Religious and Scientific conflict

[Toasterbot959]

how does the inhabitants of your conworld deal with conflict between scientific discovery and religious belief? In mine, it never occurs due to the nature of their religion. They believe that the Creator of their world designed it as a sort of puzzle or test, and figuring out the worlds secrets is the purpose of life. Therefore science and religion are the same thing.

[kusuri]

The people of my conworld believe something similar: that their god is the embodiment of creation, and as lesser embodiments, it is their job to learn about the world, and work it themselves. However, there's the caveat that they've already screwed the universe up once in the distant past, and their god won't help them if they fully break it. So, they believe they should be continually progressing, but carefully.
Which in effect means that things are often held up by priestly bureaucracy, which is itself tremendously resistant to change.

[Grunnen]

how does the inhabitants of your conworld deal with conflict between scientific discovery and religious belief? In mine, it never occurs due to the nature of their religion. They believe that the Creator of their world designed it as a sort of puzzle or test, and figuring out the worlds secrets is the purpose of life. Therefore science and religion are the same thing.

And then your universe also is actually created by this god they believe in? Because otherwise they may start finding clues that go against this doctrine. At that point science and religion would not be the same thing anymore.

[CatDoom]

And then your universe also is actually created by this god they believe in? Because otherwise they may start finding clues that go against this doctrine. At that point science and religion would not be the same thing anymore.

If this deity is thought to have created the universe as a puzzle, it presumably wouldn't be surprising to its followers that it did so through extremely complex and subtle means. Assuming that the relevant doctrine doesn't say anything highly specific about the creation (say, that it was accomplished in seven days, or that things were made in some specific order), there's really no way to refute the claim that the evolution of life and universe have proceeded in the way they have because God willed it so. From a rational standpoint, the deity may not be necessary to explain the universe, but you can always find a way to stick it into whatever cosmology you've adopted.

Some religious leaders have even gone so far as to suggest that the teachings of their religion should be modified in order to account for the current state of humankind's understanding of the universe. The only specific examples I can think of are Buddhists, though, and their ideas regarding the nature and creation of the universe don't require the involvement of an all-powerful deity anyway. Apparently Bahá'ís believe it's important to reconcile their faith with scientific progress as well, but I don't really know anything about their beliefs.

[Grunnen]

If this deity is thought to have created the universe as a puzzle, it presumably wouldn't be surprising to its followers that it did so through extremely complex and subtle means. Assuming that the relevant doctrine doesn't say anything highly specific about the creation (say, that it was accomplished in seven days, or that things were made in some specific order), there's really no way to refute the claim that the evolution of life and universe have proceeded in the way they have because God willed it so. From a rational standpoint, the deity may not be necessary to explain the universe, but you can always find a way to stick it into whatever cosmology you've adopted.

Fair enough. The question then becomes if people are willing to assume the unnecessary part of their explanation of the history of their universe actually exists. I'm assuming people in these worlds will at some point have to deal with discussions similar to ours with regard to science/religion. I can't really see a way around that, but maybe someone else can.

[Toasterbot959]

Fair enough. The question then becomes if people are willing to assume the unnecessary part of their explanation of the history of their universe actually exists. I'm assuming people in these worlds will at some point have to deal with discussions similar to ours with regard to science/religion. I can't really see a way around that, but maybe someone else can.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think you could give an example of some kind so I know what your getting at?

[gestaltist]

Do your conworlds really have only one religion each? You make it sound like they do.

I am working on my conworld diachronically and it is a fairly new project. I am planning on having some science vs. religion conflicts. TBH, early science was a lot like religion, too. Read some alchemical sources and you will find plenty of ridiculous beliefs.

[hwhatting]

For such a conflict, you need a (a) a religion that claims absolute authority to explain the world and (b) a science that claims the same. Both are not necessarily a given. It is easy to imagine religions for which explaining specific phenomena of the world is not much of a concern (Earth orbits Sun? Sun orbits Earth? What does that have to do with the 10 commandments or the eightfold path or whatever the religion preaches); in such cases, a conflict would arise only when science directly starts to contradict central tenets (God doesn't exist; there is actually no evidence for reincarnation; Lucius got smitten by a lightning because he walked around with a long metal rod during a thunderstorm, not because Jupiter hated him). It is also possible for science (e.g. most pre-modern science) not to stray too much from the paths marked by Religion and Tradition, especially if that science is not so much experimental, but relies more on reading and interpreting previous science and sorting and classifying received knowledge.

[Curlyjimsam]

I haven't thought much about this. I do have the following brief extract from one modern writer who is also a practitioner of the ancient religion of the Viksor:

Why is the Book called “the Truth” when it contains things that cannot be true? I do not merely speak of things that seem scientifically implausible, though there are many such things – the reader does not need me to give any examples, for he will find them soon enough even on the most cursory inspection of the text. For some might say, as some have (wrongly, in my opinion), that the words of the Book are still true, and that it is our modern understanding that is flawed. Nor do I refer only to the things that seem to contradict known history. It could be argued again that the Book (which is, after all, our main source of much historical information) is right and the other sources of evidence misleading. Neither, again, do I refer to contradictions between manuscripts, as when Emdiffian texts say the kings of Emdif were blessed by the gods and those of Sudif cursed, and Sudiffian texts the opposite. Just because one manuscript is false does not mean they all are? No, I refer principally to contradictions within texts – even within all or most manuscripts in some cases.

What do we make of these things? Are we to say that the Book is valueless, as many have? – that it is a Book of Lies, not Truth? No, I think not. For not all things that are untrue are lies, but may merely be misunderstandings. The true value of the Truth is, I think, this – that it tells us the Truth is important. It is something that must be sought out, as the ancients did, adding to it yearly, and revising their texts to reveal more and cohere better. If we are to truly value the Book, we must not treat it as containing truth absolute, but rather as indicating the great need to ever continue seeking out Truth and trying to better understand the Universe.

But this religion is in any case only practised by a small minority in the present day, the country having for the most part adopted a foreign monotheistic religion several centuries ago.

[Grunnen]

Fair enough. The question then becomes if people are willing to assume the unnecessary part of their explanation of the history of their universe actually exists. I'm assuming people in these worlds will at some point have to deal with discussions similar to ours with regard to science/religion. I can't really see a way around that, but maybe someone else can.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think you could give an example of some kind so I know what your getting at?

Gestaltist and Hwatting both make valid points here I think.

What I was getting at is that if you have a religion in your conworld (see Gestaltists point), that claims to explain something about how the universe came into being/has developed that involves the supernatural (so here I have to admit I'm talking about a (limited?) subset of religions indeed), that even if there is no direct proof that the explanation involving the supernatural claim is false, the question will arise if their is no non-supernatural way to explain the same development.

Let me try to illustrate this with an example that we're familiar with on Earth. There are religious groups that claim that evolution as taught in science class is indeed what happened. So these groups agree with scientists on the history of the development of the species of organisms we see on our planet. But they make the additional claim that a deity from their religion guides this process. So here we have a phenomenon that can be wholly explained in a non-supernatural way, where people add an additional, supernatural, layer. It would seem to me that a conculture that arrives at such a point, would likely get a discussion going if this supernatural layer is really necessary, is really there, or at least if it is involved in the specific process at hand.

I hope this clarifies my point.

[gestaltist]

Another thing. Religions are very strong elements of cultural identity. If you don’t practice my religion, you are not only wrong - you are also a stranger, a member of a foreign, and potentially hostile group. I cannot trust you. Take a look at how the Romans or the Babilonians treated religion - nobody really cared what you thought about the teachings as long as you made the right offerings and bowed to the right statues. That meant you are a safe person, you are on the right side. Religions were powerful indications of an individual’s loyalty towards the system. A lot of modern day radical muslims think that way.

What I am getting at is, it often isn’t really „religion vs science“ - it is a question of „are you in my tribe?“ Early Christians were the same thing to the Roman religion as the scientists were to the 17th century's Christianity. And the same thing as any religion was to the USSR Communists. As such, this kind of conflict is unavoidable, as it ties into the very human nature.

Another aspect mentioned by Grunnen is the readiness to accept facts when they contradict our beliefs. Cognitive dissonance theory, anyone? It is often easier to burn someone at the stake than to question one’s beliefs. I think this is the aspect you were actually asking about in the OP. I would like to posit that this kind of conflict is also unavoidable. Whenever someone goes around questioning the status quo, it causes discomfort. And some people like to cure their discomfort with violence. It is incidental whether the instigators try to supplant religion through science or through reform (see Christian Reformation.)

And a third aspect: religion often furthers scientific development because it is beneficial to it. It is always better to have a well developed and consistent belief system than a vague and wobbly one. Priests and monks were often the people with the best education and were instrumental in the advancement of science. To give one random example, Copernicus was a priest. So... the conflict we are talking about is often an internal one: it is the inner tension within a belief system. Are we going to stick to the safe old ways or are we going to improve? Are we going to question or to comply? This kind of conflict is also unavoidable.

TLDR; The processes underlying the conflict of „religion vs science“ manifest themselves in multiple ways and are intrinsic to all cultures.