Science is a system of attaining knowledge based on the scientific method (which involves observation, testing or experimentation, results & conclusions) and this body of knowledge is gained through real "human" research which gives neither definite nor absolute answers. Religion is a different area which cannot be subjected to the scientific method but is dealt with by logical & rational ways of thinking. In my opinion, when religion & science "seem" to collide, the human "relative" science has to undergo "Perestroika" & NOT the "divine" religion. My answer to the main question is: Yes there is room for religion in a scientific mind & most scientists ,throughout history, were not against religions. Probably the 20th century was, temporarily, the most "doubtful" one.

Science and religion do not mix, yet, they are inseparable. Science is observation and interpretation (explanation) of the observed. How do we observe without immersion in a culture or philosophy. It is not possible. There was a question posted concerning science and group think. Most chose to believe that scientists are isolated from group think. We are not. Consensus science dominates what we are taught and how we observe. Our culture does the same. If a scientist believes  a given philosophy observations are directed and questions are posed from training and belief in that philosophy. Science is inseparable from philosophy (religion, culture).

Science and religion do not mix, because once a scientific observation and test are made all past beliefs must be questioned if the science disagrees.  We must adhere to the scientific method when examining our observations and testing. The results stand on their own regardless of prior beliefs, consensus science, or cultural pressure. Whether we accept the results or interpretation may depend upon how ingrained we are in group think or cultural/religious practice.

If we try to prove or disprove a religious belief we are attempting the impossible. We can ascribe meaning to a scientific result, but using science for meaning or values is not the goal of science. Science is a tool for observing and explaining. Meaning and values come from the whole of life.

You ask can scientists use their intelligence in broader views of the world? Science is a part of the whole. We would be remiss if we did not approach the broader view. Yes, there is room. We make room all the time.

Science is a system of attaining knowledge based on the scientific method (which involves observation, testing or experimentation, results & conclusions) and this body of knowledge is gained through real "human" research which gives neither definite nor absolute answers. Religion is a different area which cannot be subjected to the scientific method but is dealt with by logical & rational ways of thinking. In my opinion, when religion & science "seem" to collide, the human "relative" science has to undergo "Perestroika" & NOT the "divine" religion. My answer to the main question is: Yes there is room for religion in a scientific mind & most scientists ,throughout history, were not against religions. Probably the 20th century was, temporarily, the most "doubtful" one.

Dear Madam,

I don't think that all religious thoughts and practices are unscientific. But it is true that a vast majority of religious thoughts and practices are baseless, superstitious and unscientific.  There are no places for such superstitions and beliefs in scientific minds. Scientific people should try to eliminate bad practices and intolerances that exist in the society. They must be able to question the unscientific thoughts, beliefs and practices  that exist in the society (including the existence and worship of god).

It would depend on what you mean by 'religious'.

If by religious you in fact mean spiritual - i.e., the inchoate possibility that the universe or metaverse may host something transcendent and infinite that we are never in a position to fully grasp (because of the phenomenon of emergence, and also because of the total impossibility to significantly understand, apprehend and/or map infinities from a finite base), then the answer to your question is certainly yes.

If by religious you however indeed mean religious - i.e. the embracing of any particular choice of arbitrarily structured, mutually contradictory human-made religions with their trail of peremptory say-so's, petty rules, illogical leaps of faith, meaningless rites, pointless hats & costumes, freely asserted truths, and so on, then the answer has to be a resounding no.

There is tension between *certain* scientific and religious ideas, which can hinder scientific thought and progress.  However, in the general sense, scientific and religious ideas need not be mutually exclusive.  In fact, in most cases the religious or spiritual framework does not have much bearing on the scientific.

In the end, religion is just another facet of culture.  It is just another framework.  As a human being, you cannot operate without a framework, a perspective, a model based on your own personal experiences.  For better or worse, it can and will shape scientific thought.  It is very foolish to think that any scientist could be a blank slate. The myth that scientists are not biased just ends up harming scientific progress.

As a scientist, you [should probably] strive to be as aware as possible of your biases, and the potential impact these biases may have on your research.  Since being aware of your biases is not the same as getting rid of your biases, you can and will continue to have beliefs and convictions, religious or otherwise.

Your broader views of the world are what allow you to select a novel hypothesis to test from the infinite array of possible hypotheses.  They give you a starting point, providing a direction or path forward in the infinite space of possibility.  (Granted, the direction may be wrong, but that's just part of science!)  Although it need not be the case, historically, much of science has been inspired by religion (and vice versa).

Science does not provide meaning.  Just like all humans, scientists are meaning-making machines.  They inevitably ascribe meaning to the world through beliefs, emotions, and intuitions (religious or cultural or self-generated).

Yes, Maria.  I believe that science looks upon the material world from microscopic to macroscopic.  But alongside this material world is a spiritual real with God as the King, and spirits that we cannot see with our physical senses.  At death, our soul moves to the spiritual world.  And if our soul or spirit goes to be with God, we do not have to be unduly worried about what is done to our bodies.  Other scientists have held on to the existence and power of God.  (Have a look at this link.)

"Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1] was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified asoccult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation."

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

Dear friends, could it be the work of Charles Darwin that was pivotal in causing great debates in science and religion?  Could creation be true when Darwin has proposed evolution as an alternative explanation?  This was Darwin's religious background...

"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science..."

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

Thank you sirs, dear all!!!

We seem to agree, more and more, again and again !

Yet your different views and excellent contributes enrich any question a person could ask.

RG is the best place in the World to exchange views and to build a greater knowledge of any issue on review.

I thank you dearly !

I should not forget that MENDEL was a priest, nor that the first Librarians and scientific copists were Monks, in Medieval years...

In my opinion, science and religion are same. The former is continued accumulation of knowledge by experiments/observations whereas the later is simply following some set of defined rules for the betterment of life without questioning/arguing.

The concept of religion was mis-used by us without realising  its deep meaning. 

I believe, whatever the knowledge that we compiled as science until now is just a drop in ocean when compared with the unexplored avenues which are hidden inside the religion.

For a simple example, lightning arrester was invented  only around 250 years only. Whereas it was in use in the Hindu temples for thousands of years.  

What is the Relation between Science and Religion

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion#ixzz3evC7cV85

six different ways in which science and religion are relevant to each other:

1. Religion furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish.

2. Science can both falsify and verify claims of religion.

3. Science encounters metaphysical problems which religion can help to solve.

4. Religion can help to adjudicate between scientific theories.

5. Religion can augment the explanatory power of science.

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

Thus, in conclusion, we have seen that science and religion should not be thought of as foes or as mutually irrelevant. Rather we have seen several ways in which they can fruitfully interact. And that is why, after all, there is such a flourishing dialogue between these two disciplines going on today.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion#ixzz3evByN2OZ

Dear Maria

If one is a religious person, such thoughts will definitely find room in your mind, whether you want it or not. If you are not, the society, which is likely to be very religious, will find place for it in your mind too. Slowly, such thoughts and acts will become a sort of OCN (obsessive compulsive acts). Unless you bow to them, you will feel that you will not succeed. Rarely can a scientist escape it.

May I quote Niels Bohr, who did not believe that horse-shoes hung in front of the door will bring luck: "Of course I don’t believe in it, but I understand it brings you luck, whether you believe in it or not." So, he, a non-believer, hung a horse shoe

As regards Scientists solving world problems, I personally think that science, as a whole, has only incresed world problems. The only thing it has succeeded is enable some to live for longer period, and cause more problems.

I think that Science as a whole has put the Individual before Humankind :-))

Narayanan

Dear Maria,

Dear All,

I think, there is room for everything which is human in the scientific mind.  I would add that evil, tasteless and idiotic features and ideas are not desirable.

Thank you sirs !

TRhere's always room for more, in the human mind !

There's room for intelligence, for science, for emotions, for religion, for superstition, for good and for evil thoughts.

My problem is whether the human mind can bear all of these without internal conflit...

(We learn to deal with the conflit of good and bad thoughts, from easrly childhood, and through education... Can we learn to deal with other conflits of our mind, as we grow in Wisdom?)

Dear Maria,

I think you must find priorities. You cannot carry all the thoughts of the world in your brain. And as for me, I have big problems with superstitions, I try try use my scientific patterns and channels.

PS: in your nice listing you forgot "humor".

Yes, thank you Hanno.

My next question should probably be on whether there is room for humor in a scientific mind... 

You suddenly reminded me of my baby boy, born on the same day as you., when you tell me that we cannot carry all the thoughts in the world in our head... (One of the last times he was nasty to his sister, as I asked why he did it, he purely and honestly answered: «I don't know. It's not my fault. I was here, quietly playing, and suddenly I was attacked by these nasty thoughts. It's not my fault if I hurt my sister !!!») - nasty thoughts should be banished from our heads!!!

No, dear Maria,

you need all kind of thoughts. But try to get along also with the bad things in your mind. If you succeed your soul will be freed for ever.

Thank you. Bless You ! Dear Hanno.

If it's a scientific approach to these questions that you're looking for, you may be interested in my former adviser Anthony Jack's research (tonyjack.org) on the opposing domains hypothesis.

There are two dominant, largely opposing networks in the brain, which may create (physically) incompatible modes of cognition: social and nonsocial processing.  When we engage in one mode, it may represses the other incompatible mode in a see-saw like fashion. 

If you are interested, check out "A scientific case for conceptual dualism" or our paper "fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains".

Dear Mario, This hypothesis provides an explanation of why we might conceptualize science and religion as being, as you say, at "two different levels and separated from each other".  In this sense, a person can be thought of as engaging in both types of reasoning at different times, and they are only "incompatible" in that there is a physiological barrier to engaging in both simultaneously.  What's interesting about this hypothesis is that it can be tested and its relevance to human thought and decision making can be evaluated.  For example, it's possible to test whether or not moral/ethical decisions are repressed/altered while engaging in mathematical and physical analysis, or even for a period of time afterwards.  This would allow us to assess whether or not there are implications for practicing doctors, researchers, business people, etc.

We need science and the scientific approach to increase our faith in religion and to know the mystery of God

One of the best attributes of a scientific mind would be to keep humble and respectful in face of the vast magnitude and magnificience of the Scientific world, and this would imply tolerance and resilience towards other people's ideas and beliefs.

In this sense,  I do believe that this complies with a correct religious attitude...  (with tolerance, humbleness and respect for the World, and for the world's inhabitants!!!)

this is my belief, and this is my Religion.

...Your talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift back to God...

Dear Mario, Agree. 

Philosophical, Religious, ethical or moral qualities are (or should be ! ) the intricate part of the personality of human beings at any task...

There should be no contradiction between a person's personality and scientific research.

- as long as fundamentalist ideas don't bias the pragmatc research objectives and results. - 

Yes, Dear Maria there can be religious thoughts in a scientific mind, theology is studied with is a scientific mind, otherwise it would be a devotion or act of faith.

Usually fundamentalists do not think scientifically.

Thank you, dear Vilemar.

I know you have academic degrees both on Theology and Biology... It puzzled me at first, but now -I see your point. Interesting...

As  I have just learnt from a dear colleague, the Portuguese Association of Catholic Medical Doctors will be cellebrating its first hundredth Anniversary this month.

So, at least in Portugal, there seams to be room for religion in scientific minds...

Religious thoughts can be put in a scientific mind as other thoughts. Its impression on science is important. Sometimes it creates art and knowledge and sometimes it prevents them! 

Dear Nader.

Thank you for your beautiful aproach to this question. You made me think, and rethink my concepts.

Is religion to be considered a sort of «buffer», on the frontier between our deepest intellectual thoughts and actions?

I don't think so. Religion is a concept and can be interpreted by a person based on his/her ideas or benefits!

Dear Nadar. 

I understand. And I agree. I wasn't rethinking my religious thoughts. I was wondering on the power and influence of Religion on our intelectual work. (of course that it has, and should have positive influence.)

I found this interesting, on Religion and Pragmatism..

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Pragmatic.htm

Until cognition completed - and it will never happen - it always finds a place for religion.

Thank you, Mario. 

This is what I had in mind, as I posted this question. You should take a scientific approach to ethics. (I speak as a Medical practitioner.)

And the best ethical codes are offered by religious Books. (from any of the several Religions)

I think yes

Chesterton on Evolucionists:

"But the moderns, who do not believe in the existence of gods, tend at last not to believe even in the existence of men. Being scientific evolutionists, they cannot tell the difference between a man and a sheep. And being highly civilised townsmen, they would probably be very bad judges of the differences between a good sheep, and a bad one." 

----

GK CHESTERTON. Lunacy and Letters. New York; Sheed and Ward, 1958.

Dear Maria

Chesterton sounds exactly as if Maria has written them!

Narayanan

Yes, dear Narayanan. I fully adapt to Chesterton's writing, although sometimes I don't agree... (I think it is more a question of syntax and sense of humour ! )

That is what I meant too, particularly the humour. Delightful when you feel depressed

Narayanan

"All men are mad, but the humorist, who cares for nothing and possesses everything."

----

G.K. Chesterton. The Napoleon of Notting Hill.New York, Paulist Press, 1978

One who likes craziness and Chesterton should also like Shaw.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

I liked this so much that I put in front of my PhD thesis. It bolstered my self esteem. Most people consider me crazy.

Narayanan

Science in itself is a sort of religion or mission, to which we easily adapt in an emotional way, that may resemble fundamentalist addiction, in extreme, and this may lead others to consider us crazy.

But isn't Love itself an act of near-madness?

(If ever we loose our pragmatism and squareness of mind, to adapt innovative ideas, in an emotional way...hardly understood by common people.)

"...The bareless dogamatism about science forbidding men to believe in miracles; as if science does not profess to investigate. Science is the study of the admitted laws of existence; it cannot prove a universal negative about wether those laws could ever be suspended by something admittedly above them. "

GK. CHESTERTON. The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1917.

The scientific method it’s been really useful for me; it has helped me to find honest reasons for some material subjects that are relevant. On the other hand, once I faced the wisdom of religion and how profound are the insights, I took the decision to believe in order to appreciate the valuable answers that live in harmony with the regular nature where science applies too.

When we think about God, we start from the most personal and subjective; God’s experience is unique for each one of us. When I read genesis from the Hole Bible / Old Testament about our independence from God, I remember the scientific work that I have done and nature amazes me again by revealing how it got independent from God and so mankind. Life through self-organizing deployments, nonlinear chaotic behaviors among others, exhibits how life is unique in the universe and also how it appears as an emergent property of the system that is not affected from any external influence (the article is at the bottom). Thus, nature shows an independence from God which does not mean that God does not exist but we have to believe first if we want to go further. In the other hand, with the uniqueness of mankind in the in the universe may appear also our personal decision about believing or not. Both decisions deserve all due respect.

I am a man of faith and science. In the religious context we talk first about believing in order to see, in the scientific context we talk about assuming first, then, hypothesis and theories appear describing with higher clarity and objectivity what the regular nature is about. On a personal opinion, both optics, mixed, give a more powerful and coherent view of life.

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

Beautiful contribute, dear Diego.

Thank you very much ! 

"True religion is slow in growth, and, when planted, is difficult of dislodgement, but its intelectual conterfeit has no root in itself; It springs up suddenly, it suddenly withers."

--- JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, The Idea of a University (1853-58)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Pires & readers,

Etymologically, "religion," from the Lain, means "that which binds one back," the "-ligion," is related to "ligament." When I encounter generalized skepticism about religion (obviously, no one can accept or believe them all,) then my answer is a question: Is nothing sacred?"

Religions regard something at least as sacred. I'm doubtful of that variety of skepticism which regards nothing as sacred.

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway,

I also hold this conception of religion as that what is most important/sacred and which hold us together.  It is our mother and father which hold us.  It is our large family; it is our children; it is what keep us alive and sustain us; it is our life and what we  give our life for.  All of this is being eroded by the global religion of money.  It is what proposed to bind us but don't and erodes all the old sacred bor the new sacred.

In this transformation of the old to the new, a scientistic antagonistic conception of the relation of science and the old religiosity has played and still play a major role. Scientism is the philosophy of science of the new religiosity.

Belief can drive religion and so it can also drive science. For some science is their religion and their research articles and books are their scriptures, just like any other religion. When we believe we transform ourselves from within in such a manner that we can change the way we are and what we do.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296136377_Belief_as_the_driver_to_experience_and_imagine_the_cosmic_energy_but_with_limitations

Article Belief as the driver to experience and imagine the cosmic en...

I agree fully with Maria Bettencourt Pires. Social commitment should be the prime mover of whatever we undertake, but always respecting and observing the canons for searching the truth. Commitment does not rule out rigour of analysis. Only makes it more demanding.

 Thank you, dear Teotónio. 

I noticed that you recently placed an interesting question on this subject, that may add important contributes to the present one.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_important_is_to_analyse_place_of_religion_in_culture_even_when_you_may_not_be_a_believer

Many scientific discoveries have originated in the minds of researchers when based in religious learning centers throughout the ages. So one can assume that research has been influenced by learnings in these environments be they of ancient origin or at newer seats of learning.

My own learnings in a family and at formal educational environments based on traditional Christian values, have allowed me to have a greater appreciation for scientific research and research into multi cultures that currently influence the state of many ethnic groups as the world struggles to find a peaceful coexistence.

Scientific field research carried out in the "University of the World" has been most rewarding when done with multi-ethnic groups who practice values that I can relate to. Many of these values are associated with those entrenched in "religions/beliefs" of one form or another.

Science and religion represent different approaches to answering the great questions of life and the universe.  They each attempt to answer a different set of questions, but that does not make them mutually exclusive belief systems.  Science, in general, attempts to answer the questions, "how (does this work)?" and "what (are the key physical relationships/forces/parameters/etc., in the context of this inquiry)?".  Scientific subject areas tend to focus on their applicable components, systems, and the interplay between them.  Scientific truth is based on what is discovered in this pursuit.  Religion, in general, attempts to answer the questions, "why (are we here)?" and "who (is the source of/responsible for the existence of everything)?".  Religious inquiry tends to focus on relationships between people, morals, ethics, and the acknowledgement of beliefs, entities, consequences, and experiences that are difficult if not impossible to prove empirically.  Religious truth is based on what is experienced and/or believed, regardless of 'provability'.  For example, a competent particle physicist can describe the particle/wave duality of matter, without invoking religion, while still holding religious beliefs.  Similarly, a theologian or religious leader can explain the history, nature, beliefs, and implications of their faith tradition, without invoking science, while still acknowledging the role of DNA and genetic processes in making each human being a unique individual.  Scientific truth and religious truth are not adversaries, they each view the world through different philosophical lenses and ask different questions about reality.

If by religion one excludes evolution and microbiology, then I'd say no. If one asserts based on careful Biblical analysis that the Earth is 6000 years old, then no again. Religions include a great deal of baggage which is demonstrably incorrect when weighed against physical evidence.  Certainly if by religion one is urged to believe the killings in Orlando  were "a good start", then I'd say hell no.

Yes. If not, which are the reasons of doing science?

Dear all

Today through psychology studying, science has perceived and accepted that the spiritual of human really exists. It not only affects its body’s health, but also the body’s behavior.

Religious thought in fact is kind of spiritual. Right religions always flourish the people’s spiritual with integrity, honest, love, kind, loyal…and lead their behavior.

If a scientist without integrity, honest spiritual and without spiritual goal (reputable reputation) become a pure materialism. Material reality is his only sensation, so money will be the only goal.

So i think there has to be a room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind.

Dear Maria,

Thank you for invitation to participate in the discussion.

For me the religion should be equivalent to tolerance.  Unfortunately there are too many cases which contradict to my belief. Thus I am lost.  

Religion only have room for in-line science if;

1) That science developed in that era in which that religion was getting develop, or continue toward development etc.

2) The scientific knowledge testify the religions educations, statements etc by any means

Other wise anything which is new to religious education can not get entry into Divine education and can not attain sacredness among followers by the religions set of logics or/& due to the set patterns into philosophy of diversity of religions at Globe as according to historic facts.

Regards,

If religion consider in narrow sense then to involve our mind in any areas is meaningless & have no significance . We know scientific mind has a tendency to move with the nature & also to take a interest in the cosmic environment the SKY,SUN,MOON,& the other planetary movement .

Scientific mind always works out something new development which may help to move further progressive to make out the experiment prove to be fruitful either for the industries,agriculture product & in certain cases it may also find the place for the consumer .

This is my personal opinion 

Для меня это сложный вопрос. В СССР нас воспитывали в атеизме. Теперь в России атеизм это очень плохо. Человек должен верить во что то в Бога или еще кого. Так что вопросы религии и науки у нас в стране меняются в течении 100 лет диаметрально противоположно...

Thank you, Vladimir, for your interesting contribute! 

большое спасибо

As I read you "For me, this is a complex question. In the Soviet Union we were brought up in atheism. Now in Russian atheism it is very bad. A man has to believe in something in God, or somebody else. So the question of religion and science in our country changed during the 100 years of diametrically opposed..."

Dear Maria,

I was recently reading a talk of Heinz von Foerster

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/foerster.html

Here are some quote which I thought are relevant for your question:

 ‘’ we become metaphysician whenever we decide upon in principle undecidable questions. ‘’

 ‘’Only those questions that are in principle undecidable, we can decide.’’ ‘’  the decidable questions are already decided by the choice of the framework in which they are asked, and by the choice of rules of how to connect what we call "the question" with what we may take for an "answer." 

''But we are under no compulsion, not even under that of logic, when we decide upon in principle undecidable questions. There is no external necessity that forces us to answer such questions one way or another. We are free! The complement to necessity is not chance, it is choice! We can choose who we wish to become when we have decided on in principle undecidable questions.''

''With this freedom of choice we are now responsible for whatever we choose!''

========

A scientist can believe in God but he can not believe in professional research - there he must all to check.

Josef,

A scientist is primary a human and as such he cannot suspend ethical concerns about all he/she does, including all professional activities and to what these contribute.  We have to make a primary commitment to humanity, prior all other.

I agree !

If every intelligent person kept his/her ethical values above any behaviour, the World might be much better and more comfortable to live in.

Merci, for your precious Heinz von Foerster link !

No. I don't think that there is no need for religious thought for Scientific mind. Becuase religious et al created by humans, but it also varies from one human being to other.

One more is that how a human is evolved in a society?

Good friend Faranack just sent an interesting contribute, through personal messaging system. I share:

Faranack Nader Benz to you 7 hours ago

"Generally speaking, religion and science are alike two different doors for the same house, but analytically, influence of religion or the glory of science in the individuals' mind starts from their childhood-environment & training; growing with values of specific belief makes them believe in beyond the norm & proving phenomena; oppositely, children that grew up with constant celebration of the modern science's achievements at home & school, there would not be any room for meta-physics. The next variable, is the tough period of teen-ages, that frames the opinion of the person, is influenced by dominant friends, dominant gender, and social media of their environment. Because physiologically and emotionally, they are still in a vulnerability period. At the time of adulthood (AROUND 30-50 years old) behaviors, beliefs and habits stays the same, unless it get hammered by unexpected major failing in life. Differently, at the period of Middle-age, fear of death & shorter life (by a illness), loss of youth & attraction, make a variety of traumas, based of the person's personality-strength, and shade of gender- differences."

Thank you, Faranack.

No, Not at all!!!

Science is there to produce artifacts/utilities/services for use by people at large. While religion will predicate how to use them without causing any destruction, agony or any other undesirable effect.

If I agree that in the mind and brain of a person can coexist without harm to your thoughts scientific and religious thoughts integrity.

I think the conflict lies in stereotypes and Manichean position. With his brilliant scientific, rational, thoughtful mind, goal-oriented phenomena of nature and extreme pragmatic world. Believes only in what he feels, sees, observes, experiences and reproduces the results of this experiment.

On the other hand the religious with humanitarian thoughts and reasoning focused on the field of inner feelings and perceptions, inner peace and mental satisfaction at the fact that a person who believes in God and everything emanating from him, like the world, human beings and all their good deeds and blessed by the supreme being.

But if we understand religion as ability to achieve inner peace and mental satisfaction through feelings, perceptions and thoughts that guide nuanced behaviors of moral values and ethical principles, then if I am religious, because I have spiritual life and think the world is not limited to the outer, observable, measurable and is reproducible. There is also the inner world, introspection, the autoconscienia, reflection and transcendence.

A scientist without spirit and without the need to transcend this world, will be a scientist myopic gaze results short range and with difficulty to create and generate new knowledge, but is capable of opening and a clean look to the values and made valuable of the other scientists, who together are building the conceptual framework of their field of expertise and particular experiences.

In addition, there is a kind of religion in science, although we are scientists do not have the ability to know everything and check with the scientific truths experiments fields outside our experience. If these results were reported in serious scientific journals and quality, to read, assimilate and interpret them, believe in them, we have faith that they are true.

Moreover, in Astronomy and Astrophysics, currently there are limits to knowledge regarding the exact age and developmental characteristics of the present universe. We believe in the theory of the expanding universe (Bing-bang). It was created from an infinitely dense and energetic point called a singularity and then grew. I had before this singularity. At this point Science and Religion touch.

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Thank you, Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil, for your beautiful contribute ! 

Dear all

A person‘s knowledge include two sides, science knowledge and moral knowledge. Religious thought is a kind of moral thought –knowledge. For a scientist the basis of moral thought is integrity and honesty.

If a scientist without integrity and honesty, do you think he is a scientist?

Dear Chun Liu...

There is only one side to Science, which is honesty.

Fake results are fake results. The honesty and integrity of science, independently from any religious belief, will or should lead us not to use fake results, to obtain goals, on whatever ground.

That is my belief.

Dear Maria Bettencourt Pires 

Yes, there is only one truth side to Science, The honesty and integrity of science insure the truth side to be displayed or used to further science, other scientists, or public.

The honesty and integrity is common jointly outlook of all human religions. Evil religion is not religion.

Fake cannot blur insights of all scientists. At same time truth can’t be blurred for a long time. Because I am sure there are a lot of honesty and integrity scientists with perfect insight on RG.

Absolutely, but everyone sees "religion" differently. To put it simply:

If one believes in the order of the universe, environment that surrounds us, balance of gases in the air, forces of nature, etc, etc? Then one has to respect and believe in the creating forces.

Then, the scientists are the real believers, I think.

Agree with you Michael Issigonis

In this talk ''Scientism and the Religion of Science''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFVARio4pAk

 the scientist and historian Lawrence Principe shows that the myth of the opposition of science and religion is a revisionist historical construction that began in the 19th century by vocal minority proning scientism.

Dear all

If materialism thought is as a predominant ruling thought in a country. Can we regard the materialism thought as a religion thought? 4o years ago, our country is an utterly materialism thought ruling county. During the years, we pay huge attention on spiritual construction with the method of heroism education. From very child, everyone got ready to risk his/her life to save another or struggle with a bad thought or bed one. So in the years, there is relatively low crime rate in my county, especially corruptions and chicaneries.

I think there should be 

Every people had an education, which can include a particular religion. A scientific mind was raised in this context, therefore he can have religious thoughts.

seams logical, thank you dear César !

Idea comes first; and a spiritualist scientist can conceive of ideas not known through five senses, he has a highly intuitive mind. Data comes in the second stage. 

Dear Professor Maria Bettencourt Pires 

In asking the question: "Is there room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind?", aren't you already thinking along these lines Professor!

By the time you finished asking your question you have actually already answered it- your question is the answer to your question!! Think about it Professor.

Dear Maria

Sure, but big problem in our world is we dont have any respect to our idea.

Dear Maria,

your question is really interesting. In my opinion, if you refere to the ethimological meaning of the word "religious", there is room in the scientist's mind for that, because this last one, with his research continues to try to find a link with something that his knowledge does not have in the present time. But if you refere to a specific link with "traditional" religion, as Christianity, Hebraism, Islams and so on, probabily it is difficult that it will be space for this theme in a scientific mind, because of a scientist works on the problem of the human in connnection whit his reality and not on the problem of a God connected to the human beings.

Best regards,

Miguel  

Dear Maria

The entire issue of religion, is so very complex that it needs a very special place in scientific research and in the minds of scientists, as it needs to be in the minds of people who are now struggling with the tragedies of xenophobia.  

Article Convivencia: Winning the War Against Xenophobia in the Heart...

Thank you, dear John.

I recommend your article, that I read with great interest. Yes, you clearly demonstrate the last part of the question, as I posted above. "Scientists can use their intelligence in broader views of the World"...

Thank you!

Dear Maria.

My interest in researching the word Convivencia started in August 2015 as in the attached publication based on my past living in Andalucía, or Al Andalus. Maria Rosa Monecal's  research into  the history of the Caliphate of Cordoba has fascinated me and points to a model for peace having lived many years in that part of Spain and amongst those of different religions and beliefs around the world.  

Many thanks

Research CONVIVENCIA: A MODEL FOR PEACE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS A...