As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you're a believer who doesn't want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith - or any faith - is perfectly compatible with science.
But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict - even at "war" - but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.
Opposing methods for discerning truth
The scientific method relies on observing, testing and replication to learn about the world.Jaron Nix/Unsplash, CC BY
My argument runs like this. I'll construe "science" as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it's right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others' results to increase confidence in your inference.
And I'll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett: "Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought."Of course many religions don't fit that definition, but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often -the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - fill the bill.
[Ron: I disagree in that the term Abrahamic faiths is misleading because Judaism is essentially an atheistic political ideology with about 75% of Judaic adherents being atheists and the remaining 25% professing belief in a jealous, vindictive, ethnocentric genocidal entity that is no g-d at all. In any event, religions are really ideological political mechanisms designed for socio-political population control.As such they lack essential spiritual information and content although some religions, and in particular the Christian religion, retain significant truths. In the case of the Christian religion, that truth content is provided by the teaching of Jesus the Christ, the uncorrupted portions of which provide significant spiritual content.
Although the Chrisian and Muslim religions purport to believe in God theyhave had their core tenets corrupted by demonic forces which has resulted in them largely concealing rather than revealing divine truth.
Daniel Dennett's definition may be relevant to a definition of religions but it is completely unhelpful in any consideration of the validity of the underlying spiritual truth about life the universe and everything on the one hand and the claims of materialist science on the other.
In recent times, due to atheistic Jewish political and financial control of governments, the MSM, academia and science funding, most scientists have confined theirscientific methodology to the materialistic observation, testing and replication of physical matter in order to deduce their conclusions about the known physical universe.This is a limited, self fulfilling exercise because of its truncated, blinkered methodology, although scientists like Nikola Tesla and Rupert Sheldrake et al have delved into the unseen but very real realms of the energies that actually construct the cosmos and their findings contradict the limited conclusions of mainstream physicalist scientists.
The result is that the discoveries of so-called evolutionary biology and cosmology have been manipulated to shrink the boundaries of what scientists can examine in order to falsely describe what Talmudic science considers to be life, the universe and everything. Typical of this process is this author's framing of this discussion in terms of religion verses science. Both religion and science are truncated Talmudic frames of reference that bear little resemblance to cosmic reality.].
Next, realize that both religion and science rest on "truth statements" about the universe - claims about reality.The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning, but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims.You can hardly call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the Resurrection of Christ, a Muslim if you don't believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad,or a Mormon if you don't believe that the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon.After all, why accept a faith's authoritative teachings if you reject its truth claims?
[Ron:
Indeed, even the Bible notes this: "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
[Ron: THIS, like so much in the Bible and in Christian religious doctrine, is a LIE, inserted by the Pharisees who influenced Roman Emperors to establish the Christian religion in an attempt to completely distort and/ even eradicate the teachings of Esu Immanuel (aka Jesus the Christ).In fact, Jesus did not die on the Cross but was resuscitated and used pyrotechnics to scare the bejabbers out of Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) on the Road to Damascus. Then he went to India with Thomas, Judas (who was his friend and did not betray Jesus - that Pharisaic LIE refers to another person named Judas) and others. Jesus went to northern India, married and had five children dying at around 115 years of age. EVERY ensouled human is an eternal spirit who, after ceasing to inhabit or overshadow a physical body, is "resurrected", ie continues to exist in another spiritual dimension until choosing to reincarnate again in the physical universe.].
Many theologians emphasize religion's empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:
"The question of truth is as central to [religion's] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy."
The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.
In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority - in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In science, faith without evidence is a vice, [Ron: Really?! Like Darwinian evolution and climate science et al?!] while in religion it's a virtue. Recall what Jesus said to "doubting Thomas," who insisted in poking his fingers into the resurrected Savior's wounds: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
And yet, without supporting evidence, Americans believe a number of religious claims: 74 percent of us believe in God, 68 percent in the divinity of Jesus, 68 percent in Heaven, 57 percent in the virgin birth, and 58 percent in the Devil and Hell. Why do they think these are true? Faith.
[Ron: ALL ensouled human beings are sons and daughters of God because all are indwelt by a fragment of the consciousness of the Creator. Mary received Esu's father's seed from the Gabriel of Nebadon. Lucifer and his fallen angel subordinates from the Satania Administration constitute "the devil" but there is NO HELL, save the hell on earth in which we live as a result of the thoughts, words and deads of all who have been here.]
But different religions make different - and often conflicting - claims, and there's no way to judge which claims are right. There are over 4,000 religions on this planet, and their "truths" are quite different. (Muslims and Jews, for instance, absolutely reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.) Indeed, new sects often arise when some believers reject what others see as true. Lutherans split over the truth of evolution, while Unitarians rejected other Protestants' belief that Jesus was part of God.
[Ron: So what?! This author's entire argument is a straw man.].
And while science has had success after success in understanding the universe,[Ron: this statement is utter bullshit. It is a Talmudic LIE. Almost nothing we know about our ourselves and our history, or our world, let alone the universe or the cosmos of which it is a small part, is true.]the "method" of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? There is no one answer to any of these questions. All is mystery, for all rests on faith.
[Ron: What are this author's answers to these questions?].
The "war" between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue.
[Ron: Yabba, yabba, what reasons does this author have for the existance of the dystopia in which we live on this planet, yabba?].
Compartmentalizing realms is irrational
So how do the faithful reconcile science and religion? Often they point to the existence of religious scientists, like NIH Director Francis Collins, or to the many religious people who accept science. But I'd argue that this is compartmentalization, not compatibility, for how can you reject the divine in your laboratory but accept that the wine you sip on Sunday is the blood of Jesus?
[Ron: More straw man nonsense! Jesus didn't incarnate to suffer and die for our "Salvation" or to "save" us from our sins. Nor did he come to create a religion. He came to teach the divine truth that had been lost over aeons and corrupted by Pharisees and others. Jesus didn't die on the Cross and so his so-called Resurrection simply prefigures the continuation of the spirit of every ensouled human after the physical death and dissolution of the material body in any given incarnation. Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for the salvation of anyone.
The Christian Communion sacrament myth was concocted by Talmudic elements as part of their corruption of the genuine communal sharing typified by the 'Last Supper' and celebrated by Christian communal gatherings for centuries before the Talmudists distorted and formalised it as a priestly "sacrament" rather than what it was, a genuine celebration of Christian fellowship by all present.
The major LIE that Jesus' death was his atonement for us and our sins was inserted into the doctrines of the Christian religion to confuse, deceive and disempower its adherents. Ensouled humans do not need anyone to ensure their salvation and at-one-ment with the Creator because each and every ensouled being is indwelt by a fragment of the consciousness of the Creator which ensures their atonement with the Creator provided that they use their free will to CHOOSE that outcome. The journey through physicality via enumerable incarnations is the process whereby humans learn about life, the universe and everything and eventually come to understand and accept divine reality and their atonement with God. ALL ensouled humans are equal and all are ONE, as part of the Creator.
This also means that no one can "save" anyone else. Each ensouled human must learn to save self (ie learn to understand and accept life the universe and everything). That is the reason for our physical incarnations and why we must reincarnate innumerable times in order to learn 'the way the truth and the life' espoused by Jesus who was a dual incarnationof Christ Michael Aton (the God of this universe) and Esu Immanuel Kumara. That means their spirits overshadowed the physical body of Jesus since their spirits were too powerful to actually inhabit his body without destroying it.].
Others argue that in the past religion promoted science and inspired questions about the universe. But in the past every Westerner was religious, and it's debatable whether, in the long run, the progress of science has been promoted by religion. Certainly evolutionary biology, my own field, has been held back strongly by creationism, which arises solely from religion.
What is not disputable is that today science is practiced as an atheistic discipline - and largely by atheists. There's a huge disparity in religiositybetween American scientists and Americans as a whole: 64 percent of our elite scientists are atheists or agnostics, compared to only 6 percent of the general population - more than a tenfold difference. Whether this reflects differential attraction of nonbelievers to science or science eroding belief - I suspect both factors operate - the figures are prima facie evidence for a science-religion conflict.
[Ron: Arguably what these figures really evidence is that Jew banksters and corporatists control Western governments, and the funding of virtually all academic and science funding. Very few scientists will accept the truth of any proposition that ensures that they won't have an income or a job.].
The most common accommodationist argument is Stephen Jay Gould's thesis of "non-overlapping magisteria." Religion and science, he argued, don't conflict because: "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values - subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."
This fails on both ends. First, religion certainly makes claims about "the factual character of the universe." In fact, the biggest opponents of non-overlapping magisteria are believers and theologians, many of whom reject the idea that Abrahamic religions are "empty of any claims to historical or scientific facts."
Nor is religion the sole bailiwick of "purposes, meanings and values," which of course differ among faiths. There's a long and distinguished history of philosophy and ethics - extending from Plato, Hume and Kant up to Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and John Rawls in our day - that relies on reason rather than faith as a fount of morality. All serious ethical philosophy is secular ethical philosophy.
[Ron: IF this statement implies that ethical philosophy is unrelated to spirituality, I disagree.].
In the end, it's irrational to decide what's true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the "truths" undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet,people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect.
[Ron: Ironically this author's thesis is that religions are faith based whereas popular modern science isn't. In truth religions and modern science are almost totally FAITH based AND that situation has arisen because BOTH have been created and imposed on humanity here by demonic Talmudic influences. The necessary implication in this author's argument is that modern science implies that humans on this planet are probably the only intelligent creatures in the universe and certainly the most advanced. LOL
Robert Arvay sums up the sort of situation postulated by this author rather well:
What Darwin and Simpson have done, along with others, is to introduce into society the physicalist paradigm, the one that holds that nothing exists except stuff, that is, material reality. According to physicalism, there is no spirit, no God, no eternal afterlife. By extension of that paradigm, you and I are nothing more than stuff, that is, the atoms that make up our physical bodies. If that is to be considered true, then it necessarily must follow, at least eventually, that we have no inherent right to be treated as anything more than protoplasm, nothing more than just another species of animal.
OR, as Niels Bohr said:“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”].
[Colour fonts, bolding and comments in square brackets added.].
Dr Peter Beter - Audio Letter No 47 - Topic #1--THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE RUSSIAN ROBOTOIDS. Topic #2--THE RUSSIAN STRATEGY TO DISMANTLE BOLSHEVIK POWER, See: http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbal47.html
Dr Peter Beter - Audio Letter No 46 - Intro & Topic #1--NELSON ROCKEFELLER'S REVENGE FROM THE GRAVE Topic #2--THE COSMOSPHERE SHUTTLES TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR See: http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbal46.html
