Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6013
Can religion and science coexist?
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
The can coexist(my side): they don't contradict eachother and in fact maybe compliment eachother.
They can't coexist(your side): they are opposites, either one is true or the the other.
Round 1
Thanks for participating in this with me. I am part of the Church of Jesus Chrust if Latterday Saints(sometimes known as the mormon church), and though my goal is to demonstrate how science and religion in general work together, my religion will direct my perspective a bit.
Religion and science answer two different questions. Science says how the world works, religion says how it came into being.
Another point is that science proves our world has impossible features, religion explains why. Our world only has life thanks to a bunch of things being just exactly perfect, thus providing evidence for religion, but that proof only exists thanks to science. Thus science helps support religion.
Many scientists in the early days of modern science were Christian's, and their religion drove their work. They sought to understand the world their god had created. Not only were they both religious and scientific, but their religion fuelled their science. One could argue modern science wouldn't exist without religion. And thus religion also supports science.
And now for the most commonly stated clash between religion and science, evolution. Life could have formed through evolution, god just could have been what started it, something science still struggles with.
Science and religion have a kind of symbiotic relationship, each helps support and expand upon the other.
Forfeited
Round 2
Just checking, but, are you still doing this debate?
Forfeited
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Yeah, that's what I think as well, I just have noticed many people talk about them as if they are opposites and thus made this debate. That's why I am pro here
Gregor Mendel was religious, I think,
Didn't stop him from "gaining recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Georges Lemaître, also religious, I think,
"Was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law[2] with the solution to the Einstein field equations in the general theory of relativity for a homogenous and isotropic universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Personally I don't think science and religion have to be 'so different.
I find a lot of game theory and psychology from various religions.
I think there are scientists who can be inspired by religion, who have advanced science by their inspiration.
. . .
That said,
Modern science seems a more rigorous examination to me
Something more hard and concrete,
Which does not mean religion is unvaluable,
I don't see soft knowledge as bad, I see it 'as invaluable as hard knowledge.
I think soft knowledge allows for meaning, flexibility, human.
Religion means both my religion specifically and the general concept of there being some being that made the world. Or rather, the second meaning is what I am proving, but I might use the first kn because if mine can fit science then that indirectly proves the general concept can fit
What is meant by "religion" and "science" exactly?