Are science and religion in conflict

[Mister D]

Indeed, the bible concentrates on the who and science on the why. There is only conflict when for example science determines that X has been on the planet for Y years, which conflicts with biblical pronouncements that the planet is only 6,000 years old. Then again, we cannot be certain of any measurements in the bible, since they stem from translations of translations of an ultimately dead language. Well, languages don't so much die, they evolve to the point where there are few similarities. Look at the English language over the last 200 years. Terms change in meaning so drastically that they become unrecognizable. Imagine what happens in more than 1600 years and where there is no real educational standard with regard to the translators' abilities.

No, I'd say theism focuses on meaning whereas science focuses on mechanisms. Science never dwells on the why. It's beyond the purview of science. We have pseudoscience when mechanism is conflated with meaning.

There are no biblical pronouncements about the world's age.

[Dr. Who]

No, I'd say theism focuses on meaning whereas science focuses on mechanisms. Science never dwells on the why. It's beyond the purview of science. We have pseudoscience when mechanism is conflated with meaning.

There are no biblical pronouncements about the world's age.

It does to those who dwell on the chronology - adding up all of the ages of all of the people mentioned in the bible. They end up with 6,000 years since Adam.

Science very much tries to understand the why. Why does the earth rotate around the sun - a very simple example. Why is anything solid? Why do we have mass? Why is the sky blue?

[Mister D]

It does to those who dwell on the chronology - adding up all of the ages of all of the people mentioned in the bible. They end up with 6,000 years since Adam.

Science very much tries to understand the why. Why does the earth rotate around the sun - a very simple example. Why is anything solid? Why do we have mass? Why is the sky blue?

There is no chronology. That Irish monk didn't understand that. For example, when X is referred to as being 900 years old it was just meant to convey venerability. Unlike today, old age was cause for great respect. It wasn't meanr to be taken literally then and shouldn't be taken literally now.

What meaning does the Earth's rotation around the sun have? What meaning do our lives have? Science cannot answer such questions and (real) scientists don't try.

[Dr. Who]

There is no chronology. That Irish monk didn't understand that. For example, when X is referred to as being 900 years old it was just meant to convey venerability. Unlike today, old age was cause for great respect. It wasn't meanr to be taken literally then and shouldn't be taken literally now.

What meaning does the Earth's rotation around the sun have? What meaning do our lives have? Science cannot answer such questions and (real) scientists don't try.

There is a difference between asking why the earth revolves around the sun and determining whether that has some deeper meaning. The basic why of its being trapped in that orbit has been answered mathematically.

[Mister D]

There is a difference between asking why the earth revolves around the sun and determining whether that has some deeper meaning. The basic why of its being trapped in that orbit has been answered mathematically.

But that's just a quesiton of mechanics like I said. It's not a matter of a "deeper" meaning but of any meaning at all. Science does not deal in meaning.

[Dr. Who]

But that's just a quesiton of mechanics like I said. It's not a matter of a "deeper" meaning but of any meaning at all. Science does not deal in meaning.

OK - I agree science does generally not try to cross the line into metaphysics or try to answer the question of the meaning of existence. However strictly speaking no one is going to try to uncover the mechanism without first asking why something behaves a certain way.

[Mister D]

Obviously, I think the answer is no but I would just point out that context is important here. When people ask this question they're almost always referring to a specific history (i.e. the history of Europe and her colonies). If we were to broaden the scope of discussion I would not be as confident but I would still tentatively suggest that the answer is no.

[Mister D]

OK - I agree science does generally not try to cross the line into metaphysics or try to answer the question of the meaning of existence. However strictly speaking no one is going to try to uncover the mechanism without first asking why something behaves a certain way.

Science cannot broach the meaning of anything. I understand what you're saying and I could avoided any misunderstanding by being a little clearer. I meant why in terms of ultimate meaning not why in terms of mechanics.