Religion is a mater of politics, economy, consolation, entertainment, and so forth. Religion does not have anything to do with mathematics, physics, biology, computers, aviation, and so forth. Science and religion are two different stories; if you want and if you can, you can keep them both. But if you try to mix them, you will not produce anything good.

I humbly would like to state that I don't face any conflict between my religion and modern science. My religion rather encourages to seek/explore/research the mysteries. In my religion, Science is merged and incorporated nicely. So, Science with my religion produces everything good.

A few relevant documents on my perspective of faith, science and reason combining to allow a consistence and compatible investigation of all three. Science must be careful to keep its perspective on the process not a claim to theology or philosophy which are separate disciplines for that reason.

Hope it helps the discussion.

Following

Following

Where science ends , religion start

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.

This kind of interesting question arises in the field of modern philosophy. To answer this question precisely, one must first give an exact definition of the concept of God contained in this question.

First of all, will this definition refer to religious issues or rather to other contexts such as eg the show business god or god in the sense of a universal idvalible absolute that exists somewhere in the infinity of the Universe or in dimensions that our intelligence does not fully still may include.

In view of the above, the current question is:

What tendencies currently dominate in contemporary concepts of defining divinity on the basis of contemporary philosophy?

In what directions, the concepts of modern philosophical thoughts, such questions are most often asked?

Best wishes

In my opinion, every person believes in something. This is the specifics of human psychology and consciousness. However, in what or to whom particular individuals believe it is a personal question, and therefore the consideration of seeking scientific evidence for the issue of personal faith is logically unjustified. If a person believes in something or someone supernatural, he is not subjectively interested in researching his faith scientifically, because if he did, that would stop being faith. If someone examines scientifically and scientifically the existence and principles of supernatural forces, then people will be deprived of the object of faith, since it will be fully scientifically described and explained.

On the other hand, fields of knowledge and science are developing, such as, for example, geology, archeology, peleontology, cosmology, genetics, sociobiology, etc., which provide knowledge that scientifically explain natural phenomena and development processes realized over thousands and millions of years on Earth. The explanation of these phenomena and natural processes is used for scientific research and describing phenomena that until recently have been considered human for many centuries to be supernatural, unrecognized, divine etc. Scientific research should serve people but should also be conducted in specific ethical standards.

In my opinion, faith is a personal issue for every human being, including a scientist researching various issues and solving various research problems. The results of research work are publicized in scientific publications. I see no collision about what or who a scientist believes and what he researches and describes in scientific publications as long as he follows the elementary principles of ethics and tolerance for other views and respect for other people's personal issues, including personal matters such as faith.

Best wishes

I agree with @Larry Carlson

Dariusz: "To answer this question precisely, one must first give an exact definition of the concept of God contained in this question."

I do not see "God" in the question. Some religions, like Buddhism, originally had no god(s). But people love divinities & celebrities and they have produced them massively throughout history.

1. Religion

2. Faith

3. Culture

4. Conscience

5. Science

All 'Five' psychologically strengthen people and deliver performance

O suposto e falso dualismo que encontramos atualmente entre a ciência moderna e a fé cristã é algo que não possui suas raízes nem nos fundamentos da fé cristã, nem nos primórdios da ciência moderna.

Em seu início, conforme argumenta Francis Schaeffer (PDF em anexo), a ciência era uma “ciência natural porque tratava de coisas naturais, mas longe estava de ser naturalista, pois, embora sustentasse a uniformidade das causas naturais, não concebia a Deus e ao homem como presos dentro do mecanismo. Tais cientistas nutriam a convicção, primeiro, de que Deus propiciou conhecimento ao homem – conhecimento de Si próprio e também do universo e da história; e, segundo, de que Deus e o homem eram partes do mecanismo e poderiam afetar a operação do processo de causa e efeito […]. Assim se desenvolveu a ciência, uma ciência que tratava do mundo natural e real que, porém, ainda não se havia tornado naturalista. ”[3]

A colocação de Robert Barron, em seu artigo intitulado “The myth of the eternal war between science and religion”, é imensamente necessária para este debate atual, uma contraposição sólida ao “cientificismo”, que segundo o autor é o “pressuposto filosófico de que o real é redutível ao que as ciências empíricas podem verificar ou descrever. […] Nunca ocorre a estes que pode haver uma dimensão da realidade cognoscível de uma maneira não científica, mas ainda racional. Em seu cientificismo, eles são cegos para a literatura, filosofia, metafísica, misticismo e religião.”

“Como observa Polkinghorne e outros, as ciências físicas modernas foram, de fato, possíveis graças ao ambiente religioso dos quais elas surgiram. Não é por acaso que a ciência moderna apareceu pela primeira vez na Europa cristã, onde a doutrina da criação dominava. Sustentar que o mundo é criado é aceitar, simultaneamente, os dois pressupostos necessários para a ciência: a saber, que o universo não é divino e que ele é inteligível.”

A religião cristã, por sua vez, não negligencia a criação, mas, muito pelo contrário, ela é totalmente oposta a uma visão dualista da vida que defende uma ruptura entre a vida da natureza e a vida da graça.

Muito antes de se opor à ciência, o cristianismo, e principalmente o calvinismo, encorajou o amor à ciência através da doutrina da Soberania de Deus (…) e do que ficou conhecido como o dogma da graça comum. Primeiramente, o amor pela ciência, visando à unidade em nosso conhecimento, é assegurado por nossa fé (…) na doutrina que afirma o decreto divino, a qual certifica que a existência e o curso de todas as coisas, ao invés de ser um brinquedo do capricho ou do acaso, obedece a uma lei e ordem, e existe ali uma vontade firme que coloca em prática seus propósitos na natureza e na história. Exatamente esta visão de mundo é que nos possibilita, como cientistas cristãos, a concepção indissolúvel de uma unidade toda compreensível, forçando sobre nós a certeza de que deve haver estabilidade e regularidade governando sobre tudo; sem isso não podemos confiar em nada, e o que é feito da ciência sob tais condições?

Como enfatizado por Abraham Kuyper, “fé numa unidade, estabilidade e ordem de coisas como esta, (…) cosmicamente manifesta como o conselho do decreto de Deus, não poderia senão despertar aos brados e vigorosamente encorajar o amor pela ciência. Sem uma profunda convicção desta unidade, estabilidade e ordem, a ciência é incapaz de ir além de meras conjecturas”.

De igual modo o dogma da graça comum permite compreendermos como aqueles que não abraçam a fé cristã e como mesmo civilizações pagãs produzem tesouros intelectuais. Partindo do conceito de pecado de acordo com as Escrituras Sagradas, concebemos que por causa do mesmo temos, imediatamente após a Queda, uma degeneração total da vida humana; em cada aspecto de sua existência o homem é depravado e corrompido, sendo assim incapaz de fazer, buscar ou desejar o que é bom. Mas Deus interrompe o curso do pecado para evitar a completa aniquilação de seu divino trabalho natural, o que inevitavelmente teria ocorrido. Ele interfere na vida do homem e na vida de toda sua criação por meio daquilo que conhecemos como graça comum.

Esta graça, apesar de não aniquilar a essência do pecado e nem salvar para a vida eterna, impede a execução completa do pecado e permite que haja certo grau de beleza, verdade e bondade; com isso, como afirmado por Nancy R. Pearcey e Charles B. Thaxton, a ciência não ocorre num vácuo conceitual quer religioso, filosófico ou cultural.

Sure there are various inconsitencies and partly countercting ideas in science vs religion and vice versa.

Albert Einstein famous statement: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Science and religion and others knowledge (Myth, Art, Philosophy) upheld for their different yet complementary roles. Declaring science and religion to be separate is to miss metaphysical common ground. I think in disruption era, scientist would be to think to read Plato and Aristotelian epistemology back, not Vienna Circle's philosophy of science only. thanks for all.

thanks a lot Professor Carlson for your argument and quora link

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems ... that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life ... and death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

I am not religious, but I am not happy with such claims. First of all, I am rather sceptical about the "spiritual evolution". Recent destruction of lives of tens of millions of people in Iraq, Libya, Syria (and elsewhere), perpetrated or facilitated by "mature democrats", shows that people have remained aggressive, hypocritical and brutal as they have always been.

Second, what is "genuine religiosity"? Religion is a complex phenomenon; it is not a matter of "blind faith". In my book "Reason and Passions" (Amazon/Kindle), I describe religion as an integral response to human needs and desires ... Religion holds a community together; it is the means by which the rulers control and steer the behaviour of people ... Religion brings big festivals and engages people by its daily rites; it consoles and encourages people in difficult situations ... Religion is a big business, and it is intensely used in conflicts and wars. ... The founders of big religions were very rational and wise people ...

Third, the claim about "the rational knowledge" is very problematic. I am 65; I am in a good shape, but I know that I shall be dead soon. I shall vanish forever, which I do not want, but I cannot avoid this by a "rational knowledge". Why should I be rational? Life is a story told by a fool signifying nothing, says a famous folk poet; life is a joke that must not be taken seriously, used to say the illiterate peasants from my native village

Why should I be rational, indeed? Young female souls do not consider me a candidate for the boyfriend; for them, I am an old man. The fact that I may be the best lover in my street means nothing to them; they disqualified me, and amen. My rationality does not help me much in this regard. A nice female poet wrote that life is a monstrous thing; I wanted to invite her for coffee, but I learned that she died, and I am expected to do the same. In sum, I am not sure that it is rational to be rational! Because a finite consciousness with infinite aspirations (desires) is a tragic (monstrous) rather than a rational phenomenon!

A bad thing with religion is that it is usually imposed on people, and it is often used for aggressive purposes. Hebrew god Yahweh calls himself "a god of war"; other gods & goddesses have loved wars too; see The Iliad or The Bhagavad-Gita; contemporary religious presidents of states are not better than their ancient gods. Anyway, religion is a matter of passion rather than a matter of reason. Material facts and logical consistency (proofs) are irrelevant in this matter. I am not religious, as I said; my mother was, and she told me that she did not care for my "explanations & arguments"; she lived and died with her religious narrative (vision).

Let me conclude with a paragraph from my book "Reason and Passions: In search of a poetics of existence"

(") Religion is a crutch on which people lean on their hard way from nothingness to nothingness. A crutch is helpful for many people and for some it seems necessary. But the crutch is an obstacle and burden for those who wish to walk freely as far as they can, and to face courageously the end of their walk, with deep regret but also with pride. For such people, a world without gods, paradises and hells looks more open and exciting: horrifying in its immensity and its cold emptiness; challenging with its forces and mysteries, poetical and charming in its aimless game of becoming and vanishing. People who know their loneliness and ephemerality can be better than the people whose minds and reality have been shaped by non-rational narratives. The peace in people and among people, based on non-rational narratives and illusions is not a real peace. We must seek peace and joy in us and among us on the way of sincerity, modesty and benevolence. (")

It is a declaration attribuated to Louis Pasteur, genius of the vaccinations: "when I open my laboratory, I close my private chapel, and, when I close my laboratory, I open my private chapel".

Very nice Professor Vincent Serverat; life is not only a matter of science but a scientific problem concerns all life

I will be back on Monday, and respond to some comments.

Yes Prof Mario Radovan. Have a good holiday.

I don't know about other religion..But in Hinduism, even a paint around Hindu temple (red and white) has element of Science in it..

"A female is uterus is equivalent to yajna or temple. A male and female has to unite to create a life(Brahmam or ParaBrahmam). The Brahmam thus formed is based on two compounds - Male Sperm which is white in colour, Female Ovum which is pinkish red in colour. The place where the Brahmam resides is the temple Garbha gruha." -

I often read/write during the extended weekend, and I do it off-line. Let me make clear what I intended to say in my previous posts.

I do not advocate religion or any kind of non-rational explanation of anything. I do not think that religions do explain anything; their narratives make things only more mysterious, because they add god(s) to the mystery of existence, and gods are the most mysterious entities of all!

Rational understanding of life and existence is sad. Poets of ancient ages describe people as "dust that eats dust and to dust return", "smoke in the wind", and "bubbles on the water"; Homer calls people "the most miserable of all creatures that crawl on the earth". Modern thinkers call human life tragic, absurd and so forth. Hence, it is not strange that some (many, most) people accept non-rational narratives which tell them that reality and life are radically better than it seems they are.

Religion is a matter of feelings (needs, desires) and interests (business), as well as of social pressure. Religion does not have anything to do with scientific knowledge. Gods have always spoken to shepherds; gods do not speak to scientists, and scientists' discourse about god(s) has always been very poor.

There is absolutely no reason to believe or hope that people could "exist" (whatever it means) after their death. Why would people be given this strange privilege? With what have people deserved such a privilege? Why would not dogs live forever; they are much better than people? They do not wage wars and do similar bad things. Why would not butterflies go to paradise; they are much more beautiful than people?

“Man finds God behind every doors that science achieves to open.”

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

[Translated from Lectura Conciencia. Escolma de citas sobre a ciencia. A Coruña: Concello de Coruña / Concellaría de Cultura, 2010]

I spent my life among scientist, but I think that the illiterate peasants from native village were much wiser people than "great scientists" are. My peasants went to church for social reasons, but they considered religious stories mere fables. And none of them ever supported wars! Many great scientists & artists have done this regularly and passionately. I do not care much for what "great minds" have said about those things that do not belong into the field of their expertise. I do not care what a great chemist or a quantum theorist thinks about any social issue; such people usually know rather little about life, people and society.

"Man finds God behind every doors that science achieves to open."

He does, indeed. But gods were here much before scientists arrived. And gods do not need scientists.

God Yahweh said to Abraham to sacrifice (which means, kill) his son Isaac; no explanation for such a terrible request was given. Abraham did not ask anything: he simply obeyed because that is how a man of faith is supposed to behave. Abraham gained a great reward from God and a lasting admiration of the people of faith because of his readiness to sacrifice (kill) his son when asked by God to do so. This tells a lot about people and their gods.

Larry, there are big problems here, and I must prepare (refresh) my lectures for tomorrow.

In brief. "... great scientists have suggested that there may be some form of awareness after death".

I do not care much about what "great scientists" say about such things. I do not know what "awareness after death means". I do not wish to be aware after death. I want to live now, and to be young and sexy forever, and rich, and so forth.

"No one said that all religious devotees are warlike." --- They are surely not, and I never said they were. I wrote many times (in my books) that religion is not the cause of war (as some people say), but that it is often used as the justification for aggressive behavior.

In sum, I am not anti-religious. All I wanted to say is that religion is one thing, and science is another thing. They do not need each other and they do not help each other in any way. This is my view. You can be religious if you wish, but if you seek god by means of science, you are neither a true scientist nor a true believer.

I must prepare my (two) lectures now.

The religious writing tells us to "Observe what is in the heavens and earth."

Such reflection will bring harmony between science and religion.

The scientist with inner peace and harmony will see the beauty and magnificence all around us!

Whichever doors people open and whichever space they enter, people carry with themselves their inherent anxiety and their infinite yearning to transcend their limitations and to reach the inconceivable. And they tell their tales with which they try to console themselves for the fact that they were born and that they must die.

Me, personally, not a "great mind", but a fool who says obvious things which some (many, most) people do not want to see.

I added this post because I do not want to discourage your search for immortality (by my skeptical remarks). Many things are possible, but this does not means that everything we wish to be the case really is the case. Good scientists discovered many excellent things and they will discover new excellent things. But this does not mean that human mind can discover every thing that people wish to discover (and to be the case).

Anyway, if science can discover or produce immortality (of any kind), than it should better not rely on religious narratives, because religious narratives (claims) are not based on scientific evidence. This is why I said (at the beginning) that science and religion are two different stories (activities, enterprises) which should better not be mixed with each other.

Passionate religious souls and leaders - such as Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, Luther and others - argued that reason is the enemy of faith. Martin Luther wrote: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word" (quoted in Dawkins 2006, 190). Religious narratives about the transcendental reality are not scientific (rational and based on evidence), and scientific discourse does not offer the consolation and hope that religious narratives bring to people. These are simply two essentially different discourses.

Thanks God, the discussion goes on!

I still think that religion regards psychological and social needs (desires and so forth) of people and communities. On the other hand, science aims to obtain certain physical (material) effects. Science and religion may talk to each other, but they are very different human creations.

When I read these learned texts (arguments) I ask myself why was Abraham so loyal (faithful) to his god, when he knew nothing about quantum theory, irrational numbers, and similar things.

Thomas Aquinas describes opinion, knowledge and faith in the following way. An opinion is a position taken tentatively, without a certainty, in a situation when we do not have a complete insight into relevant facts. Knowledge is a position taken on the basis of obvious and complete evidence. Faith is an "absolutely firm conviction" that transcends every doubt; faith is not based on evidence (it is not knowledge) but on "an act of choice" (in Hick, 158-59). Faith is a leap toward God (says Kierkegaard), which a person makes by the adoption of a narrative and by the absolute commitment to something she does not know.

I know a young colleague who is religious in the sense of Aquinas and Kierkegaard. He does not care what physics or biology say about his faith. I am not religious, and I do also not care what quantum theorists say about religious matters.

Larry, the only problem with your very good explanations and arguments is that they are rational & reasonable. If people and communities were behaving in a rational and reasonable way, there would have been much less problems and suffering in this world.

People do not struggle because of doctrinal differences; various leaders create doctrinal differences (religious, political, national) as the means & justification for struggling against others. Take God Yahweh (who allegedly created the world and people); he has chosen one tribe (as his "chosen people") and then constantly urges this tribes to exterminate other tribes around it. You do not need much science to see that there is something strange in this story. And yet, in the scientifically most advanced country in the world (USA), Creationism is a strong social force.

Some people are aggressive and they use all the means to achieve their aims. We can try to be rational & reasonable, but history has been shaped by brute force rather than by reasonable behaviour. Things may be changing for better, but slowly, very slowly.

Larry: "... religious people would be more truly spiritual, one would think, if they were to just be less dogmatic ... and practice things such as tolerance, cooperation, peacefulness, understanding, etc."

Indeed, but it is not so, and it may never be so.

I wrote a book "Reason and Passions"; in two years (on Amazon/Kindle) i sold ZERO copies. People are not interested in such matters. Let me quote a paragraph from that book.

3.62 - David Swenson describes religion in the following way. "Religion claims a place in human life, but the place it claims is not one of tolerance, but of supremacy". Religion is "the master passion" that wants to control all other passions and thoughts that steer and shape the life of people and community. Religion "strives to make all human activities its ministers - servants that feed the sacred flame of faith", explains Swenson. "To speak otherwise of religion is to rob it of its spirit of aggressiveness" which is the "very heart and soul" of religion, concludes Swenson (in Klemke 1981, pp. 31-32). ... Swenson advocates religion, so that he can say such things. If I were to say that aggressiveness is the heart and soul of religion, this would be called a brutal attack on religion by an unbeliever. ... Anyway, I agree with Swenson's description of the essence of religion.

“The truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis that best suits to open the road the following better tailored.”

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989]

[Translated from Lectura Conciencia. Escolma de citas sobre a ciencia. A Coruña: Concello de Coruña / Concellaría de Cultura, 2010]

Hi Vincent,

According to my study, science and religion is not against each other. The study of my religion has helped me better understand science. I was fascinated to learn how science ultimately points out to the intelligent designer. All these cosmic world and human are not accident, they are so precise that there must be a designer. Human have far more intellectual ability than any other creature so we need to spend time in knowing who this intelligent designer is.

Thank you.