Does religion need to stop scientific research?

Great Debates
1

After reading this thread, I started thinking about how religions throughout history have attempted to stop scientific discoveries from being shared. From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can’t think of any that actively encourage discovery. Is this because the religious groups believe that their central tenets may be disproved? If that is the case, doesn’t that tend to discount faith? Wouldn’t that be similar to saying that you doubt your own faith so much that there is probibly proof out there that God doesn’t exist and people cannot be allowed to discover that? Or is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?

Sgt Schwartz

2

With all due respect, I believe you are indeed wrong. True, some sects have occasionally voiced opposition to certain lines of scientific teaching or research. However, this does not mean that religion as a whole (or even Christianity) oppose science. Various Catholic and Protestant universities, for example, have science departments that have astronomical observatories, research laboratories, and so forth.

Blaise Pascal was Christian philosopher. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic Monk. Heck, the chairman of my Physics department was a Jesuit priest. I would argue that Christianity most certainly does actively encourage scientific discovery, especially insofar as it exhorts people to be proper stewards of their talents and to work for the betterment of mankind.

3

American Jewish people have higher rates of education than non-Jewish people

American Jews are generally more educated than the American public as a whole. 55% of Jewish adults 18 years of age and older have at least a bachelor’s degree, and 24% have a graduate degree. The comparable numbers for the general population are 29% with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 6% with a graduate degree.
One of the reasons for this that I’ve heard from Jews is the culture of education Judaism provides. However that may be an ethnic thing and not a religious one.

Many of Al Qaeda’s top terrorists have bachelor or graduate degrees in hard scientific fields like engineering or medicine. Bin Ladin and Zawahiri are an engineer and physician respectively. Several of the 9/11 hijackers were students in fields like engineering.

Plus many educational fields have nothing to do with religion. Medicine or engineering are not a threat to religious faith. Evolutionary biology, maybe, but most fields are not going to make any difference in the idea of a creator god.

I can’t think of any branches of faith that encourage science and discover at the moment but I’m sure some exist.

4

Those who claim to worship the one “true” God should make discovering and discerning truth a priority. That includes scientific, archaological, and other academic evidence. Trying to surpress the truth for fear of certain traditional beliefs being threatened seems counterproductive to the cause they give lip service to.

5

A long thread about science and religion, with an interesting discussion of whether Galileo’s problems with the Catholic church were really about religion:

6

Only the ones that are supposed to already have an answer for everything.

7

Not to mention Theodore Dobzhanski–a devout Christian–who applied Mendel’s findings to Darwin’s theory, providing the “engine” that made it work, thus establishing the train of thought known as neo-Darwinism.

8

What the world needs is more blind faith…more followers…too much free thinking is a baaad thing. :rolleyes:
We really need a sheep Smilie.

9

I don’t agree that we need followers or that free thinking is a bad thing, but the world certainly could use more Blind Faith.

10

On an obscure band trip today, eh?

11

Obscure??? :eek:

<<shakes head sadly>>

12

'Cause he’s wasted and he can’t find his way home…

13

Double :eek: :eek: from me.
grumble kids today, don’t know what good music is grumble

14

Ahem. About the OP, besides the stuff already mentioned, I’m surprised no one said Jesuit.

When I was in Bell Labs, one of the supervisors was a nun. She was very cool, and very smart.

15

Well, I did mention my old Jesuit physics professor.

16

I think those in this thread who give specific examples of particular religious people or movements who embrace science are too busy pointing at certain tall trees to notice the average height of the forest.

Religion is based on faith, and science on the rejection of faith in favour of repeatable observation and testing. There are plenty of influential religious people who understand (explicitly or intuitively) that the spread of the scientific movement is broadly incompatible with attracting the masses to religion and who show distaste for the scientific movement as a consequence.

17

Well first, the OP asked if there were ANY religous groups that encouraged scientific inquiry. A few examples (heck, even a single one!) are sufficient to show that there are.

I think that distinction is both false and irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because science pertains to the physical universe and religion pertains primarily to spiritual matters. While there can be some overlap (for example, when miraculous claims are made), their realms are mostly separate. For example, how would one scientifically determine that it is wrong to rape little children, or to steal from one’s neighbor? It can’t be done, since such questions do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

Additionally, despite the protestations of many on this board, religious faith does not (necessarily) mean abandoning all observation and evidence whatsoever. That’s certainly not what the New Testament writers meant by faith. Matthew, for example, repeatedly appealed to the alleged fulfillments of Old Testment prophecies. One might disagree with Matthew’s intepretations of these prophecies, or their alleged fulfillments, but the point remains – at no point did he ever say, “Look, just trust me! Don’t ask for any evidence, just trust me!” Nor did the Apostle Paul, for in Acts 17:17, he is said to have “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace with those that happened to be there."

Jesus himself is recorded as having healed a paralytic “so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” (Matthew 9:6). Again, a skeptic may disbelieve this account, but the point remains… According to the gospels themselves, Jesus did not expect people to believe by abandoning all evidence.

Then you have people like Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Peter Stoner, Frank Morison and more… People who came to belief through investigation of the scientific and historical facts. These people are highly respected within Christianity. Several of these individuals even sought to disprove the case for Christianity, and yet were forced to conclude that Christianity was worthy of belief. Again, one might disagree with their conclusion, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Christian faith does not require that one ignore all evidence and take a blind leap of a cliff.

Even Jesus is recorded as having performed

18

For all the talk about Faith and Science being compatible, all the evidence does seem to suggest that they tend to be hard to reconcile with each other:

New York Times

19

Point taken, although the OP also asks (see the title) whether religion needs to stop scientific research and “is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?” which invoke broader consideration.

No, you are just illustrating my point. The scientific viewpoint can be applied to the whole universe. The scientific viewpoint discounts the whole idea that there are any such things as “spriritual matters” outside the physical universe. The whole idea that such matters exist is one that is unsupported by evidence and therefore not scientific

Scientifically, one could discuss such things in terms of the human brain and how it works, using certain memes such as “right” and “wrong” as ways of thinking about certain behaviours, and about evolutionary biology and why it is in the evolutionary interest of the herd for it to restrain particular behaviours and so on.

You may well think that science does not adequately explain such matters and I would agree, but the difference between us is that I just think science has more work to do, while you think that science cannot explain such matters while religion can. If everybody thought like I do, where would religion be? And every scientific breakthrough that people can understand attracts people to a scientific viewpoint.

[Emphasis added]

The qualifications you make to your comments (as emphasised in my quote) are all important. One can (as you appear to do) apply science and religion to different aspects of your thought, just as one can stand with each foot in a different camp. It’s often not optimal, though.

20

Hey, I can’t help it ifyou guys done got old. I actually grew up listening to the “classic rock” of the time and know the name but couldn’t place a song to them. BTW, I am getting up there in years myself. :wink: