Believe me that they are two faces for the same coin.

Hi Dear Colleagues

I apologize to give this reply, to share my surprise to have a proposition from the RG platform, as Similar questions and discussions, the following discussion:

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

It is available since 15 days and still (Weird, no?!!!)

The main objective of my previous question was to have reflections and to think about our perception of Science and Religion.

Which lead, in my opinion to avoid to worship science and accept science regardless of the religion of the knowledge source (the scientist's religion).

Sincerely, Djamel.

Science work for the elements of the nature ,materials & such other areas whereby we can concentrate of his study & his research for the benefit & welfare of the people .

It is in this line some years back I have presented the similar views which I submit herewith for your kind perusal

Science is a systematic knowledge under the creative energy which brings his creation on the surface which may be the part of natural or physically creation may be helping line for the members of society .

To me although religion can become full part for the scientist but the ignore deliberately  as their creation has no direct impact on religion forgetting the basic fact that the nature ,our mother earth & surrounding environment are the product of the religion which has an universal applicability .

Religion can also become the part of our creation as it relates to our energy force of our mind & we all know that our mind offer us the experience of our intelligence ,guidance,& last but not the least the power of our intuition .

This energy forces we all can receive only through our religion our ultimate end of which is power of prayer ,meditation ,& silent sitting for few minutes .

This is my personal opinion 

Religion and Science can be viewed as separate beliefs, but in my opinion they coexist. The belief in God (Religion) understands that He created everything. In one form or another, Science exists in everything that we know about. Thus Religion and Science are both relevant and are linked together. I believe that the "big bang theory" is insufficient to create the intricate parts of all that exists (Science); that is why it's called a "theory". Only a supreme being, God would choose to create. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 God is the master scientist.

(1) For several decades of publications on the relation of science to religion see the journal Zygon which focuses totally on the question. Last decade or more the Templeton Foundation has funded research on the question. The religious studies disciplines, cognitive science of religion and affective science of religion come at the question from that perspective and publish voluminously on it.

(2) It is a question I have been researching and writing on for several decades. See my postings on researchgate.net and academia.edu. One current project is to define the term 'religion'. If it can't be defined it is a useless topic for science to study.

(3) See my papers on The Case for Chimpanzee Religion and on A Trans-species Definition of Religion. I will publish in fall a paper on Chimpanzee Ethics (and proto-art and proto-music) I presented at the Oxford-Brookes Conference on the Evolution of Ethics last summer. To think that religious behaviors only occur for Homo sapiens sapiens is refuted.

(4) Humanities researchers who want to build bridges with scientists must have some empathy for the history of science under Christianity. Scientists were routinely branded as heretics and some burned at the stake. For example the polymath scientist Michael Servetus burned at the stake with full approval of John Calvin one of the founders of Christian Protestantism. To this day, witness the current state of the US, Calvinists are anti-science and its freedom of inquiry.

(5) Re: the term 'God'. Hundreds of non-Bronze Age religious traditions don't worship the so-called God mentioned in comments above. And do so only when it was inflicted on them by Christians or Muslims who sought to eradicate their religions, often under the murderous label: pagans, hunter-gatherers, etc. Many of these peoples, languages and cultures were genocided by Christians and Muslims, have gone extinct or are on edge of extinction, while Christian and Muslims continue to this day so-called 'missionary' genocidal activities.

(6) Further, even some Bronze to Iron Age religious traditions don't belief in a 'supreme being, God, creator of universe', such as Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism. Even Judaism reading Genesis in Hebrew, rather than Roman and English translations which not infrequently give mistranslations, reads Genesis to say that their God began the process of creating at some beginning point and is still in the process of creating, and new events are emerging.

To answer this question I will quote Karl Barth's opinions. Barth concept on evolution and creation is that the source of one is divine revelation and the source of the other is human, scientific speculation. But one must never be forced to choose between them, because they are two different kind of accounts. If we are forced to choose between them, then we lose what the other one has to tell us, (Ramm, "After Fundamentalism", 1983,p.86). Barth writes rather famously, "if theology allows itself to be called a science, and calls itself a "science", in so doing it declares: 1. That like all other so called sciences it is a human concern with a definite object of knowledge. 2. That like all others it treads a definite and self-consistent path of knowledge. 3. That like all others it must give an account of this path to itself and to all others who are capable of concern for this object and therefore of treading this path, (McCormack, "Orthodox and Modern", 2008, p.286). That Barth thought that this definition might well apply to more than religion alone is made clear when he refers to the sciences in point one as "so called" ----- thereby indicating that he is conceding nothing to them in the way of primacy when it come to defining that which is truly "scientific". The object in question here is of course God (religion) and his revelation and Darwin (evolution) and his theory. The final analysis of Barth's belief is that human logic and human history was not acceptable with him, only biblical revelation and biblical history.

I too have always appreciated the writings of Karl Barth, and the organizing of the Barmen Declaration against the rise of the Nazis, and also deeply appreciate the writings of Bonhoeffer. I agree with Faith that science and religion are two independent modes of knowledge ('science'), as Aristotle or Plato might say, two independent modes of Philosophia. One the one hand, the 'natural' sciences concern physical, dynamic and biological, ecological and evolutionary laws of the unfolding of the causal material universe. On the other hand, religious traditions offer 'revelations' of the nature of creation, which I view as analogues for every creative process and creativity.

And also I find the poet Wallace Stevens profound, as when he says: Borrowing a term from Simone Weil, “Modern reality is a reality of decreation, in which our revelations are not the revelations of belief but the precious portents of our own powers.”

The problem begins with the fundamentally different hermeneutical approaches of three major domains of knowledge: 1) physical sciences; 2) social sciences; 3) religious reflection, both theological and related dimensions of philosophy. Intellectual formation in each of these separate domains invariably entail minimal competencies across the three domains. Lots of reductionist models appear, e.g., reducing the religious to the natural or social, and vice versa. Significant overlap of the domains can be fostered through interdisciplinary dialogue.

Science originally meant knowledge. People confuse it only with the natural science, or physical science. Every type of knowledge including those from religion, culture, and consciousness is also science.

There is nothing wrong in having religious reflection on scientific Knowledge. Religion adds the flavour of God into scientific discoveries. Scientifc discoveries without God is amoral and create scientists who are dangerous to the society. Such scientists will lack conscience and will be playimg God.

Hi Dear Colleagues,

I thank you, All, for your valuable replies and apologize for the delay and for the global response.

I do agree totally with most of your replies and disagree, in parts, with others, but let me first, please give the following points:

1. Premises:

- We, all, have our own Believes and Perceptions;

- All can change, keep Thinking and having Reflections.

2. Rules:

- Respect the others;

- Tell the others: don't keep a knowledge;

- Listen to the others;

- Think about all;

3. Consequence: "To Judge you have to Know".

the question was about two concepts; Science and Religion, So what is our perceptions of these Concepts?

To make it easy to read, using a shorter reply, I will give my perception of both concepts, separately, in two next replies.

Sincerely, Djamel.

Hi Dear Colleagues,

First, I apologize for the delay.

The question was about two concepts; Science and Religion, So what is our perception of these Concepts?

What is our perception of Science?.

SCIENCE comes from knowledge and Scientists are so, knowledge holders.

Science takes the form of observable and testable explanations and predictions; which is a very restrictive vision, shared by almost all of us: namely, Materialism (naturalism): They use only senses and don’t admit what they can’t feel or sense, they refer and explain all with Material.

SCIENCE (all capital letters) consider the previous definition of Science (just the first letter in capital) as a quarter of a more general definition which will include also:

1. Instinct (innate): Knowledge that we borne with, without need to learn (need for: peace, religion, creator …);

2. Mind (common sense) : Knowledge that we learn without need to test (a part of any thing is smaller than this thing) ;

3. News : All new Knowledge that we acquire from men’s observations and experiences , if they present a consistency and persistency behavior with the fixed laws of the universe without need to test any similar other observations (in the same conditions, a given suppositions gives always the same results);

4. Science : Observable and testable explanations and predictions.

1. Premises:

· SCIENCE remains relative, it stills a “man-made”: as human we have different scientific “intellectual” levels, skills and Perceptions: brain capabilities, analysis abilities, …: We are different;

· SCIENCE, in the future, can be contested and even turn false: All can change, keep Thinking and having Reflections.

2. Rules:

- We know what we are able and allowed to;

- We don’t create what we know we just discover it (apple was falling down since the beginning and the gravity existed before, Newton just discovers and defines its law, the same for Archimedes);

- We accept SCIENCE regardless the owners’ believes, origins, …..

3. Consequence:

Science is not a Religion and don’t have Religion.

Sincerely, Djamel.

"Learn, Teach, Respect and Think."

I think we have to consider the question by explaining the definitions.What do you mean by religion and science?Then one might propose the matter methodologically.That is to say by explaining the concepts and defining the methods of science and religions ,it might be possible to clarify the question as well

The question can be clarified using methods like neuro-phenomenology to answer issues on the gaps between science and religion.

This question should asked first- Why it is necessary to find relationship between science and religion? Why we should discuss such a topic that divide between man to man even society to society? Why just we cant unite together in the name of science for the betterment of the people, for the society and for the world.

"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

Richard Dawkins

"Mathematics is the alphabet that God used to describe the universe..." - Galileo

"When darkness limits everything, God lights the stars to guide us safely through the night." Phil Bosmans

“God is felt by the heart, not by the mind. This is what faith is: God is tangible to the heart, not to the mind." Blaise Pascal

As usual the assertion that religions are by their very nature moral rears its head when any study of religions shows it isnt true: piety, proper worship and obligations to god, pilgramages, etc, is mistaken for moral action. Religion confirms a strong and definable exclusive relationship to a powerful entity and the morality attached is a secondary process for controlling the population. Worship of a god can be done individually, organised processes are for the good of the elite or health of the community as an indivisable entity.

Still, many sciences depend on belief-the perceivable correctness of science, its efficacy and absolutism-while failing to meet the evidence required of science. The idea of evidence anyway has its roots in religion and the credibility of magic and miracles. There are many sciences that can be called that based on appearance, not reality.

"Our faith in God depends on what we understand by God." Carl Sagan

"To deal with biology means to watch God in the act of creation." Walter Nernst

I won't say there is anything problematic with a scientific or empirical framing for subjects spanning religion, society, and love. The challenge, on assumes, comes with quantifying or justifying interpretations of specific positions. So the framing isn't the issue, but the justification of perceived, if any, methodological rigor.

I think there must not any problem discussing science and religion. What way science and religion follow the same path. However, as science bit younger than the religion thoughts. After 1750, scholarship on the science attempt to make the science a new religion. Science attempt to offer the meanings of happing around us in a systematic and methodologically rigour manner. However, religion thought as superior, that religion have the answer before science can prove in one way or other. I think science and religion need to go hand by hand to resolve the highly demanding challenges of the human race. Science and religion are there to benefit the human race not enslaved them.

"The closer we are to nature, the more we feel God in us." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Science freed man from fear of the gods..." - Lucretius

Scientific may just be a supplementary faith. Religion is vitally important to adherents. They venerate God. Technology is necessary but this position should not be taken.

"A bit of philosophy inclines the mind of man towards atheism. But the true depth of philosophy turns the mind towards religion." Francis Bacon

There is some level of relationship between religion and science. However, science is more natural, physical, and Chemical, while science is more spiritual and supernatural

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

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

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/

Believe me that they are two faces for the same coin.