unknowable past,they are tempted to opine and ,when convenient,pontificate outside of the observable and repeatable.

Theologians do a lot of the same and for the same reasons.

[Franktalk]

God does provide proof that He does exist. But it is a personal proof that can not be shared except as a witness. So if you say that personal evidence does not count I must take exception with what you say. If on the other hand you accept personal evidence and just limit proof to the masses then I have no problem with saying that God does not provide proof on a group scale except in very rare circumstances. And even then the proof is limited to the group and is not universal. But there will come a day in which the mystery of God will be gone. Then where will you hang your hat?

Having said that I have to point out some other things that science does which makes it appear as anti-God. The first of these is first cause. Science does not explain how all of the forces and matter came into existence. And to say that it has always been here is just an answer from nonsense. The second thing is the unlikely structure of the universe. It seems designed to support life. Yet science says that all structures must be equal in probability. Yet here we are in a very unlikely structure. Science uses probability for many things and quantum mechanics is just one. So on one hand science uses probability to answer questions but when it comes to the universe the probability machine is turned off because the answer is not acceptable to science. Seems odd to me that answers for one but not for another, almost like there was an agenda going on.

[Bernard Gui]

There is much talk about the possible conflict between science and mormonism lately here and I wanted to contribute to it.

To the talk or to the conflict?

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable.

Perhaps religion and science serve different purposes and measure

different things. Are there phenomena that science cannot test or measure?

Bernard

Edited July 31, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[altersteve]

You have it backwards. There is no conflict between science and religion at all because of the fact that there is no way to scientifically test religious beliefs.

[Jeff K.]

People look for conflict sometimes. I worked on a farm and one day drove a tractor and wagon between fields. Someone in a mustang pulled up beside me and asked me how fast I can go. Well, you know tractors, if I could get 15 mph out of that old John Deere 720, I would have been amazed. I looked back and asked, how much hay can you haul in that trunk of yours?"

Both vehicles were useful, both served very different purposes, and both were desireable things to have. So is there a conflict between a Mustang and a Tractor? Not that I can see, unless of course tractors want to go street racing (some do), and Mustangs can haul tons of hay (none do to my knowledge).

So if a kid in a fast car challenges me to a race, is he aware of the different purposes? Or is he just looking for a fight? Perhaps it is beyond him to grasp the differences? Some people are that way.

[elguanteloko]

I think that is why they call it religion and not science.

"There's a conflict between your explanation and mine."

"Duh, that's why we call them YOUR explanation and MY explanation."

great answer, Jeff K..........right to the heart of the issue.......

[elguanteloko]

Science is almost never completely right and always seems to be changing. Is that grounds for rejecting it or simply understanding it is distinct in that it speaks to the mechanics of how things are done versus the reasons why things exist.

I'm NOT speaking of "why things exist" but rather of what exists and can and is shown to exist. God's bodily existence is NOT a "why things exist" matter and neither are miracles.

[elguanteloko]

Because people demand answers of scientists that require a knowledge of the unknown and often unknowable past,they are tempted to opine and ,when convenient,pontificate outside of the observable and repeatable.

I honestly have no idea what your point is, if you have one.

Theologians do a lot of the same and for the same reasons.

yeah, theologians are actually a bad example here.

[elguanteloko]

God does provide proof that He does exist.

you meant "evidence" there, not proof.

But it is a personal proof that can not be shared except as a witness. So if you say that personal evidence does not count I must take exception with what you say. If on the other hand you accept personal evidence and just limit proof to the masses then I have no problem with saying that God does not provide proof on a group scale except in very rare circumstances. And even then the proof is limited to the group and is not universal. But there will come a day in which the mystery of God will be gone. Then where will you hang your hat?

OK, so here's where the conflict begins and that my OP talked about. There is a difference in the standards of religion and those of science to determine if something is the case or not. For example, that "God has a physical body" isn't something accepted in science at all because "personal revelation" isn't proper evidence in science. Religion, on the other hand, does take "personal revelation" as sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Notice that claim is NOT outside the scope of science in principle so the mantra of "Spiritual truths aren't in the scope of science" is simply not true. The efficacy of miracles is another one. Simply "feeling" or having "personal revelation" that God's power cured grandma's cancer is enough to establish it but it isn't so in science.

Having said that I have to point out some other things that science does which makes it appear as anti-God. The first of these is first cause. Science does not explain how all of the forces and matter came into existence. And to say that it has always been here is just an answer from nonsense. The second thing is the unlikely structure of the universe. It seems designed to support life. Yet science says that all structures must be equal in probability. Yet here we are in a very unlikely structure. Science uses probability for many things and quantum mechanics is just one. So on one hand science uses probability to answer questions but when it comes to the universe the probability machine is turned off because the answer is not acceptable to science. Seems odd to me that answers for one but not for another, almost like there was an agenda going on.

I'm not going to discuss arguments for God (unless necessary) here but methodology. Though you can open a thread on these issues and you can count with my participation. Suffice it for now that the fact that 'science' doesn't offer an explanation and says "this is the one!" isn't something against science. Just because you don't proclaim an explanation doesn't mean others are correct or even worthy of serious consideration or exploration.

[elguanteloko]

To the talk or to the conflict?

to the talk about the possible conflict.

Perhaps religion and science serve different purposes and measure

different things. Are there phenomena that science cannot test or measure?

Bernard

Science cannot test or measure many things but the point is that there is a conflict in methodology. Where in science you can't say "God exists and has a body" when such body hasn't been observed or confirmed, you can in religion. Where in science you can't simply establish the truth of those claims by personal experience or "revelation" or feelings, you can do so in religion. We are speaking here of a conflict in methodology here, not simply a difference in methodology.

Edited July 31, 2011 by elguanteloko

[sunstoned]

Science does not explain how all of the forces and matter came into existence. And to say that it has always been here is just an answer from nonsense. The second thing is the unlikely structure of the universe. It seems designed to support life.

So is it also nonsense to say that God has always been here?

Not sure what you mean about the universe being designed to support life. As far as we can tell so far, out of all the thousands of planets, earth is the only one in the universe that supports life.

[elguanteloko]

You have it backwards. There is no conflict between science and religion at all because of the fact that there is no way to scientifically test religious beliefs.

That's not the point. The point is that while in science (and, IMO, rational thought in general) you simply can't go from grandma's cancer vanishing for unknown causes to saying "A super-powerful, flesh-and-bones bodied God's power caused grandma's cancer to disappear", you can do so in religion. THAT'S the conflict in methodology, not simply a difference in methodology.

(I'm ignoring here claims that OBVIOUSLY are testable like "Tomatoes grown by Satanists cause bad health than tomatoes grown by LDS folks" or the efficacy of prayer)

[elguanteloko]

So is it also nonsense to say that God has always been here?

Not sure what you mean about the universe being designed to support life. As far as we can tell so far, out of all the thousands of planets, earth is the only one in the universe that supports life.

Thanks for your comment, sunstoned, but PLEASE let's not derail the thread to discussing arguments for God's existence and the like. My point is very different.

[blackstrap]

Have you ever noticed that ,whenever something horrific happens(Norway),almost the first question asked is WHY?? as if the answer would provide some excuse for the bahavior or event. The media particularly but people in general keep asking WHY?? Most of the time the why is unknown or unknowable but we(humanity) demand an answer.Experts are called upon to speculate and/or pontificate about the WHY.This chattering can go on seemingly forever without satisfactory result,and yet we(humanity )DEMAND answers.The experts are happy to respond.That was my point.

[elguanteloko]

People look for conflict sometimes. I worked on a farm and one day drove a tractor and wagon between fields. Someone in a mustang pulled up beside me and asked me how fast I can go. Well, you know tractors, if I could get 15 mph out of that old John Deere 720, I would have been amazed. I looked back and asked, how much hay can you haul in that trunk of yours?"

Both vehicles were useful, both served very different purposes, and both were desireable things to have. So is there a conflict between a Mustang and a Tractor? Not that I can see, unless of course tractors want to go street racing (some do), and Mustangs can haul tons of hay (none do to my knowledge).

So if a kid in a fast car challenges me to a race, is he aware of the different purposes? Or is he just looking for a fight? Perhaps it is beyond him to grasp the differences? Some people are that way.

You are totally missing the point, Jeff, and I explain why my other response to you and to others here.

[elguanteloko]

Have you ever noticed that ,whenever something horrific happens(Norway),almost the first question asked is WHY?? as if the answer would provide some excuse for the bahavior or event. The media particularly but people in general keep asking WHY?? Most of the time the why is unknown or unknowable but we(humanity) demand an answer.Experts are called upon to speculate and/or pontificate about the WHY.This chattering can go on seemingly forever without satisfactory result,and yet we(humanity )DEMAND answers.The experts are happy to respond.That was my point.

If you think science is simple "speculation" then you need to SERIOUSLY study what science is. I can't even begin to tell you how simplistic and mislead your understanding of science seems to be.

Don't take this to be an insult, please.

Edited July 31, 2011 by elguanteloko

[sunstoned]

I'm not sure I am understanding the point of the OP. I see no real conflict with Science and religion. Science for the most part ignores religion for much the same reasons it ignores magic, the occult and other unsubstantiated beliefs and myths: there is just no evidence, empirical or otherwise. If science was to attack god, which one would they choose? There are hundreds that are worshiped in the different cultures of the world.

The only thing that could be see as a conflict IMO comes from the perspective of the religionist. As science advances, religion retreats. It has been like this for centuries. Never the reverse. God of the gaps so to speak.

Edited July 31, 2011 by sunstoned

[elguanteloko]

I'm not sure I am understanding the point of the OP. I see no real conflict with Science and religion. Science for the most part ignores religion for much the same reasons it ignores magic, the occult and other unsubstantiated beliefs and myths: there is just no evidence, imperial or otherwise. If science was to attack god, which one would they choose? There are hundreds that are worshiped in the different cultures of the world.

The only thing that could be see as a conflict IMO comes from the perspective of the religionist. As science advances, religion retreats. It has been like this for centuries. Never the reverse. God of the gaps so to speak.

That I ignore my archenemy doesn't mean there is no conflict between us so "ignoring" isn't a sign of lack of conflict. That I am in conflict with 100 people and I choose to ignore them all or 99 of them doesn't mean I'm not in conflict with 100 so "which will I choose to fight against" doesn't imply they are not in conflict. That religion retreats as science advances isn't necessarily an indicator of a conflict either.

My point, sunstoned, is that there is a conflict in the methodology of science and that of religion. Not merely a difference but a conflict between them. While in science you can't at present say "God has a body" or "A corporeal God exists" because there is no evidence for it, you can say so within religion. It is antithetical to science to say such a powerful and relevant thing as God's body (or simply God) exists with no empirical evidence while you can do so in religion. It is also antithetical to science to unnecessarily "multiply assumptions" (parsimony) while religion simply states and you accept with no regard to parsimony or other rational methods. In religion you first believe and THEN the evidence comes (not surprisingly, as confirmation bias shows), while in science you inspect the evidence as rigorously as possible and THEN adopt an explanation with the very open possibility that you are wrong about it.

[ken27]

Pure and True Science is the exact same thing as Pure and True Religion

The reason there are apparant conflicts between religion and science is because typically one or both do not have the full truth.

Even in the Mormon religion, we do not know ALL truths. We are told that we are not ready for more truth, because we can barely handle the truth we have. Science is definately full of false truths. They keep changing every day.

In both cases, humans have to be ready to accept the truth no matter what the consequences. (Lose Job, Lose government contracts, Lose friends, Peer pressure etc)

At this time most people are not ready to accept the full truth.

[Franktalk]

you meant "evidence" there, not proof.

Definition of PROOF

1

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Why must we go down this path? Are you implying by your question that I am not capable of using the English language. Are you implying that you can read my mind and know for sure what I am thinking and I can't express myself? Your higher than thou comment is duly noted.

OK, so here's where the conflict begins and that my OP talked about. There is a difference in the standards of religion and those of science to determine if something is the case or not. For example, that "God has a physical body" isn't something accepted in science at all because "personal revelation" isn't proper evidence in science. Religion, on the other hand, does take "personal revelation" as sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Notice that claim is NOT outside the scope of science in principle so the mantra of "Spiritual truths aren't in the scope of science" is simply not true. The efficacy of miracles is another one. Simply "feeling" or having "personal revelation" that God's power cured grandma's cancer is enough to establish it but it isn't so in science.

This is silly. A billion people saying they have a personal witness means nothing? But a small group of guys writing a science book is considered the reference? You must be kidding. It is beyond reasonable to accept that billions of people are wrong and a self proclaimed group of naturalist with a self defined and limited rule set is correct. And just what gives this group of people the authority to declare that they are correct? A constantly moving set of theories? The whole of science is built on swamp land. It is at best circular reasoning. If it is based on a solid foundation then tell me why the electron has one charge and not another? Why is the mass of a proton what it is? Why do we have a zero point energy? These are foundational questions. But science has no answers at all. What we get is the same old junk "in time we should know". I will tell you there is more proof of God then there is of a solid foundation in science. Science is more faith based than religion. Please prove me wrong.

I'm not going to discuss arguments for God (unless necessary) here but methodology. Though you can open a thread on these issues and you can count with my participation. Suffice it for now that the fact that 'science' doesn't offer an explanation and says "this is the one!" isn't something against science. Just because you don't proclaim an explanation doesn't mean others are correct or even worthy of serious consideration or exploration.

Yes, let us keep the discussion at a high level.

[ldsfaqs]

Hi, folks.

There is much talk about the possible conflict between science and mormonism lately here and I wanted to contribute to it.

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable. This is NOT to say they are wrong but while Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

Example: God exists.

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that. Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion offers very little in this respect. Again, this does not mean God doesn't exist or that prayer doesn't work but it does mean those claims are simply unjustified. Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence? Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

There is a huge history across generations and peoples of "empirical" justification of "God existing".

And the evidences ARE "extraordinary".

So, what are you actually talking about? Seems you're wrong.

People claim there is no evidence that exists for the Book of Mormon. Educated Mormons know for a fact that is false.

The question is not that evidence doesn't exist for religion or for God or for the Book of Mormon, and that such claims are not scientifically verifiable in some degree, the question is the degree, the accuracy, and on whether it's even known and understood by the person in question.

You say the scientific method provides no evidence for no God or anything else religious, I say you're ignorant.

My faith is not blind faith, it's based on the evidences of claims. I'm for example a mormon, and not in any other religion originally because mormonism was the only religion that actually fit the Biblical pattern of organization, doctrines, prophets, witnesses, scripture, etc., just like the New Testament Church was established. If that's not evidence and scientific methodology, then nothing is.

Edited July 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Ariarates]

I'm not convinced that there is a conflict, as you say. The fact that you can't use the religious method in science doesn't, in itself, mean these methods are in conflict. Conflict arises only when the outcomes of these respective methods contradict eachother. Then you must take a stand for faith or reason. Or not - as I get older, I increasingly enjoy ambiguity and not having the final definitive answer to everything.