I have heard from a lot of religious people that "Science and religion goes hand in hand". I do not agree with this because religion is based on super natural beliefs that goes against scientific evidence. Now if you are religious and you believe in science, that is one thing. But you cannot say that your religion has anything to do with science or that it supports it. Religion is perhaps a pseudo-science that has failed us tremendously, it has made people turn their backs against modern science and it has only strengthen their extremely delusional beliefs. But if you say this, then religious people will say "Wow, you are arrogant!", but then what is wrong with being arrogant when you are right?
But what do you think? Do you think that religion and science shares anything in common? And what do you think about people who claims they do?
Absolutely what he said.
eh? hand in what?
I grew up very religious. I was told that faith is the belief in things that you cannot see, but are true. So i used to say to myself...if religion is true, and if science is mans best approximation of the truth, then the two must start to come together at some point. I spent lots of time trying to reconcile "God's truth" to the discoveries in science. It was one big rationalization session. It went something like this: The creation story in the bible story isn't that far off from how science says it happens...with the exception of the scale of time...and a few other things. Another one was, evolution is how god created everything in the world, but god is still in control of it. The questions started getting harder to rationalize in my mind, so i could no longer rationalize the differences. They became just questions like, Anatomically Correct Humans have been around for about 125K years, but Adam and Eve just 6K. I wonder if ACH's had a soul? Till my questioning just got to be ridiculous like, How the ... did the duck billed platypus get to Australia after the flood, and why are they only in Australia. I decided that there was something wrong with my assumption of "if religion is true and if science is mans best approximation of the truth, then the two must start to come together at some point." Upon closer inspection of the first part of my assumption I found out that religion is the part that failed me. Primitive crowd control. Who'd have thought?
To answer your 2nd question, religion and science do have something in common. Religion is a part of the branch of anthropology, and is very useful to understand how it relates to people today. It's effects on economics, genetics, politics, psychology and many other branches are innumerable. However, I think your question is more "do the claims of religion and science share anything in common," and my answer is only as far as the primitive man had it right. So no. Nothing. Except that it's a sin to run out of wine at a wedding party.
As far as the people that claim they do have something in common, I love them very much. They are my friends and family. I have been in their shoes before, but they either never asked the question or quit thinking too early once the questions start to get hard and chalk it up to the mysteries of god. Mysteries of god is easier on the brain than cognitive dissonance.
Religion and science are nothing alike.
Science is evidence and fact based. If new evidence arises that casts doubt on a previous conclusion, scientists will examine the new evidence and if necessary they will draw a new conclusion.
Religion is faith based. It has pre-existing conclusions and will ignore any evidence or facts that disagree with those conclusions. It will also try to distort facts, research, etc, to fit with the pre-existing conclusions.
Religion and Science... commonalities... hmmm.
Both were developed by man.
Both evolve over time.
Both seek answers to questions (though one relies on wishful thinking and the other, factual evidence).
Both provide organization to daily life, though in different ways.
Both can inspire awe.
Um... but I doubt that's what those religious people mean, by hand in hand. You sure they don't mean hand to hand? :D
"but then what is wrong with being arrogant when you are right?"
You're falling right into a trap.
1. Just because someone calls you arrogant does not make it so.
2. You can be correct about something without being a dick about it. That's what being arrogant is.
3. People who make a habit of being arrogant tend to remain so even when they're incorrect, or when their claims are dubious. This makes them even more insufferable.
"Arrogant - Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."
I know, I don't consider myself arrogant. I just quoted Peter Atkins response in an interview that was hilarious when I saw it. If that is the true definition of arrogant, why in the world would they call atheists arrogant? Is it because we support free thinking, rationality, independency? And they think that we consider ourselves superior to them (which we are in many cases, intellectually)
I'm thinking that religion is like a giant, collective defense mechanism...