They are actually complementary to each other.

الدين يدعو للعلم...وبالتالي هما متلازمان...

اكيد وبدون شك.

تحياتي

كلثوم

This statement is rubbish and furthest from the truth. The real belief in the creator is absolutely based on science. Belief and Science are inseparable. What I mean by real belief is the true faith and not that taught by clergy men of all religions!

I am afraid I think the people who "dish" the religious teaching did not understand or interpret the real religion and faith in God. hey treat it as a business or product for sale and making a profit!

I disagree - it is possible to be a scientist and religious.

Thank you, dear and respected Raed Raham

Thank you, dear and respected Kaltoum Belhassan

Thank you, dear and respected Neil Dagnall

Of course, Science and Faith ARE NOT ATTACK: You can be a Scientist (although I am only a humble and modest Professor, Researcher and Clinician, I am a Believer and PRACTICE) and most of the Colleagues I know are also ... I speak of Spain which is a Non-denominational / Secular State

In fact, more than 70% of the Nobel laureates in Physiology and Medicine were or are believers and religious people!

In the framework described, I would advise you to read my humble Conference "HEALTH AND FAITH", in which we analyze the relationships between Beliefs, Faith and Science from the perspective of Health Sciences and Biomedicine with overwhelming SCIENTIFIC data that demolish such a stereotype that Faith and Science are irreconcilable enemies

Kaltoum Belhassan ,

Kaltoum Belhassan added an answer on this discussion thread 21 hours ago, as follows:

اكيد وبدون شك.تحياتيكلثوم

Translation in English: "Sure and without a doubt my greetings to Kalthoum."

Source: Internet Artificially Intelligent Translator

Raed Rahim Khuder ,

Raed Raham added an answer to this discussion thread 21 hours ago, as follows:

الدين يدعو للعلم...وبالتالي هما متلازمان...

Translation in English: "Religion calls for science, and therefore they go hand in hand." *

*Source: Internet Artificially Intelligent Translator

Yes I do agree science means truth only indepent from every thing else

I agree with the previous opinions that science motivates us to delve deeper and deeper into religion, because the more we learn, our perceptions expand to understand the phenomena and beliefs around us, and science pushes us to understand religion better.

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe,

No problem at all. I can translate my answer from Arabic to English. I am agreeing with Dr Raed Raham when he said that religion asks us as human to discover and to search in the world so both (religion and science) are together and we can't separate between both of them. Thus, as reply I said without any doubt science and religion are both together and you can't talk about one of them without to link to other one. I can say more that through science we believe about that universe is perfect and some big power behind creation of it.....

Best wishes.

Kaltoum.

Thank you, dear Nancy Ann

Thank you, dear MK Tripathi

Thank you, dear Manal Hadi

Regarding what has been said -and that I share- about that Religiosity requires thinking and reflection, Psalm 52 reads: "Dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus" ... if the wise and learned cannot deny the evidence of evil How can you deny the existence of the Absolute Good that is none other than God?

I disagree with you, because science and religion have one path and goal, which is serving humanity.

I think, dear Isam Alkhalifawi, hat I have not explained myself well: I do not share at all that Faith and Science are in conflict and are irreconcilable: ALL THE CONTRARY! All I have done is present a stereotype that, unfortunately it is spreading; but I AM BELIEVING AND PRACTICING AND WHAT I AM INTENDING IS A DEBATE THAT OVERCOMES SUCH STEREOTYPE; sorry if I have not been able to explain well ... it is well known that I am quite clumsy. Thank you

This matter depends on what faith you adopt. If your faith does not clash with science and it encourages science and learning then it is a blessing. The problem is with those who think materially only. Religion depends on abstractions and only people who think spiritually can understand it the right way. Our scientific knowledge is just a drop in the ocean of the universe, so we need to be humble and reflective.

Science requires independent evaluation, it requires evidence beyond assertions by voice or print. An academic needs to check assertions and check them again and cannot rely on what they are told by parents or other authority figures. Both the above may check evidence for years. A belief is fixed and unaffected by evidence of any kind. Belief functions like delusions. Powerful ones that present powerful alternative states.

It is possible to grow beyond the rhetoric of both positions, pointing out that everything lies in delusion.

It is more difficult for an historian as we may check the facts behind the religion. Knowing how the facts and ideas of a religion appear and grow we may be less tolerant of the claims of religion. We may see religion as like quicksand, grabbing individuals downwards into obscurantist logic, eyes blocked with sand, but smiling with joy at their oncoming fate.

Falih Al-Emara takes a specific approach to material approaches to reality, and the concept of religion relying on abstract thought processes cannot be backed up. There is a difference between spirituality and religion and often they are not compatible.

Religion involves narrative and ideologies: monotheisms rely also on moralities to convince but these are only of a kind, usually based on judgemental, authoritarian positions. I struggle to associate abstract thinking with religious rhetoric. Religion encourages certain states of mind, but that is not the same as thinking abstractly as usually there is no thinking at all.

Science is knowledge gained by experimental observations by using brain and in quran it is mentioned (ا فلا تعقلون and لعلكم تعقلون) meaning are why are u not using your brain and perhaps u may use your brain. There are so many signs in glorious Quran (my faith) to think about creaition of many things like ا فلا ينظرون إلي ابل كيف خلقت و اليوسماء كيف رفعت meaning dont u see twords camel hou was it created and twords sky how was it set high. Therefore, it is concluded that religion and islam are not confronted.

Mabashir, the Qur'an is not science nor does it have the slightest connection to science. It is merely a series of sermons written in line with earlier group discourse on the new Abraham religion of Arabia. It has nothing whatever to do with science.

Your extraction from the Qur'an is meaningless and merely confirms the gap between religions, not I suggest spirituality or religious processes as can be seen occassionally in Buddhism for example.

Faith (religious beliefs) and science need not be at logger heads with each other. Two examples: Sir Isaac Newton was an ordained Anglican minister yet he is one of the most brilliant physicists and mathematicians. If he had chalked up the apple falling on his head phenomenon as just a miracle we will still be in the dark ages. Secondly Dr. Einstein was a highly spiritual person yet a brilliant scientist. Modern opposers of climate change mostly in the west who claim to belong to the "party of God" still want to enjoy the benefits of science such as a computer, cellphone or an ATM!

Please, take a look to the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.

http://inters.org/interdisciplinary-encyclopedia

You may find useful information there.

I don't think so

Oh!! I don't think so!! 🤨🌹

The mutual influence of faith and science cannot be completely ruled out, but this influence is less significant than it is generally believed, and is often artificially excited. The sphere of science is positive thinking, and faith is a humanitarian worldview. Therefore, they can peacefully coexist in one head without intersection.

My belive is science or religion, both are thinking patterns. Then when in science, we have an accepted thinking pattern. We, scientists, believe it is the correct way of research and we follow it.

Same time in one religion the followers do have the same thinking pattern. they believe it and follow it.

So we have 2 roles, one time, we are scientist whilst other time, we are followers of a religion. But the problem is, we are not in the same religion.

The conflict becomes here.

Hence in my view, science is also a religion, hence how do you practise one religion in other religion?

If you can prove it in a reproducible way through experimentations, then it is regarded as Science, if you cannot prove it or give any logical explanation but still accept it as possible, then it is regarded as Faith.

Science and religion are closely interconnected in the scientific study of religion, which can be traced back to seventeenth-century natural histories of religion. Natural historians attempted to provide naturalistic explanations for human behavior and culture, for domains such as religion, emotions, and morality. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds. But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn't happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary. https://theconversation.com/a-complex-god-why-science-and-religion-can-co-exist-909

One way to distinguish between science and religion is the claim that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns both the natural and the supernatural. ... The view that science can be demarcated from religion in its methodological naturalism is more commonly accepted https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

1. “a good scientist cannot be a believer . . .”

”Good” is a personal choice, not constrained by anything but an individual’s opinion.

2. “as this would be irrational and unscientific. . .”

What seems irrational and/or unscientific to some, is quite differently viewed by another.

3. “within the framework that FAITH AND SCIENCE ARE ATTACKING AND ARE IRRECONCILIABLE.”

When one attempts to reconcile a path of thought between beliefs of the head and heart,

it’s asking for an impossible task. And if I may, I have overheard more than one scientist exclaim

“I just hope to God that this run works!”

As with other similar, challenging comparisons between streams of thought,

perhaps what my normal first response to any challenging questions might work.

“It Depends!”

Stay Healthy!

Cheers,

Bill

In the theory postulated by Ian Barbour he said science and religion could be viewed

1.conflict

2.independent

3.dialogue

4.integration

The truth is that science is not against religion and according to Albert Einstein religion without science is lame and science without religion is blind the two can integrate but when it comes to superior religion wins because science is only confirming religion

Thank you, dear Falih Al- Emara

Thank you, dear Stanley Wilkin

Thank you, dear Mubashir Ali

Thank you, dear Srini Vasan

Thank you, dear Miguel De Salis

Thank you, dear Sana MH

Thank you, dear Diana A Ali

Thank you, dear RMM Praeder

Sorry: Thank you, dear RMM Praedeep

PRADEEP

Thank you, dear Ranjan

Thank you, dear Chinaza

Thank you, dear William M Hayden

Thank you, dear Joseph Monday

I agree with Dr. Manal Hadi Kanaan

That's the right idea! I do not want to invite you to the debate. But I am sure you are fundamentally wrong.

Zakir, your response appears to be captured by a "non-answer in tres partes:"

1. "The right idea,"

2. "But you may not consider invited to the debate,"

and after all,

3. "You are so wrong!"

Feels like what we hear during election time from poitical candidates in the USA!

Stay Healthy!

Cheers,

Bill

Thank you, dear Sura Saad

Thank you, dear Zakir

Thank you, dear William

A good scientist does not use science to prove religion, or religion to prove science for the two realms differ fundamentally in ontology. However, one can be a good scientist and practice a religion as long as scientific and religious experiences are treated differently.

Def. Scientist, scientist - a person working scientifically, an expert in a specific field of science, using appropriate scientific methods in his research, a person "looking for answers to questions that have not been answered so far, with methods that allow to prove the answer"

This is my favorite definition, which in its simplicity has a clear message - a scientist as an answer seeker is guided not by emotions, but by facts. Faith will not prevent him from doing so, nor does it exclude him as a scientist. Science itself is free from prejudices - it dictates who can and cannot be a scientist in terms of gender, skin color, faith, etc. If someone evaluates someone's research according to the above criteria, he is still stuck in the Middle Ages. .

This question should not be asked in 21st century.

Science follows more than 80 per cent the Holy Quraan.

Follow and listen the speeches of Dr. Zakir Naik.

Regards

Ijaz

I totally agree with Iiaz Ahmad. Most of the scientific discoveries; past, present and future are mentioned in The Holy Quran. However, most people and scientists have NOT read the Holy Quran or did not how to interpret the verses. I have read the Holy Quran and as a scientist and deep thinker, I could see the miracles of science claimed by many scientific discoveries all mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago when descended on the profit Mohammed (PBUH).

True knowledge of God, the supreme intelligent designer, knows that God is revealed in science. The first verse in the bible contains the components of scientific creation revealed by God: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

For scientific creation you must have time, space, matter, and an interacting force. In the beginning, is time. Heaven is space. Earth is matter, and the interacting force is God. Therefore, God gave man everything necessary for science to study, understand, manipulate, or created using time, space, matter, and man being the interacting force as being the image of God.

The wisdom of God is in man and because man was created by God, man seeks to do as his father and create as his father creates. Pro 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The Hebrew/Semitic word for inventions can be good or wicked. God's gifts of wisdom and letting man have the wisdom to create is holy in itself. However, we can make it unholy by our choices and intent.

The definition of Science is the state of knowing and Scientist say "Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." Faith is the substance of things hope for and the evidence of things not seen. Is not faith the start of all pursuit and application of knowledge? God spoke the word or logos which is to express one's intelligence. Faith says God spoke the world into existence and we are seeking the knowledge of the evidence of that designer's intelligence through...science.

In faith you state you know there is a God. Science is the state of knowing. The holy application of science seeks God and God reveals himself.

As for Islam, all knowledge are found from the religion because it is the basic for appreciating the Almighty Allah (God)

Thank you, dear Oswell

Thank you, dear Franke

Thank you, dear Ijaz

Thank you, dear Emad

Thank you, dear Ernest

Thank you, dear Muhammad

Oh lord, increase me in knowledge! Science and religion go side by side.

• “It is in the observations of a Believer’s daily life that we eventually learn what they really believe and value.”

Isn’t this statement applicable to not only their faith and religion but to their assertions of scientific relevance as well?

We are, each and all, occupying the same earth, air, wind, water, and fire.

Will we pass on to the next generations evidence of the value of togetherness, or with continued efforts for the singularity of separateness?

Stay Healthy!

Cheers,

Bill

In Christianity, faith, knowledge and action must go hand in hand. So that everyone who has faith in Christ must have love and actions that reflect Christ.

If one has faith, the evidences are clear to them whether they are scientists or religious people. Science should be the least antagonistic to religion. Science explains nature and life; religion explains nature and life. The approaches may be different but the purposes are similar. Even when the findings conflict, it is because one of the two is “humanly” wrong in interpretation or methodology. Perhaps, scientists and religionists should even interpret each other rather than denigrate each other.

Part of the problem is that both science and religion tend to have people who define things in absolute, forms that may not be challenged. Science merely has a much better history of recognizing that these sacred cows may be challenged with no terrible results to anything but someone's ego. I cannot speak for other religions, but I know that for Christianity it is possible to have a falsifiable history. It simply would look different than what is commonly accepted. In part it would mean dethroning the Book of Acts, which reads as if it were inspired in part by a play of Euripides anyway, as well as challenging parts of Josephus's history, and he really does not look like a careful historian in the first place. The question then becomes, are the religious brave enough to truly examine things or must they cower behind tradition, just as materialistic scientists do.

Religion is a guide for scientist to discover so many knowledge that can be of benefit to humanity and the environment we exist on. Without religion, man can not achieve salvation.

Thank you, dear Hassan

Thank you, dear William M.

Thank you, dear Effah

I am not a believer, but I think there is no incompatibility between science and religion, at last in some fields. And this no incompability has a tradition. A convincent adherent to a clear distinction between two distinct modes of knowledge (the revelation and the reason), Averroes (Ibn Rushd, Córdova, 1126-1198), great philosopher and the great qadi (judge) of Córdova - a very tolerant man, and in struggle against intolerance, should not be forgotten in present times of resurgence of the fanaticism -, it was a great influence in Western philosophy, through St.Thomas of Aquinas and St. Albert the Great. St.Thomas of Aquinas defended and required a certain autonomy of philosophy in front of faith and theology interferences, and Thomism became practically the Catholic church official philosophy.

We have several examples of figures of Catholic church wich have been scientists. As I am Portuguese, I like to remind Pope John XX (formerly known as Pedro Hispano, 1215-1277), the only portuguese pope until the date: a very famous doctor, mathematician, philosopher and theologian; author (among others) of important treaty De oculo, an ophthalmological treaty with wide dissemination in European universities; he was more inclined to study than at pontifical tasks.

Thank you, dear Ali A

Thank you, dear Carlos Alberto

It never occurred to me to juxtapose faith and science. I am aware of the discourses taking place, treating faith and science as binaries. But this binary does no sink into me. I consider faith as something like the oxigen we inhale constantly, the breeze and wind within which our life is situated. They cannot be dispensed with. The faith-formulations can come into clash with some scientific explanations of our life, but not the faith as such. Similarly, science is an approach, an ethos, a method, a vision, but cannot always be confined to the theories they propound. Theories can come into clash with faith, but they can be revised - only then they remain as scientific theories (pace, Karl Popper's insight on falsification). Science as a continuous quest and faith as deeper experience of life, reality, space, eternity and the divine mystery cannot come into clash.

Thank you, dear Gnana

The methods of science and religion may be different. But science cannot prove everything yet. It leads us to something that cannot be explained in totality without a first cause and effect relationship. Religion probably use faith to shorten the process of learning.

Thanks you dear Chung Tin

As been said that Scientist cannot remain the believer either in religion or God .It is the working of his mind sometime may turn out to be an ego of his presentation. Whatever may be the standing of scientist with all his research he himself may not find out even in his final journey .

Irrespective of the caste , creed & religion scientist or any other person cannot afford to ignore religion or God . I believe in this norms & in a general mode some years back I have expressed my presentation in above line which I submit herewith for your perusal

This is my personal opinion

They are actually complementary to each other.

Thanks you, dear Rohit Manilal

Thanks you, dear Nidhal Kamel

My criterion is that a scientist can be a believer, I do not believe that there is a contradiction as long as it is kept in the private and private sphere.

Thanks you, dear Antonio Franco

Not et al. In my openion both are different thing .....dont condradict each other ...

Religions is personal beleive while beleive in science for all

Thanks you, dear MK Tripathi

Merry Christmas and may next year come full of good fortune and free from the pandemic!!

For hall: A hug!!

Sorry: For all

For all