Comments on: Science and Religion are Not Compatible

By: Dov Henis

Dov Henis — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:57:00 +0000

On religion-accommodating AAAS science
Science and Religion?

How can science be more theosophized than by regarding
life-brain-mind-spirituality essence as being mysteriously apart-different from
other mass formats?

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com
http://universe-life.com/2012/10/20/intelligent-life/

By: Dbakeca Italia

Dbakeca Italia — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:14:00 +0000

were never compatible

By: Weekly Update « Atheist and Agnostic Society

Weekly Update « Atheist and Agnostic Society — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:24:08 +0000

[...] reading and videos to help get us thinking: 1) an accomodationist argument from Ken Miller, 2) an anti-accomodationist rant by Sean Carroll of the Cosmic Variance blog, 3) a 3 minute video by Eugenie Scott of the National [...]

By: Gurpreet Goraya

Gurpreet Goraya — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:11:21 +0000

I’ve just read the post, (which raises pretty fundamental points which I don’t think any rational minded person should have a problem with) and the initial few comments, and am really glad that this here is still alive.

There’s a comment above (right at the top) about what exactly is meant by ‘religion’. When we talk of Science and religion being incompatible we speak of dogmatic religion, ie. religion according to scriptures, and this, I feel, can never be compatible with Science, mostly due to the fact that it is dated. Then there is this concept of ‘God of the Gaps’, which is really interesting here, because if we see religion as an organic ‘process’ which is constantly reviewed by science, ie. knowledge (forgive me if this term overtly simplifies science!), then I think the concept of God will be totally acceptable.

But all this depends on one question, about the nature of knowledge, whether it is finite or not. Because if it is, Science, someday (whenever that is) will leave no ‘Gaps’ for God; but until then, we just might have to live with the idea, because its ‘absolute’ non-existence is still beyond our capacity to ‘absolutely’ deny.

Once again, we have to be more specific in what we mean by words exactly, ie. religion.

By: The Anti-Atheist Blogosphere « The world is all that is the case

The Anti-Atheist Blogosphere « The world is all that is the case — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:02:07 +0000

[...] referring to Sean Carroll’s well known “Science and Religion are not Compatible” post: I would never dare to blog about quantum gravity, even with the little that i know about it, so [...]

By: m

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:53:26 +0000

what do you define ‘truth as being?

By: Thanks, We Hadn’t Realized… « Booksmoore

Thanks, We Hadn’t Realized… « Booksmoore — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:18:39 +0000

[...] and people who are dead for three days don’t come back to life.” And his comrade-in-arms, Sean Carroll, makes a similar statement:”We know more about the natural world now than we did two [...]

By: 科学と宗教に互換性はない：シーン・キャロル « Nikki no ki

科学と宗教に互換性はない：シーン・キャロル « Nikki no ki — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:36:56 +0000

[...] 科学と宗教に互換性はない：シーン・キャロル 2009/07/02 コメントをどうぞコメントへディスカバーマガジンの09/06/23のブログより。 [...]

By: How many “ways of knowing” are there? « Why Evolution Is True

How many “ways of knowing” are there? « Why Evolution Is True — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:15:27 +0000

[...] have addressed the idea of science and the supernatural many times before (see here, here, and here), dispelling the soothing idea that “science has nothing to say about the [...]

By: limboaz

limboaz — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:08:44 +0000

Perhaps a better question is this: are science and politics compatible? Secular fundamentalists like the author of this article have had their thinking polluted by their political beliefs and see everything in that light. Sad really.