Debate and Discussion

Science and Religion
ozoneocean at 6:55PM, March 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Science and Religion.

This is something that worries me… There are two things really: a problem with religion taking over science and improperly influencing it (in many and varied ways), but also this other notion that science is somehow an alternative to religion.
Personally I think both trends are quite wrong. In the first case you have non-scientific interests detrimentally affecting science, meddling improperly. In the second case you have people putting far too much faith in science, treating it almost like a religion with all the answers. I feel that such an approach can devalue science, and can also lead to a religious based backlash against it. Thinking of science this way also horribly misunderstands what science is about; science doesn’t invalidate, supplant, or replace religion; science is a process of mechanically questing for answers in order to add to the knowledge base, while religion not only provides a bunch of answers, it serves an entirely different set of needs.

So you never really have a true case of Science VS Religion.
Rather it’s “Religious elements VS Science” or “Fools claiming to represent science VS Religion”.
What you really can have is “Philosophy VS Religion”. Philosophy really is an alternative to religion (at least in some ways), and it’s a higher discipline than science; in that Philosophy supplies the more imaginative questions that Science then seeks to answer.

Sooooo then, where do you stand: Do you disagree and think Science and Religion oppose each other directly?
Do you think faith in science is all important?
What, what, what?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 7:36PM, March 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Well my point is that not only do they not oppose each other; it's that they can't because they are completely different things. One is an institution, the other is a discipline.
The knowledge base that science contributes to is not science, science is merely the process that goes about adding to the knowledge base that is at service to us all, even religion.

It’s a huge mistake to look at science as being anything at all like religion. That's my contention.
It hurts science and unfairly devalues religion.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
simonitro at 7:43PM, March 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 608
joined: 1-14-2006
What can I say about this issue is that science is good to have knowledge, however there are some scientific things that piss me off that they're trying to create their own religion such as cloning.

Cloning is playing God and I think this is wrong.

Religion is more of a symbolic aspect. Whenever I read the bible or Quraan, I refer to them as symbols more than it was real but I have a big faith in God and I know God is everywhere in this world. The thing that I don't like is the fundemantilists.

I mean, when someone is like “Hey, I kill but I go to church!” There's no point.

Well, both religion and science can be similar in a way. Too much of them can cause problems. It's a scary issue to debate on. However, this is my thoughts.


Enjoy… Las Vegas-y
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:37PM
Aurora Moon at 8:03AM, March 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
actually I think cloning can be very good for humans. that is, if they only happens to clone body parts rather than an WHOLE human.

it would be certainly be helpful for heart transplants, etc… there are people out there who are at risk of dying now because they're put on an waiting list for heart transplants, livers, and every other body part that they're in need of.

it's just like stem cell research. a lot of it is MEANT to save lives, not to simply just play god.

besides, if your problem with it is playing god, then it's ALREADY TOO LATE!!!!

just take a look at all this modern medicine that allows for coma patients to live for a long time. Families and Doctors gets to dedice whenever the coma patients should live or die. isn't that playing god?

In fact, when you think about it, a lot of doctors and nurses out there gets to “play god” but nobody is ever against them because they get to save people's lives.

Sorry, but I think that the whole “It's wrong because its' playing god!” bit is so overused and is total crap.

It's just like how people way back in the day when they were against the idea of humans flying, would say: “If god intended for us to fly then we would had been born with wings! bah to those airplanes!”

I say as long as it can be used to save human lives, to help cure a lot of serious illnesses and to generally improve the way things are run nowdays… then I'm all for it.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
lothar at 8:49AM, March 25, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
just like present day religion is a mutation of spirituality , modern “science” has mutated and become institutionalized with all these people trying to get famous some way or another , in the end it's always about human vanity : that will destroy even the greatest of endevors !!!!!!!!!
i forgot what i was trying to say here , but i think the preception people have that there is some kind of BATTLE going on between the 2 is rediculous!
its like kids arguing over who would win in a pokemon fight !!!
neither side gives a sh*t what the other side can prove or disprove .
besides ,
any serious scientist would prolly not even bother to disprove the biblical flood or etc., it's like telling preschoolers theres no santa , sure its EASY , but WTF is the point ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ccs1989 at 9:29AM, March 25, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Science has a much greater base in reality than religion, but that doesn't mean that scientists have all the answers. The top scientists should be more open to the the ideas of others, as long as those ideas are supported with well documented analysis and logical observations and possibly inferences.

Oh, but the bible, Koran, and other religious texts don't count as ‘well documented analysis’.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:37AM
Aurora Moon at 6:06PM, March 26, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
well said.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
Ian Jay at 7:34PM, March 26, 2006
(offline)
posts: 720
joined: 1-4-2006
Mr. Neil
ccs1989
Science has a much greater base in reality than religion, but that doesn't mean that scientists have all the answers.
Well, that's not the point of science anyway. Science is about learning. It has nothing to do with having all the answers.

Part of the problem is the way science is presented the public. People have been made to expect consistancy and dogmatism from science, and then they're put off by it when scientists change their minds.

For example, science is always changing it's mind about coffee. “Coffee is good for you!” “For the love of God! Don't drink coffee!!!” I remember my father used to complain about that all the time, but it just shows the problem that exists with society's attitude about science. You cannot think of scientific publications as dogmatic literature. It just doesn't work that way.

Science is about the best of what we know right now. And the reason why science is constantly changing is because our knowledge of the world is constantly changing.

So does religion need to take a page from science and be more flexible based on observation… or does science need to take a page from religion and be more staunch and assured on its positions and theories?

I did a report on this in tenth grade for English class (one that ended disastrously, and which I wish I could erase from the past), and from that I've drawn the conclusion that science and religion are two systems of belief. Science requires the actual observation of one thing before studying its effects on us: seeing is believing. Religion requires the acceptance as fact an unproved set of ideas – a “leap of faith”, as it may– through the effects it supposedly causes: believing is seeing. These days, religion is scorned my most intellectuals, the “opiate of the masses” as Marx (or was it Engels?) once quipped, relegated only for inbred narrow-minded Bible-Belters, former down-on-their-luck born-again evangelists who essentially used God as a crutch to “get me through it” (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you), and hopeless romanticists like me who believe that there is somebody watching out for us, and that things will all work out in the end, and that there are people in the world who either want to help you or hurt you depending on your actions towards them, so why not just be nice to everybody?

However, science, though easier to prove than religion, but it still needs some closure. For instance, the window blinds in my room are closed right now. How do I know that the world outside is still there? I could say that I have observed the world many times during day and night outside my window, and therefore it continues to exist, but there is no guarantee that that hypothesis is sound. I could look out the window right now, but the conditions might change in the few seconds it takes for me to lift my hand from the keyboard and lift up a slat to peek through at the inky darkness outside which could be either my neighborhood or a void of pure nothingness. Pure science requires you to believe a complex dogma of logic and number, that if this happens, then this will happen– essentially, science is believing that seeing (and remembering seeing) is believing. To that measure, I suggest that all smart-ass scientists shut their collective claptrap, because when it comes right down to it, your guess is as good as anyone's.

And that's all I'm going to say about religion and science. It's very, very hard to believe in just one side of the argument. Why not be willing to believe in anything?

~IJ

PS: However, neither science nor religion are acceptable scapegoats for your problems. Believe it or not, getting in and out of trouble is your doing and your responsibility, not some eye in the sky's or some shift in your peers' opinion. At least, that's what I think. Maybe. I think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:56PM
mykill at 9:07PM, March 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Science concerns reality and things that are true.

Religion concerns belief and faith in something a person CHOOSES to hold as true.

Religion wants very badly to be science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Linh at 9:46PM, March 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 32
joined: 1-10-2006
Hehe “faith in science.” Nice, Ozone.

Based on results, I'd give more merit to science than to religion. When I turn on the lights in my room, I can expect it to work most of the time. When I mix sodium with chlorine gas, I can expect to get salt. Almost everything I have in my house was made through the advancement of science.

On the contrary, I have prayed every night since 13 for a supermodel dominatrix girlfriend and it still hasn't happened.

And science wants to be religion…
How so?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:35PM
mykill at 10:17PM, March 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Reliegion really does want to be science- how else do you arrive at “creation science”?

How about “Christian Science”?

There be nothing comparable on the part of science.

HOWEVER, technically the term ‘faith in science’ is on point. Has anyone on this forum actually personally witnessed a sub atomic phenomena? How do you know it's real? You know it's real because someone of authority told you it is real. Fundamentally the same way religious people know their faith is real.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Linh at 10:31PM, March 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 32
joined: 1-10-2006
FinbarReilly
If you consider that religion is how one believes rather than thinks, too many people want science to replace religion as the way in which people believe. Rather than allowing for any personal belief structures, some groups would prefer more scientific personal beliefs. Read: No silly superstitions that don't have a scientific backing…

FR
If the definition of religion is how one believes, then science is just another religion. The very fact that I believe in scientific theories makes science a religion. So if we go on the premise you posed that religion is how one believes, saying that science wants to be religion or religion wants to be science makes no sense, since science IS a religion. Yes?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:35PM
mykill at 11:51PM, March 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Science = logical thought

Therefore you shouldn't believe in most science at all!

Because logically you should believe only that which you know to be true. A scientist knowing something to be true doesn't mean you know that thing to be true.

When you speak of believing in subatomic particles, you are accepting it as an act of faith. No more so or less so than God or jesus. Both are believed on the strength of another's authority. Unless you personally have seen a subatomic partical, you have no right to suggest you believe in such a thing - following the laws of logic.

You can leverage inductive logic to suggest subatomic particles are almost certainly real - but unless you work with them personally - you may not say sub atomic particals are defnitly real and adhere to the laws of logic and reason.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Linh at 2:58AM, March 27, 2006
(online)
posts: 32
joined: 1-10-2006
FR: Way of thinking, way of believing. Same thing. Belief is a way of thinking anyways.

When you say “belief over logic,” I assume you're using belief to mean faith. Well, as mykill pointed out, science requires as much faith as any religion. Some religions worship one god, many gods, aliens, etc. Science worships empirical evidence.

However, I disagree that science depends on logic. Science depends on empirical evidence, logic is just a product of that evidence. Read an astrophysics book and tell me if that stuff sounds logical. What is logic and common sense but a sum of our experiences? Science provides the empirical evidence that serves as a foundation for logic. We use existing evidence to decide whether or not something makes sense. If new evidence appears that disproves existing evidence, logic changes to fit the new evidence.

For example, release an object in the air and it will fall down every time. Therefore, it's logical to say that any object will fall if you release it in the air. Suppose gravity happened differently. Release an object and it will fall upwards every time. It's then logical to say that objects will fall upwards. So in science, logic depends on empirical evidence, not vice versa.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:35PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved