# Is Religion and Science Compatible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519 "2014-06-11T02:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/261 "2014-06-20T15:59:46Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Well that’s a content-free statement. > [@Latro](#): > > “Fundamental ground for existence”. > Does this mean anything in english? Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if I was on crack or what. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/262 "2014-06-20T19:11:09Z")
It’s interesting that no one asks “is philosophy compatible with science?” If anyone did, I think the universal answer today would be yes. That’s because modern philosophy doesn’t try to examine the natural world. Philosophers of science talk about what it means and how scientists do it, but they don’t dispute findings. There was a conflict back 500 years ago when the new science conflicted with natural philosophy, but since science won every battle few people today are doing science the way Aristotle did it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/263 "2014-06-20T19:38:07Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > . . . “God is the fundamental ground for the existence of all things that exist.” > [@CurtC](#): > > Well that’s a content-free statement. That’s kinda the point. Religion makes statements of that sort, with which Science is not going to be involved. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/264 "2014-06-20T19:39:26Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if I was on crack or what. Not on crack; just not getting it. That the statement is content-free, or even meaningless in English, doesn’t make it “incompatible with science.” Its vacuity is why it’s compatible with science. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/265 "2014-06-20T19:45:16Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Well that’s a content-free statement. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Not on crack; just not getting it. That the statement is content-free, or even meaningless in English, doesn’t make it “incompatible with science.” Its vacuity is why it’s compatible with science. Which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/266 "2014-06-20T19:55:55Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think. So you now agree that religion _is_ compatible with science. That’s nice. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/267 "2014-06-20T19:59:42Z")
As long as religion retreats peacefully when science advances there as no problems. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/268 "2014-06-20T21:12:06Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > So you now agree that religion _is_ compatible with science. > > That’s nice. If all religion says is stuff like “God is love” yes. As soon as religion says “God make the world 10,000 years ago” not so much. Are you saying that religion confines itself to statements of the first type? ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/269 "2014-06-20T21:15:30Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > So you now agree that religion _is_ compatible with science. > > That’s nice. Yeah not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/270 "2014-06-20T21:37:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If all religion says is stuff like “God is love” yes. > As soon as religion says “God make the world 10,000 years ago” not so much. > Are you saying that religion confines itself to statements of the first type? Certainly not. As I wrote a few pages back: > [@](#): > > Religious doctrines may include both falsifiable and non-falsifiable truth claims. > > The former may be assailed by science, but the latter may not - and can not. > > Religion’s non-falsifiable truth claims stand outside of the realm of scientific inquiry, and therefore remain perfectly compatible with science. To use your examples: “God is love” is a non-falsifiable truth claim; “God make [sic!] the world 10,000 years ago” is a falsifiable truth claim. > [@Critical1](#): > > Yeah not so much. So what on Earth were you on about in post #265? Did you not, just now, cite **Trinopus** ’ words in agreement? Even adding “which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think”? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/271 "2014-06-20T23:29:50Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think. I’m confused… I thought I was disagreeing with you, and agreeing with **UDS** , with whom you were disagreeing. (“A paradox, a paradox, at common sense she gaily mocks!”) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/272 "2014-06-20T23:32:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > As long as religion retreats peacefully when science advances there as no problems. Pretty much, yeah. “The Gods live atop Mt. Olympus.” “Hey, dude, I just climbed 'er, and, nuh-uh.” “The Gods live atop some higher mountain.” “I say, old chap, we’ve just climbed the last of them all, and found nothing.” “The Gods live atop some mystical mountain hidden in a space-time warp. Somewhere.” ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/273 "2014-06-21T01:03:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not on crack; just not getting it. That the statement is content-free, or even meaningless in English, doesn’t make it “incompatible with science.” **Its vacuity is why it’s compatible with science.** Bolding mine > [@Steken](#): > > Certainly not. > > So what on Earth were you on about in post #265? Did you not, just now, cite **Trinopus** ’ words in agreement? Even adding “which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think”? I misread, I read it as “Its vacuity is why it’s **in** compatible with science.” In either case fail to see how words strung together with no meaning are compatible with anything. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/274 "2014-06-21T04:47:56Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > . . . I misread, I read it as “Its vacuity is why it’s **in** compatible with science.” Okay; I’m clear now. > [@](#): > > In either case fail to see how words strung together with no meaning are compatible with anything. Well, how would something with no meaning be incompatible with anything? Is “Alice in Wonderland” compatible with science? Sure: because almost anything can happen in a dream. Is “The Great Gatsby” compatible with science? Sure: it’s fiction! Is “The Time Cube” compatible with science? Ultimately, yes, because it’s so incoherent, so totally illucid, it doesn’t actually have any meaningful content at all. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/275 "2014-06-21T06:24:30Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Certainly not. > > To use your examples: “God is love” is a non-falsifiable truth claim; “God make [sic!] the world 10,000 years ago” is a falsifiable truth claim. > > So what on Earth were you on about in post #265? Did you not, just now, cite **Trinopus** ’ words in agreement? Even adding “which is what I have been saying, repeatedly, I think”? But a partial set of religious claims are not religion. Some falsifiable religious claims are even true. I think what is important is how fundamental the falsifiable claims are to the religion. Let’s take Christianity. It makes many non-falsifiable claims about what is good, and these are more like philosophy (as I mentioned a while back) and are not incompatible with science. It makes some falsifiable claims like about the lives of early saints. If these are proven wrong, it probably doesn’t matter, since they are not fundamental to the religion. However it makes a very fundamental claim about the resurrection. If science could prove or disprove that claim, don’t you think that then Christianity is incompatible with science? I don’t think there would be any cliff left behind it. Adam and Eve should be that important, but the relationship of them to sin might be too subtle to bother the average Christian. Almost every religion has similar issues. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/276 "2014-06-21T19:35:32Z")
**Voyager** : fair and valid point; most religions do “trespass” into the domain of concrete claims about the real physical world. This introduces in incompatibility. I’ve only really been saying they can be compatible, but from my first post here I have predicated that upon a reformed kind of religion that doesn’t trespass in that way. So, religion as it is most commonly practiced is, alas, not compatible with science. I was pursuing a more abstract and theoretical defense of the possibility of compatibility, but not that it is occurring today. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/277 "2014-06-21T20:57:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But a partial set of religious claims are not religion. Some falsifiable religious claims are even true. I think what is important is how fundamental the falsifiable claims are to the religion. > Let’s take Christianity. It makes many non-falsifiable claims about what is good, and these are more like philosophy (as I mentioned a while back) and are not incompatible with science. It makes some falsifiable claims like about the lives of early saints. If these are proven wrong, it probably doesn’t matter, since they are not fundamental to the religion. > However it makes a very fundamental claim about the resurrection. If science could prove or disprove that claim, don’t you think that then Christianity is incompatible with science? I don’t think there would be any cliff left behind it. > Adam and Eve should be that important, but the relationship of them to sin might be too subtle to bother the average Christian. > Almost every religion has similar issues. Good summary. In addition, if a religion that included miracles happened to be true, it may be the case that the miracles left evidence of their occurring, evidence that could be studied scientifically. That is, if there had been a universal flood, there would likely be evidence of it (and many creationists, sadly, try to say that there is, exposing their utter lack of knowledge and understanding.) Science and religion only contradict to the extent that religion is false, or that (assuming some religion is true) science happens to be currently incorrect. Science tends to be self-correcting, so that wouldn’t be a permanent condition. So far, only three things seem miraculous to me: 1. the existence of anything at all 2. the existence of life 3. the existence of consciousness and subjectivity. The first is a conundrum that I doubt could ever be solved, with or without religion. The second is, so far, something we simply don’t understand. It certainly seems miraculous, but we wouldn’t want to attribute anything we don’t understand to a deity. I’m confident that the third will turn out to not rely on biology and that we’ll learn a lot about it, and it will seem less and less miraculous (in the sense of not requiring divine intervention). I suspect all three will always be awe-inspiring, as long as there’s anything that can experience awe and contemplate the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/278 "2014-06-21T22:36:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Voyager** : fair and valid point; most religions do “trespass” into the domain of concrete claims about the real physical world. This introduces in incompatibility. > > I’ve only really been saying they can be compatible, but from my first post here I have predicated that upon a reformed kind of religion that doesn’t trespass in that way. > > So, religion as it is most commonly practiced is, alas, not compatible with science. I was pursuing a more abstract and theoretical defense of the possibility of compatibility, but not that it is occurring today. No argument with that at all. The proponents of traditional religion, however, often do an old switcheroo by applying the compatibility you are talking about to their incompatible faiths. The deist position is defensible at least. Ever notice that though the Dope has more atheists than in the general public, it has way more deists? I think deists pretty much outnumber traditional theists in these discussions. That comes from the position being defensible, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Blackfaer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@Blackfaer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackfaer)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/279 "2014-06-22T04:01:45Z")
I think Deists outweigh Atheists in most places, and Agnostics even more so. In my experience in modern America, Canada, and Europe, many people identify as Christian or ‘religious’ or something like that without being specific and when pressed admit to a pretty much Deist perspective of one form or another; they just don’t really identify with the term. True, hardcore Atheism “There is no God or Creator of the Universe and it’s not possible there ever could be or could have been one” is an article of faith as much as religion is - science and the scientific method might say “Doesn’t seem likely, but we’ll wait until we have proof one way or another”. As such Agnostic is the MOST compatible belief system with Science. As we have no scientific proof that Christ did NOT somehow in some manner resurrect, until we have developed a technology and an understanding of the universe that can prove one way or another, via time travel or so complete an understanding of the universe that no further mysteries remain, Christianity in many churches is completely compatible with science. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll figure out that Christ was an alien being from another dimension who had a direct connection to the understanding of the creator of the universe, and shut down his body just long enough to convince the humans that it was dead, then healed up for a couple of days and came back out of the cave. That story would be compatible with a possible reality that science could work out, and yet also compatible with the principle of Christian mythology that Christ lived, resurrected, and was the ‘son of God’. Can’t say that I personally believe that Christ resurrected, but my evidence isn’t solid enough for me to think that it’s irrational and unscientific for others to believe that’s the reality. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519/280 "2014-06-22T05:11:30Z")
> [@Blackfaer](#): > > . . . True, hardcore Atheism “There is no God or Creator of the Universe and it’s not possible there ever could be or could have been one” is an article of faith as much as religion is - . . . I’ll throw out one relatively minor exception, and that is the atheist who rejects certain classes of claims about God – specifically the “omniscient and omnipotent” claims – on the grounds that they are held to be logically self-contradictory. Disproof by contradiction is a valid logical approach, and does not rely on faith. The validity of the disproof may be disputed, of course, but I just want to carve out some room for this approach not to be regarded as “faith based.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-and-science-compatible/690519.md?page=15)