Wait, do you favor religion or science in this discussion? Because neither one of them is a serious impact on the other. Religion favors the things we can't know, don't understand, and trust to be real. Science is what we can know, understand and prove to be real. Neither is a block, and both are part of the way things are.
This might surprise you, but some of the leading minds in science are deeply Christian, even now, and scientific and archaeological expeditions have often been conducting in the hopes of finding some evidence. Religion can interfere with science, certainly, but it can also help it along.
Nevertheless, they exist; there used to be more religious scientists, but the number has gone down as different options have become more apparent. Anyway, there's no trash talking religious people who are also doing their part to advance human knowledge as we know it, so I think I made my point.
Not every scientist has problems with this actually. Consider this:
In theory, when the big bang was first happening, the universe was a single, perfectly spherical mass. In order for said mass to separate into the uneven chunks we see today, some outside force HAD to be involved. Some think a monotheistic God was behind that.
That is the rationalization I was talking about. But neither matter nor dark matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe and can easily be refuted through the cyclical or multiple universe model.
Unlike 400 years ago, science and religion has to coexist. People have died for claiming Earth wasn't the center of the universe. As we generally got a better grasp on how the universe works, religion has adapted. And religion continues to adapt; it's basically very Darwinistic.
You will be surprised to know that the Catholic church actually acknowledges and supports science then. Not trying to pick a fight here, but it does. Catholic schools teach both science and religion, without claiming that science is wrong. Copernicus's theories are also presented, but only to show that they were wrong. It is a misconception that religion is a stop on science.
Not in it`s totality. The psychology department in this university is constantly having to fight off the theology department`s votes on allocation of funding to more... "acceptable" outlets. I suspect they fear that various psychologies are developping in ways that are making them severely contest the possibility for a "soul" to exist.
The catholic church is a stop to science that it cannot absorb.
'Funding' is the cause, not religion vs science. These disputes could easily and probably do happen, between other departments. There is no length that a department will not go to in order to get grants. It gets really nasty and there is a lot of backstabbing and mud slinging. That's the problem there.
There are zealots out there, which give all religions a bad name, but they do not represent the majority. It is terrible that most people still think that religion does not support science. If that was true then most of my former chemistry, microbiology, abnormal psychology, genetics, and physics and biology teachers would not have been teaching, seeing as how all of them were Catholic (and one Hindu). I also would not have majored as a Pre-Vet. I have yet to meet any Catholics that do not support science.
I guess media lies, stereotypes, and vapid misconceptions are more readily believed than truth.
I belong to neither department. If I made such a remark it is because other causes are unlikely. Usually it is over allocation for funding between two scientific areas, they themselves will not see a cent, they just always favor the other side, as though if they were in charge psychology would all but be cut from the university. These two are virtually poles apart it seems.
In the psychological department(especially social psychology, developmental psychology and neuropsychology) they are very clear in their lectures that they consider that theology was a majoritive reason for why psychology only started developping as a science in the 19th century, when theological explanations were being challenged by scientific discoveries, etc... Meaning they are implying at the very least that religion has been a bad thing in recent centuries for society.(In clinical pathology they even go so far as to directly say it, in the case of mental diseases.). Whereas in the theological department certain taught subjects deny completely 50 years of discoveries in social psychology, cognitive psychology(partially) and certain points in neuropsychology. This means there are students learning 2 opposing things less the 5 km from each other.
This is from on the ground experience. Catholics love to support the majority of biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, etc... but discoveries made by exactly the same system that they are not quite capable of integrating into their world model without radically changing another huge chunk of their doctrine, very very few of them are capable of supporting. Essentially they accept what is convenient and do not make too much noise about their opposition with the rest because of the stereotypes in place. Which do not seem too unjustified on the face of things.
Both departments are definitely wrong there! Any department could say some thing similar about another. Ah, when zealots on both sides collide!
Not to be cranky, but it has nothing to do with not being able to fit it into our world model, or having to change our doctrine to accept it. They are an issue of morals and ethics, not religion. That's why some things are not accepted. For example, embryonic stem cell research is not accepted, but for moral and ethical reasons. And to be fair, non religious groups are also against it. Adult stem cell research is not opposed.
No, I support the psychological side. The Theological teachings are based on zero scientific justification. I have personally read quite a bit of the research justifying the ideas behind the psychological teachings and I have to say that it is about as solid as it comes. Religious explanations had their role to play in holding back science on the whole, forget just psychology.
Very few non-religious groups with any notion of science are. And that is only a smaller level issue closer to home. Not a thing on the planet could let the theology departmant have a say in allocating THAT funding, considering it`s importance and such.
Ah! So, it is all about the money, even if neither department will physically see a cent. You seem to have no idea of the lengths any school department will go through to get any kind of funding. Everyone has their own idea of what is important, and when money is involved, each department thinks they are more deserving that the others. The Math department is more important than the Technology department, and the English department is more important than the Theater Arts department. These types of fights happen every where, even private schools. From personal experience (12 years of working as a teacher's aid in a Catholic school), these professors will stoop to degrading rival departments during lecture and ranting with their own personal opinions.
This is not high school. This is a research university. The funding is for research and at most will be used for doctorat students as far as teaching goes. The teaching body of the university recieves funding and otherwise from governmental sources according to the number of students they have, and their credibility. Research funding usually comes from trusts, charities, companies and the government in specific aims. The best research for arriving at these aims are what the university board decides. If we are talking medical research for example, then the funds will be specifically for that, meaning NO MATTER WHAT that the theology department muscling in will not gain them any extra funding at all. And because of their motivations they are deemed unobjective in such decisions and are thusly excluded from that board.
They never degrade rivalling departments, not here. This goes to a disrespect of the belief, not the people. Many of the lecturers in question have no problem with each other, only the general philosophies the other side represents. The decisions on the board are mostly purely intellectual ones. From both sides. They both honestly believe that it is morally wrong or a waste of funding to pursue research in that direction in such a domain.
Unless you specificly refer to your own, personal religion that is not based on any old religious text, I don't think so.
Well, thinking about it some more, there is a nugget of truth in your statement here. A lot of people have a hard time accepting that we don't know of any higher purpose without lives and many of them seem to be unable to grasp even the most basic principles of evolution, which does lead them to be more open for religious beliefs which, after all, explains it in a much more simplistic way by invoking magic... uh... I mean God.