Log in

View Full Version : General Synod says religion and science not mutually exclusive



bricolage
13th February 2010, 12:51
Members of the Church of England have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) and science are compatible despite bruising assaults by atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins.

Christians with scientific backgrounds – including two bishops with science degrees – told the General Synod in London that many Christians accepted scientific theories, including those of evolution and the age and origin of the universe.

Launching the debate, a computer scientist, Dr Peter Capon of Manchester diocese, said: "We wish to refute the perception that you have to choose between science and faith … the crude caricature of faith as being blind and irrational. We reject the 'scientism' that claims that, in principle, science can resolve all questions capable of being answered.

"Most scientists accept that philosophy, theology and the humanities are alive and well and give insights and understanding that complement but are not replaced by scientific understanding."

Many Christians have been stung by criticisms which attempt to associate them with American fundamentalists who have waged a high-profile campaign in the US in favour of Creationism, or so-called Intelligent Design theory.

Capon added: "I am not suggesting that we should take the Bible, the inspired word of God, with anything other than the utmost seriousness and reverence. But we make a category mistake if we try to read it as a modern scientific textbook. We should be very wary of staking everything on proving or disproving a particular scientific proof.

"Rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists in their vocation or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area. Christians have always taken their part in scientific endeavour and in unlocking the mysteries of the whole of God's creation."

An Oxford physicist, Dr Anna Thomas-Betts, told the synod: "Religion and science have always been integral in my life. I don't look in science books to find out how to live and I don't look in the Bible to find out about Higgs boson. What is faith but a series of hypotheses verifying the truth of what we believe?"

Dr Tom Butler, the bishop of Southwark, whose doctorate is in electronics, said: "Since the Enlightenment, science has been dramatically successful in extending human knowledge and understanding of the universe and has changed every aspect of human existence. Theology, the queen of the sciences of past ages, is now tolerated … as a private preference but in no way has the authority of the true sciences.

"It's significant that Richard Dawkins is a biologist and biology has been the most successful of the old sciences … but it's the discipline of physics which tries to delve into more fundamental levels … discovering that existence is more mysterious than we can imagine."

Quoting Wendy Freedman, author of The New Physics, the bishop added: "'The measurements point to a universe filled with a kind of matter which we've never seen, propelled by a force which we don't understand' – and they say that religion is all faith. If believing that isn't faith I don't know what is. I don't think we need be defensive about ours."

The synod voted by 241 votes to two that it believed in the compatibility of God and science.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/12/general-synod-science-religion

piet11111
13th February 2010, 13:40
the question everything always approach of science and blind faith of religion are compatible because the church of england says so ?

:lol:

Spencer
13th February 2010, 17:09
I'm inclined to agree with them. (for the record, I'm an athiest)

In fact, if science and religion were incompatible, I can't help but wonder how it is that we're doing science at all.

this bit I like especially:

An Oxford physicist, Dr Anna Thomas-Betts, told the synod: "Religion and science have always been integral in my life. I don't look in science books to find out how to live and I don't look in the Bible to find out about Higgs boson.

Ovi
13th February 2010, 17:18
So the bible, once considered the ultimate truth is recognized as being a load of bullshit but even so it's still god's word. Is god full of bullshit?

Calmwinds
13th February 2010, 23:48
This entire idea is laughable.
http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2009/06/inconsistency.html

It's true that science and religion are inconsistent and incompatible.

It's also true that there are no small few people, such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno, who are respected scientists and devoutly religious.

The conclusion: people can hold inconsistent and incompatible beliefs.

Shocking news, innit?

black magick hustla
14th February 2010, 09:05
religion and science can be compatible. simply because a lot of the times religion informs about ethical propositions, which science says nothing about. Read about Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

mikelepore
15th February 2010, 01:12
Certainly SOME religion is incompatible with science. On those occasions when religion says to forget the use of radiometric dating to determine that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, because a reading of divinely revealed scripture has shown that the age of the earth is 6000 years, there is no doubt that this is an incompatibility. That's enough of an incompatibility to make it evident that any very general declaration that science and religion are compatible is wrong. Then the question remains about whether there is some limited region of compatibility.

piet11111
15th February 2010, 16:44
Certainly SOME religion is incompatible with science. On those occasions when religion says to forget the use of radiometric dating to determine that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, because a reading of divinely revealed scripture has shown that the age of the earth is 6000 years, there is no doubt that this is an incompatibility. That's enough of an incompatibility to make it evident that any very general declaration that science and religion are compatible is wrong. Then the question remains about whether there is some limited region of compatibility.

of the top of my head

- 1 massive flood that covered the whole of the earth
- burning talking bush
- garden of eden including talking snakes & tree of wisdom
- 1 flying guy that saint peter prayed to crash and die (magus simon or something)
- people turned into a pillar of salt
- the splitting of the sea
- 1 staff turned into a snake

if the religious stick with these fantastical story's then there is no way science is compatible with that nonsense. (sure some things can be scientifically explained like the sea being low tide but the bible claims the sea was split in half and that we can not take seriously)

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
15th February 2010, 19:26
It depends on how you refer to the term "compatibility." I give solutions to moral problems using utilitarianism. If I don't like the answer I get, I often switch to Kantianism to get a different answer. This is blatantly a ridiculously unjustified way to solve ethical problems, but I do it anyway. Technically speaking, they're rather contradictory belief sets.

The issue is can you believe "religion" and "science" at the same time, in my view. I don't think that's true when it comes down to certain issues. You just end up giving bad explanations (intelligent design). However, it's perfectly possible to be an irrational lunatic one moment and rational the next. I do it all the time, myself, but I have underlying quasi-rational motivations for doing so, in certain cases.

You can have 2nd-level reasoning that tells you to deny regular reasoning. For instance, you're fighting a lost cause. 2nd level reasoning says to believe you can win. All of a sudden, you can win and the confidence helps you. Some people use this to justify religion, but those people are crazier than I am.

mikelepore
17th February 2010, 11:24
The religious flipflop confuses issues such as this. Whenever an atheist challenges a religious person, the religious person makes a strategic retreat to the most general definition of God: God is defined simply as the mysterious source that created the universe. The generality of that is supposed to make the atheist shut up. Not much there to argue with. Then, as soon as the atheist walks away, the religious person immediately revert back to a highly specific definition of God: God is the genie who help us to win wars and sports competitions, instructed Abraham to kill Isaac, requires people too wear certain hats on certain holidays, forbids us to read books like Lady Chatterley's Lover, etc. As long as religious people insist on toggling between the most general definition possible and the most specific definition possible, then "God" and "God" are two completely different words that are homonyms.

Calmwinds
18th February 2010, 06:58
Gould sucks with respect to this regard. He is a good biologist and has his niche in philosophy of biology, but often if he has to choose either the blunt cold truth or a everyone be friends sort of approach he would choose the latter every time. His 'non-overlapping magesteria' is utterly unconvincing. Sounds like a 'every1 stop fighting plz' sort of thing.

To gould I will reply with a 'Scientifization of culture'
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bcb/rietdijk2.html (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ebcb/rietdijk2.html)

and http://www.xs4all.nl/~bcb/rietdijk.html (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ebcb/rietdijk.html)

Note that this is pretty much ahead of our time and an attempt to push the paradigm (Kuhn). Note if he uses leftists in a pejorative, he means ultra subjectivists and relativists, there has been a stereotype of the intellectual leftist as being as such, and he falls for it.

ÑóẊîöʼn
20th February 2010, 17:25
What people who trot out the "science and religion are compatible" argument usually forget is that humans are perfectly capable of holding two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time, as well as being selective in their methodology - IE the devout physicist thinks in a scientific mode when working in their lab, but consciously or otherwise does not turn the same skepticism they work with onto other spheres.

JazzRemington
20th February 2010, 21:53
Wasn't there a chemist with a Ph.D. who completely abandoned his training and degree when he realized he'd have to discard his religious beliefs in the bible?

ÑóẊîöʼn
26th February 2010, 19:49
Wasn't there a chemist with a Ph.D. who completely abandoned his training and degree when he realized he'd have to discard his religious beliefs in the bible?

I don't know about a chemist, But a geologist by the name of Kurt Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise) decided the strain was too great to bear and came down on the side of fundamentalist religion.