Science Vs Religion

[SlithVampir]

Personally, I have to side with Science. There seems to be this growing conpiracy theory that scientist are out to pollute our brains wiith information that "discredits the almighty" what do you think?

[Belial]

Would you consider this topic distinct from the "Atheism", "Religion", "Holes in Evolution", and "Creationism" topics?

[SlithVampir]

Yeah. This thread more deals with the fact that there is a currently a war between cold, hard, reality, and an eons old pracice of self-consolation through dismissal of reality. and dismissal is gaining ground.

[the Cow]

More authority?

Each in their own realm. It is where either is extended to the other's province that things get really stupid.

[Mittins]

It's hard to deny it, science is just so full of win these days.

[hyperion]

Why must the two be exclusive?

[Mittins]

The poll question is "Which Has more Authority?"
I can't really justify allowing religion to have authority over me when there's no testable hypotheses, peer reviews, or skeptical community governing its actions.

In general, no I would say they are not exclusive. Religion seeks to provide answers for questions which science is not designed to answer.

[Arancaytar]

I protest. Reality has a well-known bias for atheism[1], which makes this poll pretty unfair.

(On a different note, what outcome do you expect on this forum?)

[1]Yes, I know the real quote and who said it.

[Phenriz]

Neither.

Science holds sway over calculable things.

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify. (for most people anyway, i use religion in the broad sense, not strictly in a Christian sense as you seem to mean)


That said, the two cannot cover all aspects of life, well they could, but your actions would then become predictable, and that'd be boring.

(No Vote)


The poll should read Science Vs. Christianity, because it seems that's what you truly mean, based on your context anyway.

[mosc]

In general, no I would say they are not exclusive. Religion seeks to provide answers for questions which science is not designed to answer.

win

[Belial]

In general, no I would say they are not exclusive. Religion seeks to provide answers for questions which science is not designed to answer.

I do not entirely disagree.

I just don't necessarily believe that all (or even many) of those questions are terribly valid.

[TheTankengine]

Science extends to the edge of the observable universe, and that is the extent of its domain.

Religion can deal with anything beyond that, as far as I'm concerned. I suppose that is similar to the "gap of the gods" theory (or something similar to that).

[SecondTalon]

Science tells you everything up to death. Religion tells you about what happens after death.

I'll stop rephrasing what everyone else already said now.

[TheTankengine]

Religion tells you about what happens after death.

This is a false blanket generalization.

[Andrew]

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

One might argue that that's the same thing as "things that don't matter".

[zenten]

Well, religion. I'm not aware of any countries run by science councils.

[22/7]

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

One might argue that that's the same thing as "things that don't matter".

Yeah, you're right. It's a good thing that there was religion to take care of all that density before Archimedes... and gravity before Newton...

[TheTankengine]

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

One might argue that that's the same thing as "things that don't matter".

Yeah, you're right. It's a good thing that there was religion to take care of all that density before Archimedes... and gravity before Newton...

I got it now, I had it backwards. Science is not the gap of the gods, religion is the gap of science.

Originally, religion governed and explained everything. Once we found out the sun is not a god-in-a-chariot racing across the sky and that it is actually a star, science expanded and religion was reduced.

[nrioq]

No Vote

First, I don't think religion necessarily has to deal with death unless you mean a metaphorical death. I think that's a very narrow vision of religion even if it does encompass why many people turn to religion.

Religion is a nebulous term, but I view it as many systems people have invented/developed for many purposes, but almost all of which have elements that deal with existential problems of life.

So which has more authority? I think that's like asking which has more authority, general relativity or quantum mechanics. Both appear to be correct in that they can accurately describe different aspects of nature. Both have times where there application is inconvenient/clumsy which is not to say either is incorrect.

I view the same situation with religion and science. If one ponders whether we should eat off lead plates, then science is going to offer some fine answer to that question. But what should we value? How should we live life? What sort of being are we (not in the material sense)? I think in these instances, religion has the potential to give answers. However, I think most people of faith don't actually use religion in this capacity. Sometime people use religion so they don't have to think about these problems.

I believe both can be worthy in addressing problems we face in life depending upon the nature of that problem. That's my answer. Also, in case people are wondering what background I have, I'm a Ph.D student studying particle physics.

[3.14159265...]

Its horrible, but I think religion has more authority.

There is alot of people that would (do) live primitive lives because they want to preserve their religious lives more than they want to accept the world.

Also consider the number of people that ascribe to astrology for matters of life (relationships, buisness affairs).

Health sciences however has ALOT of authority, since it saves SO many lives nowadays (babies and such). I don't think it is as much as religious beliefs because it saves their souls(?) .

[22/7]

Its horrible, but I think religion has more authority.

There is alot of people that would (do) live primitive lives because they want to preserve their religious lives more than they want to accept the world.

Also consider the number of people that ascribe to astrology for matters of life (relationships, buisness affairs).

Health sciences however has ALOT of authority, since it saves SO many lives nowadays (babies and such). I don't think it is as much as religious beliefs because it saves their souls(?) .

Who'd you give your password to?

Tank, I can kind of agree with you about the whole gap of science thing. Although to say it is reduced is maybe to take a step too far. I think its realm is reduced, but not necessarily religion itself.

Oh, and no vote. I think it's kind of like nrioq said about them being too separate.

[mosc]

Originally, religion governed and explained everything. Once we found out the sun is not a god-in-a-chariot racing across the sky and that it is actually a star, science expanded and religion was reduced.

Stupidly simplistic and demeaning generalizations do not help your point. There are religions in this world that pre-date written history and DO NOT have sun worship of any kind let alone dudes in chariots racing across the sky.

Also, as people are continually doing in this line of threads we're seeing here, you equate all religions with evangelical Christianity. Most are very far from it. Belief in god is not required by all religions, nor is denouncing all other religions in favor of your own a requirement. Just because I say "I am Jewish" doesn't mean I am saying "there is no Jesus" for example. Nor, frankly, does it mean that I believe in god. Generalizations of religion are meaningless and most of you seem to have very little exposure to faiths beyond evangelical Christianity. Beyond this, implying religious beliefs make one irrational or un-scientific is insane. Certainly some religious people are totally irrational and un-scientific. Not all.

There's a certain amount of tolerance most religious people have that is almost the polar opposite of evangelical behavior. Rather than saying "I'm right and your wrong", we learn from each other and note the overwhelming similarities. It seems some of the Atheists in this world could use a little of the same. Evangelical Atheism is just as disgusting to me.

[3.14159265...]

Who'd you give your password to?

Why do you say that?

[Phenriz]

Originally, religion governed and explained everything. Once we found out the sun is not a god-in-a-chariot racing across the sky and that it is actually a star, science expanded and religion was reduced.

ding ding ding, we have a winner

[Andrew]

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

One might argue that that's the same thing as "things that don't matter".

Yeah, you're right. It's a good thing that there was religion to take care of all that density before Archimedes... and gravity before Newton...

Religion never said a thing about gravity or density. My point is that "things science cannot quantify" are necessarily so minute and insignificant that they don't by any practical measure exist. Religion can say what it likes about things that don't exist. Religion's good at that.

Things science has yet to quantify are not the domain of religion. They are the domain of future science.

[TheStranger]

Authority over what?

If I'm trying to understand the forces holding an atom together the I look to science.

If I'm thinking about why I'm here or where I'll go when I die I'll look to religion.

The two are not mutually exclusive, at least not to me. Science illuminates God's creation, it does not refute the existence of God

[22/7]

Why do you say that?

I don't know that I've ever (in my limited exposure to you that is) give religion any credence over science. So I assumed that someone else was posting for you. Not really, just... you know.

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

One might argue that that's the same thing as "things that don't matter".

Yeah, you're right. It's a good thing that there was religion to take care of all that density before Archimedes... and gravity before Newton...

Religion never said a thing about gravity or density. My point is that "things science cannot quantify" are necessarily so minute and insignificant that they don't by any practical measure exist. Religion can say what it likes about things that don't exist. Religion's good at that.

What you said in your reply was that "matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify" "don't matter." So by your logic, until Archimedes "discovered" a way to quantify density, it "did not matter" and until Newton "discovered" a way to quantify gravity (what did he actually do with gravity again?) it "didn't matter" which is, of course, quite ludicrous. Another example of this is love. Can science "quantify" love. Are you positing that love does not, by any practical measure, exist? What about friendship? What about any non-blood-based relationship? Does honor exist? How about right and wrong?

I'm done for now, I think my point's been made.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify.

What you said in your reply was that "matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify" "don't matter." So by your logic, until Archimedes "discovered" a way to quantify density, it "did not matter" and until Newton "discovered" a way to quantify gravity (what did he actually do with gravity again?) it "didn't matter" which is, of course, quite ludicrous. Another example of this is love. Can science "quantify" love. Are you positing that love does not, by any practical measure, exist? What about friendship? What about any non-blood-based relationship? Does honor exist? How about right and wrong?

I'm done for now, I think my point's been made.

Your point hasn't been made until you explain how religion holds sway over love, friendship, honor, and right and wrong.

[22/7]

Your point hasn't been made until you explain how religion holds sway over love, friendship, honor, and right and wrong.

I never said that it did. What I said was that when Andrew said those things (matters that science cannot quantify) didn't matter, he was wrong. All those things, love, friendship, honor, right and wrong, are not quantifiable by science, and yet they have value. They matter.

I'm not saying I agree with what Phenriz said.
[
What I am saying is that what Andrew said (that "matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify") is wrong.

And that's my point. But I hide it well with hats and what not.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

Ah, ok, that makes more sense. I caught you on the wrong side of that argument.

[Phenriz]

Your point hasn't been made until you explain how religion holds sway over love, friendship, honor, and right and wrong.

Religion holds sway over matters that science cannot quantify, or has yet to quantify. (for most people anyway, i use religion in the broad sense, not strictly in a Christian sense as you seem to mean)


That said, the two cannot cover all aspects of life, well they could, but your actions would then become predictable, and that'd be boring.

My point doesn't need, much more, explanation as i never claimed that religion hold sway over those things for *most people*. I did say it(religion or science) was possible for you to allow it to hold sway over such things, result you become a fanatic and thus mostly predictable, but most people do not.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

And apologies to you, I missed that quote. I quoted the quote of your quote without reading your whole post...

I'm, ah... just going to go stand over here now....

[Phenriz]

And apologies to you, I missed that quote.

I'm, ah... just going to go stand over here now....

no no it's alright, i suppose i could have been clearer i just figured most people would use my entire post, rather than just "sound biting" it.

i still wub you jalapena

[22/7]

how... sweet?

[OneLess]

I hereby declare reality outside the realm of science as well! Poof, tis done.

Science: it doesn't work in specialized cases because of arbitrary fiat, bitches.

[22/7]

I hereby declare reality outside the realm of science as well! Poof, tis done.

Science: it doesn't work in specialized cases because of arbitrary fiat, bitches.

??

<--DOES NOT GET!

[mister k]

Any authority religion seeks to have is non existent. To set it against science is certainly odd, as nowadays religion cheats and pretends to be about morality etc, but actually I don't believe religion can give any kind of valid answers. That is, if a scientific, or at least a rational perspective cannot explain something adequately, invoking god is simply not going to help. You are not going to squeeze out more answers by reading a holy book. This is a false competition, the idea that science and religion have seperate spheres- I would argue that we have science and philosophy, of which religion is an eeny little subset.

[incidentally, if religion makes you feel comforted or good, makes you feel happier about yourself, or feels right to you, fair play to you. I simply don't think it's an effective tool when solving any problems]

[nrioq]

I think there is a very fundamental problem in this forum. I disagree with the way people are conceiving of both science and religion. Religions such as Christianity have scriptures that describe creation stories that are clearly not facts. There are other claims or stories made within religions that are also clearly not facts. But this completely ignores the allegorical and symbolic nature of these stories. This is where religion can have tremendous power and actually do good.

But what troubles me more is science has limitations and people are thinking it can do more than it can do. OK, roll your eyes. But here are some of the limitations. All of science rests on assumptions and values. "Is this world real?" is the most basic one. And what does 'real' even mean? What is a fact? How certain does something have to be before it's considered a fact? For instance, the six sigma rule in physics being required for a discovery. Why did we decide upon that? Science doesn't tell you what a fact IS. It only returns facts based upon you concept of facts. The concept of a fact is metaphysical. It is a metaphysical assumption that these 'facts' can be applied to reality. Now, I live by these assumptions, but it's reckless and incorrect to pretend science is not based on such values and assumptions.

Does this makes sense? Science does not tell you why you should do anything. What it most often does is return based on what you want to do or what you value, what is prudent. So I want to live as long as possible. Science has some good answers for that. But, why should I want to live as long as possible? That's something I want and not based on a fact. It's based on instinct of self-preservation and the fact that I rather like life.

Why do I prattle on about this? Because science cannot address certain values. It cannot address certain problems in life such as values because it is based on values and assumptions. Why should you care for your child? Just because you have a biological urge to do so? Why shouldn't I hurt other people? Why shouldn't I rape people? After all, I'm more likely to spread my seed around which is what my DNA demands!

And as a practical example where a large group of people turned to religion to understand their own plight and they benefited from that can be seen in the African American Civil Rights movement. The parable of Moses and the Israelis wondering in the desert trying to find the promised land was a powerful idea. MLK also turned to religion as a justification to others to have a just, non-violent movement. And I think it was only such a movement that would have succeeded. If the movement turned violent, African American activists would likely have branded as terrorists. So I think by large, most would say this movement was successful. So this is some hand waving trying to say religion is not worthless.

EDIT: This isn't to say religion has all the answers to questions that science cannot answer, but rather to say religion is not irrelevant.

[Andrew]

EDIT: This isn't to say religion has all the answers to questions that science cannot answer, but rather to say religion is not irrelevant.

You've done nothing to show religion is not irrelevant. What if I choose to fill all those gaps with spirituality, philosophy, morality or instinct?

You've shown that there are things science doesn't address, which is of course true. But you've done nothing to suggest that religion does address them, or at least that it addresses them credibly.

All your example showed was that religion can convince people to do things. In this case it was non-violent. In other cases it can be incredibly violent. That doesn't make it relevant; that just makes it powerful.

[Memo]

Why do I prattle on about this? Because science cannot address certain values. It cannot address certain problems in life such as values because it is based on values and assumptions. Why should you care for your child? Just because you have a biological urge to do so? Why shouldn't I hurt other people? Why shouldn't I rape people? After all, I'm more likely to spread my seed around which is what my DNA demands!

That's how atheists breed. Oh wait, actually no.
While science doesn't provide values, that's not its purpose. Our society self-regulates and creates those values according to our current necessities. It's deemed to be wrong to hurt people not because some god somewhere said that 'HEY GUYS KILLING IS WRONG' but because our society would have collapsed a long time ago if that social rule didn't exist.
Moral values came first, and only then religion applied them to their philosophy. Sadly, most people think that it happened backwards and that religion created moral values and that a society without religion would be an anarchist hell.

Basically, religion is only an excuse to apply those moral values, not the reason.