Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

Are the core truths of science and religion complementary?

Many atheists believe science undermines religion, not only with specific theories such as evolution and the big bang theory, but also by its very methodology, which requires that knowledge of the world must be verified via controlled observations. Defenders of religion claim that the core truths of science and religion are complementary rather than contradictory, and that religious matters belong to a realm beyond scientific inquiry.

Implications to Other Questions

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)
Experts In Science

Richard Feynman    Nobel Laureate in Physics
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure – the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored... ...to summarize it – the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics – the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual – the humility of the spirit. These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent.
02 May 1956    Source

Deepak Chopra    Inventor of Quantum Healing
There is room for a new paradigm that preserves all the achievements of science ... while giving the universe meaning and significance. Dawkins shows no interest in uniting these two perspectives (he disdains the whole notion of a religious scientist), but many of is colleagues do.
17 Nov 2006    Source

Experts In Politics

Sam Brownback    Senator, Republican
I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
31 May 2007    Source

Experts In Science

Richard Dawkins    Evolutionary Biologist, Writer, Atheism Activist
There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism...
01 Mar 1998    Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Is science ultimately just a matter of faith?

Steven Weinberg    Nobel Laureate in Physics
Mostly Disagree
The Templeton Foundation offers a large prize to those who argue that there is no conflict between science and religion. ... Stephen Jay Gould argued that there could be no conflict between science and religion, because science deals only with facts and religion only with values. This certainly was not the view held in the past by most adherents of religion, and it is a sign of the decay of belief in the supernatural that many today who call themselves religious would agree with Gould.
25 Sep 2008    Source

Experts In Philosophy

Ayn Rand    Philosopher, Novelist
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind.
01 Apr 1981    Source

Experts In Atheism

Sam Harris    Writer, Speaker, Atheism Activist
The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.
02 Jan 2006    Source


Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)
0 Points      Anonymous      13 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
The problem you have is taking any type of assumption in religion and building your life on it. It cannot stand up to scrutiny in which religion's morality is based when comparing this to scientific reasoning. It gets in the way of public policy. Its counter productive in moving forward with innovation.

Morality does not need a compass as its self evident as cooperation itself is morality and intrinsic in our society.

Being a Buddhist makes the most sense to me if you must pick a religion as Buddhism is really a philosophy rather than a dogma and does not attempt to prove the world's origins. Rather it is a metaphorical way to understand one's self in a humanistic perspective. Let's not confuse inner peace with dogma and I don't think anyone would be against inner peace.

0 Points      kwhipke1      07 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Faith is usually defined as believing without evidence, and is claimed to be a necessary part of religion.
Science requires evidence.

1 Point      blacktrance      10 Feb 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
The core truths of science depend on empirical observation. The core truths of religion depend on faith. The two are polar opposites.

1 Point      the27th      03 Jul 2010      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
When religion makes claims that can be interpreted in the language of science ("The Red Sea parted") and the best evidence weighs against them, then, yes, science and religion conflict.

Religion's ethical claims are not reducible to science or refutable by science, though. I have my quarrels even with some religious ethical precepts -- I wouldn't go as far as the Feynman quote -- but a good chunk of Judaeo-Christian ethics is noble and enduring. And I'm not even sure that the part of me that quarrels with religious morality isn't itself influenced by religion (think of Abraham bargaining with God.)

Then there's what I'd call the aesthetic or psychological aspects of religion: the experience of awe and the art and poetry inspired by it. Science, once again, doesn't make this "false."

2 Points      Benja      22 Jun 2010      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Religion conflicts with science to the extent that religion makes supernatural claims. These include miracles, immaterial souls, life after death, reincarnation, karma, creationism, guided evolution, psychic powers, everything having a reason, and anti-deterministic free will.

I'm more comfortable with the non-supernatural aspects of religion, such as a prescription for moral conduct. While I don't see that morality needs to be tied to religion, I also don't think that having a religion defined by a set of moral codes conflicts with science.