Science vs Religion - There is room for both.

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, in regard to polar opposites keeping each other in check, I see it more as keeping each other accountable. If only one side of an argument is present, then that side tends to just get lazy and accepts almost anything as long as proper genuflection is done toward the most sacrosanct of teachings. But in the presence of opposition, with each pointing out the mistakes of the others (constructively, in preference alone), it allows for the flaws to be removed and the arguments to be refined each to their optimum. This is not to say that both sides are equal, but instead to say that having opposition allows for refinement of argumentation in contrast to just being surrounded by yes-men.

The disciplines of science and those of religion are totally alien to each other. A scientific mind holds all knowledge and perception under various levels of doubt that they might be assailed by contradictory new data and modified. Therefore all science has as its basic stance a flexibility of conception that not only is different from religion, it is strictly forbidden by religion to hold such doubts.There are condemnations of doubt labeled blasphemy which may not be held under the threat of eternal punishment. This is in violent and total contrast to a scientific attitude.

Science and Religion are quite different. The former is founded on observable fact, that latter on hopes and fancies. Both exist. Both are practiced by humans. Some humans practice both. Religions should not be forbidden but neither should they be confused with science.

ruveyn

Yeah, I actually don't see the view that they "keep each other in check", at all. The reason being that religions tend to have a more questionable methodology, and tend not to directly touch on the areas that are touched on by science.

Religion is wishful thinking. If you believe the world is other than what it is, then religion is for you.

ruveyn

I am astounded that all of the so-called rationalists deal with religion so irrationally.

To suggest that "Religion" views the universe through one lens is to uncritically tar all with the same brush. Even to reduce the criticism to "Catholics," or, "Fundamentalists," is still too uncritical.

True, there are those who choose to view Scripture as a literal record. For these people, the intersection of science and their religious beliefs is extremely limited.

On the other hand, there are those who view Scripture as allegorical--even so far as some Christian teachers rejecting the literal resurrection, and questioning the existence of a historical Jesus.

If you are looking to find the intersection of faith and science, you must look at the faith of the individual believer. To do otherwise is to commit an error that would offend any adherent of the scientific method.

That is a bit surprising, Visagrunt - if one were to find a single repeatable experiment in which, say, conservation of momentum were violated, this would ordinarily call for a reassessment of mechanistic physics, to take the new phenomenon into account, but when it is pointed out that there are a great many with religious faith who understand that the Bible is not a history or cosmology text, we are dismissed as "outliers" and the basic assumptions remain unquestioned. Proper scientific method requires one to think through one's assumptions when they are proven false in even one instance, not to cling stubbornly to them in the face of available data.

Sadly, it's only a bit surprising. Most humans (and, certain irrationalists on this website aside, we are indeed human) seem to need certain bedrock certainties in their lives, and will resist changing those certainties. The most obvious example is of course religion - but sometimes that's replaced by assumptions about certain other groups of people, commonly the religious (or, on this website, NTs. They're not all the same, and some can be quite nice, patient, and understanding, and saying that out loud here can get you flamed. Fortunately, I'm wearing my asbestos underwear).

Francis Bacon. Louis Pasteur. James Clerk Maxwell. Werner von Braun. A. E. Wilder Smith. Jonathan Sarfati. Tas Walker. Do you know what these scientists have in common?

Obviously, whatever their religious convictions their work and intellectual acuity severely undermined the idiotic fantasies of religion.

That's only true if science itself does, and that you assume and that you replied as such thus. However, you're wrong and lazy to boot.

Religion is a metaphor for parts of the human experience that aren't usually addressed in other traditions. It is also often used, effectively, by conservatives as a metaphor for politics. As such it is useful. However, it has nothing to do with science. Problems arise when people forget that last part.

Of course I'm lazy, but it doesn't take any effort to spot idiots.

It also takes no effort to flame rather than treat others in a civil manner.

Right. Never accuse people of being lazy or you might get slapped back.

Facts and feelings topic

I think when religion becomes politicized and oversteps its sphere of influence, this is where problems come about. when religion is used to fill a void, it becomes an obsession, drug. This is the danger inherent in religion.

Some questions science cannot answer. Instead of religion, I prefer philosophy to assist me. I suppose religion could be an answer, but the person must understand that it is not the answer to every question, and there is the danger of becoming a bully with it. For this reason I was turned off faith communities. At first I adopted an eclectic approach to religion, in addition to philosophy, but I still realized that most religions just had too many historical faults for me to work with, and even to take bits and pieces from many faiths was not going to be an answer. This was an individual choice, and as Visagrunt stated, you must look at the faith of the individual believer.

Above all, religion is a choice, and at best should be a priviate, individual practice.

You are not dealing with the real world. Aside from whatever cosmological or private moral odd concoctions religion serves up religion is a huge social and even financial enterprise and interpenetrates all phases of a person's and a community's life with all sorts of auxiliary functions both helpful and detrimental. There is no way to confine this beast into the cage of individual philosophical viewpoint.