Why is there this misconception that science and religion contradict eachother?

I honestly don't get it. Religion is philosophy and science is -well- science. The two serve different purposes. Philosophy is meant to explain the "why" of the world while science is meant to explain the "how" of the world. Science can never disprove philosophy and philosophy can never disprove science. I read some of the threads on this board and there are people that try to disprove religion with science, while others attempt to disprove science with philosophy.

There is also this misconception that all scientists are all just atheists set out to disprove religion at every opportunity, and that they are somehow biased just because they are scientists. And there are also some people on the other side of the coin, who think that just because someone is very religious, they are automatically ignorant of how the natural works.

I realize that I kinda went a little overboard with the generalizations but hopefully you all get the gist of what I am trying to say.

Good post. People fail to realize that when they argue about proving religion using scientific methods. You can't scientifically prove a faith-based belief. That wouldn't make sense. I think I just solved OT's religion thread problem. Bring me wine!! You, have that guy whipped!! Over there, bring me a fresh toga!!!FragStains

One's based on faith, the other based on evidence. While it's certainly not impossible for someone to be a religious scientist, there's still an incongruity there.Funky_Llama

I stopped reading when you said "Religion is philosophy". Religion, philosophy, and science are all different. Science and philosophy are clearly more similar with one another, as both are based oh theory. I don't feel like explaining it, it's basically the entirety of what my philosophy class has been (and is) up to this point with one day left.cool_baller

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]One's based on faith, the other based on evidence. While it's certainly not impossible for someone to be a religious scientist, there's still an incongruity there.abdelmessih101

At some points they do, science says the Earth is millions of years old, i believe the bible says 6000.markop2003

At some points they do, science says the Earth is millions of years old, i believe the bible says 6000.markop2003

Science and Philosophy pretty much have the same goals, which is to question everything and find the answers to the universe through that process. Religion on the other hand requires faith, and if something is contradictory between the two sides, then there are going to be problems.

I used to be on the "everybody love everyone" side of the argument, but then life struck me in the face.

ib[QUOTE="markop2003"]At some points they do, science says the Earth is millions of years old, i believe the bible says 6000.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]ib[QUOTE="markop2003"]At some points they do, science says the Earth is millions of years old, i believe the bible says 6000.sSubZerOo

Science and Philosophy pretty much have the same goals, which is to question everything and find the answers to the universe through that process. Religion on the other hand requires faith, and if something is contradictory between the two sides, then there are going to be problems.

I used to be on the "everybody love everyone" side of the argument, but then life struck me in the face.

Vax45

Religion is not philosophy. Religion is like science + philosophy in that it tries to do both what science and religion do, it tries to explain the meaning of life and it tries to explain where everything came from and how it works.htekemerald

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Two things. The Bible is not a science book. Time was counted differently back then.LJS9502_basic

I agree that if what is taught in science is true and what is taught in religion is true then neither will conflict. However, people's most common perceptions of science and religion typically contradict in some manner. Figuring out which parts of each is true is the debate.mindstorm

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]I agree that if what is taught in science is true and what is taught in religion is true then neither will conflict. However, people's most common perceptions of science and religion typically contradict in some manner. Figuring out which parts of each is true is the debate.MindFreeze

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]I agree that if what is taught in science is true and what is taught in religion is true then neither will conflict. However, people's most common perceptions of science and religion typically contradict in some manner. Figuring out which parts of each is true is the debate.mindstorm

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Thing bible isn't very clear in alot of areas and its on the interpretation of the reader.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]How old is the Bible? When did we create the standard year?sAndroid17

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]I agree that if what is taught in science is true and what is taught in religion is true then neither will conflict. However, people's most common perceptions of science and religion typically contradict in some manner. Figuring out which parts of each is true is the debate.mindstorm

[QUOTE="sAndroid17"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] LJ my point is not every one who reads the bible agrees with you in multiple areas there is no consensus.. Many believe in the young earth for instance, and lets face it, its speculation we have no clue what alot of parts of the bible ment and the views has changed radically as time went on.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="sAndroid17"] proving how useless religion is. science has changed because it finds things that are more and more acurate. the bible is a set list that cant change, and the fact that views have changed is just patheticsAndroid17

[QUOTE="sAndroid17"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yeah I agree, for instance the Bible was one of the greatest pieces of "evidence" to justify slavery in the United States when the abolition movement just began to be known.MindFreeze

To me, obsessing over whether the Bible is literal truth misses almost everything that Christ indicated mattered, though.xaos

That really depends on what you are speaking on by literal. I honestly question whether it matters in the end if some parts of Creation are taken literally so long as one believes God created. If one questions the resurrection of Christ, then one completely missed the point of the entire Bible. Morality is but second to the redemption given by Christ through the resurrection.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] A religion could be true. Take Christianity for example, if it is true then the Judeo-Christian God is the one which created the world and dwelt among us as Jesus Christ. It is either true or it is not. There is not a middle choice. History and reality cannot be interpreted using postmodern views.MindFreeze

In some respects I see where you are coming from. I have a confident hope and a confident faith that what I believe is true. I do not claim omniscience as I do not claim to be God. I, however, neither claim to have a blind faith where I have no logical reason to believe that the Bible is true in it's entirety.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="sAndroid17"]exactly! amongst ten million other horrible things done because of the bible, that have just stopped. yet the bible is the same.. :|sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="sAndroid17"]exactly! amongst ten million other horrible things done because of the bible, that have just stopped. yet the bible is the same.. :|sSubZerOo