Science vs Religion

[flamingjimmy]

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,

I know, that was intentional. I think the OP has completely missed the point, and typed out a post explaining exactly why, you have chosen to ignore it.

 

I'll gladly respond to the rest of your post, when you do me the same courtesy. I think I rather effectively demolished your argument (the one concerning the 3 questions we need to ask ourselves), and instead of attempting to refute me or even acknowledging my points at all, you have simply moved on to a whole set of new points.

[FairDooz]

I think I rather effectively demolished your argument (the one concerning the 3 questions we need to ask ourselves)

 

You'll have to forgive me I missed your knockout blow. Maybe I thought you were expressing an opinion rather than setting out an incontrovertible proof!

 

If your point is that you’re not saying science can or should replace religion but reason and logic can then I’m not sure why you are making that distinction.

 

My opinion is that when it comes to the origin of the universe, the origin of species, the explanation of the interaction of forces and matter, then science (scientific observation, reason and logic) has won that battle hands down. As Alain de Botton says (in the video I linked to) it’s too easy for science to take on religion on those terms. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Round 1 to science.

 

When we move into the territory of values, morals, individual and collective goals in life, creating successful society through living in peace and love, then science has little to say.

 

On these grounds the message from all religions I’ve ever come across is the same. That it is better for all if we forgo a few selfish pursuits and look out for each other for the good of all.

 

Now I’m not saying that there haven’t been advocates of specific religious faiths who have been “off message” (to say the least), but the role religion tries to play is a valuable one and it is a role that science does not try to fulfil.

 

Indeed science has been charged with undermining morality in that advocating the predictability of everything including human behaviour (as evolutionary psychologists do) leaves little room for free will and responsibility for our own actions.

 

[Here’s a Wikipedia one liner – “They (Evolutionary Psycholgists) report successful tests of theoretical predictions related to such topics as infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price and parental investment”]

 

Evolutionary Psychology is one area where science is beginning to exceed its remit and should recognise its limitations.

 

“To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play ... is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us.” Albert Einstein (a guy who is used to taming complex matters).

 

So, for me the battle of Science vs Religion is a false one. They have different roles to play. What we should be asking is what roles do each fulfil best, and what are the limitations of each?

[FairDooz]

:huh:Would you like to translate Einstein's words into something use mere mortals can understand?

 

I'll give it a go ...

 

"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.

 

Religion and science are distinct disciplines, but are related and indeed dependent upon each other.

 

"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.

 

Science is concerened with explaining the way things work. Religion is concerened with the way humans can work together. Religion can learn from science (although in the past that may have been a slow and tortuous process - forgive the bad taste joke).

 

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.

 

Feelings ... hmmm who can explain human emotions and aspirations? Our feelings may direct us towards an interest in science but those very feelings are not objects easily understood by science.

 

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.

 

Scientists have faith too. Faith in the possibility that the universe can be understood at some level by reason.

 

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

 

As above - religion and science are distinct disciplines, but are related and indeed dependent upon each other.

[RootsBooster]

My opinion is that when it comes to the origin of the universe, the origin of species, the explanation of the interaction of forces and matter, then science (scientific observation, reason and logic) has won that battle hands down. As Alain de Botton says (in the video I linked to) it’s too easy for science to take on religion on those terms. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Round 1 to science.

 

When we move into the territory of values, morals, individual and collective goals in life, creating successful society through living in peace and love, then science has little to say.

 

Yes, because science has obviously contributed nothing toward these things

On these grounds the message from all religions I’ve ever come across is the same. That it is better for all if we forgo a few selfish pursuits and look out for each other for the good of all.

You may want to have a look at this then

Now I’m not saying that there haven’t been advocates of specific religious faiths who have been “off message” (to say the least), but the role religion tries to play is a valuable one and it is a role that science does not try to fulfil.

How is it valuable? I don't doubt that some people would be worse off without their individual faith, but what is so valuable about organised religion as a whole?

And no, science doesn't try to fulfil religion's role, that would be stupid and not science.

Indeed science has been charged with undermining morality in that advocating the predictability of everything including human behaviour (as evolutionary psychologists do) leaves little room for free will and responsibility for our own actions.

Who has made these charges? The religious?

My morals haven't been undermined by science, as I'm sure many more haven't. You could just as easily make this statement about religion.

[Here’s a Wikipedia one liner – “They (Evolutionary Psycholgists) report successful tests of theoretical predictions related to such topics as infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price and parental investment”]

 

Evolutionary Psychology is one area where science is beginning to exceed its remit and should recognise its limitations.

Are you saying that science should stop observing stuff that is happening?

[FairDooz]

What exactly is a "fundamentalist atheist"?

With the foundations of atheism simply "being without belief in God" how does it make a fundamentalist any different to a standard atheist?.

 

I used the term fundamentalist to describe someone who pursues their beliefs without compromise to the aanoyance/detriment/disadvantage/pain of death of those they wish to convert to their beliefs.

 

As it is usually applied to the religious, it doesn't seem right when associated with aetheism, that doesn't mean to say that there aren't uncompromising "fundamentalist" aetheists in this world! (I used the term to refer to myself).

[Shogun]

Ive enjoyed this religious debate, my last word on the subject as a christian is ,my personal faith is unshakable science is a marvelous thing and has enlightened the human race my belief in God is of a higher order and a spiritual thing my belief gives me comfort love and purpose in life, science is a tangible thing that we use every day in our life making our life safer and physically more tolerable especially in the medical field,I would like to think religion and science can go hand in hand , but like most things there are extremist on both sides that will never agree.

[RootsBooster]

I used the term fundamentalist to describe someone who pursues their beliefs without compromise to the aanoyance/detriment/disadvantage/pain of death of those they wish to convert to their beliefs.

 

As it is usually applied to the religious, it doesn't seem right when associated with aetheism, that doesn't mean to say that there aren't uncompromising "fundamentalist" aetheists in this world! (I used the term to refer to myself).

So like I said, what is a "fundamentalist atheist" ?

 

What beliefs would an atheist pursue?

[RootsBooster]

Ive enjoyed this religious debate, my last word on the subject as a christian is ,my personal faith is unshakable science is a marvelous thing and has enlightened the human race my belief in God is of a higher order and a spiritual thing my belief gives me comfort love and purpose in life, science is a tangible thing that we use every day in our life making our life safer and physically more tolerable especially in the medical field,I would like to think religion and science can go hand in hand , but like most things there are extremist on both sides that will never agree.

 

I think that's exactly what belief in God(s) should be about, personal faith. Why anyone needs so many different religions/places of worship/rules and procedures to adhere to is beyond me.

 

I expect that somebody who truly has faith in their God does not need any other authority/ministry/clerics etc to tell them how to believe or worship.

[FairDooz]

Yes, because science has obviously contributed nothing toward these things

 

So how can we use science to discover how we should live our lives?

 

You may want to have a look at this

 

Indeed an interesting finding. Has cause and effect been proved or just correlation?

 

How is it valuable? I don't doubt that some people would be worse off without their individual faith, but what is so valuable about organised religion as a whole?

 

Community, network of support, culture of forgiveness ...

 

And no, science doesn't try to fulfil religion's role, that would be stupid and not science.

 

Have you heard of "The Moral Molecule". Does morality have a chemical base? Or is science maybe straying into areas beyond its competence?

 

Who has made these charges? The religious?

My morals haven't been undermined by science, as I'm sure many more haven't. You could just as easily make this statement about religion.

 

A belief in determinism as opposed to free will is particularly criticized for seeming to make traditional moral judgments impossible ... What do you think? Do we have free will, or are we amoral/immoral beings merely here to propogate the selfish gene?

 

Are you saying that science should stop observing stuff that is happening?

 

No I'm saying that some things which purport to be science are far from it. Science is good at the basics, but when it comes to complex systems measurements become very subjective and predictions become near impossible.

 

Do you consider yourself to be wholly understandable by science? Are your thoughts and behaviours merely the logical and predictable outcome of your biochemical makeup?

[FairDooz]

So like I said, what is a "fundamentalist atheist" ?

 

What beliefs would an atheist pursue?

 

I originally used the term lightly as an attempt at self-deprecating humour.

 

Obviously I failed miserably, but as you ask, I would say that a fundamentalist aetheist has an uncompromising belief that they are infallible.