"Keep in mind all the mistakes that science has made in the past and that it is possible that it is still making mistakes that are as yet undiscovered. Maybe the techniques used for dating is flawed! (there is evidence of this)"

But science has corrected itself. Religion has been wron for 2000 years, and has not corrected itself.

Radiometric dating is much more accurate than carbon dating. There is evidence of carbon dating being flawed, but there is so much more evidence of the Christian god not existing as described, so please don't go into this kind of logic.

I just don't understand how anyone in right mind can possibly say that God and Science can co-exist.

They cannot.

The whole basis of science is discovery through observation and the gathering of evidence as proof.

The belief in invisible sky Gods REQUIRES ABSOLUTE FAITH without EVIDENCE. Believing in God and religious dogma requires people to forgo truth and reason. The world just is...and God made it...trust the Bible, or Qu'ran or Torah.

One's 'Faith' cannot be questioned from an objective, scientific position.

However, you try and tell someone the Earth does not revolve around the Sun or that Humans don't need oxygen to survive, and you'll be demanded to provide evidence of such outlandish claims.

Anyway, I could go on and on but there's no use in debating this. For no one is more certain of the righteousness of their world view than those living under the influence of sky Gods and religious dogma.

Well, considering that the Bible has been used as a guide in archeological excavations, it can't be all that inaccurate.

Also, remember that science is conducted by man, who happens to be fallible. And I know that many archeologists say that archeology disproves the Bible. But there are still more that say that it substantiates it.

Keep in mind all the mistakes that science has made in the past and that it is possible that it is still making mistakes that are as yet undiscovered. Maybe the techniques used for dating is flawed! (there is evidence of this)

I think that since we still don't have all the answers one way or another, we should just all be friends, and accept that maybe none of us are totally right.

Bruce:
Was there anyone there ....... in the Bible.

Posted January 12, 2008 09:50 PM

Bruce, I am afraid that you have made several errors of logic some of which are:

God wrote the Bible - we are debating that here but we have absolutely no proof of it. Saying that the Bible says he wrote it is not proof.

God was there at the first creation. That only could be true if you can confirm that there is a God and have independent proof that someone saw him there (makes no sense of course).

We can't 'prove' that God didn't create the Earth and everything in it either, because as you said, no one was there when it happened. We however, as a species, through very sophisticated methods found ways to prove how long certain things have existed on this earth. While I doubt we are accurate to within minutes, I think the information is reliable enough to at least confirm that the Creation story taken literally from the Bible could not be true.

I think many of us who were raised in the Christian faith would 'like' to believe that everything we were taught is true, because it would mean that the people who taught us are reliable sources, and that we have not wasted so many years (in my case over 40) following a Belief that has no basis in Fact.

Also, especially as we get older, or when we lose someone close to us, it is comforting to believe in an afterlife. Somehow that takes some of the hurt from the loss.

I hope there is an afterlife, and that it is a positive experience, but if a terrorist from some other religion asked me to swear that I was not a Christian, in order to spare my life, I would gladly swear rather than go to the grave professing my faith.

If a Believer, I would believe that my God would not ask me to die to prove my belief. Death comes soon enough; I certainly would not give my life for such a silly reason.

Take care not to make the intellect our god; it has powerful muscles but no personality.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

—Albert Einstein.

Religion is not about things empirical. It is about living a Good life. Sadly it is often the case that participants would rather help someone else do that.
Interestingly both the Bible and the Psychiatrist C. G. Jung implore people heal themselves.

Genesis (et al ) when contrasted with a scientific Hypothesis such as The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis and their bowl of 'prebiotic soup' make a great combo. A good book and a hearty meal.

I was four square behind that plucky little protein as it increased the integrity of its parent bubble and pressed the collection of ‘right stuff’ to the point of critical mass and eventual multicellular organisms Isn’t it fun how scientists hold out their latest and greatest as though it were their one and only?

In Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics Book 1 Part 3 in an answer to the argument of infinite regression he states “(…) we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.”

I would like to thank him for his clarity. Originative source can but have one conclusion.

The Laws of Logic include the law on non-contradiction. To that end it is logically impossible to say that life has NO meaning since, if that were the case then neither would the words coming out of your mouth.

God = Truth. I am delighted that the Empirical Priests in their dapper White Smocks of Wisdom have latched onto the hypothesis of a unified theory. Perhaps there is hope.

Greg, what is the miracle in parting a sea that dries up in a brisk wind?

I've got news for all those people who sought solace in their religion after 9/11. Your denial of reality won't shield you from the environmental 9/11, Global Warming, because there won't be any mercy from Mother Nature. When will the media wake up and see that our prime minister is Dr. Strangelove. He won't act on global warming because he believes in the Rapture. His every cabinet appointment has fellow evangelist control-freaks in mind, Canadian Taliban. The CBC has taken the Koolaid from the religious spinmasters. Separate religion from politics or we are doomed.
The most racist people I have met are from monotheistic countries. They are here for the money to take back to their country, and will run over anyone not in their clan to get it. The "devout" live double lives; they satisfy their pagan desires in our malls, and then go home to stick their heads back in the sand.
Religions have scripts like in politics, and coercion (defamation, honour killings, character assassination) is used to keep the sheep in line. There are study guides to keep the lambs following the narrow path laid out by their religion. Faith-based science? Harper's no rocket scientist but he has faith that he can start up a nuclear reactor.

Pearls of answers lie within this small quote.

I'll post it again Sharon.

Can religion and science coexist?

"The virtues of humanity are many but science is the most noble of them all. The distinction which man enjoys above and beyond the station of the animal is due to this paramount virtue. It is a bestowal of God; it is not material, it is divine. Science is an effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the power of investigating and discovering the verities of the universe, the means by which man finds a pathway to God."

quote from Baha'i Writings

Someone said praying is not a science because it is not a repeatable process. Well it actually is too many -- as you learn to pray you have a hypothesis, and your experience has given you a pattern in praying that leads to a solution.

The original movie, The Matrix; was such a great example of the duality of perception. The Matrix, was described as the “world pulled over your eyes.” As in The Matrix – practiced prayer can lead to the bending of traditional material laws.

Quantum Physics has been proving the same thing. For instance, the computer would have never happened if it were not for the accidental discovery (proven in Quantum physics) where the law of electricity works backward (this allows the opening and closing of electronic switches that generate the “1” and “0” in a computers). Quantum Physics dispels the “myth” of the world being material – where a solid thing like a desk is as empty as the Universe.

Traditional Science and Spirituality both have the identical problem – they are not perfect and are both based often of false beliefs. But they are all progressing by experimentation.

Einstein until his death was confounded by Quantum Physics – we all know his endless work to find the General Theorem. No one will understand this; but my personal notion is that the General Theorem is thought – so there is not material way to write it down or express it.

The only way I can once and awhile get a hint of this – it when you are outside the city on a clear night and you look up to the stars. The split second of “awe” you get is it. I got it once when an Eclipse was happening, and once when I was on a beach and the Northern Lights were actually “bubbling” the sky like a Steve Spielberg special effect. Again, we perceive and think with our very limited perceptions – but that awe is the “Science” that is both spiritually and scientifically the same thing, and is what we are all trying to understand and be a part of.

Many people don't realize that the source of modern science was from people that believed in the Christian God. People like Galileo and Newton believed that because God made everything that we can take it apart and study the components. It was later that pseudoscientists such as Darwin came around and took over something that creationists started and brought confusion to the masses. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Was there anyone there in the beginning to observe original creation? Yes there was. It is the creator and He has given His record to the people of earth in the Bible.

A lot of people seem to be confusing God with religion. God and Religion are not interchangable. You can have religion without God and vice versa. The question is "Can God and Science Co-exist?", not can Religion and Science co-exist.

So, Can God and science co-exist? Of course they can. Science explains some of the facinating mysteries of the world that God created. It doesn't prove that He exists, but it also doesn't prove that He doesn't. It can't since God is outside of the physical realm and not bound by it and science is limited to the physical realm.

I have listened to some interesting debates on this subject and am not convinced that the materialists have the monopoly on satisfying answers.

I encourage everyone to do their research in the same way a scientist is supposed to do his/hers. Look for valid evidence to prove your beliefs wrong. Truth will prevail!

As I see it the problem is essentially epistemological - what we mean by knowledge. As Philo 101 tells us nobody would believe something is true if they knew it to be false.

It is difficult to falsify religious belief. Though many people claim the same body of belief, religious belief is ultimately inherently individualized. To further claim to "know" god is experiential, and ultimately unverifiable. That's why others using techniques of science and logical reasoning can fairly easily reject such a knowledge claim. You can't hook somebody up to a machine and detect their personal knowledge of god.

Statements about god are therefore never grounded in empirical evidence that is acceptable and generalizable. Such statements may have internal logical validity (and theologians are good at structuring their arguments thusly), but they fail the test of empirical validity.

Therefore, those who aren't privvy to such personal "knowledge" must always go on faith that other people are correct, that it is indeed "knowledge" of god they possess - though without the benefit of evidence.

Science and religion , in a vacuum , could co-exist. What cannot co-exist are the sciences with the conservative religious amongst us.They chrrry pick the statements in the Bible.In ordinary circumstances, one could say to me "So what? They can do what they like."But their 'cherry picking has impacted each and every day of the 57 years I've been on the planet.And , in a most negative and often devastating manner.Exagerration?Histrionic? Through no talent on my part, I assure you, I acquired throughout life; a treasure trove of remarkable and loyal friendships.But along came an invisible monster called a retrovirus, which we named the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.The conservative true believers could hardly contain their glee.Really!They fiercely opposed any public funding for research into HIV and the development of treatment options, during the early years of the epidemic.Ergo, the subsequent delay in acquiring antivirals , denied thousands of our citizens even a fighting chance at additional life.All because of faith based intransigence.I know. I was there. I have buried fifty-six close friends of anywhere from fifteen to twenty years of friendship.There may well be a deity. But the people I speak of today; are to the general principles of religious goodnes, mercy , and compassion; what Josef Mengele was to sound medical research.

Albert Einstein said that our finite minds as humans could not possibly decipher all of the secrets of the universe, otherwise we would go mad in the process. Faith in a power greater than ourselves can reveal to us a much deeper understanding of our purpose on this earth and of ourselves. My creator has given me the gift of intelligence and a brain to use. I do have faith in God and I think that my God wants me to question the writings of MEN...I am certain that he does not want me to be a zealot who blindly follows those who still think that the earth was created in seven days and negate the theory of evolution as established by Charles Darwin. I believe that the message that Jesus brought to us was "Love one another" and "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"...that's it!...the rest is interpretation. We ALL have a place in this world, otherwise we would not be here. Science keeps planes in the sky, bridges up, people alive in hospitals etc... Science has done great things in order to advance the course of humanity, it is necessary in our evolution as a species. However, we are not Gods, if we want to survive as humans, we must to let go of our arrogance, we must use our intelligence to hopefully change the course of self-destruction we're on. We have created for ourselves a false sense of security through science...when the lights go out and we are about to meet our maker; our car, laptop, cell phone, ipod will not neither follow us nor prepare us for that moment. I think that a balance between spirituality and science is quite important for us poor humans who are still, even with science, trying desperately to figure out this "Life" thing.

How immoral and unfaithful we Christians have become. Perhaps this is why we face the threat of extinction. I have read comments posted by people of other faith's, and there does not appear to be one dissenter among their crowd. They are believers. God does exist. But God is not of this world, and therefore He cannot be measured by physical means, perceived by physical organs. God is metaphysical. Our apparent and growing lack of faith has contributed to our social and moral breakdown. Western civilization is collapsing exactly because we have become atheistic. I have never yet encountered an atheistic Muslim or Hindu or a Jew.

I see no conflict whatsoever between "science" and "God". To me they are one and the same thing. If a person believes that God created the heavens and Earth, then what is he saying? He is saying that God created space, time, matter (the 103+ elements), energy, the natural physical laws such as the speed of light, Avagadros number, pi, charge on an electron, Planks constant, etc. Simple logic tells you that if someone makes or creates something that they must know something about it. If a person doesn't think that God is the master scientist (physicist, chemist, biologist, etc.) then they don't believe there is a God at all or are an atheist. I believe that God is the master scientist and mankind is the one who needs to humble themselves and have a lot to learn. All man is doing in science is just little by little discovering what God has already done from the beginning. The leading frontier scientists and theologian of today believe in God more now then ever before. There are many articles and books published on this subject. Many people think way too shallow and small. They try to fit God in to the human world of thinking and understanding. God is much more than that. Human Pride is the taproot of all other sins. I would rather believe there is a God and die to find out there isn't, then to not believe in God and die only to find out there is.

In the Baha'i Faith, religion and science go hand in hand. "Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London*, Pages: 28-29)

I was disappointed I couldn't find references to the Baha'i Faith in your articles, though almost all the other religions included on Multi-Faith Calendars are there. Also, please add the Baha'i symbol of the nine-point star to your index to religious icons. There have been Baha'is in Canada for over 80 years; this newest world religion was recognized in Canada by an Act of Parliament in 1949. I feel like the people living on the dust speck in Dr. Seuss' classic, Horton Hears a Who, "We are here! We are here! We are here!"

How many times have scientists made certain assertions, only to have them disproved at a later date?

It is a truism that conclusions derived from assumptions are no better than the original assumptions (I.e, the conclusions are therefore assumptions also, because they are derived from assumptions).

Such is the case with c, the speed of light. That c is a constant is an assumption. (One will argue that we have to start somewhere and I would agree that one does have to start somewhere, but let's be honest and admit that any conclusions based on the assumption of c being constant, are no better than the original assumption.) The same applies to the rates of radioactive decay. These rates are assumed to be constant over time.

Nowhere has anyone ever proven and therefore established as a fact that these values are constant because the time frame over which the measurements have been made are too short.

Consequently, if one is to maintain intellectual integrity, one must conclude the age of the universe and the earth is not proven to be in the millions or billions of years.

Thus, it is entirely possible the ages suggested in the Bible are accurate, simply because it has not been demonstrated factually that they are not. And only one person ever claimed to have been present when the universe was created.

Jesus claims that He is God incarnate. His life, death, resurrection and ascension proves he is who he claimed to be.

Therefore the Bible and science must fit together like a hand in a glove. Who knows what new scientific discoveries are waiting to be made by those who take this approach?

It is no surprise to students of the history of science to discover people of faith prominent in the early development of the many branches of science.

I think, therefore I think I am.

I can't believe we're having this debate. Science is not opposed to religion, per se. Science is simply our best process for determining the truth about things that are real on Earth, and in the universe beyond. It just happens that many things that have been proven true so far, though science (Earth is round, Earth orbits Sun, life has evolved over billions of years, people decompose after they die, etc.), contradicts the dogma of many religious institutions.
If there is a controlling force "out there", one that determines how the past, present and future rolls out, and starts with a big G, its G R A V I T Y.

The CBC is irresponsible to give credence to the myths that angels and devils exist, and that morality is given to people by a god.

Our human society is here alone on Earth, with the ability and the responsibility, and the choice, to govern ourselves in a way that allows people to live in harmony with each other, and with nature. We have yet to demonstrate the resolve and ethical foresight to make this possible. And if we don't soon get it together, we'll simply go down as another greedy, selfish carnivore that destyroyed it's own life-support system. and nature will move on without us. w

God does exist. But He is not of the physical world, and therefore cannot be perceived and/or measured by any scientific means. Science endeavors to uncover the physical world; God is beyond physical, He is metaphysical. So, in this sense, spirituality and science can coexist. God exists because miracles DO happen - things that science will never be able to explain. Having faith is essential, and not only because it gives one peace of mind. I am not afraid of my cancer. Medical science can save my life; it is God who saves my soul. Death is not the end. It is the end for the mortal body; but for the immortal soul, death is merely a turning point. The saga goes on. Yes, there is a God. The laws of nature, laws of physics, are so precise, so beautiful and complex, there must be a law maker. These things don't just happen at random. We have become so enlightened today, we feel that we have outgrown God. We may have indeed outgrown organized religion, but God can never be grown out of. God is life. God is love. God is faith. God is the spirit of mankind that drives humanity towards reaching its endless goals. God is beautiful. He is the creator, the master of our universe. God can co-exist with science, because they are not of the same realm. One is physical; the other is metaphysical. Pure and simple.

A number of people seem to claim that science cannot address morality or that religion is the source of morality. There is no good reason to believe this. Evolutionary biology is most likely the source of morality and morality is most likely the source of religion.

In nature it is pretty rare for animals of one species to prey on their own kind. You could call this their own morality. A species that did heavily prey on itself would have a pretty good chance of wiping itself out, so this is something selected against. Social animals like wolves have lots of rules that helps the pack survive. You can call this a moral code, though really, it is largely by instinct as it is encoded in their DNA. Man has even more rules. Cheaters have always been a threat to the main population, so rules and punishments are an evolutionary phenomenon. Detecting cheaters could be the main reason that man's brain grew so large.

Also, it seems that many religious people claim a moral superiority to people who aren't religious. One could argue, however, that the truly religious follow their codes of conduct out of obedience and fear rather than any inherent morality within themselves.

Faith in ourselves, is what makes everyone a GOD. We are wasting our species debating, who is right or wrong.

I only condem, the nasty individuals, out of my life. Not by race or disabilities, but by there actions towards one another.

Its really that simple.

Hmmm. Carlys comment on 'doing the unbelievable’ as a proof of existence of God suffered from the accuracy of the source I’m afraid.

The problem lies with using ancient, translated and transcribed stories as the starting point. While many stories might quite possibly be based on some actual event, these stories should never be read word-for-word given the varied sources and number of ‘authors’ (and censors) involved.

The 'Red Sea' adventure actually is recently acknowledged to be the 'Reed Sea/Marsh' in North-Eastern Egypt. Quite a difference a typo can make!

A Catholic teacher of ‘Religion Classes’ here in Ontario even affirmed this for me. The ability to accept error was impressive and quite out of keeping with the 'literal argument camp' about the Bible being God’s Word (the God of Abraham anyway).

Karen, the fundamental flaw with your argument, as with all that say science is a faith or religion, is that science is repeatable, testable, has methodology, and is self correcting. There is no logical way to compare that to faith, which relies on myths from a long time ago, and a lot of superstition.

"It makes one wonder, why are some people trying to keep science and God apart, when it is clear that they are one inseparable entity!"

God didn't create man. Man created god.

The various gods created by man are fictions which depend entirely on faith.

Faith in any god can only exist in the absence of fact.

If facts exist which irrefutably prove the existence of such a god faith would not be necessary.

Every intelligent person would be a believer.

If someone can prove the existence of God (any god, just pick one) please come forward.

You will be famous!

I am very amused at the silly question, you ask. Nevertheless, my answer is resounding yes!

Namely, God is the greatest scientist there ever will be!

It makes one wonder, why are some people trying to keep science and God apart, when it is clear that they are one inseparable entity!

If God created everything, including science and natural law, why can't he tweak it when He wants to? Some say that the Bible stories are impossible because they defy natural law. That's what the Bible is about, stories of God defying natural law to prove that He's God. Of course you can't part the Red Sea, but God could, that's nothing if He created it in the first place.

Science has not proven the Bible stories wrong, just proven that they aren't natural, that humans can't do the things that God can do. But it doesn't prove that God didn't do them and that they never happened.

To Jason

"Obviously you're one of the many that blindly believes, blindly follows and is incapable of independent thought.

Think about it - You worship whatever it is that you have "chosen" to worship - WHY - to give your life meaning? To guide you? To provide you security? To ultimately save yoruself?

Who is the selfish one? I don't have a problem with what others choose to believe - and it is a choice each of us makes - what gets me if when Blind Faith takes over. People following what other people tell them because a long time ago even still other people wrote some stories in A book.

THINK FOR YOURSELF."

Are you an atheist? Or whatever you are, did you arrive at your decision after doing all the science to support your beliefs yourself? Or did you accept the findings of some other scientists that support your beliefs , thus allowing them to do some of the research and "thinking" for you?
What ever you decide to believe requires some faith in something or someone, be it scientists or prophets or whatever. To imply that anyone of "faith" doesn't think for themselves is arrogant. Think about it. Neither science, nor religion has answered all the questions beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, so to subscribe to any belief system, you have to have faith that it is true. I agree with you that it's not good when blind faith takes over a person's thinking, that includes blind faith in anything, not just in God. I'm not sure why you think it's obvious that I'm incapable of independent thought. You have no idea what I believe or how I came to those conclusions. I'm pretty sure the purpose of this discussion is not to attack the intelligence or character of people that believe in something different than you.

Who is behind this article?
Why so secret?

http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/
states
accuracy
fairness
integrity

I challenge CBC to honour those requirements within the entire
"Where is God Today?"

"Can God and Science co-exist?" Of course! The Bible tells 'Why God works.' and Science describes 'How God works'. It's the same 'coin'!

I strongly suggest people read Gerald Schroeder's book "The Science of God". Mr. Schroeder is a Nuclear Physicist and a Microbiologist who 'marries' Science and God through his study of Genesis. Brilliant! A revelation! Beautiful!

Science is founded on the primacy of evidence, and so to intermingle science with something for which there is no empirical evidence is not only dangerous but foolish.

Religious thought is based on faith rather than reason or evidence. Science is falsifiable, it set out to disprove it's hypothesis so that it can make more accurate ones. While religion claims divine inspiration and the sole source of truth without evidence relying on faith and magical thinking.

One allows us to see to the far reaches of the universe, unlock the fundamental questions of existence, cures our sick, feeds us, allows us to communicate in manners such as this.... the other is the primary source of global conflict and prejudice.

Why should the two co-exist? Science has shown it is far more capable of providing us with an understanding of our world than religion ever has.

There is no need for religious discussions in science classrooms. It is clear that certain religious groups have declared a war of disinformation against science... I think people like Dawkins are entitled to a volley or two back.

To Karen:

Those who dont believe in a supreme being want to be Number 1??

Obviously you're one of the many that blindly believes, blindly follows and is incapable of independent thought.

Think about it - You worship whatever it is that you have "chosen" to worship - WHY - to give your life meaning? To guide you? To provide you security? To ultimately save yoruself?

Who is the selfish one? I don't have a problem with what others choose to believe - and it is a choice each of us makes - what gets me if when Blind Faith takes over. People following what other people tell them because a long time ago even still other people wrote some stories in A book.

THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Science is a method for testing ideas about the real, empirical world. Religions that are exclusively concerned with advancing a moral philosophy - I believe Confucianism comes close to this - are beyond the reach of science because there are no factual claims that can be tested. A religion along those lines can be taken or left, like any other moral system, according to one's subjective idea of proper or virtuous behaviour.

However, any empirical claims made by a religion can be legitimately tested by science, at least in principle. Whether the claim is about the effectiveness of prayer, the creation of the world in seven days, the presence of gods atop Mount Olympus, or even the existence of a non-material soul, science should ultimately be able to evaluate the evidence and come to a rational conclusion. The only gods that are safe from science are gods who never intervene in the real world, and therefore leave no fingerprints. But gods like that could never make their existence known, by definition, and would therefore be pretty useless.

Science has been in the business of testing religious claims since the days of Darwin, if not Copernicus. So far, religion has been consistently routed. Science has no answers to moral questions, or even to the deepest metaphysical ones, but religion has no valid basis for answering those questions either. The only rational choice is atheism, with a tiny footnote to the effect that the gods may be clever and devious enough to fool the scientists - for a while.

First you can not be a 'thinker'and a 'believer'. Once you accept any doctrine you have stopped thinking.
why religion hates eveloution so much is because it absolutly proves there is no god.
Look at the fossil record and there it is one creature evolving into another.
why would an all powerful all knowing god have to create in steps. I dont think most people really believe they support the deloution because they think it is good for others to believe.

God is dead and dispersed. She blew Herself up in Her big bang. Now She's a part of all of us. Only science can hope to put Her back together again.

If im in a sandy land and find a tomb, then temples, then a city, did i discover it?Wasnt it already their? What credit should i get?
I discover a part of science exploit it to suite my imperfect life, of what credit of this finding should be mine? Science explain why we like to cook, why we like art, music, why we feel, why we all desire to worship.
Science, like someone unearthing civilizations that were already their for along long time.

Would Oil and Water ever mix ?
Each has it's own properties, standing on their 'own'.

Religion is 'religion' - Science is 'science' - the two concepts are, as they are. - Existing, - period.

I love Jesus, I love nature and science..... I believe that science is brought forth to help us understand a little more about our world and how we are to take better care of our Earth.... Any person who sees the wonders and its beauties and still can confidentally say and feel that there is no God.... They are shallow and close minded.... GOD does exist and I believe if you see science correctly they most definatly do co exist..... Has anyone ever thought that maybe God didn't leave everything for us to know in the bible because some things we are not supposed to know. Or better yet that just maybe God wants us to find out for our selves. I don't teach my daughter everything.... somerhings I like her to learn on her own....

At their fundamental core, science and religion are both based on observation and experience – the difference is that observation and experience can either lead to contestable theory, as it occurs in science or to faith as it occurs in religion. Theory allows for predictions that can be tested and verified, versus faith which is simply unverifiable belief (the occasional event predicted by faith arguably falls within the realm of statistical probability). But let us be clear that theories are also not certainties; instead they offer the most plausible explanation of natural phenomena. However, theories are continually closing the knowledge gap, and therefore it is reasonable to extrapolate that our understanding of nature will continually improve. That we might never quite attain perfect knowledge, not unlike stepping towards a wall in half-steps, is not a weakness of the scientific method but rather a humbling realization of our limited capabilities. Religion, on the other hand, is largely stagnant and incapable of advancing our knowledge of nature. Can God and science co-exist? Yes, as in the mind of the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno, and no in the minds of polar opposites characterized by creationists on the one hand and atheists on the other such as the evolutionist Richard Dawkins.

Yes, God and objectionable science can co-exist. Objectionable science is experimental, repeatable, and observable. The facts we have such as fossils, geological formations, natural selection, and animal adaptation fit very nicely into the creation account given in the bible. The problem with evolution is that it requires organisms to increase genetic information to grow new structures and form into human beings from single celled organisms. This has not ever been observed to happen - only a loss of genetic information has been shown to occur in organisms.

This is how the story goes:
God creates the universe in Harmony with science... big bang and billions of years go by.
Then He arranges the situation where, at the place where land and water meet (muddy lagoon), the conditions for life are there. Then atoms come together to form monomers and those form carbs, proteins, etc. and science has shown how much of that is possible. Evolution, Guided Evolution occurs, always guiding the path of evolution towards humanity. We are the goal.
Humans develop and are barbaric. Teaches Adam to tell others that everyone has the right to food, shelter, and clothing. They don't listen at first, but then they do and are guided. Great. But then they start to go astray again. He sends another messenger from among their people to show them the way. The level of teachings gradually rises so that it is always appropriate and manageable for that nation/people of That time. He sends countless messengers, all true, all pious, all From God, all with a good message. The peak of this spiritual evolution is Islam and the final holy book is the Qur'an. In this way, all of the previous prophets are regarded as honest, pious, great, chosen people. They are revered. This includes Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Noah, David, and Jesus Peace be upon them all.
All Muslims must believe in all the prophets, even the ones whose names we do not know - only that they were from God and called others to Him.

Those who seek scientific proof of God have this in the historical fact of the birth and life of Jesus. In the Holy Land, you can physically tour the Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, Ein Karem (birthplace of John the Baptist), the Upper Room at Mount Zion, etc.....all places of Jesus' ministry. It is not a matter of science and faith being at odds with each other, but that faith is a much larger realm than science alone.

I will say again that religion and science can coexist. Where one is empirical, the other is moral. How do you define what is right, outside of a belief system? To whom should we place our faith, to let them judge our actions? If the question is whether there is a god or not, than this is irrelevant; I would rather place my faith in some eternal moral order than in a scientist, or computer, with the utilitarian doctrine that would be placed over our morality.

Please consider that I am speaking of morality, not of scientific doctrine. Let science determine what is, let our faith direct our moral interpretation.

Why doesn't the CBC do a special on "Where is the tooth fairy today?" or "Where are unicorns today?". God falls into the same category as these other creations of man's imagination. The only difference is that the non existant entity god has been used through the ages by one class of men, the clergy, to terrorize, use and abuse those less fortunate or weaker. It's understandable that humankind would have attributed natural phenomena to the various gods they dreamed up before the forces of nature and the laws of physics, chemistry and biochemistry (including the chemistry of DNA and the fact of evolution) were wll understood. We are well past that time now and it's time for the human being to give up both god and the tooth fairy. Atheism, rationality, and human population control, hopefully planned, are the only hope for the continuation of our species on this planet for any length of time.

I must admit I find it rather remarkable that some people find science and God incompatible. If indeed God created this world, then science is an avenue to the discovery of God's creation - not something completely separate from it. Those who are religious can celebrate science as much as anyone else, because it reveals such amazing things about creation. And who can look at all the astounding intricacies and all the beauty in the universe and deny that an intelligent designer was behind it all? Can such amazing things really exist through some random event of chance? We have only to look at our own bodies to be amazed - and science is what has revealed so many of these stunning things to us.

Science is fascinating. The things discovered through science are fascinating. Why does there need to be a separation - indeed, HOW can there be a separation - between science and religion/God?

I find it funny that people can separate Religion and Science ... the point is that people will always have a subjective point of view to the conclusions they make when doing experimentation and observation. The pure atheistic scientist will always see his believe of evolution being the cause of everything and the God fearing/looking for God scientist will find God behind the working principles. As God said "Those who seek me will find Me."

Can religion and science coexist?

"The virtues of humanity are many but science is the most noble of them all. The distinction which man enjoys above and beyond the station of the animal is due to this paramount virtue. It is a bestowal of God; it is not material, it is divine. Science is an effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the power of investigating and discovering the verities of the universe, the means by which man finds a pathway to God."

quote from Baha'i Writings

"I have read good articles from people such as Richard Dawkins that lay out very good reasons why there's no point in debating 'faithful' people... It is akin to playing chess with pigeons."

This is rude and not at all true. I am "faithful" and I'm not afraid of discussion or debate. I'm not afraid of truth, actually, I seek it, carefully considering facts and claims from all views. In order for a true debate to happen both parties (yes, even atheists) need to be open minded to the other persons viewpoint. To go into an argument with your mind already made up that you are right no matter what, it doesn't matter how great the evidence to the contrary of what you believe is brought forth, it's lost on you if you're not willing to hear it. So the same could be said about anyone who is rigid and narrowminded. Be careful with your definitive statements, "There is no God" or you are in danger of becoming a "pigeon" yourself.

One day Christianity, Islam and Judaism will be dead religions, and citizens of the world will wonder about their "primitive ancestors" who prayed to some higly imaginary God in the sky.

Science and religion must coexist, unfortuneately for science, which is forced to tolerate a rather noisy neighbour.

If the noise gets too much humanists, a suggestion: don't rant and rave like a damn fool; put on the ear-muffs, sit down, and crack open that old dusty copy of Ayers' Language, Truth and Logic and breath a hearty sigh of (temporry) relief.

someone asked - why is God typically male?

NT teaches neither male nor female in the Spiritual being. When Paul writes to the "brethern" at a church he is addressing all believers, both men and women.

God is Spirit and purposefully demonstrates the faithful loving Father role. He has chosen to not be an impersonal "IT". That is a good thing!

"He" is used in the translation from Hebrew. This does not make God "male" nor sexist.

Please keep in mind that in the french language even a table has "gender" being "la table".
In english this gender thing is also quite pronounced in the singular personal pronouns, but neutral in non-personal pronouns and also in the plural pronouns such as "They" and "we".

Have you ever considered that Science is a religion? It's putting all your faith into only that which can be proven. The problem I have with this religion though is that there are so many things that it can't explain.

I just wonder why people are so scared of the thought of the existence of a Supreme Being who is infinitely more wise and powerful than us? Must be pride. Or maybe it's the desire to be number one over all and admitting that God may exist is also conceding that you will never be number one. I'm reminded of Yertle the Turtle some how!

No. Science and religion are completely seperate. Religion is based on believing something with no evidence and science is based on tried and tested experiments to prove a theory. Science is responsible for everything we take for granted everyday. Science is what brought you this computer you're looking at. Religious texts were all written by man. The Bible is full of contradictions, rape, murder and repulsiveness. The whole basis of the story of Christ is that we are all born sinners, (because Eve ate a piece of fruit in the Garden of Eden)and that we must repent and beg for forgiveness and pay money to the church or else we all go to Hell. God knowingly sent his son to get tortured and murdered so that he could forgive you for your the aforementioned sin. First of all it states in the Bible that you will not carry the sins of thy father... so that contradicts the born sinners thing. Second, if God had his son nailed to a cross so that he could forgive you instead of just forgiving you... for something you didn't even do, then that makes God a murderous phsychotic killer that makes Satan look like an angel. I think it's about time that we left religion behind. The fictional impossible stories of the Bible were written in a time when we had no understanding of the macro and micro-cosmos.

religion and science can co-exist
science helps us understand the
complexities of creation.As we learn more we understand more about its mysteries.There is alot of fun in discovering why things work the way it does.

Bob McNarry says that questions like "Who am I?", "How is it that I am aware of my own self?" and "What happens to me when I die?" are unanswerable. I think this is an overstatement and that science can and likely will eventually have answers for these questions.
My hypothesis is that our consciousness is just the function of a computational process within our brains that runs a small program that gives us the illusion of consciousness.
Ultimately, science will be able to completely map all of the neurons and connections of human brains and will be able to fully emulate their functions. When this happens and if the result is that the simulation exhibits all of the artifacts of "consciousness" and being, we will have our answers. I am a sack of meat running a computational process. My consciousness is a useful illusion. When I die, my computational ceases and so do "I".

Believers in creationism continually illustrate their inability to fully understand the size of our universe, the amount of time that has occurred and how small the Earth is relative to everything else. The argument that the complexity of our world and of human anatomy is too great to have occurred purely due to chance/evolution, thus proving the existence of a creator, is flawed simply because the believer is thinking very small relative to the size of the universe. If our world were the universe, I could accept this argument; however, since it is not, let me propose an example.

Most of us would accept that if we were to throw two fair dice down on a table and get two fours, this event occurred due to chance. We accept this because we understand the problem and the range of possibilities. Now look at the minute size of the Earth compared to the universe and the amount of time that has gone by. We cannot even begin to quantify or understand the range of possible events. One thing is certain: The number of possible events is so great that the existence of our Earth can easily be understood as a random event.

Prior to scientific investigation, the creator had been used to explain common earthly events such as disease and the weather. Knowledge and facts are best used to understand and explain. If we used lack of knowledge to prove all theories, where would our world be today? Is the world still flat?

In my opinion Einstein sums it up best: "Science without religion is lame & religion without science is blind"

Can God and science co-exist?

Which god?

Actually, yes, they can co-exist as soon as evidence that a god actually exists surfaces.

A better question would be; Can belief in god(s) and science co-exist?

This will be no for some people and yes for others. Yes, as long as you are willing to tell yourself little lies.

Science is a tool for determining explanations for our natural world. A shovel is a tool for digging holes. Intelligent Design is doing science in a way that would be akin to digging a hole with your shovel's handle. ID simply is not science. It posits a supernatural explanation. As soon as a supernatural entity is needed you are no longer doing science. Hypothesizing that some things are too complex as to be explained by natural means is actually antithetical to science.

Check out this link re: Science Vs. God.

http://xandju.deviantart.com/art/God-Vs-Science-74131716
(copy and paste to your URL search bar)

I think it is important to recognize that our existance on this world requires a certain amount of faith, which is inescapable. Facts are brought about by human research--in all human research there is a huge margin for error. There is no way that we can know what happening right now in the world, much less what happened in the past. We need to have faith.

If God made the Universe, then there can be no possible conflict between Science and God. Science would discover a Universe as constructed by God - it cannot discover who made the Universe - only how the Universe behaves.

Science is helpful only for hypotheses that can be observed, measured and tested. In other words, anything that cannot be verified through a test cannot be considered to be scientifically true. Fair enough, but surely none of us go through life believing only things that have been observed, measured and tested are true. If we did, none of us would believe in the love of a mother for a son or a husband for a wife. Can you prove love, or beauty, or joy, or hope, or ambition, or contentment, to the satisfaction of the scientific method? I don't think so.

In other words, the scope of science is restricted by a self-imposed criteria that hypotheses cannot be considered scientifically true unless they can be observed and a test can be set up to verify it or debunk it. Scientists frequently relinquish their hypotheses if this criteria isn't met.

But that doesn't mean an untested hypothesis isn't true. An example: say a friend of mine, Jim, tells me he saw our mutual friend, Jill, at the bus stop yesterday. What does it take for me to believe him? I don't to set up a battery of tests about Jim's mental capacity, his eyesight, or the physical possibility of Jill's presence at the bus stop. I simply believe him, or disbelieve him -- and I arrive at that belief through (sorry to say this) faith. Bottom line is that we all rely on faith every single day, a hundred times a day or more. The vast majority of human decisions -- and probably the most important ones -- are made without the benefit of scientific method.

So my message to scientists is this: thanks for all your help over the years with respect to our solar system, human anatomy, bridge design and all that. But some of you have started making assertions that you can't observe, test, or verify. Things like religion, theology, the meaning of life, and all that. Please stay out of these areas, you're kind of confusing people and making a mess. Thanks.

I find it incredibly disturbing that people who have supposedly gone through at least the basic public education system actually believe in the childish story of Noah’s ark. Marine engineers will tell you that there’s no way a wooden ship large and strong enough to hold the thousands of species of animals inferred by the story could possibly be built and especially by ancient people who had no modern construction knowledge or significant sea going expertise! Ever try to build a boat? It’s not an easy task.

Additionally, the genetic impossibility of the animal preservation account, even if we ignored basic physics for a moment, would again be impossible and then we of course have the fact that no flood even close to the scale described is recorded in the geological or geographical record!

If we accept these scientific facts then the story is simply a children’s tale much like other stories from religions across the globe and if we change the story itself (i.e. a MUCH smaller roughly made boat with farm animals and a few people that floated out a very localized flood) then it has no significance at all especially in terms of the way people now perceive it. The story of the garden of eden is equally absurd as are so many other biblical fables we could list them all day. What really amazes me though is when Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc cling to their own bizarre tales as “gospel” so to speak, but then totally dismiss strange tales from other cultures.

And I feel sorry for those who choose to believe in these types of fairly tales “just in case”. Not only are you living a lie out of fear but you might even find that your god doesn’t accept that approach.

"You have to ask the questions: a) why do we believe in a humanoid god; and b) why is this god typically male? "

Well, the first answer is we think God is a humanoid because we are made in his image. I guess technically God isn't homosapien looking, but much more ancient homonid looking. That's not the point.

The second answer is because the bible preaches and endorses sexism. Why would a female god preach such intolerance towards women?

The main thing that gets in the way of my belief that god exists is that historically humans have behaved/thought in ways that were designed to meet our inate needs. One of those common needs is the need to understand the unknown. Another is to respect things that our culture values. It appears to me that humans have created a god (generally) in their own image. We have used god to explain the unknown (until it is known)and most cultures (that historically were male dominated) believe in a male god.

You have to ask the questions: a) why do we believe in a humanoid god; and b) why is this god typically male?

If you really know science, you will find that God created world in 6 days.

"I would suggest that many theory-based interpretations of the natural world do not deserve to be naming themselves sciences at all. They are just guesses, not pure knowledge or science."

This is just misinformation spread bys creationists. A theory is NOT a guess.

The fact that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, and this is also contradicted by the bible.

"The Roman Empire executed people that way by the thousands throughout it's existence.

Seems like Garet better start taking his own advise and do some REAL RESEARCH.
"

Not through the hands. It's impossible to hold a brunt of your weight with spikes through your hands. It'll tear right through.

"In 2005, a US army officer climbed the mountains bordering Turkey and Iran and found Noah's Ark of the exact dimension the Bible describes."

Just like the 40 or so supposed Shrouds that Jesus wore? The pieces of his cross that have been found? They've found enough pieces of his cross to make several.

Zisudra is history. Noah is fiction. There is no way Noah fit 2 of every animal on the ark.

"You're not going to find one legitimate scientist who believes the bible as it is. The story of Noah has been proven impossible time and time again. Plus, you know, we know the real story behind it of Zisudra, a Sumerian king. "

In 2005, a US army officer climbed the mountains bordering Turkey and Iran and found Noah's Ark of the exact dimension the Bible describes.

"It is impossible to crucify somebody as Jesus was. "

The Roman Empire executed people that way by the thousands throughout it's existence.

Seems like Garet better start taking his own advise and do some REAL RESEARCH.

To Greg from Chatham,
Totally agree. I rather take the safe road than the walk a thin line here on earth. We can all choose to live a few kinds of lives. First, be an atheist, live a satisfying life for 80 years on earth, and if we're wrong about God's existence, then woopty-dink, your dead and that's the end of you. If we're right about God, then you still get to live a great life here on earth but unfortunately you spend eternity in hell. Fact is, most people live stressfull and miserable lives on earth, so they get a double wammy.
Now if I'm wrong about God's existence, well I still got to live an extremely satisfying and fulfilling life here for 80 years and I die, the end. And if I'm right, well I get a great life on earth, and eternity in heaven.
I stick to the second option personally; just seems like to big of a risk to deny God's existence. Take this example: When you cross the street, there's no guarantee that your not going to die when you cross. Now before you cross though, do you ask for strong evidence and proof that you're not going to get hit when you cross. Obviously not, but you know from experience and fact that the chances of getting hit are quite slim. The same can be said of Christianity. If I were to show you evidence, both from experience and fact that the Bible is true, even if it weren't 100% convincing, shouldn't this still be enough to avoid taking the risk of not believing.

I find it interesting that such a topic is even discussed. The word science means 'knowledge', and in monotheistic religions, God is omniscient, or all-knowing. It is sad that some atheistic philosophies as well as some of the media have been trying to reserve the word 'science' for a specific school of thought that is based mostly on theories. There really are only a few exact sciences, which are completely compatible with monotheistic religions. I would suggest that many theory-based interpretations of the natural world do not deserve to be naming themselves sciences at all. They are just guesses, not pure knowledge or science.

I am personally Athiest but one thing I have observed is that over history, things that were attributed to "Gods will" have ultimately been explained by science, to a degree. However,Science however, like a young child, is continually asking the question "Why?". Experimentation and observation provide answers, but that just leads to more questions and ultimately the answers stop. Einstein, in his attempt to find a unifying theory of the universe was able to account for 3 of the 4 forces but when it came to the fourth (gravity) he was stumped. I am not saying that God is responsible but that there will always be questions science cannot answer. To some of us it is enough to say "we will answer it soon enough" but for others it is "the will of God". God may simply be the absence of a better explanation.

What year is this? Are we truly discussing dualism between science and faith? While I generally enthusiastically support the CBC's efforts to spur thought and discussion, this is an exception. A little embarassing even... What's next: Should Brittney get a boob job?

People who think science somehow disproves the existance of a God are wrong. So are people who believe in the literal interpretation of holy texts.

Both groups are assuming that their teachings have given them deep insights into things that our feeble human brains cannot possibly understand. The universe, science, and any supreme being that may or may not exist are just too large and complicated and we all need to realize that no matter how much we know, we will never know everything.

Science and religion can beautifully co-exist. One of the most elegant examples of this is seen in the Baha'i Faith. In fact, the prophet Baha'u'llah sets out in clear language that science and religion MUST be seen in perfect harmony. He is the same prophet who wrote a warning from his middle eastern prison cell in the mid-1800s that moderation is important, citing that the invention of the engine could be used to such an extent that the entire atmosphere of the earth could be poisoned. He also answered the direct question of whether or not the universe was infinite by saying that while it sounds silly, the fact is that it depends on the observer! The concept that distances (and time) change with the observer is a concept that physicists wouldn't glimpse until many years after Baha'u'llah's death. But back to the main point: the Baha'is insist that religion and science must NOT be mutually exclusive. They also feel that the world's religions must not be veiwed as mutually exclusive either. Honestly, if either science or inter-religious animosities are hindering you from religious pursuit, the Baha'i writings will make your eyes pop and your heart sing.

There is no "God" and so there can be no war.

I have read good articles from people such as Richard Dawkins that lay out very good reasons why there's no point in debating 'faithful' people... It is akin to playing chess with pigeons.

The question should really be Can God, Science and "Religion" co-exists. It is the religions that are failing every aspect of the rational world- Existence of god then becomes irrelevant in this discussion- If indeed there is a god that is responsible for the creation of the universe and the billions of galaxies, infinite stars and all the laws, then this god is very much bigger than the gods any of the reliogions can describe, respect or claim alegiance to. I wonder if the god that created this magnificiant hierarchy we call universe, cares if I eat pork, or drink wine or go to church every sunday- to avoid his hell-

It’s all a matter of faith, first one has to believe in the Oneness of God then it is possible to see the connections. As a Muslim and a strong believer of God when I read the Holy Qurran I see different surras (verses) revealing the facts of science. In surra Al Rehaman chapter 55 where it says We created sun and the moon and all the heavenly bodies with some balance doesn’t that reflect the rules of Physics. In sura As- Shams chapter 91
1. By the sun and its brightness.
2. And by the moon when it follows it.
3. And by the day when it brightens it
4. And by ' the night when it covers it.
5. And by the heaven and its Maker.
6. And by the earth and its Expansionist.
7. And by the soul and Him who perfected it
8. Then inspired its and it piety;
9. Undoubtedly he attained to his goal who cleansed it.
10. And he failed who covered it in sin.
Even a child can see that it talks about the night changing into day and expansion of earth; what is that? Science!
Further Qurran speaks of dead changing into bones and ashes won’t that be the process of decomposition… but as I said you have to have the faith. You need to believe that this Holy Book was reveled thousands of years before the scientific facts were even discovered and you need to believe that the Message was bestowed upon a Sheppard who could neither read nor write, so then there is no room for creating some thing himself. One thing that was common for all messengers of God (Prophets who came before Prophet Muhammed PBUH) was that all came from simple background and none of them was a born raised in a scholars house so there has to be some power that gave them strength to rule the world.

Science and religion start from the wrong premice because they can't explain what is ahead of them.Yes science can coexist with God since God created science as a means for us to discover and measure our world and confirm His existence.One can easily prove that out of the pages of the Bible. Mystery of the ages is the book that explains all this in a simple manner,understandable even for a child. www.pcog.org

God and Science can coexist, why not, it is a very limited of us to think that science contradicts God. First off all we do not know everything yet and our scientific knowledge though vast by 19th century standards is really very limited. There are so many phenomenon we are unable to explain, such as gravity – we all see it, we know how it works and yet we cannot explain it truly we have theories of “gravitons” being similar to electros and such; or why Newtonian physics is useless at atomic level. There are more questions than answers.

Faith of course is a personal issue, existence of God can not be proved or disproved but if we assume that God is truth and since is a pursuit of truth, than there really is no reason for them not to coexist.

Off course there are people who will argue that since can lead to evil and hot can that be a pursuit of God , well to that I say people have free will and as they learn more they get to choose what do with that knowledge. Remember we have a free will our greatest gift and burden we decide what to do not God.

I am over simplifying a lot of notions and not addressing a lot of important points but I hope the essence of it all is there J

The concept of god and gods came about during a time of human ignorance. Our ancestors did not understand the phenomena of nature -- things like birth and death, fire, lightning, extreme weather, comets, etc. Many cultures attributed these phenomena to invisible sky fairies. Today science provides us with a much better understanding of nature. However there is still absolutely no scientifically judged evidence of any god or gods.

To Paul in Montreal:

If what you say is true I would absolutely love to read that rock solid evidence of yours. I’m not even being facetious as that sort of evidence would be astounding to witness. However, I wouldn’t ever take a bet that you were remotely correct because in case you are wondering, proof that the bible is accurate even in the more simplistic historical event sense would be rather big news and not something just ranted about by those who cannot see the truth.

As for the people who are saying the bible is full of fables to “illustrate the mysterious lessons of god” please give me a break. Besides the fact that churches have claimed far more literal interpretations for centuries, if your book is not in fact meant to be read as it reads then you may as well consol yourselves with reading the I Ching, TV Guide or perhaps Mother Goose for all the holy words they will give you. Alternatively I’m sure that Jesus will soon be showing himself in an oil stain or burrito somewhere if you look hard enough.

I encourage you to do a quick Google of Russell’s Teapot.

Modern anthropology has foisted upon us the idea that human society only created God as a means of explaining those elements of the physical world it could not understand; that God became less and less necessary as scientific knowledge encroached on his territory.

This is ridiculous. People did not inquire after God to address the origins of earthquakes, hurricanes or shooting stars any more 10,000 years ago than they do today. An individual seeks after God to discover the significance of his own existence in the light of his own certain mortality. Do I, myself, have any purpose or meaning, or am I just a biological phenomenon with arbitrary starting and end points? Science is no closer to answering this question today than it ever was.

Religion posits that God is spirit; that another component of reality that the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove exists in addition to the empirical universe. Religion is not irrational. It is trans-rational. Scientists would do well to play only in their own sandbox and continue to measure those things that can be measured. Readers who wish to pursue this discussion further are encouraged to read The Clockwork Image by Donald Mackay.

Science & Religion can co-exist but for completely different reasons. Science as stated in many of the posts already, is the discovery of how things work & how we can alter life as we know it. Religion in it's most innocent form is about faith in something bigger & beyond. It's about living your live in a particular manner that allows all of us to co-exist and get along peacefully.

Unfortunately science sometimes creates negative outcomes, changes the world for the worse but I guess we take the good with the bad. Religion is seen by many as a business, as a type of control over people that are searching for something lacking in their life. Not everyone is strong enough or had a great up bringing to know & understand, what it is to treat people the right way, so they turn to God. The last time I checked the stories were the same (even though many have been altered for our consumption) and the out comes predictable. Once you've heard or learned them once do you really need to do it all over again every Sunday?

Look to science to help us discover, learn and evolve. Look for faith in people, in ourselves and you will receive the same outcome you desired standing before God...where ever he or she is.

Of course Science and Religion COULD coexist, if you involve the NOMA principle (Non-overlapping Magisteria): You don't pretend to know science and we'll pretend you don't exist. But do they actually coexist? No. Why? Because the two major religions are always trying to suppress scientific discovery.

Example 1: Several states in the US have allowed the teaching of Intelligent Design (a relabeling of creationism) to be taught in their school EVEN THOUGH the federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional.

Example 2: The banning of the Golden Compass in the Halton school board. While not science, this is a perfect example of the church being afraid of something and banning it outright.

Example 3: The Vatican's stance on the use of condoms. They have actually told people in African countries that condoms are penetrable by the HIV virus (even though condoms don't allow water through) and that, in some instances, the condoms provided have been PRElaced with the virus! I would also like to remind everyone of the Bush administration's sex education program.

As long as religion tries to run its own agenda, science and religion will remain mortal enemies.

Well, I guess one of the problems with religion is that they are using books that are more than 2,000 years old. I would not like to undergo dentistry from a book that old.

I suppose that some scientists suffer from halucinations or delusions. That is one way they can co-exist with religion.

"I think we have more faith in science (as scientists), than believers do in God. I never independently tested all of Einstein, Newton, and other great minds findings. But I believe they are correct. Such is the dilemma of faith, science and God. "

Science is not faith based. This is a ridiculous thing people of belief say to make their irrational beliefs seem okay. Science is methodical. Science is reproducable. This is why it is believed. It is actually provable.

I'm not sure why you're surprised that we don't know the dinosaurs died. They lived millions of years ago. (Less than 6000 years ago if you're a bible thumper).

"Science has proven that we humans are hard wired so to speak to worship God. Our record as a species shows that we are fundamentally unfit to rule ouselves."

Again, this is not true. Contrary to your beliefs, the world as a whole doesn't believe in God. Infact, you could say everyone is born atheist.

"The book of Revelation tells us that God will put to ruin those who are ruining the earth."

...He's going to put to ruin his own followers? What a joke.

"Mankind, (scientists as well as the rest of us) need to consider the consequences of what we say and do."

Nobody worries about angering Frankenstien or Xenu, why worry about the wrath of another fictional character?

"We are not the masters of our destiny, and it is only arrogance that allows us to ignore His standards for a short time."

...If we're not masters of our destiny, then free will doesn't exist, thus proving another fault in the bible.

"Those who deny God are the ones with blind faith, as they ignore the totality of the evidence in both creation and the Bible."

...What evidence? As far as I know, evolution kind of throws that image of God garbage down the toilet.

"Jehovah's ability to foresee events in advance has been demonstrated time after time. The dead sea scrolls and the science of archeology have put many of the arguments of "higher critics" of the Bible to rest."

You're not going to find one legitimate scientist who believes the bible as it is. The story of Noah has been proven impossible time and time again. Plus, you know, we know the real story behind it of Zisudra, a Sumerian king. It is impossible to crucify somebody as Jesus was. You can't part the Red Sea. Impossible again. It's like 70 miles wide. The sun does not revolve around the earth. You'd think God or Jehova would have seen that coming. The earth is older than 6000 years. Again, I would hope God would know that. The bible being the word of God must be infallable, yet it's full of holes.

You have to be more specific about which discipline of science you are considering when you deal with the co-existance of Religion and Science. Rockets and God? Sure, no problem. Some Chemistry and God...hmm I guess.

Biology and God? That's where the line gets drawn. It's the old evolution debate that all teachers in public schools have to pussyfoot around. They don't even get into evolution in the Catholic board unless you are taking biology in high school, and then they still pepper it with ID. This is wrong. Evolution is a key part of virology, cellular biology, etc. Skipping or belittling evolution because of a religous consideration is criminal.

So most people can retain their belief, but, it has to be a blind belief and it should never intrude on serious scientific work.

This is my perspective. I'm going to believe that there is a loving intelligent creator. I also will believe that faith in His son will assure me a place in Heaven when I die. All the mysteries and obscurities I face now can wait to be answered until the time when I sit at God's feet and can ask Him to explain. If I'm wrong about faith in a creator God, so what? When I die I'll be dead.

Human beings have a tendency to construct explanations for all sorts of phenomena, and come to believe these ideas, even if they are totally wrong. This essentially is the folly of religion, to disregard facts and evidence that contradict the original idea. Science is continually searching for facts and evidence to support of refute any particular hypothesis. Religion relies on archaic and anachronistic scripture to support "faith."

Any modern scientist who accepts religion as a concept that can peacefully coexist with science, must accept the consequence of irrational ideas. Eg, it is possible to be highly educated and yet still believe that highjacking a plane and flying it into a skyscraper is a legitimate punishment for what your religion may define as "infidels." Or to invade another country in the name of god. Man creates ideas, both scientific and religious, but the scientific ones tend to do a much better job of explaining the world with the support of facts and evidence. Scientific ideas encourage more testing and insight and ultimately lead to greater knowledge. Religious ideas are often competitive, particularly amongst monotheistic religions, and often lead to catastrophic conclusions without any regard for facts, evidence, or the potential danger of differing human ideas. The history of religion is replete with examples of human sacrifice for want of the religious idea. Religious war is always fought for competing irrational ideas, whereas the non-religious despot does not act in the name of atheism - few will admit to acting irrationally because of a lack of belief in something.

part 3:
This being said, the message of the bible should give everyone happy feelings inside because it says that an infinite God actually cares for each one of us personally

part 2:
The Bible is a poor excuse for the word of God, even though it is his holy text, it is written so humans can understand it, in language. The words used in it and the words humans use today are finite and therefore cannot express God clearly. Some words are controversial, the selected word for this post is “create.” The definition for the word create is to bring something into existence. So Genisis 1:1 states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Therefore the earth and the heavens did not exist before God created them. The word heavens (plural) as I interpret the word is the universe, like space, and all that is in it. So all that is in it is matter. Therefore before god created it, there was no matter. Since physicists like to think that the universe is everything in existence, the cosmos, the whole, we can say some things go along with matter in the universe: time, dimensions, thought, language. These things are not comprised of matter. That just might be a concept that humans cannot understand, before God created everything we know, there was nothing. How can there be no space, no time? For that matter, how can there be space and time? Time and space are natural and physical, we can measure them, and as already explained, God is not physical but supernatural and therefore exists beyond the limits of space and time. To say that God existed forever is to say that God has always existed with time. To say that God’s presence is limitless is to say that God can be defined by endless space which is to say that God must exist with space. Both are probably false, God needs neither time nor space for Her (go feminists) to exist. Again it all comes back to our confusion with words. “Exist” and “Create” seem simple enough but at the same time have caused enormous confusion. These words are just a way to try to express something infinite in a finite way.

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, meaning that science and religion to not contradict each other. God exists beyond what is measurable, beyond things like time, space, matter, thought, language. I believe the Bible could not possibly be translated literally because all earthly languages are infinitely limited when compared to God. Therefore the word "create" in Genesis is infinitely vague in describing the complex processes of God. Spirituality can be described as supernatural because it exists beyond scientific understanding and laws of nature. Therefore Science cannot validate spirituality because it cannot be measured or observed which is what science is based on, empirical understanding. Even the word exist is vague when considering God. Since spirituality exists above scientific processes (measuring, observing, etc.) some do not consider it to exist, and they are right in a sense. Spiritual things do not exist in terms of the word exist, ie they do not have mass, cannot be seen, and leave no evidence that points to their existence. However "existence" is relative to humans, we only consider things to "exist" if they "exist" in the same way we do, physically. After all, everything observable exists physically and that is exactly what science measures. The definition of the word science is "the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." But, spirituality is supernatural, it transcends physicality and therefore is not part of science. However the opposite is true, science is part of spirituality. That being said, Spirituality exists logically; religion can be logical. To say that religion is false because it makes you abandon logic or rationality is false.

It think it's funny how ignorant so many people can be about the evidences that actually do exist for the Bible. Of all the historical books that have been dated to be several centuries old, the Bible is the most historically accurate of all of theses. There are over 24970 recovered manuscripts for the New testament, but when you consider a famous work such as the Iliad, which of course no ones denies its accuracy and content, there are only 643 manuscripts for Homer's Iliad. This is not even close to scratching the surface in terms of the evidence available. There are obviously some uninformed or ignorant posts on this wall. Those who keep claiming religion is simply faith based and not fact based are the blind ones. My conversion was not based on a blind act of faith but merely a decision based on well-scrutinized evidence.
Some of you should really do your homework and actually look at the evidence, because it deserves a much fairer verdict than most uninformed people attribute to it.

God blew herself up during the big bang.

Andrew N:

Although most of modern philosophy would support your contention that any palatable epistemology entails a "leap of faith," the wager is much different. In the case of science, assumptions on the predictability and consistency of nature are required, and the claims made within them are open to the possibility of refutation. In the case of religion, assumptions on a anthropocentric deity who intervenes in the natural order, and passes his message through human mediators of questionable reliability and historical pedigree, are required. Everyone subscribes to a greater or lesser degree in the basic assumptions of science, whereas the sophistication of theistic beliefs requires many leaps of faith. The very fact that science is open to refutation is suggestive of a difference in epistemological ethic, for religion is not generally open to it, and therefore an asymmetrical relationship is established with science at a disadvantage. Perhaps we should ask what needs they each answer to; I propose that most people are less concerned with gaining knowledge of the universe from religion, but instead are seeking a sense of belonging within it.

This is born out by the fact that although both religion and science are bodies of knowledge, the latter, despite the exalting rhetoric of some scientists, takes a more measured approach to the philosophically slippery notion such as "truth" and its attainment. Religion, at least the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions, is much more ambitious, and desires a frozen set of claims made supreme through association with an almighty entity that hold true eternally.

I think religion and science are ultimately incompatible; the consequences of modern science are simply too far-reaching to be ignored, and the skepticism required to undermine it too dangerous to all forms of knowledge to be embraced.

God created the universe, science is figuring out how it was done. Simple!

When one is confronted with this age-old question today, (indeed, the debate had been ongoing since the Scientific Revolution in the 1600's), it is important to define what is religion and what is science.

For many, it seems that science itself is a sort of religion, in the way that it provides an understanding of the world. What religions do in many cases, is aim to teach its followers their origin, their purpose, and ultimately, the answer to why we're here.

Those who think in the purely Cartesian school,(mind and body being separate and independent entities) will not be able to see the two as complementary. In fact, it is quite easy, as demonstrated here by many contributors, to see science (scientific studies) as the antithesis of religion (the study of our place in the world).

If you look at religion and science as two different world-views encompassing very different pursuits- one questioning "why", and the other questioning "how", then indeed, both religion and science can coexist quite peacefully. Both can be accepted at the same time to provide a holistic understanding of the world.

It is arguable whether or not the lack of synthesis between science and religion is unfortunate.

This topic has led me to think about the place of both science and religion in our North American society today- it is undeniable that science is necessary to provide us with a better understanding of the world around us, but is religion (including spirituality- that which nourishes our emotional and spiritual bodies) really necessary?

Of course, you would have to believe in the existence of human spirit to go further in that thread.

However, can science explain our dreams and aspirations? Our human irrationalities? The *reason* for our existence?

Then again, why does it even matter anyway?

For those interested Pope Benedict XVI has an interesting talk called "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" which discusses this subject at length. I found it very interesting.

Well, all in the end, I think that God just created everything on this Earth for us to learn about, to survive on, provided every resource we have today to advance science and technology. I have always said that religion in general is very often misinterpreted by man.

Asking whether god and science can co-exist is amusing. Its like asking whether science and a six foot tall invisible rabbit named Harvey can co-exist. However, its not at all like asking whether science and visiting alien spaceships can co-exist, because at least there is some evidence of visiting alien space craft, however weak and suspect that may be.

Do You Have A Choice?

Religion: You must choose to believe.

You: So believing is a choice?

Religion: Yes!

You: Is god all knowing?

Religion: Yes!

You: Does he know what will happen in the future?

Religion: Yes!

You: So at present god knows the choice that I will make in the future?

Religion: Yes!

You: In fact, before I was born he knew the choice I would make?

Religion: Yes!

You: So, it was god’s choice that I was born?

Religion: Yes!

You: Well, this defeats the how purpose of my making a choice!

Of course science and god can co-exist. Both have a very cozy relationship that goes back millenium. Science creates the technology used to evolve the efficiency of warfare, and each side in the conflict gives thanks to god for providing the technology. Apparently god is a scientist.

The Dalai-Lama has a good book on the subject that integrates modern science and Buddhist thought with great insights into scientific philosophy.
The great conclusion is that since God cannot be disproved it is outside the realm of science.
Unless of course we find a Babel fish.

The two are not related whatsoever. Science is simply a logical process through which we try to find truth.
Religion, generally, is a belief system, a faith in something unknown, a superstition, a myth.
More specifically, today, religions are predatory political organizations, taking advantage of our human fear of death, our need for direction and meaning in life.
Humanity must find another way to motivate people to be kind, generous and peaceful. Religion obviously isn't working.

The two are not related whatsoever. Science is simply a logical process through which we try to find truth.
Religion, generally, is a belief system, a faith in something unknown, a superstition, a myth.
More specifically, today, religions are predatory political organizations, taking advantage of our human fear of death, our need for direction and meaning in life.
Humanity must find another way to motivate people to be kind, generous and peaceful. Religion obviously isn't working.

I think Fiction (religion) can complement Non-Fiction (science)? Just don't get the two mixed up. Like Star Trek TNG (fiction) is not real, but complements science (non-fiction) very well.

Of course the two can co-exist: science is the "what" of life while religion is the "why" of life.

Of course, the key word to your question is 'compliment'. They can 'compliment' each other, but not necessarily fully answer each other, as faith is believing what is unseen, while science is believing what is seen, or can at least be measured - or so it's supposed to be. No-one has seen evolution happen, and no-one has seen the formation of the world, yet most believe it as fact. The geological record even supports the idea of a global flood catastrophy as much as, or maybe even more than slow changes over millions of years, with dating methods based on circular reasoning, yet most close their eyes to the inconsistencies for fear of 'encouraging the religious right'. That's how you know it IS a war: it's by-product is fear...and the only way to stop the war is to stop being afraid to actually openly listen and learn something from the 'other side'.

Science is the tool of the physical world, religion for morals and metaphysics; you have to pick the right tool for the job. I'm personally puzzled about the location and scale of God/Gods/G-d/Allah etc. Are there tribal, regional, planetary, solar system-wide or even regional/pan galactic deities? Is this a "your guy against my guy" situation? I've had some trouble getting the religious folks in my acquaintance to flesh this one out for me. I think Pope said it best; "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of mankind is Man.". Or perhaps "render unto Caesar" might be more appropriate. Somewhere in the Cosmos, I think the "Creator" is laughing and crying as we muddle through this. The truth is out there; stay tuned.

Garet, "It definately shows that the word of God, aka the Bible, is dead wrong. We couldn't have been made in his image if we evolved. Also, the world is older than 6000 years, another Bible part proven wrong."

Yes. The Bible was written by a bunch of old jews living in caves after their temple had been destroyed, or some such. Anyone who takes it literally is a fool. It is a collection of metaphors that are intended to tell us how we should live our lives ... 2000 years ago. It is a document that served the interests of the authors.

The spirit of the teachings of Christ, however, are worthwhile. In fact, if you look at our society, we have been moving toward implementing those teachings while organized religion, the church, resists with all the power and stubbornness it can (eg. same sex marriage -- "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" -> "do you want someone to tell you your marriage is inferior because they think it is for no logical reason?").

I think that is why a lot of people are moving away from organized religions these days -- as we begin to behave like adults, we no longer need an imaginary "father" to protect us from the painful realities of life.

Almost all scientists believe in something bigger than science. I say that because they all believe they are creative people that pursue science for a variety of intellectual reasons. An absolutely necessary condition for these beliefs is an underlying belief in free will. However, all of our known fundamental physical laws are completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics makes measurements tricky and chaos makes sensitivity to initial conditions a concern but neither leaves an opening for free will.
As a result, believing in God is really no different than believing you have free will, both require a disregard for all available scientific evidence available.

I believe that religion and science can co-exist provided religious organizations don't require its adherents to believe in matters which are contrary to overwhelming observable evidence. A prime example of this is the Christian belief that the mother of Jesus was a virgin. The promotion of creationism by some Christian groups over evolution is another.

Religion should be concerned strictly with spiritual issues and leave concrete matters to science. I should add, though, that religion is not an essential element of spirituality. The media and most Churches equate faith with belief in God. As an agnostic, I have faith in humanity and the universe. The wonders of the universe, along with the amazing artistry and creativity of mankind meet my spiritual needs. The notion that persons who do not believe in God or are uncertain of his existence have no faith is false.

Jesus said only trust what you can ascertain with your own senses. Given that, even Jesus lovers cannot be true Christians and also say they believe everything written in the bible. Its writings arose from mere people who are inherently flawed. Each of us has experienced our flaws.

Each of us can all observe nature’s harmony. “God” is a human subset of natural relationships. God is packaged with different window dressings to appeal to different people. Religions compete for our souls. No one religion can profess to have a monopoly on any soul.

When relationships are harmonious, we observe/feel goodness. When disharmonious, we feel the pain of separation.

Lab produced genetically modified organisms present circumstances for disharmony. For example, conventional selective dog-breeding allows opportunities for other life forms to adapt to the new dog characteristics. Lab induced characteristics do not allow for other life forms to catch up/ achieve harmony.

Religious and scientific quests ought to always finely balance interests of all living things to attain those actions that lead to the greatest potential for harmony.

Genetically we are 99% alike. We need to focus on what we have in common and not on “mind made up” differences that divide us.

A good question, one that deserves much thought. I do not believe that science and faith have any inherent conflict. Given our unprecedented faith in science, people are unwilling to accept that science is fallible. While it cannot be proven that God exists, I personally doubt that we will ever discover all of the fundamental properties of nature, that are required to make scientific theory work. When will we discover a Gravitron? What about Dark Energy, and its cause???

I personally believe that all faith is fallible, and that the greatest part of any belief system is that which will teach you to be humble in the light of all that is unknown in this universe. For me, faith is like driving; nothing is stopping the oncoming traffic from entering your lane, but we can only drive because of our belief - not independent of it.

Any faith that cannot encorporate the findings of science will fail. Science is dependendent on faith and the consistency of natural laws.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

To Andrew of Sackville:

Religion is the antithesis of rationality. In fact, there are several religions all of which claim to be exclusively the true 'faith'. If Christianity is correct then Judaism and Islam are false religions and vice versa.

Moreover, the beliefs are totally irrational. Take the Genesis and the Flood. Fairy tales. Take 'transubstantiation' which is the Catholic docrtine that states when congregants are taking communion they are eating the ACTUAL (not metaphorical) flesh of Christ. Where is the proof of that? That is completely irrational and the Catholic Church DOES expect the faithful to believe it.

Sorry, Andrew, I am not trying to be disrespectful but faith and science are like matter and anti-matter. They cannot co-exist.

If you think they do, please be the first to provide irrefutable proof of God. You'll be famous.

The sweeping generalizations that I have read by some are suprisingly ignorant. Most are attacking organized religion and not answering the question. I think those of us who daresay are 'true scientists' are much more reluctant to argue when both science and religion have gaps in knowledge. The Bible is incomplete in that it does not tell us everthing (such as what is heaven like?). Science in equally incomplete because we don't know why dinosaurs died off. We postulate it was a meteor, we don't know for sure. I think we have more faith in science (as scientists), than believers do in God. I never independently tested all of Einstein, Newton, and other great minds findings. But I believe they are correct. Such is the dilemma of faith, science and God.

The Bible (in Hebrews 11) defines faith as something that requires evidence. Blind faith is not faith, but credulity.
Those who deny God are the ones with blind faith, as they ignore the totality of the evidence in both creation and the Bible.
Jehovah's ability to foresee events in advance has been demonstrated time after time. The dead sea scrolls and the science of archeology have put many of the arguments of "higher critics" of the Bible to rest. Science has proven that we humans are hard wired so to speak to worship God. Our record as a species shows that we are fundamentally unfit to rule ouselves.
The book of Revelation tells us that God will put to ruin those who are ruining the earth. Mankind, (scientists as well as the rest of us) need to consider the consequences of what we say and do. We are not the masters of our destiny, and it is only arrogance that allows us to ignore His standards for a short time.

Joe: science is not based on faith? Are you trying to tell me that correlation translated into cause is not a metaphysical act? Are you trying to tell me that modern epistemologies make not "leaps of faith"? I'm not meaning to sound hostile - so please don't take my comments in this way. What I am trying to say is that the supposed methodological distinctions between science and religion might not be as great as the propaganda for each side makes them seem. Surely all are grounded in some form of narratology. Surely all must make some unprovable assumptions about the premises of knowledge.

Let's flip the question around and look at it from the opposite direction: Why should, for example, faith be antithetical to logic? What is it that makes the use of logic and reason incompatible with faith? Logic and reason are used in every church service (I'm Christian, btw) that I have ever attended. I cannot ever recall the pastor saying "now ... this is completely irrationale so go out and believe it."

Finally, the intelligent design argument is promoted by a fringe group of largely American Christians. They are loud and have a strong political voice via Bush but they hardly represent Christianity. To take them as representative of Christianity is the same as finding some wing-nut scientist (say, a racist who believes that science support his position) and have him stand in for all science. It would not be fair to science.

No.

Science is latin for 'knowledge'.

Science is a body of knowledge and a method of ascertaining knowledge through experimentation and proof.
Knowledge represents a body of proven facts.

God is the opposite of knowledge. Belief in God requires faith which is the absence of fact. If the existence of God was capable of proof faith would be unnecessary.

This issue is not one of science versus God - it's science versus organized religion. Religious teachings conflict with science because they are faith-based and science is fact-based. Faith is a blind adherence to a value without any proof at all. That's why Christians burned witches even though there were no witches. That's why people were burned as heretics even though there usually was no proof. In fact, Hitler could not have done what he did without a hatred of Jews that was sparked by an original church teaching that Jews killed Christ. That teaching, not based in fact, was recently renounced by the church. Moslem children blow themselves up because of faith-based hatreds not because they are factually threatened. There is no conflict between science and spirituality. The problem is an adhererence to outmoded religions that are based on faith over fact.

God co-existing with science is easy. We simple do not have all the answers to either.

It's religion that makes things so difficult. When one supposes they have the answers and then proceeds to demand you beleive what is said...well...millions of voices claiming different truths....

God is the Master Scientist before all other scientists. Isn't it interesting to note that all science really does is play "catch up" to the Creator? All scientific "discoveries" are merely instances of revelation because it is impossible to "discover" or "find" something which does not already exist. Inherent in the act of "discovering" is the presence of something to be discovered. God who created all things uses science as one method to reveal His grand design.

There's a huge gap between having faith in a being and having faith in a methodology.

God & I have an understanding: I don't bother him, and she doesn't bother me. That might work for many scientists, but likely not for a lot of people who believe in god. They often seem compelled to impose their beliefs on others.

The universe is not just complex, it is infinite. As in mathematics, there will always be a higher (or lower) value. It extends into macro-infinity (outer space) and micro-infinity (subatomic or inner space). Science will never explain every aspect of our existence. The fact that we can symbolize or conceptualize infinity alone points to a reality that we have a soul. Religion, in its many non-violent forms, is essential. May God bless you.

I looked for God for many years in science and philosophy text books. When I couldn't find answers that were unquestionable, I wrote a book called "Reconstructing God", essentially proposing that the status quo concept of God was incorrect. I went as far as establishing a new religious philosophy I called "Deitology". When my book was published, a small group of people challenged me that I would find Jesus Christ. I asked them to give Him my phone number and to have Him call me when He was ready to talk. So they started praying for me. 16 months later, I begged Jesus to come into my life and help me. Now I'm writing a new book called "No Longer a Prisoner of the Mind". It's main theses is that science and spirituality are really just two sides of the same coin. Science is the car you drive to the mall to go shopping. Spirituality is your legs that must walk you into the store you want to shop from. That journey to the mall doesn't end in the parking lot. If it ends in the parking lot for you, you know you are going home empty handed.

"I knew a man briefly who was a scientist who worked on satelites and rockets. He also was a Christian with a deep relationship with the Lord. He said that it was actual his study of science that furthered his awe and respect for God. He said the more he studied the more he couldn't deny God because of the amazing complexity and beauty of God's creation. He said he actually didn't understand why more scientists didn't come to the same conclusion. "

It is because it is all explainable without pseudo science or paranormal explanations. This man used the same logical fallacy that the person who wrote that Watchmaker book made. The one that Richard Dawkins wrote about in the Blind Watchmaker.

The original book said something along the lines that if you saw a watch on the beach, you wouldn't think it got there by random chance, or something ridiculous like that. It was supposed to be a bright analogy to evolution, but it was more or less a joke.

From my perspective, as a Baha'i, the concept of God does not contradict the laws of science. Furthermore, a harmony of both science and religion is necessary.

Well, I did in fact take a gander at the Catholic Encyclopedia and once again was surprised at the level of factual denial and/or manipulation that the church is obviously willing to promote. A couple quotes from it appear below.

“The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.”

“The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.”

As you can see Allan, while it may seem quite funny that a church could suddenly choose to ignore centuries of its own hard core doctrine (7 days of creation and all that rot), this attempt to reconcile science with the catholic belief once again obviously requires choosing that big leap of faith I spoke of previously as well as choosing to ignore far more plausible reasoning regarding the origins and evolution of life. I won’t get into the creationist nuts who believe we all used to ride around on dinosaurs but you get my drift and I hope you can see that your blinders are presently functioning quite well.

I knew a man briefly who was a scientist who worked on satelites and rockets. He also was a Christian with a deep relationship with the Lord. He said that it was actual his study of science that furthered his awe and respect for God. He said the more he studied the more he couldn't deny God because of the amazing complexity and beauty of God's creation. He said he actually didn't understand why more scientists didn't come to the same conclusion.

Joe ... why don't you take a look what the catholic encyclopedia has to say on evoltion? Its a well rounded,well investigated, factually correct and scientifically astute piece of work and states all the science factually...perhaps your view of "faith" is of someone who runs around with blinkers on and unable to manage a bit of heuristic thinking without the reins of the church being used to guide. Man are you living in the 1600's or what because your way of thinking is truly anachronistic and luddite.

God could exist if the spelling was changed to Good. But the unquestioning belief in a God has rarely lead to good. Zeus exists, like the god of Abraham, or Moses - in mythology and stories.
God and science coexist like the scientific study of unicorn horns. Science did not start this war, but has had the most causalities. We are finally standing up and questioning. Questioning is the most feared thing to the religious.
Science is questioning, religions are based on blind faith. The two are completely incompatible.

Science is based in rational thought, methodical experimentation, a continuous quest for knowledge and above all else, a logical search for the truth. Religion is grounded in faith which by definition, is not logic based whatsoever. The divide between the two can be witnessed anytime there is a discussion between a logical person and a faith based person with eventually the faith based argument coming down to “I believe it because I believe it no matter what evidence is before me”. That “leap” away from rationality, if you will, is what always eventually makes the two incompatible and the argument ultimately pointless.

Religious teachings under such transparent guises of “intelligent design” and whatnot are simply ruses. ID as an example, is such a weak and foolish idea it doesn’t even deserve to be seriously discussed at all and cannot be remotely entertained by anyone with a degree of intelligence. But then again, intelligence itself has never been something religion has celebrated or even really encouraged at its core. Obedience perhaps but there are certainly no commandments instructing the faithful to build schools of higher learning or to seek out the truths of the universe beyond the narrow degrees of that particular faith.

People who claim that science and religion can coexist well are either living in denial or do not understand that science is something that contains an inherent curiosity and even duty to explain as much as it can at a given point in time. That has placed science and religion on opposite sides of the table many times in the past and thankfully, science has often won out. If it had not I suppose we would still think that the sun revolved around the Earth and many of us would already be dead from various preventable diseases.

Here is a quote in summation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.
I think that science and religion have much room to coexist.

"The spiritual world, by definition, is "supernatural" and therefore cannot be measured or influenced by science, which deals with the natural world."

No, supernatural essentially means fake. Science deals with reality. There is a reason supernatural phenom can't be measured. That's because it doesn't exist.

"But as long as you aren't hurting anyone else, you should be free to believe in whatever unprovable supernatural ideas you like."

Unfortunately, people have the ability to believe in the supernatural, called pseudo science, that will harm people. You'll often (well, I do, maybe not you) read about some person whos kid is killed because they sent him to some pseudo science healer (faith, magnets, herbs etc). The belief in things that are clearly wrong can be dangerous.

"Similarly, the veracity of evolution does not prove there is or is not a God. "

It definately shows that the word of God, aka the Bible, is dead wrong. We couldn't have been made in his image if we evolved. Also, the world is older than 6000 years, another Bible part proven wrong.

To keep it simply, if God is life,
the truth and the way, then, it is
safe to say the SCIENCE is part of life , which in turn is God,- religion.

Just don t complicate the issue.

Science is proof of a fact, while god or religion is the belief there is a fact.

Sure they can coexist, just as dogs and car tires can coexist. The only caveat is don't try to mix them together or you've got a problem.

To be clearer on this, I'd say religion would have to accept a back seat to coexist with science.

The problem that raises, however, is that scientists aren't generally considered out spoken, or aggressive. Most prefer to stay well within their own field of expertise for very good reason. They realize finding fact in one discipline is difficult enough without having to speak on behalf of other sciences.

Those who lead in the religious world seldom worry about such things because to them the world is all one big god project.

It includes the earth, the heavens and just about everything else except evil, which the gods apparently subcontracted out to Lucifer some time ago.

Some years ago I was asked "Can science be used to prove the existence of God?" In part I answered as follows:
The question of a supreme being has occupied mankind ever since he has been able to ponder the significance of his existence and ask "Who am I?", "How is it that I am aware of my own self?" and "What happens to me when I die?" among others, in whatever language/s he/she/they use/s.

These questions are unanswerable; they also are central to the questions you are asking. When I say they are unanswerable, I mean that unambiguous answers that are provable to all people are not possible. Answers are of course provided in many different ways and contexts - most of them would be called religious. This of course, means that the answers are matters of belief and faith, not physics. Physics may be defined as that body of knowledge which attempts to explain the physical universe around us in ways that allow for extrapolation to new, but contiguous, provable experience. This definition excludes any explanation of what we have called spiritual experience. Spiritual experience, therefore, must be what we experience inside our heads as perceptions, which have no physical counterpart in the so-called real world. This question has been at the core of the deliberations of the great philosophers for centuries past - and will be for centuries to come.

Now, what do I think about all this?

Very briefly, it is my belief (here we go again!) that God exists only as a perception within human minds and has no other significance or existence. "He" or "She" exists only when and where we, that is people, think of "Her". By this definition heaven and hell do not exist either. If that is so, what happens when we die? George Wald (a Nobel Laureate) in a series of CBC lectures entitled "Therefore Choose Life" described our individual lives as existing as beads on an infinite string or thread - the beads come and go, but are always part of an infinite existence.

No absolutely not. Religions are just a farce. Science delineates truth and reality which is totally separate and different from religion. Nothing about the two is compatible.

Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, certainly thinks so. Check out "The Language of God:.

My father, with a PhD in Plant Science, certainly did.

Gerhard Dirks, inventor of magnetic storage (read: hard drives), certainly did. (See: The Dirk's Escape")

Isaac Newton certainly did.

I was very disappointed with the unbalanced nature of this radio piece (the so-called science-religion "war").

The commentary focused exclusively on claims of academic bigotry (by the scientific establishment) against those who seek evidence for a supernatural agent in life origins and the diversity of life. The other side of the argument -- that such pursuits are not science -- was ignored.

I know of no ‘big science’ conspiracy against creationism or its offshoot, intelligent design. (Just try to get a group of scientists to agree on anything!)

Most biological scientists ARE however, frustrated with the creationist-ID crowd's relentless subversion of scientific methods, and casual dismissal of vast amounts of hard-won scientific facts and knowledge.

For reasons of intellectual honesty alone, it is important to keep supernatural studies out of publicly-funded science classrooms and scientific research institutions.

That said, I have no problem whatsoever with the establishment of any number of private supernatural-research institutions and Ghost Busters franchises. Kids will love them.

If correcting the creationist's same old out-of-date information, misinformation, and out-of-context quotes (regarding science and evolution) constitutes a "war." Then so be it.

Religion can only exist with science if it is willing to change as new scientific discoveries show the truth about the universe around us.

The only religious belief structure open to such change is Atheism.

Religion and science are two different aspects of our lives, they are not in competition. Religion is based on the existence of things we cannot prove, while science is based on proving the existence of things. Whether or not God exists has no impact on the development of a cure for Alzheimer's or on whether or not mixing two particular chemicals together will produce a particular compound. Similarly, the veracity of evolution does not prove there is or is not a God. The spiritual world, by definition, is "supernatural" and therefore cannot be measured or influenced by science, which deals with the natural world.

Anyway, most of religion boils down to "don't do stuff to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you" and if we all followed that rule, the world would be a better place. People shouldn't kill each other or take away each others' rights based on some idea that nobody can prove -- death or harm is self-evident and we must all base our daily lives on what we know to be true through observation or measurement; since there are so many different unprovable ideas it is truly evil to cause harm to others based on them. But as long as you aren't hurting anyone else, you should be free to believe in whatever unprovable supernatural ideas you like.

Creationism, in the guise of intelligent design (ID), suffered a knock-out blow through the judgment rendered in Kitzmiller vs. Dover (USA) in 2005. The 139 page finding of fact written by the Bush-appointed Judge John Jones should be required reading for any journalist researching the subject.

In the trial, the (Christian) creationist pedigree of the ID movement was laid bare. It's proponents sought to redefine "science" so that it might somehow include the untestable claims of ID, and for that matter, astrology.

These creationist clowns have lost every legal challenge to their efforts to have their biblical views taught as science in the classroom. This film represents a slightly different tactic - framing the ID movement as victims of "Big Science". I suspect the film doesn't mention ID's perfect (losing) record in US courts.

The basis of any religion is dogma that cannot be questioned. Science is based on evidence on which ever changing theories are constructed. How then can they be integrated?

Well, through science, we have proven many of the bible stories wrong. Debunked several shrouds and pieces of the cross. We've found out you can't crucify a person in the manner described.

I think God as described in the bible cannot exist within the realms of science. If the bibles were truely the word of God, they shouldn't contain so many errors.