Science and Religion

[ohjoy]

From a psycology stand point can religion and science go hand in hand? Is it possible for the great creator to have created a single cell in the beginning? Or did He create the whole person in that first day?

[watson]

Well if you are a religious person, then you can say it is possible for God to do anything. Science and religion can go together very well actually. For centuries, it was the church and religious individuals doing the research. The one who discovered alleles, Mendel, was involved in the church himself.  I do not see the psychological aspect of this thread though.

[SWM]

not sure i understand the op myself. There is science forum and a religion forum here too. Although the question does ask for a psychological perspective. I'm a bit confused.

[janenose]

There certainly is a psychology of religious thought, and in that vein creation is included.  The problem is that there are various beliefs in the religious scope that allow for a psychologically sound system.  They could include scientific findings, such as Darwinism, or they could not.  Many Christian patients believe that the Bible is a story to use as a reference, and the conflict with Science does not enter into their psychological exploration.

[Grandevil]

In general the answer is no. Science relies on fact, observable phenomenon, falsifiability, parsimony, determinism (everything has a cause or multiple causes) and especially replication (or at least the ability to replicate in the form of detailed documentation).

Religion, for the most part relies on mythology, unobservable phenomenon, faith, and the like. That is not to say religion is wrong, however, there are aspects that are inconsolable with the scientific method.

[SWM]

science and religion are two different creature each of these creatures look at the world in entirely different ways to the other.

religion looks for non-physical, non-tangible, ethereal existence and it does so by turning away from the world of matter and objectivity looking internally to the experiences and happenings that take place within the self.

science looks all around noticing only those events and objects that exist in the material world. only if an event or object can be observed, analyised and compared replicated or reproduced by more than one instance will science acknowledge its existence.


imo psychology should view both of these creatures as having valid and valuable experiential information that will each provide insight for the other. psychology should be neither science or religion but it should have the mind of both, seeking both inward and outward to the objective and subjective, experience and existence are both seen and unseen and psychology should not be limited to one modality or excluded from the other.

[dendrites]

yes, I believe science and religion have always gone hand in hand.

when you see it from a western secular perspective though, you automatically assume that there is a discord, which isnt true at all.

there has never ever been any incompatibility between science and religion.

[gone]

From a psychological stand point I would have to say no they can not go hand in hand. Creationist will however try to justify and twist facts to accommodate science but ultimately from a psychological & scientific standpoint NO..

Richard Dawkins is a famous biologist who is also famous for talking about this subject: this is his official youtube channel with interesting relevent videos.
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet

this is a link to newhumanist magazine which has 'realist' content also on the subject.
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/

[NataEames]

From a psychological stand point I would have to say no they can not go hand in hand. Creationist will however try to justify and twist facts to accommodate science but ultimately from a psychological & scientific standpoint NO..

I agree. They cannot go hand in hand from a psychological perspective.

Science is proof based, religion is belief based and psychology is reality and common-sense based.

It's like trying to put a cube through a round hole.

[Outsider]

Of course science and religion can go hand in hand. Simply imagine a religion positing the development of knowledge as the ultimate good, which accepts the principles of empiricism as the ultimate path toward knowlege.

They tend not to go hand in hand because usually they serve radically different functions. The reason people turn to science is for the purpose of pragmatic understanding, while religion is usually embraced out of a need for compensators - see a review of Stark & Bainbridge's Future of Religion explaining the concept of comensators here. Pragmatic understanding commonly undermines the groundwork of religion by calling its texts and values into question.

[Enigma]

Of course science and religion can go hand in hand. Simply imagine a religion positing the development of knowledge as the ultimate good, which accepts the principles of empiricism as the ultimate path toward knowlege.

Um yea no if religion accepted empiricism as a path to knowledge then religion wouldn't exist because everyone would see that it's bullshit.

[Outsider]

This kind of knee jerk skepticism only co-opts the trappings of rationality and science. Isaac Newton was a devoted theist, as was Albert Einstein, yet these men were two of the finest scientists the human species has ever produced.  So I think you'll find that it is the delusion of modern atheists who insist on an existential conflict between science and religion which is (if you'll pardon my bitch-slapping you with your own term) bullshit.

[gone]

 Albert Einstein was not a practising theist, he refused to go to church as he didn't believe in religion, he came to his senses, like most people with any sense do. Albert Einstien quote

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Outsider - I don't know where you get your information and ideas from, they are 'strange' to say the least.

[Enigma]

How bout I bitchslap you with some facts.  Albert Einstein would turn over in his grave if he heard you calling him a theist. 

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
Einstein on the meaning of religion:
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."

[SWM]

science and religion can both be liberating or oprressive, both can inhibit or inspire creative thinking and exploration of the unknown.

when each of these, science and religion, are at their best, they provide us with insightful facts that can guide our exploration of the seen and unseen worlds around and within us. at their worst they tell us unequivocally and dogmatically how things are and how things must be, preventing us from seeing other perspectives and causing separation and conflict of opposing views.

[voodoo scientist]

science and religion can both be liberating or oprressive, both can inhibit or inspire creative thinking and exploration of the unknown.

when each of these, science and religion, are at their best, they provide us with insightful facts that can guide our exploration of the seen and unseen worlds around and within us. at their worst they tell us unequivocally and dogmatically how things are and how things must be, preventing us from seeing other perspectives and causing separation and conflict of opposing views.

I greatly dislike these attempts to put science and religion into some sort of "separate but equal" context - they are not equal. I hear it all the time, but noone in their right mind could possibly construe science as oppressive or religion as anything but oppressive. Religion and superstition is dogmatic by design: the whole idea behind it is to stop adaptation in favor of living by various supposedly universal rules or systems. Science is not dogmatic, and something cannot be dogmatic without ceasing to be science. This isn't even a matter of fact or debate, that is simply part of what the words mean.

You can see this in action all the time on this very forum. Scientifically grounded debates inspire thought, indignation and frequently resolution. Spiritual debates much, much more frequently end in quagmires, peter out or end with a few people all patting each others' backs. There's a simple reason: the only way a spiritual debate can end well is if everyone already agrees with each other to begin with, because it's dogma by design.

What does spirituality really do for us that puts it in a position to even be compared to science? Regardless of whether it is adequate, it is certainly unnecessary for morals or meaning. So far, noone has gone to war over a research project, and science certainly does more to reduce violence than religion does. It does more for personal freedom, health and education, saves and improves more lives, and in the year 2010 certainly inspires as many cultural works as religion - quite possibly more. At what point do we just say, "You know what, maybe spirituality is just obsolete, good run everyone"? There isn't much more left for science to take away from spirituality anymore.

Asking if science and religion can go hand in hand is like asking horse carriages and cars can go hand in hand. Of course they can if you really want to, but you really aren't asking yourself if there's any reason you're driving a horse carriage when you could have gotten a much better car for much less money and maintenance.

Edit: I wanted to use an example where the metaphor for religion was a big polluter, but it's really late, so just imagine it's a horse with some very bad gas.

[Outsider]

Albert Einstein was not a practising theist, he refused to go to church as he didn't believe in religion, he came to his senses, like most people with any sense do. Albert Einstien quote

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Outsider - I don't know where you get your information and ideas from, they are 'strange' to say the least.

That's because you don't understand the definition of the word "theist." A theist need not believe in a personal deity, nor the truth to any specific religious work:

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Albert Einstein, from Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Albert Einstein, from The Quotable Einstein, authored and edited by Albert Einstein and Alice Calaprice, Princeton University Press

These remarks, along with those you quoted above, demonstrate that Einstein was clearly a deist.

Albert Einstein would turn over in his grave if he heard you calling him a theist.

Uh huh. He just wrote about his "humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit." But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can't take anything he wrote seriously anyway; the guy has people believing that time passes at different rates depending on whether you're on Earth or flying around a spaceship near the speed of light!

I hear it all the time, but noone in their right mind could possibly construe science as oppressive or religion as anything but oppressive.

I know! More evidence that Einstein was not in his right mind:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, from The Quotable Einstein, authored and edited by Albert Einstein and Alice Calaprice, Princeton University Press

See, it's about time people started to realize Einstein was just a quack. We need to take our inspiration and scientific leadership from real thinkers:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
Joseph Stalin, from Quotations for Public Speakers : A Historical, Literary, and Political Anthology by Robert G. Torricelli

It's too bad the Communist movement failed to liberate us from oppressive ideas like religion. Hey maybe someday after everybody forgets about that overblown business with the KGB, the cold war, and a few Russian firing squads, we can try again!

[gone]

Religious person are not independent thinkers (obviously which is why they are religious) why does each and everyone one just repeat the same drivvel.
"We see the universe marvelously arranged" well time and again I hear this from Mormans to Jehovah Whiteness to Catholics.. some will use the analogy of the universe and planets and say 'like a watch with all working parts perfectly placed'.. well tell me, why did God put in spare parts, what the fuck is planet Mars for? You don't get spare parts like that in a watch.. (it's just a joke)

"Nullius in Verba"

Einstein was not religious. He lived in a time when Witches were still being burned at the stake. To oppose religion & superstition wasn't easy then. The authorities lied and time and again wrote he was religious, to which he responded with the truth that he was not. What does this say about the control religion has held. Maybe the authorities lied about other 'non' religious figures also. It's common knowledge the church covers up what it does not want public to know.

As I said above 'Religion is for non independent thinkers' and you prove it here by saying

 "We need to take our inspiration and scientific leadership from real thinkers"

For God's sake, why the hell can't you think for yourself? Jesus Christ.. just think instead of taking on the thoughts and theories of others.. Think for yourself instead of absorbing the thoughts and theories of others. It's not hard to think. It's an enjoyable experience. I'm well practiced in it. I think we evolved 'intelligence' as a defence, we can not run fast like many animals, we can not fly from danger like birds, therefore we evolved intelligence, being clever has kept us alive, we can build traps for the predators (lions & bears) we can capture and control threats we are around now, because we are clever.. It's evolution and it's survival.
We don't need claws or big jaws, or to fly or to climb. We are intelligent, not by design, by evolution.

That's all religion is good for, cursing words for emotional expression. :-)

An analogy : My sister believes she's has a low immune system. I don't know why she's never had a test. If she did have a test and it proved her wrong, she would say the results were wrong or it was a good day or whatever. Therefore her beliefs are more powerful than the truth.

Beliefs are powerful beyond reason, and a reason faith is based on 'belief'...

Beliefs can not be penetrated with evidence, logic or reason. The only way to combat bullshit is with more bullshit..

[sanders woodard]

From a psycology stand point can religion and science go hand in hand? Is it possible for the great creator to have created a single cell in the beginning? Or did He create the whole person in that first day?

Quantum mechanics has proven God (nonlocal consciousness is one name) I wonder if evolution happened in 6 days and a 100 million years simultaneously. Strange days indeed.

[NataEames]

Quantum mechanics has proven God

I'll try very hard to forget about you using "quantum mechanics" and "god" in the same sentence.

Proof you say? I'd like to see some of that "proof"!

Oh, this I really want to see!

[gone]

But he's been thoughtful and put (nonlocal consciousness is one name) in brackets for those he perceives may not understand his 'Quantum mechanics has proven God'..

Surely you must understand one or the other!

[pert -5]

I'll try very hard to forget about you using "quantum mechanics" and "god" in the same sentence.

This is precisely the kind of thinking that is holding us back.  For me, when I use the term "God," I do not mean some religious ideal.  What I mean by "God" is in no way, whatsoever, related to the Abrahamic or Pagan deities.  It is not a personification or anthropomorphization of nature.  I am not intending to add subjective qualities to an objective thing.  What modern science is measuring and discovering is but the intricate workings, the anatomy, of "God": the immanent, noumenal, conterminous concourse of non-local consciousness.  What the fields of quantum physics, psychology, etc., are discovering is that the ancient Hindus who wrote the Vedas, Gita, and Upanishads (I don't speak for modern Hindus) were right all these thousands of years.  It is just that the ancient Hindu terminology doesn't seem "scientific enough" for some people today.  So when they see the word "God", the fur on their back stands up and they start hissing, well, the human equivalent to the cat's behavior in similar scenarios.  I can't say that I blame them though, given the regularity of religious zealotry and fanaticism using the term God to "combat" science.

PS
I guess you may be talking about Abrahamic Deity in what I quoted by you Nata, in which case you are forgiven.    But that is only one path to the Source, and an oft times fickle one at that.

[edit]

Quantum mechanics has proven God (nonlocal consciousness is one name) I wonder if evolution happened in 6 days and a 100 million years simultaneously. Strange days indeed.

That word "nonlocal," I like it!  Namaste.

[NataEames]

He should have been specific. If god is any kind of matter in his opinion (rocks, plastic), then yes, god exists!

If god is the things that we don't see but use (electricity, wind), god exists!

If god is the human soul or the human mind, I also agree that god exists.

Because those things can all be proven by science but attaching god's name to them is not something I'm about to understand.

And like I said, I want to see some of that proof. Maybe there was a little sarcasm in that sentence but if I can see some backing up and maybe an article or something, I am an open-minded person, I will try my best to see the facts.

[gone]

From a psycology stand point can religion and science go hand in hand? Is it possible for the great creator to have created a single cell in the beginning? Or did He create the whole person in that first day?

What if the 'great creator' is life itself. Life the force that creates life, afterall, all's we're here for is to breed. Therefore I believe 'life' is the creator.
So it is possible that life (the great creator) was a single cell, it's impossible life created a whole person in that first day..
Afterall dinosaurs walked the earth before us. Life (the driving force of all living things) evolved us. Species are still being evolved, there are observable changes in species. Cat/dog breeding manipulates the principles of evolution to create species that defy humanity to be honest. But in the jungles there is evidence of natural evolution. These new species don't just appear in one day, they have evolved/adapted over time to suit there environment and increase their chance of survival (life is about life)..

[voodoo scientist]

I've never encountered this nonlocal consciousness term before. Intrigued, I first searched for journals citing it, but it's probably outside what I keep e-access to. Sadly, a quick Google search killed my interest when result one was a book called "Miracles of the Mind," and a few links down was a page called "Remote Viewing & Nonlocal Consciousness with Russell Targ."

pert-5: You're just trying to redefine science as spirituality - perhaps rather because you feel the world is getting too 'sciency' than the quite paranoid notion of modern science conspiring to oppress - or even wilder, hundreds of thousands, even millions of scientists worldwide all being too 'afraid/dumb/[negative attribute]' to accept ancient Hindi knowledge, as you insinuate. Your concept of spirituality is basically "Science isn't really science, it's part of a Greater Plan, which makes it spiritual." That's all harmless fun, but you can't weasel your way out of this by reframing. Religion is dogmatic and fundamentally incompatible with science.

[NataEames]

Why do so many people try to dump everything on "one" creator? If life is a creator, then creation itself is too vast to be one in number. Or even a million is too small a number!

I think we're all creators and destroyers. It sounds like a natural cycle. With every new thought and move, we begin to create or destroy or both at the same time.

Does that make sense to anyone?

[gone]

@Neta 'NO'
hehe yes on reading again.
The only thing I know to have created life is life. I wouldn't refer to that as 'god' and as the question asked 'is it possible for a great creator to have created' well it made sense to answer the question the way I did but I purposely didn't use 'A' great creator but 'THE' great creator as 'a great creator' has a singular connotation.. and not what I was implying. (pedantic I know)

Does that make sense. ;-)

[NataEames]

it does ... a little (just woke up forgive me)

but life is not a thing, especially a single thing. i don't know how to explain life fully but i doubt anyone can. all i know is that it is more vast than any of us will be able to ever completely understand.

But isn't that what makes it so beautiful?

[pert -5]

pert-5: You're just trying to redefine science as spirituality - perhaps rather because you feel the world is getting too 'sciency' than the quite paranoid notion of modern science conspiring to oppress - or even wilder, hundreds of thousands, even millions of scientists worldwide all being too 'afraid/dumb/[negative attribute]' to accept ancient Hindi knowledge, as you insinuate. Your concept of spirituality is basically "Science isn't really science, it's part of a Greater Plan, which makes it spiritual." That's all harmless fun, but you can't weasel your way out of this by reframing. Religion is dogmatic and fundamentally incompatible with science.

Thanks for this post voodoo scientist.  You see, these things are so clearly defined in my mind that I forget others might not be so aware of what I mean.

I am NOT throwing science under the train of spirituality.  Not at all.  What I am saying is that science and spirituality are one in the same.  OK, hold on.  What do I mean when I say spirituality?  I am not talking about dogmatic religion, at all.  That is faith-based superstition (as opposed to empirical science) and is short of the mark of what I mean.  I agree 100% with you about the incompatibility of science and religion.  What I mean about the terms not being "scientific enough" for people today is that they feel that mysticism bears no worth for investigation.  Again, I am not lowering science in any way.  Your saying that I mean all scientists are "afraid/dumb" is not true at all, and that stance is reflected nowhere in my post.  What I mean by spirituality, personally, is mysticism (viz. yoga), which is a spiritual science that follows the scientific method to achieve results; i.e., a set of instructions is given, and if one follows these instructions, in earnest, they will achieve a set result.  It is invariably the same result.  ANY person who follows the instructions will attain the same outcome.

I know that this post probably needs fleshing out to satisfy all the points you touched on.  I'll work on that later, I've had a busy weekend.  Adieu for now.

PS
I am aware of what I said about the ancient Hindus and know that they WERE mostly dogmatic.  But one is able to go back over their texts and find a whole system that is based entirely on pure empiricism.  Buddhism is a good bridge between the ancient Hindu philosophies and modern science.  Buddhism is non-dogmatic and IS NOT a religion, regardless of what a dictionary might say.

PPS
A Christian says that Jesus died for their sins.  That is not empiricism, that is not based on a scientific method.  That is not what I am getting at when I refer to spirituality.  What that is is a subjective assertion or belief (based on faith); i.e., religion.  It has no basis in the objective universe.

See:
http://psychology-forum.com/off-topic/raja-yoga-1592/

[voodoo scientist]

I am NOT throwing science under the train of spirituality.  Not at all.  What I am saying is that science and spirituality are one in the same.  OK, hold on.  What do I mean when I say spirituality?  I am not talking about dogmatic religion, at all.  That is faith-based superstition (as opposed to empirical science) and is short of the mark of what I mean.  I agree 100% with you about the incompatibility of science and religion.  What I mean about the terms not being "scientific enough" for people today is that they feel that mysticism bears no worth for investigation.  Again, I am not lowering science in any way.  Your saying that I mean all scientists are "afraid/dumb" is not true at all, and that stance is reflected nowhere in my post.  What I mean by spirituality, personally, is mysticism (viz. yoga), which is a spiritual science that follows the scientific method to achieve results; i.e., a set of instructions is given, and if one follows these instructions, in earnest, they will achieve a set result.  It is invariably the same result.  ANY person who follows the instructions will attain the same outcome.

I know that this post probably needs fleshing out to satisfy all the points you touched on.  I'll work on that later, I've had a busy weekend.  Adieu for now.

PS
I am aware of what I said about the ancient Hindus and know that they WERE mostly dogmatic.  But one is able to go back over their texts and find a whole system that is based entirely on pure empiricism.  Buddhism is a good bridge between the ancient Hindu philosophies and modern science.  Buddhism is non-dogmatic and IS NOT a religion, regardless of what a dictionary might say.

I, too, have very clear definitions of these things, but it seems I have less difficulty communicating them concisely.

I am most confused as to how you managed this sentence: "I am NOT throwing science under the train of spirituality.  Not at all.  What I am saying is that science and spirituality are one in the same." You're saying exactly what you claim you aren't saying, you just rephrased it one more time from religion to spirituality now. If you're saying they're the same thing, then you're trying to make spirituality equal to science, which it isn't. It's got an entirely different methodology, entirely different criteria and entirely different goals.

In any case, I am curious as to what made you infer this pattern you claim to see, but I will say this: Buddhism and hinduism follow the same dogmatic principles as any other religion. They are fundamentally no different, but are simply religions tailored to communal cultures, as opposed to a religion tailored to an individualist culture. Don't be confused by these surface differences: if you read the texts and know your regional and evolutionary history well, the similarities are striking. The reason you may recognize a bigger picture is because they are part of a histo-cultural construct, so they are a bigger picture, it was just created by the human beings before and around you, not some spiritual force.

In the end, all I'm saying is you could just call yourself a scientist instead of hiding behind the shill mask of spirituality, though you may want to get a better grasp of the scientific method first - there's no such thing as a spiritual science, but you can be scientific about spirituality. Maybe you're a scientist who noone in the scientific community agrees with, but so were lots of great scientists until everyone decided to agree with them. You can approach spirituality from a scientific angle, which is what you're trying to do, but you can't approach science from a spiritual angle - it doesn't work, because science precludes you from having faith in what you can't reliably measure and draw valid conclusions from, and spirituality precludes reliable measurement (I suppose you could technically worship science to be spiritual about science, but that wouldn't be scientific per se).