Science and religion are presented as two paradigms, as distinct and mutually exclusive worldviews. The general resonance of the debate between the two worldviews sounds aggressive and emotional.
These domains are not necessarily engaged in a binary opposition. They are, simply, two of innumerable types of social structures, existing presently. The ‘faith’ of individual members of society is differentially distributed between and amidst both the society’s social institutions as well as the sources of assumed authority.

Reconciliation of science and religion serves us all best and acknowledging that (1) science is a very useful way of talking and thinking about the world, that clearly delineates those things about which it is and is not capable of addressing, (2) as human beings, we are meaning making machines, but all beliefs require a leap of faith, and


(3) the purposes of science and those of religion differ-science seeks to serve the empirical while religion seeks to serve the incorporeal.
Currently, religion and science are locked in a struggle for social power; and by ‘social power,’ I specifically mean the authority and power to inform the public with ‘true’ explanations of the world. “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source or spirituality….The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” (Carl Sagan)

Author: writtencasey

I am fascinated by the scientific endeavor and I read about or engage with those processes as much as possible. I am a compulsive reader and writer. With a background in anthropology and as an arm-chair/backyard scientist, I hope to improve my writing skills and learn about any areas of weakness or misunderstanding in my analytic skills. I am excited to share. Thank you for spending time here. Please reach out if you are so inclined. I'd be excited to hear from you.

5 thoughts on “SCIENCE AND RELIGION”

  1. It seems that the only time science and religion clash is when a scientific discovery undermines long held beliefs which were a basis of authority, such as Galileo being punished by the Church for insisting that Earth revolves around the sun because it challenged their false belief in the Earth centered universe.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I concur with that but, and it may be a more regional issue, but there is an anti-intellectualism that attacks the scientific paradigm. I believe those subscribed to the scientific paradigm have also begun to speak with the same rhetoric of the religious, anti-intellectualism. I presume their is a large group in the middle of the spectrum. I believe this arguement/hostility hinders the progress of both sides. That is the real loss and shame.

      I believe in disempassionsed discussion. I like team work. I like errors of mine being exposed so they can be reforumlated.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree with your point. I think what I was trying to say is that some people take a side in an argument not because they believe it to be right, but for self serving reasons, so they’re not arguing in good faith. Such as Exxon doing their own scientific study back in the 1970s which concluded that increased carbon emissions were altering the climate, yet Exxon continued to deny climate change for years after. People need to be transparent with their arguments.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thank you for sharing. I was ignorant of the Exxon anecdote. I agree that transparency is key. I also believe saying it is so iz hardef than making it so. Glad you and i discuss this.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: