Science versus God and Religion

[Ostronomos]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior". 
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused. 
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

[FluidSpaceMan]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior". 
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused. 
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

In another recent thread, it was discussed how we disrespect and abuse our machine creations.  That got me thinking that a god might disrespect and abuse its creations.  Perhaps ancient man invented the concept of gods so that they would have someone to blame for all their troubles, inventing a creator and abuser.

[Leigha]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior". 
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused. 
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

In another recent thread, it was discussed how we disrespect and abuse our machine creations.  That got me thinking that a god might disrespect and abuse its creations.  Perhaps ancient man invented the concept of gods so that they would have someone to blame for all their troubles, inventing a creator and abuser.

Are you talking about the thread I created a few months back? I think your answer here is really interesting, and could be worth starting a new thread over.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior". 
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused. 
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.

how to avoid the chicken or egg quandry ?

is there inferance to the human default toward a certain state that then renders a concept of accepted existance of fact ?

[Yazata]

I don't believe that science and theistic-style religion necessarily conflict.

If we accept that science is methodologically naturalistic, that science seeks physicalistic explanations for physical world events, then it's hard to see how science and religion could conflict.

One might want to argue that if all of human experience is experience of the physical world, and if science is 100% successful in explaining all events in the physical world, then science leaves no room for religion.

But both premises there are questionable. Is science 100% successful in explaining everything? If so, then there can't be any remaining unsolved questions. If there are unsolved questions, what makes us so sure that science will successfully explain them? (That looks like an article of faith.)

More fundamentally, is all of human experience experience of the physical world? What about numbers, mathematics and logic? What about word meanings? What about abstract realities or information in general?

So we might ask: does 'naturalism' imply 'physicalism'? (I'm tentatively inclined to say 'no'.)

However we answer that, we still have the biggest metaphysical questions staring us in the face: Why is there something rather than nothing? (Why does reality exist at all?) Where did the order of the universe come from? (The so-called "laws of physics"?) Again, what kind of reality do mathematics, logic and abstractions have? (And how to explain them.)

There seems to me to be plenty of room for a Deistic-style God there. (A God based squarely on natural theology, as distinct from revealed theology.) Of course, I think that it's far more intellectually justifiable to simply take the agnostic course and simply admit that we don't know the answers.

But my point is that if we wanted to define 'God' as 'first cause', 'ultimate ground of reality itself' or as 'designer' (of the "laws of nature"), I don't see how science can contradict it. Science might arguably render such a God superfluous provided that it can ever provide non-circular answers to the deepest metaphysical questions.

I'm inclined to doubt whether it can. (That's part of why I've battled the 'something from nothing' threads on the other board.)