Dear Kayode,

The first word in the Quran (the holly book of Muslims) is READ. So as a Muslim and researcher i can't see any contradiction between science and religion. I think, Science help us to believe in  GOD .

Best regards

Latreuch

Dear Kayode,

your question has at least two levels. 1th: Can a believer and a non-believer or a non-believer and a believer come to the same scientific results? I say yes! In the christian religion is described that god loves all people.

2nd: Disabled religion science? I say no! Because we try to recognize God's world and thus the legal relationships, at least of the physics and chemistry etc.

All the best

Michael Lersow

Dear Kayode,

The first word in the Quran (the holly book of Muslims) is READ. So as a Muslim and researcher i can't see any contradiction between science and religion. I think, Science help us to believe in  GOD .

Best regards

Latreuch

The following quotes well represents my thought about the relationship between science and religion:

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual... The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." — Carl Sagan (1934–1996) American astrophysicist

"From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." — William H. Bragg (1862–1942) British physicist, chemist, and mathematician. Awarded Nobel Prize in 1915

"I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influence in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery." — Walter Kohn (1923–) American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998

(Chosen from "Science And Religion Quotes: What World’s Greatest Scientists Say About God" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/science-and-religion-quotes-scientists-god_n_1182521.html)

Science is meant to find out the nature of materials or non-livings and living beings and think for material development, disease free life, production of food stuffs. Religion is to device and teach the living beings to follow a code of conduct for a harmonious living on this earth.

Good morning , I am also a science person and have the habit of thinking factually. But with this also i believe that definitely something unknown is always there .

You have to think of the possibility of  facts in the hypothesis and proceed forward. In the same way there is an unexplored power known as GOD and I do have faith in that supreme power.

The brain ,heart and our mind are kept in harmony with this power ....

Science and religion are thus like two circles which intersect or partially overlap. Science deals with facts and religion deals with faith. Science encounters metaphysical problems which religion can help to solve. Religion furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish. Religion can help to adjudicate between scientific theories.

There are no contradictions whatsoever. God is a scientist in an extraordinary way. He empowers us to become better scientists. Well to some extent, opposing forces had hijacked this notion and used it in a way to sabotage and turn peoples consciousness of a Supreme God away from their heart. It is quite right dangerous to ever think that mere human inventions/cleverness can ever substitute the 'WORD' of God. 

There is no contradiction between science and the unknowable, no. I don't see where science can disprove the existence of God, or the supernatural, since it cannot observe these things, by definition. Supernatural.

But, there is certainly a difference between the practice of science and religious practice. Come now. What religions teach is not something that can be proven, measured, or replicated independently. Let's not be disingenuous.

Religion begins with the certainty that ancient religious texts are accurate, and in some sects and denominations 100 percent accurate, and then proceeds from there. The answer to any question cycles back to the religious text. Any proof cycles back to that same text.

So no, this is nothing like science. Or we would never have had a shred of doubt about cold fusion.

We need to start to differentiate between religion and sorcery and Denominations based on religion mythology. The harmony between science and the religion is found as the heavenly messages are open to science and feed it and feed from it. It is fed from science as science approaches religion to the listeners. Also, religion contains many of ideas of what can be studied and discussed. The second community which its religion based of legends and stories they do not recognize the flag, so no harmonic can be existed between them.

Regards

Hi Albert,

I am agree with in first part of your answer. But what do you want explain with the second part of your answer? This is not an answer of the question! is it not equal if one believes at the big bang or at any god? Faith is faith! We know no much from our environment and there is it no matter if you believe at god or at the big bang. We are all seekers and faith at the trinity is very helpful.

Good sunday

Michael Lersow

Kayode in fact you explained facts 'Science believes in reality, while religion emphasizes faith'. If come to the second part 'Is it possible to harmonized the two' opinion varies from person to person. George Stoica said 'I did not find any contradiction between these facts'. Probably broad mind is needed to think like that.

I too believe in God/Supernatural power very strongly but my opinion differs Science never go/harmonize with Religion. It is a fact whether people agree or not.

Development is always there (if you follow religion or not) at the same time we watch anti-social activities always (current Middle-East situation). This Universe always have variation otherwise it cannot exist as well as cannot move ahead. 

I agree that "faith is faith," Michael. In religion, you simply accept something as a matter of faith, not provably as a matter of fact.

On your question about the big bang, no, it's not the same as believing in God. First off, the big bang is not something anyone is compelled to "believe in." It is one theory that the measurements appear to support. It could be totally disproven tomorrow.

Same with anything else in science. Even if the man in the street "believes in" some scientific theory, such as gravity or evolution, this hardly means that science treats these theories as religious dogma. In science, these theories are modified and updated as the scientific evidence suggests. Just like the Bohr atom, just like Newtonian physics, the theories are not frozen in time, governed only by some ancient text.

Science thrives on critical thinking. Critical thinking is a threat to religion, for the most part. Religion requires a good dose of suspension of disbelief. So no, there is not a lot of similarity.

I think the two need to be compartmentalized in one's mind. What puzzles me is why so many people seem to want science and religion to be the same thing? Or to be very similar? Why the angst?

Dear Kayode Asaju

Thanks.

Yes, Science and religions have core differences in their mood / methodologies & philosophy of practices. Science can grow with new information, religions cant, science do believe on cause and effects, for religions its not the requirements. Science adopt change in knowledge after learning, religions cant. Science is dynamic, Religions are static. In Science all human are equal to participate, contribute, and in treatment. In religions only the religion fellows have such rights in practical. Science is with out the hypocritical differences between theory and practical, but in religions there are. Science do believe human for human approach, religions do believe human for god approach. Science provided solutions of creature`s everyday problems and make advancement with creation of new information etc. religions are resistive or quite on the matter. Science have no wish to rule on people but religions do.

Religions always make sure the under-control and restrictive allowance of thinking but science do believe on free thinking

Science always accepted if facts in some part of religious educations but religions never accept science even if open facts are in contradiction with religious educations.

In short among diversity of religions the key focus of backend philosophy is human for god, love and hate matrix according to religious need, life after death, heaven and hell, human rights as according to sacred books and so on......In science the key focus is human for human & humanity in NOW.

Regards,

Thank you, Albert,

Speak from the Big Bang as a theory it is certainly wrong. There is a hypothesis that then comes with a very large number of assumptions to conclude that so life could have originated on Earth.

It's not far-fetched to believe in a God who created the earth.

At least we could agree on it that this is very good succeeded.

All the best

only in a sense that Religion presumes a belief that the target of scientific research is attainable

Best Regards

There is no difference between Science and Religion in a broad sense, while science is trying for material development and well being of human race; religion is for mental & spiritual development of all of us. We all have to work hand in hand for survival and development of our fellow beings. 

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

— Albert Einstein

There is no conflict between science and religion, because religion deals with humanity and science easy living and serving humanity so that the two can contribute to the development

Dear Latreuch, dear Raid Salih, I am agree with you, because in the Bibel, the holy book of christians it is written: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God...." I believe that every researcher becomes earlier or later a believer because he gains knowledges with God's rules.

All the best

Michael Lersow

I agree with Raid that there need be no conflict between science and religion. The conflict is manufactured, only when religious text is read very, very literally.

But still, even though I believe that no conflict needs to exist, this does not make science and religion the same. In science, we have to question, doubt, explain, replicate, quantify. In religion, we have to accept. Quite different.

Science is developing, while religion is deteriorating

Science lead to believe in God. The more you learn via scientific proves, the more you discover the power of God. This happened with many scientists who believed in God via their scientific research. Albert Einstein wrote by the end of his life that he believes that the world has one God. 

Dear Eman,

I think the same. The more a person recognizes how the world (the environment) is structured, as beautiful, systematic, sensible, the more pronounced is his knowledge that this only a creator can have built.

All the best..

Yes they can and in the way I look at the logical order of the Universe there is a higher order in the Universe.

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

― Stephen Hawking

“In your country and mine we should have the privilege of making fun of this kind of morality, but it would be unkind to do it here.Many of these people have the reasoning faculty, but no one uses it in religious matters.”

― Mark Twain

Subhash,

In my science I have found that there is a way to prove that a higher order exists scientifically.  You only need two facts.

1) Matter Exists.

2) Gravity works on Matter.

Just given these two things any scientist starting from almost any starting configuration that is starting with small parts of matter will come up with a Galaxy and eventually a Universe that looks just like ours only using math and the current understanding that we have.

This indicated that from chaos comes order.  The existence of a higher order in the Universe is therefore confirmed mathematically and scientifically.

No matter what you call it this order exists and yet we still deny that it is there.  The science says that it is and it does not matter what you call this order..... 

It's like string theory, which of the 10^27 vacuums should one believe in? I choose none. 

"The Goal of Science is understanding lawful relations among natural phenomena.

Religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning."

---- Ian Barbour

Science is for knowing the facts of nature and religion is for living harmoniously with family,friends and neighbour.

Very interesting few comments are observed in this series. Science never contradict with religion. It is a matter of logic and reality of an individual.

Science is reason base development and religion is only personal belief. As long as science is not proved, so long it is hypothetical science to prove. But religion is of imaginary concept of so many possibility as much as the number of population. If there is no logic, but belief only that have to follow by others by force, then it develops  dominance-factor or fanaticism. Most of the present dominant Religions are just forced-development for extended-population. A science never supports it.

The said concept must be clear to the religious-individuals, otherwise the civilization must die of self-killings. No Science can save it. 

I see that Religion (or even, just the belief in (a) god) could be compatible with Science; but I do not see that Science (w/o great discussion of the definition/'nature' of science and existence of 'objective reality') is compatible with Religion. That said...

I once thought that belief in GOD was purely a "feelings" endeavor (that somehow people "perceived" such...); but as I've aged (and my experience of the world enlarged...) I know that just as often GOD is also reached through "rational" methods (even if those "methods" are not purely deductive).

About myself specifically, I  can say that I neither "feel" (rather, BELIEVE) there is a "god" (or "purpose" or prime directive... )NOR do I "think" it... But I see that others do either/both believe and think god co-incidently.

That said, along the lines with what several others have said, I have no doubt about (say) gravity (even its invariance...). If pressed though, I have "doubt" about the existence of a god (or power or purpose or...). HOWEVER, I mostly DON'T care about the issue ... except to say that I LEARN from EVERYONE. I find that mostly peoples' observations are good (some better than others, of course...) BUT they (including mine) often fall short of accurate conclusion.  I learn ALOT from listening to others' observations about (whatever) their experiences ("peer approved" or not); but recognize that we often do not agree on "first causes" (even if we could really "do the math"...as it were). And mostly, (unless we are required to be "very strict" about everything..) such thoughts are not a hindrance to me.

In the work I do (far, far from speculation about "first causes" or "purpose" of existence ...) I almost never have to think seriously about this. But if you asked if I believed and/or thought god, my answer falls somewhere (philosophically) between "no" and "I don't care" (being clear I do not NOT care either...) But the specific question of how the two ideas (of god and science) are harmonized I would be compelled to note that I  would have to  be blind NOT to see that at least the idea of "god" might be operationally useful. Even to Science ('cause, gee, scientists  start "somewhere"...even if later...).While I also see (of course) that  the idea of "god" is not necessary ...

Everything starts in the head, there must be a certain coherence instead of oppositions

The reason why science is not eager to believe in the quantum brain is because it comes all very close to the idea of god. But the idea of god is not the same as religion which is based on power and war, the negation of women. .

I already responded on the third page. However, given the re-invitation, let me make a more succinct response:

The main contradiction between science and religion is that science has to question and verify independently, constantly, whereas religion shuts off all independent questioning and verification.

All you have to do is read comments like "because God wants it this way," to get an abundantly clear example of the difference. Such thinking cannot exist in science. It would stop scientific research in a heartbeat.

Science cannot demonstrate or verify the existence of God, and let alone the fine-tuned notions of God that the different religions create for themselves. Which means, science can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of a God. So it becomes a non-subject, in science. Out of scope.

Religion is mostly related to God. In my opinion there is God and if one tries to see Him. he can visualize Him but can not show Him to others. This is the basic principle to build and purify one's personality and capability. Great men like Jesus Christ, Goutam Budh, Prophet Mohamed have grown in like manner. This idea is developed from Hinduism philosophy and Hlndu View of Life. 

I don't think there's any contradiction between the two and the two can definitely lead to Economic development if everyone is ready to play his or her role

Is there any contradiction between science and religion.? Can the two be harmonized to achieve development?

I don't see contradiction between science & religion yet but instead I might want to "hypothesize" science (as a domain still growing) might be subset of religion.  Reason being there are certain phenomena mentioned in scripture can be explained by science e.g. how the rainbow first being mentioned in scripture vs how the rainbow can be explained by science through light refraction from raindrops.  However, there are certain things mentioned in scripture e.g. walking on water / anti-gravity still not being discovered or explained by science yet (but it doesn't mean that this is not possible in future).  May be time can be the witness for all of us.

Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the universe.

Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”

― Richard Feynman

Resp. Dr. Asaju,

The development of the world could be achieved by religiously working on science and scientifically following the religion!

Science is required for development of the nation and religion is required for overall development of the nation.

Science and religion are compatible.Science and Dogma are not.

Nikola Tesla(1856-1943).

Religion believes in reality and science believes in reality, too. there is not any contradiction between science and religion.

No contradiction. Just work at different scales of analysis?

Example:

Processes that differ at the level of cells differ from those of tissue that differ from those of organs that differ from those of the biological body that differ from those of the.....?

Rita,

Powerful answer. 

In theory we all come close together in reality our countries and religions are living is war, cold war, or forced collaboration. In between science tries to stay neutral but forgot to build in a moral range for the applications. Soon the robots will tell us the story.

It is difficult to generalize about theology and its contribution to the dialogue between religion and science; this because theology subverts science or humanism and the sense of certainty by showing what science cannot illuminate and insisting about the weakness of humans to discover their faith.

Dear Kayode:

According to an important sociological line of thought, social spreading of scientific thinking would result in the decline of religion. In practice, things seem to be much more complex. On the one side, mainly in Europe, the decline of traditional religion is accompanied by the rise of new forms of religious spirit. On the other hand, traditional religion has gained new strength from its role as an essential component of identities of individuals and groups .Although "organized religion" may face problems, it is likely that the religious spirit is an inseparable aspect of human existence.

From my perspective the reconciliation is attained via the six principles of 'The Recent Complex Creation Framework'

where science is defined as: the highest probability explanation of the natural observations in maximum available context.

Chapter The Moshe Emes 'RCCF' - The Recent Complex Creation Framewor...

Actually there is no contradiction between science and religion. As all religions in the world were established on scientific facts known that day. Customs, rituals and belief -  are another factors of religions. Belief (faith) is initiated if the society has no clear answer. Customs and rituals are repeated by the people in a society as people honour their predecessors and also think that these are tested by times. 

When flow of a religion retards or slows down, people starts to hold the beliefs and customs of previous times as they do not want to test another theory. Sometime a benefiting group within the society opposes such changes.

New religions/sects are originated if the previous fail to interpret some new facts or new facts are established after prove.

Earlier people estimated that the sun was stagnant and the earth as flat. But new science proved it wrong.

It takes time to reach scientific theories to the masses. As I think.

Dear Asaju 

Always the religion call for progress and development and gave many scientific issues and solutions that make the development of humanity actual reality.

Regards 

In the western wold, in the past there were some disputes between religion and science. In the present there is a consensus (see for instance the positions of Pope Francis).

Theologians believe that where science (philosophy) ends, religion begins. Both move in the same direction of search for the ultimate explanation of all things. The emperical approach of science which  is focused on material forms can only be complemented with a 'top down approach'.

Science is a religion.

I know that is a broad statement but if one looks at the definition of a religion there are many points that can be shown to be direct correlation to a religion.  Even to include some blind respect for the authorities in the religion.   

On the most basic of definitions science is a religion. 

 Dear George,

 In line with your answer above, since science is a religion, then religion is a science. So what is the place of faith which constitutes the bedrock of religion.? can scientific findings be based on faith?   

The way to look at this is by looking back at history.  The credo that brought the world in to the dark ages was    "Credo ut intelligam’" (understanding can come only through belief) this type of thinking lead the world in to what we called the dark ages for a reason. 

When one blindly believes understanding is forsaken and truth is irrelevant.  This means that one can be lead to make deadly mistakes as people that think they are inspired by a God make up the rules.  Only in a simplistic world where people do not have brains does this work or in the animal kingdom where one has to be faster stronger or they will die out. (Survival of the fittest)  We are thousands of years past that stage in human development, yet we were going down that path for hundreds of years before the Enlightenment. 

What brought us out of the dark ages in to the Enlightenment was "Intelligo ut credam" (belief can come only through understanding.)  This means that a person that has a brain has to understand reality to be able to believe in anything real.

The faith is in that we will understand one day "Why" all this is important.

We can only have this planet to use until the sun burns out, something hit us and wipes out life, or we find a way to move to another planet that will last longer.  If we choose not to pursue this we are just a flash in the pan that will only have a trace of evidence floating in space that may or may not be found someday by other life forms.  In other words there was not reason for us to have existed. 

However if we believe there is a reason for all this and there is an order in the Universe that we are a part of then we must push forward and we will be the higher life form discovering other life forms that may have thought there was no reason to exist.

As a scientist I know there is a higher order in the Universe and I have reason to believe that we are called to lead the charge to survive by understanding as much as possible of the World, Space, and the Universe.  We are the only creatures on this planet that we know of that are capable of changing our environment and surviving when other species would have died out. 

We are here for a reason and that is to move through the Universe and exist as part of the higher order that has always been here.

Faith in the fact that we are suppose to understand reality in order to advance the search for truth.  We have a brain for a reason.  Nothing that I believe in tells me to stop learning.

George Van Hoesen

Thank you for that wonderfuf exposition. I believed in imortality and science had proved it.

Thanks for sharing.

“The very idea that there is some kind of conflict between science and religion is completely mistaken. Science is a method for investigating experience... Religion is the fundamental, necessary internalization of our system of more permanent values.”

―Carroll Quigley

Regards

Dear Kayode,

I say that the Catholic faith is also based on reality, and I prefer to do not talk of other religions where the confidence in persons over realities are more distant of reality.

I do not see a contradiction. However, science and religion will have their own particular ways of making sense of the world and these are not the same. What is interesting is putting the two together in dialogue to see what can be learnt from these differences in knowing and being.

The science & technological development in our present time have offered the entire human beings all the amnesties which our people in around 19 century had never given though off .

Due to the development in the field of science we have come to know regarding the entry of moon & mars in our space environment  .To this thru science we are come to know regarding the cosmic atmosphere which is the part of our religion . Planetary SUN & MOON ,MARS,,JUPITER far distance SATURN have become the part of religion .

Science & Religion both have to play a different areas in our universe for the development for our human beings . Religion can not be placed in the line with science .

Religion is the outcome of the practice thousand of the years they are part & parcel with the human beings with the development in the divinity with the help of practice under Yogi exercise controlling our breathing with the power of which human beings experience ,science will not performance in any way with the help of their entire instrument.

This is my personal opinion 

On the surface, and in the abstract, no. There is no contradiction between science and religion. However, in the context of discourse on the nature, origins and the workings of the universe, there was a seeming conflict that had existed historically. some persons in the course of history were denounced for postulating certain beliefs judged to be contrary to biblical positions. I am thinking Galileo and Corpenicus.

Yes, there is a correlation between religion and science and the evidence you find hundreds relations between the discovered scientific facts found in the Koran.

Dear George Stoica

you are correct.

Regards

Raid

Some persons were placed under house arrest and others, condemned as heretics for professing views contrary to accepted beliefs about the world, on the authority of the bkble. Galileo for example was excommunicated for postulating a spherical earth in contradiction to the image of earth assumed by biblical writers (a flat and stationery world supported by huge pillars). With time, humanity has relaxed more with science. Galileo was posthumously restored in the year 2000 as part of the Jubilee acts.

I agree with the explanation of Dr. Aristidis Matsoukis.

Regards

SM Najim

I thing I do the same

Science believes in reality, while religion emphasises faith. it seems the two are extremes of two different philosophy.

Hi, Dear Kayode Asaju

Thanks for sharing the question, First, I believe in GOD and am a researcher. So I do not realize any contradiction between these facts, second, far as I understand religion more personal, it means between individuals and their GOD.

Best Regards.

Dear Colleague

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.

Regards 

Religion provides moral support to do scientific work. 

I think that the comparion ia not possible. So true that we can study theology in a scientific approach. In my case I Only stop to think about God when I syudy science. It is easier to believe that the predictability of all human organ has a design than by any preaching.

In principle, there is no contradiction between the two. In practice however there may be and sometimes, if not often, is.

If we consider your opening statement, namely 'Science believes in reality', we immediately notice the word 'believes'. There is in my view no escaping from believing in something, but there is an open domain of issues we can believe in, ranging from the absurd to the sublime. Our beliefs can be a source of inspiration, but can also become so restrictive and self-contradictory as to make any rational thinking impossible. In the course of our life we can make a concious attempt to find the right balance (what is right for us) between science and religion. Certainly, by necessity there are questions that cannot be answered by science, since science being based on a specific axiomatic / logical structure, one is always faced with some variants of the Gödel incompleteness theorems: some questions will necessarily be undecidable within the scientific framework. In the same way that not every thought can be expressed in prose, for which we take resort to poetry, music, and arts in general, there are occasions where we need to rely on religion (conventional, or unconventional -- in my view even atheism is also a religious belief system, since it relies on a set of convictions, foremost that of the non-existence of a deity, or deities, and divine revelations) when we do not succeed in finding the answers to our questions by means of scientific methods. This area is not sharply defined, so that one should be mindful that an uncritical reliance on religious beliefs need not be necessarily harmless. Clearly, believing in nothing at all is also not a safe option, for the reasons I have indicated above. □

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

Science and Religion go hand in hand and both can be used for development of society.

The core difference between science and religion is that science begins with a question, gathering information and objective evidence in order to find an answer. Science is not about contradicting fiction. It is about studying and explaining phenomena through methodology: Scientific Methodology is comprised of 5 elements: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment and Conclusion. Scientific method rejects faith, it requires evidence. Scientists are generally not particularly interested in the functions of a soul.  Religion begins with an answer and tries to find evidence that supports that predetermined answer, rejecting any information or evidence that does not support the predetermined religious answer.  Yes science does contradict with some of the religions for example Hinduism believes in the existence of the soul as a self which is non-material entity but science is not able to prove the existence of the soul.  As an another example both Hinduism and Buddhism believes in the reincarnation while science denies any such phenomena in which person takes rebirth after death.

Religion furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish.

Science encounters metaphysical problems which religion can help to solve.

Religion can augment the explanatory power of science.

Science can establish a premises in an argument for a conclusion having religious significance.

Dear Kayode,

Religion and Science can go hand in hand to achieve development. No confrontation and conflict between two. In the history, there were renowned Figures holding the two. 

Regards,

Faramarz

Dear,

thanks for the invitation. I think the two can walk side by side, without contradictions. Greetings!

There is no theoretical contradiction.

Religion has the true very stable and monolithic. It does not need to look for.

Science has the true "in-progress". Need to research it , because not have it ...

When science will have the stable true, it will reach the religious approach

Men need research, God has not this fun

Religion aligns society in spiritual aspects and science uplifts society in material development. Educated masses respect both religion and science. Misuse of religious sentiments hampers social progress and misuse of science brings disaster.  

There is no contradiction at all. Religion came addresses minds and all what he believes or mind says its debt. Of course our word on religions that have not skew.

Hi Kayode. I think that the HONEST answer to your two questions has to be:

1. There may and often is a contradiction between science and religion, but it all depends on the religious individual. All depends on interpretations of the religious text. People who want to create contradictions can easily do so.

2. The two can be harmonized, by keeping them essentially orthogonal. Science and religion address different disciplines, different aspects of our earthly experience.

I mean, let's get real. Some people feel obliged to believe that the universe is 6000 years old. Yes, if you must believe that, by counting the generations listed in Genesis, then science and religion will be contradictory. And that's just one example.

But there is no reason to believe that the Bible stories are literal. There is no reason to believe that the age of the universe is limited to the generations of humans listed in Genesis. None at all.

Humans have a way of creating problems, even when these problems are not necessary.

Merry Christmas to all RG, even if you don't ascribe any holy significance to the day!

Dear Kayode Asaju

Thanks for your invitation

I do not find, for myself and I hope that for many of my scientific colleagues, no contradiction between the mission and vision of the researcher with their beliefs, can perfectly harmonize them.

In a discussion network similar to this, I commented the following, which for me is still valid:

---[[[I have followed with interest all contributions and comments related, which has allowed me to identify similarities and differences, some background and others only so, but most of the views are in the sense that they can coexist as lucky religious thoughts and scientists in a single human brain (which is what the moment we can, to some extent, be conscious, reflect and demonstrate an inventory of opinions and assessment tools).

I remember an essay trying to explain in Greece, Rome, Egypt and other classical and ancient communities, why was common "polytheistic" religious tradition of gods of nature (rain, sun), semi-human gods (Hercules Achilles) and heavenly gods (Zeus, Mars, Venus) governing the life and culture of its people, insomuch living, dying, warring and loved to meet their designs or suit your tastes.

A historical, linguistic and anthropological explanation is that the "man" of that time had a "Bicameral Brain"; that is, a brain divided into two chambers or brains with little or no communication, given the low development and maturation of neuronal connections in the left brain to the right, via the neuro-anatomical structure known as the corpus callosum.

It is argued that in the left brain residence of rational cognitive skills, ligüísticas and mathematics, the intellectual thoughts goals, rational, logical and pragmatic scientists developed; while the right brain, perceptions, thoughts and idealizations of emotional, sensitive, spiritual, moral and artistic life developed. In other words, the right brain was the neuro-anatomical and functional seat of subjective thoughts, intuition and religion.

In the same sense of speech, if perceptions and thoughts of the subjective on the right side were generated, they could not properly communicate with the nerve centers of the left side, which subjects mingled both thoughts and had great difficulty in separating, analyzing and 'evaluate separately perceptions and then synthesize them into a common thought.

Also, subjective, sensory and emotional perceptions of the right brain, "heard inside" as if they were commands or dictated by external supernatural beings to him and felt obliged to comply, despite the irrational thereof, as make war on an ally people for alleged treason or kill a family member or loved one for "alleged damage to his person or jealousy."

This type of "split brain or dual chamber" worked in the manner of a dysfunctional brain or ill, with hallucinations and delusions unfounded, similar to pathological functioning of people with schizophrenia. It is assumed that real events that happened in the sentimental and emotional life of certain historical figures of that time, was the basis for the creation of several literary works as "The Greek Tragedies"

Today, fortunately, I think our Central Nervous System (brain included) is much more developed and sufficiently inter-contectado among its various vital neurological centers, which enables us to associate and integrate perceptions, feelings, emotions and thoughts both objective and subjective and weigh each of them, their relevance, originality, feasibility and playback level both at the level of mental spiritual life to transcendence, as a theoretical and practical level of tangible experience of the scientific world.

Is there room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_room_for_religious_thoughts_in_a_scientific_mind/11 [accessed Dec 24, 2016].

Estimado Kayode Asaju

Gracias por su invitación

Yo no encuentro, para mi persona y espero que para muchos de mis colegas científicos, ninguna contradicción entre la misión y visión del investigador con sus creencias, puede perfectamente armonizarlas.

En una red de discusión similar a esta, comenté lo siguiente, lo cual para mi sigue siendo válido:

---[[[ He seguido con interés todas las aportaciones y comentarios relacionados, lo que me ha permitido identificar coincidencias y diferencias, algunas de fondo y otras sólo de forma, pero la mayoría de las opiniones van en el sentido de que pueden coexistir en forma afortunada pensamientos religiosos y científicos en un sólo cerebro humano (que es lo que de momento podemos, hasta cierto punto, tener consciencia, reflexionar y demonstrar con un inventario de opiniones e instrumentos de evaluación). 

Recuerdo un ensayo que trataba de explicar en la Grecia, Roma, Egipto y otras comunidades clásicas y  antiguas, porqué era común la tradición religiosa "politeísta" de dioses de la naturaleza (de la lluvia, del sol), dioses semi-humanos (Hércules, Aquiles)  y dioses celestiales (Zeus, Marte, Venus) que regían la vida y cultura de sus pobladores, a tal grado que vivían, morían, guerreaban y amaban para cumplir sus designios o satisfacer sus gustos.

Una explicación histórica, lingüística y antropológica es la de que el "Hombre" de aquella época tenía un "Cerebro Bicameral"; es decir, un cerebro dividido en dos cámaras o cerebros con poca o nula comunicación, dado el poco desarrollo y maduración de las conexiones neuronales del cerebro izquierdo con el derecho, vía la estructura neuro-anatómica conocida como cuerpo calloso.

Se argumenta que en el cerebro izquierdo residencia de las habilidades cognitivas racionales, linguisticas y matemáticas, se desarrollaban los pensamientos intelectuales objetivos, racionales, lógicos y científicos pragmáticos; mientras que en el cerebro derecho, se desarrollaban las percepciones, pensamientos e idealizaciones de la vida emocional, sensitiva, espiritual, moral y artística. En otros términos, el hemisferio cerebral derecho era el asiento neuro-anatómico y funcional de los pensamientos subjetivos, la intuición y la religión.

En el mismo sentido del discurso, si se generaban percepciones y pensamientos del subjetivos del lado derecho, éstos no se podían comunicar adecuadamente con los centros nerviosos del lado izquierdo, por lo cual los sujetos mezclaban ambos pensamientos y tenían gran dificultad en separar, analizar y´evaluar por separado las percepciones y luego sintetizarlas en un pensamiento común.

Asimismo, las percepciones subjetivas, sensitivas y emotivas del cerebro derecho, las "oían en su interior" como si fueran mandatos o dictados por entes sobrenaturales externos a su persona y se sentían obligados a cumplirlos, a pesar de lo irracional de los mismos, como hacer la guerra a un pueblo aliado por una supuesta traición o matar a un familiar o ser amado por un "supuesto daño a su persona o celotipia".

Este tipo de "cerebro dividido o bicameral" funcionaba a la manera de un cerebro disfuncional o enfermo, con alucinaciones e ilusiones sin fundamento, similar al funcionamiento patológico de personas con esquizofrenia. Se supone que hechos reales que sucedieron en la vida sentimental y emocional de ciertos personajes históricos de aquella época, fue la base para la creación de varias obras literarias como "Las Tragedias Griegas"

Hoy por fortuna, creo que nuestro Sistema Nervioso Central (cerebro incluido) está mucho más desarrollado y suficientemente inter-contectado entre sus diferentes centros neurológicos vitales, lo que nos faculta asociar e integrar percepciones, sentimientos, emociones y pensamientos tanto objetivos como subjetivos y ponderar cada uno de ellos, su pertinencia, originalidad, factibilidad y nivel de reproducción tanto en el nivel de la vida mental espiritual para la trascendencia, como a nivel teórico y tangible de la vivencia práctica del mundo científico.

Is there room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_room_for_religious_thoughts_in_a_scientific_mind/11 [accessed Dec 24, 2016].]]]---

Saludos a todos

José Luis

Resp. Dr. Asaju,

Yes Science and Religion are contradictory! The two can complement each other for the harmony and development of the world!

There is a difference between religion and church, there is a difference between independent science and academic science.

Only if the independent search for wisdom and truth become a religion expressed in some art and philosophy that brings everything together there can be harmony and eventually the world can become free of war, which for the moment is mainly based on radical religion.

It is by the schizophrenic mind, the spit between religion and science that all the problems of the world come from.

Dear Kayode

Maybe we should think about what is meant by contradiction. The length of a rectangle is not in contradiction with the width of that rectangle. Although different, together they help to find area of the rectangle. Likewise, in case of science and religion, we cannot build an area of knowledge if we don’t know.

The contradiction here is not necessarily between science and religion, so much as between rationalism and mysticism. Rationalism asserts that there are no questions that reason cannot answer, while mysticism believes there are questions that reason cannot answer. Consequently, there is no contradiction between science and any religion that believes we can rationally understand even the Absolute—the Dharmic traditions come to mind as examples. By contrast, the Abrahamic traditions generally have a stronger tendency toward mysticism, which is where they come in conflict with the rationalism of science. The two can be harmonized by science coming to conclude there are questions that cannot be answered and/or the more mystical religions having greater faith in the power of reason.

Science and religion should not be in contradiction. When they are it is not the most convincing science and not the most convincing religion. I place my self among the rational mystics who embrace science and all it can provide, but find it continually falling short of the future vision about what science should be able to accomplish.

Anything passed through human hands is subject to question. Science has questioned science more than religion has questioned science. Religion has questioned religion more than science has questioned religion. So I don't find a serious conflict between science and religion, except in the malpractice of each. 

if one thinks they (science and religion) contradict one either does not understand the science and or that religious denomination does not understand our One common designer/creator AKA G-d.