Humans aren't animals.

[Ipecac Drano]

What I meant was that because one is religious, does not mean one has to throw out science. I certainly don't, and I am religious. Maybe using the term mutually exclusive was technically incorrect, but I was using it to get the point that religion and science can coexist.

As I had pointed out, they really can't coexist.

Evolutionary theory doesn't state how the world was initially created after all, just how species evolved over time. So one could in theory believe that their god(s) started the creation of the universe/world, but natural processes as science understands them did the rest, this has no effect on the science of evolutionary theory, only the theory of how the universe came into existence (There's a word for it and for the life of me I can't think of it). So one can argue for the science of evolutionary theory, while still having faith in a religion.

That works for a religious person accepting science, but, again, it doesn't work out on the scientific side as one must have to assume first that there is a God rather than science turning up evidence that one exists.

[muses_nightmare]

But they can coexist. They do in fact, many religions do not argue the validity of science. How the gods play into things is of no relevance to science, they don't need to be proven, faith and science are separate yes, but you don't have to abandon one for the other.

The definition of coexist is:

1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy

The second definition may not fit with some of the more fundamentalist views of certain religions, but the two things can in fact exist together, and frankly fundie views aren't what I look to as an example of a religion. Many religions accept science, including some Christian sects.

[Ipecac Drano]

But they can coexist. They do in fact, many religions do not argue the validity of science. How the gods play into things is of no relevance to science, they don't need to be proven, faith and science are separate yes, but you don't have to abandon one for the other.

The definition of coexist is:

1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy

The second definition may not fit with some of the more fundamentalist views of certain religions, but the two things can in fact exist together, and frankly fundie views aren't what I look to as an example of a religion. Many religions accept science, including some Christian sects.

Even though you gave a dictionary definition of the word "coexist", that doesn't mean that the two concepts are indeed coexisting. Sure, some religions accept science, but they keep it on a separate shelf.

[Plaidman]

Buddism is a religion that accepts both science and religion. There's some coexisting there.

[muses_nightmare]

Coexist doesn't mean that they have to be the same thing, just that they exist in the same place at the same time, and they do. I know of many people who believe that evolution is the work of a divine force, not in the way that the Christians interpret it either. Science doesn't need to prove religion in order for it to exist, because it already exists. You seem to be assuming that because I'm not an atheist that I can't believe in science as well as my religion. My beliefs are a lot about the afterlife, ancestor veneration, and the gods watching over us. It is not about disproving scientific fact, in fact, science is embraced in my faith, as it is in many non-mainstream religions, and even some mainstream ones.

[Sage Blackthorn]

But they can coexist. They do in fact, many religions do not argue the validity of science. How the gods play into things is of no relevance to science, they don't need to be proven, faith and science are separate yes, but you don't have to abandon one for the other.

The definition of coexist is:

1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy

The second definition may not fit with some of the more fundamentalist views of certain religions, but the two things can in fact exist together, and frankly fundie views aren't what I look to as an example of a religion. Many religions accept science, including some Christian sects.

I was always told growing up that "Faith" and "Science" are opposite sides of the same coin. That any religion that believes in a creator should welcome scientific enquiry into the universe to better understand their diety. I was also told that science without spriitually was cold and empty, while spirituality without science was impotent and powerless. Lastly, I was taught never to just believe what's written in any holy book solely because it's written in a holy book. I think the phrase was "The gods do not write what they write in books penned by the hands of men. The gods write what they write in the world they created, there to be read by all who have the eyes to see it." In this respect, scientific enquiry into how the world works can be viewed as a most holy pursuit. Where science seeks to understand how something works, spiritality should always be asking why such a natural law is there in the first place? What purpose does it serve? In this way, we "read what the gods write in the world around us" and seek to understand them.

[Ipecac Drano]

Step by step:

Coexist doesn't mean that they have to be the same thing, just that they exist in the same place at the same time, and they do.

On the religion side of the coin, yes. Not on the scientific.

I know of many people who believe that evolution is the work of a divine force, not in the way that the Christians interpret it either. Science doesn't need to prove religion in order for it to exist, because it already exists. You seem to be assuming that because I'm not an atheist that I can't believe in science as well as my religion. My beliefs are a lot about the afterlife, ancestor veneration, and the gods watching over us. It is not about disproving scientific fact, in fact, science is embraced in my faith, as it is in many non-mainstream religions, and even some mainstream ones.

Yet again, I understand that some religions accept science. What you're ignoring is that science doesn't make room for religion.

[Plaidman]

Yet again, I understand that some religions accept science. What you're ignoring is that science doesn't make room for religion.

*cough* Scientology *cough*

[Ipecac Drano]

*cough* Scientology *cough*

*fart* Pseudoscientific religion *fart*

[muses_nightmare]

How does science not make room for religion? How does that matter? They are two concepts, one of which is based off of human experience, one based off of testing. Philosophy and science coexist do they not? Same difference.

like I said, coexistence does not mean one can disprove the other or whatever, just that they both exist at the same time, and that they can do so peacefully. Coexisting and merging together (for lack of a better word) are two different things. No one is asking that they merge, but they can coexist. You get my point? Science can accept that religion exists, because science is not a being, it is something that is done by people, therefore those people can in fact accept that religion exists, maybe they don't believe it's true, but it exists because people have created it. This isn't a debate about whether religion is real or not, just the fact that the concept and practice exist, and they do.

[Ipecac Drano]

How does science not make room for religion?

I already covered that.

How does that matter? They are two concepts, one of which is based off of human experience, one based off of testing. Philosophy and science coexist do they not?

No.

Same difference.

You're half-right; the latter half.

like I said, coexistence does not mean one can disprove the other or whatever, just that they both exist at the same time, and that they can do so peacefully.

Disproving wasn't the issue, and although they can exist in religion, they don't in science.

Coexisting and merging together (for lack of a better word) are two different things. No one is asking that they merge, but they can coexist. You get my point?

The point is whether or not they are mutually exclusive. Although religion is inclusive of science, science has no place for religion.

Science can accept that religion exists, because science is not a being, it is something that is done by people, therefore those people can in fact accept that religion exists, maybe they don't believe it's true, but it exists because people have created it.

That makes as much sense as the closing stanza from "Strangers in the Night".

This isn't a debate about whether religion is real or not, just the fact that the concept and practice exist, and they do.

I never said that religion is real or not, nor that the concept and practice exist. It's about whether or not science has room for something that is based strictly on belief.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Inclusive is a poor word to describe co-existence.

It's not about whether or not they can include one another, it's about whether or not they can exist in the same "place" as the other, and they both can because they don't overlap. It's trying to get them to do so that causes problems.

A religious person accepting evolution as a fact about their world unaffected by their deity is a coexistence, but so too is a scientist accepting that the existence of a deity is unaffected by their discoveries.

Point being that science does make room for religion because there are areas outside of science. Logically speaking, that which is not explained by scientific fact can be explained though religious faith without a contradiction.

Oil and water don't mix but they can sit next to each other without destroying one another.

[KabeRinnaul]

The (lack of) logic and reasoning behind it is the whole "creationism vs. evolution" debate. Chances are, the people that discussed it are creationists and dismiss the evolutionary theory as a load of bull.

That logic doesn't have a monopoly on religious thinking. The argument you'll hear from many Catholics is that the soul of a human being is different from the soul of an animal, and on a higher order. It is for this reason we should hold ourselves to a standard that would make no sense for an animal. However, it's easy to argue that it's not the nature of the human soul versus the animal soul that causes the distinction, but simply that humans are the only species on this planet (that we know of) advanced enough to engage in introspection and come up with morality.

Could science be tolerated by religion? Sure. But being able to tolerate something is much different than integrating and reconciling it; especially when the integration and reconciliation is supposed to be mutual.

You do realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a religious person to truly accept science unless science proves religion, right?

Yet again, I understand that some religions accept science. What you're ignoring is that science doesn't make room for religion.

Why must it? Deism is a religious concept, but it more or less just places God as the force that sparked the Big Bang. Everything after that point can follow entirely scientific thought. Or what of the rather common idea that God merely directs things in a general sense? That evolution, from the primordial ooze to humanity, took place, but followed paths as directed by an outside force?

The point is whether or not they are mutually exclusive. Although religion is inclusive of science, science has no place for religion.

The fact that science and religion are not mutually inclusive does not equate to them being mutually exclusive. In the end, religion is simply unnecessary for science. True, no science requires the inclusion of God. However, no science requires the exclusion of God, either.

[Ipecac Drano]

Inclusive is a poor word to describe co-existence.

It's not about whether or not they can include one another, it's about whether or not they can exist in the same "place" as the other, and they both can because they don't overlap. It's trying to get them to do so that causes problems.

I can accept that, but there are others who believe that they overlap.

Point being that science does make room for religion because there are areas outside of science. Logically speaking, that which is not explained by scientific fact can be explained though religious faith without a contradiction.

But science doesn't plug in unexplained holes with a spiritual being.

Oil and water don't mix but they can sit next to each other without destroying one another.

But on your last statement, you implied that they mix.

You do realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a religious person to truly accept science unless science proves religion, right?

I realize that you either misunderstood me or are taking what I had said out of context.

Why must it? Deism is a religious concept, but it more or less just places God as the force that sparked the Big Bang.

Really?! I didn't know that was an established fact. Tell me the name(s) of the scientist(s) who had won the Nobel Prize for making that discovery.

Everything after that point can follow entirely scientific thought. Or what of the rather common idea that God merely directs things in a general sense? That evolution, from the primordial ooze to humanity, took place, but followed paths as directed by an outside force?

Intelligent Design is neither; it doesn't hold up under scientific testing.

The fact that science and religion are not mutually inclusive does not equate to them being mutually exclusive. In the end, religion is simply unnecessary for science. True, no science requires the inclusion of God. However, no science requires the exclusion of God, either.

Sure it does. Again, if science doesn't know something, they don't plug the hole with God. Since science doesn't do that, one cannot say that they are not mutually exclusive.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

What you are saying Ipecac is that Science doesn't make religion it's business, but that is in no way required for coexistance.

If something is not explained by science, than it can be explained by religion without any contradiction. Whether or not an individual chooses to do so is a moot point, it can be done. Therefore, coexistence is possible.

You seem to imply that, since scientists don't make it their business to address faith, science is anathema to faith. Which is quite the non-seqitur because faith and science are separate fields. Those specializing in one tend not to dabble in the other, by and large, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty who do have an interest in both, to say nothing of the people outside of either who accept the teachings of both.

It's like oil and water, they can't mix together, and will occupy different areas when placed in the same container, but they don't destroy each other.