I recently wrote an essay exploring why I believe science and religion are inherently incompatible at a fundamental level. This isn’t just about creationism vs. evolution. It’s about truth-seeking, evidence, and dogma.

As a LaVeyan Satanist, I approach this from a position that prioritizes rationality, indulgence, and self-honesty over faith and obedience. The essay challenges the popular narrative that the two can peacefully coexist without contradiction.

I’d love to hear opposing views or additions, whether you agree, disagree, or want to expand on it.

Here’s the full essay on Substack (no paywall):
https://open.substack.com/pub/oscarazrael/p/why-science-and-religion-cant-coexist?r=6v3r0a

I’m ooking forward to the discussion.

  • 5715@feddit.orgEnglish
    2·
    7 days ago

    People often claim that science and religion can go hand in hand

    Who?

    Modern discourse treats faith like a moral good.

    Modern in comparison to what? What is the difference to contemporary (moral?) discourse? Also whose discourse?

    Religious conflicts have claimed millions of lives

    Yes, but that is a weak argument, when we are arguing for science, given that scientific discoveries have led to very significant harm as well.

    It’s the inevitable result of a system that claims moral authority without accountability.

    I like that phrasing.

    Morality does not come from religion.

    It was often the framework for morality though, because, as you said, it was or is the moral authority. Assuming no authority is total, moral progression thus was only possible through religion. I’d argue science needed/needs religion in religious societies, because science isn’t a (strong) moral framework or authority.

    [Morality] comes from human empathy.

    I disagree and assume it is possible through culture. The culture may be informed by empathy, but empathy without culture seems useless (that is not saying culture is rigid and the individual is not cultural and thus excused).

    • DravenAzrael@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      12·
      6 days ago

      Appreciate the detailed breakdown, but much of this reads like nitpicking semantics rather than engaging with the actual argument.

      “Who?” - The many public figures, academics, and casuals who parrot the tired “science and religion can coexist” line. You can find it in everything from TED Talks to lukewarm religious apologetics.

      “Modern compared to what?” - Compared to the centuries where faith was enforced at swordpoint and dissent was heresy. That modern. I’m not interested in academic hairsplitting over definitions when the general meaning is clear.

      Yes, scientific discoveries have done harm, but those harms are side effects of methods, not doctrines. When religion causes harm, it’s often a feature, not a bug, justified in the text, not the test tube.

      Morality predated organized religion. Religion co-opted it. I’ll grant that religious institutions shaped moral norms, but that doesn’t mean they originated them. Culture evolves. Empathy is innate. You can’t argue culture without human minds, and human minds are wired for empathy, not divine decree.