Science vs Religion

[flamingjimmy]

As we go through life, we have to answer 3 questions:

 

1) What happened? (What are the facts? What is the truth?)

2) What does it mean? (How does this relate to our values? How important is it?)

3) What should we do about it? (What actions do we need to take if any, to make progress?)

 

Here's a thought

 

Science is very good at answering question 1

Religion is very good at answering question 2

Politicians usually get to answer question 3

 

Religion is not good at answering question 2 at all. It is good at thinking it can answer question 2 but not actually doing it.

 

What is a lot better at answering question 2, is reason, empathy and logic.

 

You're right in that science cannot replace religion, however the tenets that are the basis of science, can go quite a long way, and when combined with natural human empathy can do the job.

[FairDooz]

Religion is not good at answering question 2 at all. It is good at thinking it can answer question 2 but not actually doing it.

 

What is a lot better at answering question 2, is reason, empathy and logic.

 

Ok, in answer to the question "what do the facts mean" you need reason and logic, but what is behind the question is what do the facts mean to us as a society? What's important? How do the facts relate to a set of principles, values, a moral code?.

 

You know, what we observe can be deceiving sometimes.

 

Does the sun go around the earth, or does the earth go around the sun? Science is very good at explaining our observations, getting at "the truth".

 

I think another way of asking question 2 is "So what?". Now that we have the truth, why should I care?

 

What does it really matter whether the sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun? Our experience of it is just the same. We don't live our lives any differently.

 

I'm not advocating adopting religion, I'm just saying that we need to go beyond knowing the truth.

 

Can science prove the best way of saying goodbye to a loved one when they die? Does science even attempt to do so?

 

Another thought ... what does science have to say about getting rid of Gaddafi in Libya and leaving Bashar Assad to shell civilians in Syria? http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16163813

[FairDooz]

How will you know that what you see and hear is God.

 

Good question!

 

Maybe my sixth sense isn't as well developed as I like to think!

 

Maybe I've already experienced his presence and my scientific background is telling me that the experience is not logical and so I've dismissed it?

[johncocker]

Meditation can only focus the mind and to attain spiritual knowledge or insight, that knowledge and insight must already exist in their mind with their emotions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ithink your confuseing "intellect" with "feelings" -mind and emotions .

[flamingjimmy]

Ok, in answer to the question "what do the facts mean" you need reason and logic, but what is behind the question is what do the facts mean to us as a society? What's important? How do the facts relate to a set of principles, values, a moral code?.

 

I'm sorry but you seem to have completely ignored the point I made.

 

The crux of your argument seems to be 'you antitheists who don't like religion need to accept that science can't replace it'.

 

And I say to you that we aren't saying science should replace it, we're (well most of us anyway) saying that reason should replace it.

 

 

Does the sun go around the earth, or does the earth go around the sun? Science is very good at explaining our observations, getting at "the truth".

 

I think another way of asking question 2 is "So what?". Now that we have the truth, why should I care?

 

What does it really matter whether the sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun? Our experience of it is just the same. We don't live our lives any differently.

You've actually provided me with a great example here.

 

The part concerning question number 1 (what orbits what) was answered by science, as you have noted.

 

The part concerning what that means to how we live our lives (number 2) which you claimed religion was the way to find the answer you found through reason alone.

 

You realised that whether the sun orbits the earth or the other way round does not matter to you, so concluded that you should live your life as you did before you knew this particular fact.

 

You did not need religion to come to this conclusion, you did it all on your own.

 

Can science prove the best way of saying goodbye to a loved one when they die?

No, it cannot. However empathy, reason and logic can, which was my point.

[FairDooz]

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.

 

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.

 

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.

 

To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

 

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.

 

The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

 

Albert Einstein http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[ugo stiglitz]

I'm going to try something new now, I'm going to try a science vs religion thread which doesn't just devolve into 'he said she said he said'.

 

I'll first lay down what I want, then what I don't want.

 

What I want is for those religious people who think that there is scientific evidence that substantiates their belief to post that evidence and to which aspect of that belief it belongs to.

 

I then want those who think that their maybe problems with that evidence to evaluate the science used and see if the belief stands up to it or not.

 

What I don't want is,

 

People saying you can't prove God because he is unknowable. If you think that there is no need to take part in this thread.

 

Non religious people being blatantly rude to the beliefs of the religious, if you don't believe that's fine, but this thread is about science, not personal opinion.

 

This is not an anti religious thread, it is a chance for us to try and go into, as much as possible, the scientific evidence that the religious claim supports their belief.

 

It is also open to all religions. It is not a science vs God thread, so recognised religions that are generally accepted as having no creator God like Taoism and Buddhism can also be looked into.

 

For the most part I'm not getting involved, I'm going to facilitate, as I have a reasonable, and much more important, balanced understanding of most major religions (My weak points are Sikhism and Judaism so I would appreciate that being taken into consideration) AND many aspects of science.

 

What I will not accept is the religious claiming 'you just need faith', or those anti religious who just chuck science about willy nilly without knowing what they're talking about.

 

If you are of the opinion that faith is all you need accept that those who are anti religious will never have it, there is no need for you to contribute.

 

If you are anti religious don't just cut and paste the opinions of people like Richard Dawkins as your defence, that is not scientific, by all means use Richard Dawkins work on genes if that is applicable, but simply saying 'such and such a scientist disagrees' is not evidence, it's opinion, and there are plenty of scientists who are religious.

 

In short I don't want this to be a thread of extremes chucking sound bites at each other, it's here to give those believers a chance who think there is evidence to share it, and for non believers to say, if possible, that evidence doesn't stand up because.

 

Finally, with regard to science, we will deal with scientific fact.

 

That is those theories that are at this time currently accepted as being the most likely, for example regarding the beginning of the universe the big bang. That means that throwing in theories of multiple universes etc doesn't count, because as popular as they are in the scientific community AT THIS TIME they are not accepted as being the most likely.

 

Most importantly, be nice and have fun

 

it's a no brainer - science can be backed up with facts - no religion can - fact !

[FairDooz]

Good post FlamingJimmy - I accept that you're not advocating replacing religion with science, but you do think that empathy, reason and logic can.

 

This kind of moves beyond the "Science vs Religion" topic of this thread, but nevertheless, I still disagree in that although empathy, reason and logic are great qualities to possess, they don't in themselves fill the needs of people today.

 

What I envy about religion is the way it actually binds communities together with support networks, with buildings with ceremonies and rituals, shared experiences and a sense of contributing to the greater good of humanity.

 

So although I like to think I possess empathy, reason and logic, I have no support network.

 

When my father died I conducted the ceremony myself at Grenoside crematorium. I think I did a good job even if I say so myself. I still can't help feeling though that even though he was an aetheist as I am, the whole proceedings were something less than they could have been.

 

When my partner's neice got married in Omagh the ceremony was conducted by a priest who was an old family friend. The church was stunning the order of ceremony was amazing, the singer they hired was outstanding. The whole thing was very emotional for this old aetheist included.

 

Secular ceremonies don't come close even if you do disregard the amazing historical setting of an old church. There's another kind of community connection that even goes beyond the belief in a creator and an afterlife.

[FairDooz]

it's a no brainer - science can be backed up with facts - no religion can - fact !

 

What does Einstein have to say on this? (in the article I linked to above? http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm)

 

"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other.

 

The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere.

 

Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations.

 

Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values.

 

The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth.

 

Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence."

[Ryedo40]

...Religions bring friends, families and communities together at the important events in our lives - births, marriages, deaths.

 

Quite a lot of things bring friends, families and communities together - and not just births, marriages and deaths. Religion isn't necessary for those things.

 

The secular world may make attempts to provide alternative ceremonies at these events, but for most people they're not real alternatives to the splendour and gravitas that a religious ceremony provides.

 

As far as I'm concerned, humanist weddings, naming ceremonies, and funerals are real alternatives - and better alternatives.

 

One final thought. There is no scientific organisation which goes out in the world to help people in times of natural disaster and war.

 

There are plenty of secular organisations that not only do scientific research, but who also use scientific research to improve peoples lives. MSF(Doctors without borders) is one that springs to mind.