What is the difference between religion and science - …


-S K Franz- "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness." "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch.

Mathematicians and scientists and philosophers are ,and transcend religions and cultures.
Photo provided by Flickr

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependenceof science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantlymaterialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true thatscientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations,those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of sciencewere all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universeof ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving forknowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one andif those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's , they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiringdevotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.


Do Science and Religion Conflict

Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics.
Photo provided by Flickr

In the real world attempts at prophecy always come to a badend. Only in religious texts and the currently popular fantasy fiction doprophecies come true. H G Wells, in , successfully predicted the mechanised War, as didWinston Churchill, but little else, and the film that Wells closely supervisednow provides rather comic entertainment (but wonderful music). Even those of usclosely involved in electronics did not foresee that a development of theancient art of writing on stone, lithography, would result in millions oftransistors being available on one chip, changing the world forever, includinggranting new and sinister means of control to those in authority.


Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of …

Some ask whether evolutionary challenges to moral beliefs apply in ananalogous way to religious beliefs (see Bergmann and Kain 2014,especially part III). Others have examined whether evolutionary ethicsmakes appeals to God in ethical matters redundant. John Hare (2004),for example, has argued that this is not the case, becauseevolutionary ethics can only explain why we do things that ultimatelybenefit us, even if indirectly (e.g., through the mechanisms of kinselection and reciprocal altruism). According to Hare (2004),evolutionary ethics does not explain our sense of moral obligationthat goes beyond biological self-interest, as evolutionary theorypredicts that we would always rank biological self-interest over moralobligations. Therefore, theism provides a more coherent explanation ofwhy we feel we have to follow up on moral obligations. Intriguingly,theologians and scientists have begun to collaborate in the field ofevolutionary ethics. For example, the theologian Sarah Coakley hascooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak tounderstand altruism and game theory in a broader theological andscientific context (Nowak and Coakley 2013).

Science and Religion - Mark Humphrys

Even before Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection,Victorian authors fretted over the implications of evolutionary theoryfor morality and religion. The geologist Adam Sedgwick (1845/1890: 84)worried that if the transmutationist theory of The Vestiges ofCreation (Chambers 1844) were true, it would imply that“religion is a lie; human law is a mass of folly, and a baseinjustice; morality is moonshine”. Evolutionary theorists fromDarwin (1871) onward argued that human morality is continuous withsocial behaviors in nonhuman animals, and that we can explain moralsentiments as the result of natural selection. Michael Ruse (e.g.,Ruse and Wilson 1986) has argued that our belief that morality isobjective (moral realism) is an illusion that helps us to cooperatebetter.