Science vs Religion

[Aleksandr]

About that intro - far too manty 'I wants' in there...total turn off.

That's rich coming from you!

[CorpusAnimus]

...and what are the strengths of religion?

(welcome to the Forum by the way)

 

Thanks RB.

 

I acknowledge that religions have many faults and that in a secular age of science, stories of creation are at odds with scientific fact, and more and more people are turning away from religion.

 

However, we haven't reached the point yet where scientists, atheists, humanists or any other organisation has been able to take the place of the religious services at marriages, births and deaths. Organised religions still perform these functions (even for many non-believers). You can do it yourself; I organised my own father's funeral with no religious content, but something was missing. It's something to do with the common beliefs of a community so that you feel less isolated at a time of grief.

 

I'd also argue that it's better to share the joy of welcoming a child into the world, or the celebration of a marriage, with a slightly wider community than immediate family and friends.

 

It struck me that when those 2 policewomen were killed recently in Manchester that nobody turns to a scientist for words of comfort. Science is great with dealing with matters of fact, but not so good with emotions, values, codes of conduct, public ceremonies.

 

I believe that religions have survived despite the success of science and technology because we all need to believe in something greater than meeting individual needs. We've evolved to be social creatures and religions still do serve the community in ways that science hasn't yet explored.

 

If we could focus on what science does best and what religion does best it would be far better than arguing about what each is bad at. imho!

[quisquose]

You just can't accept it can you,? that Dawkins may have mellowed a little since he wrote The God Delusion.

I'm always seeing quotes on the internet from 2002 and near that time,its now 2012 now.Do you think everyone should be inflexible?

 

I'm not suggesting he is less of an atheist then he ever was by the way.

 

My mum used to speak to me like that. Now it's my daughter and you.

 

What is there to accept? I've read his books, have you?

 

He has always been quite polite about the C&E and some of the traditions. He has always mentioned the logic of his agnosticism.

 

He publishes a book dismissing god, and religious people label him as "shrill", "angry", "militant", "fundamentalist", "frothing", "intolerant" etc.

 

A few years later he mentions that he likes Xmas carols on Radio 5, and the same religious people call him a "hypocrite".

 

Suddenly he reminds Rowan Williams that he's an agnostic, and the same religious people now claim he's "moderating". Didn't they read the book they all criticised?

 

It seems to me that it's his critics that have changed, more so than him. He was built up by them as some Pope of Atheism (with a capital A), which he wasn't, in an attempt to knock him down as if atheism can be knocked down with one man. Now his critics are starting to be nice to him, and claiming he's moderating, as if atheism is moderating of course. The inevitable "death bed conversion" will follow.

 

As for "mellowing", well of course I can accept that. Not only is he 71 but he's also been hurt by somebody he trusted, and heard much criticism from atheists (including me) that don't agree with him on many things. He is no longer a Professor. He's been showered with more unwarranted insults than anybody else on the planet. He might be bored with the arguments. So why not "mellow", but I doubt he's changed his mind about god one bit ... for that would take evidence.

[Drone]

I am surprised he didn't get bored with the all idea of debating with theists years ago

[CorpusAnimus]

So Dawkins and nice religion have been unfairly pitted against each other, when the real enemy of all of us is horrible religion.

 

OK. But let's not forget that not all science is good science either. Ben Goldacre exposes bad science in his book ... er ... "Bad Science" Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be associated with the "peddlers of cant and half-truths" who claim to be scientists, equally there are many people of faith who'd want to place a very large distance between themselves and those who claim to represent a faith but end up acting in ways that go against the teachings of that faith.

 

I don't buy [sack's] claim that Dawkins had some sort of "epiphany" at all, like this was some sort of victory.

 

OK, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but still a significant moment I'd say when Dawkins says "Amen to that". There is agreement on some things ...

[quisquose]

OK. But let's not forget that not all science is good science either. Ben Goldacre exposes bad science in his book ... er ... "Bad Science" Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be associated with the "peddlers of cant and half-truths" who claim to be scientists, equally there are many people of faith who'd want to place a very large distance between themselves and those who claim to represent a faith but end up acting in ways that go against the teachings of that faith.

 

Yes, read the book.

 

But the very title refers to stuff that's not science, anti-science or plain fraud, rather than science.

 

Science is neutral, but scientists can be bad.

 

Theism is neutral, but religion can be bad.

 

OK, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but still a significant moment I'd say when Dawkins says "Amen to that". There is agreement on some things ...

 

Not a significant moment at all. What Sacks said was reasonable, and I say "Amen to that" too.

 

Welcome to SF btw. When did you know you were an atheist, and why?

[RootsBooster]

Thanks RB.

 

I acknowledge that religions have many faults and that in a secular age of science, stories of creation are at odds with scientific fact, and more and more people are turning away from religion.

 

However, we haven't reached the point yet where scientists, atheists, humanists or any other organisation has been able to take the place of the religious services at marriages, births and deaths. Organised religions still perform these functions (even for many non-believers). You can do it yourself; I organised my own father's funeral with no religious content, but something was missing. It's something to do with the common beliefs of a community so that you feel less isolated at a time of grief.

 

I'd also argue that it's better to share the joy of welcoming a child into the world, or the celebration of a marriage, with a slightly wider community than immediate family and friends.

 

It struck me that when those 2 policewomen were killed recently in Manchester that nobody turns to a scientist for words of comfort. Science is great with dealing with matters of fact, but not so good with emotions, values, codes of conduct, public ceremonies.

 

I believe that religions have survived despite the success of science and technology because we all need to believe in something greater than meeting individual needs. We've evolved to be social creatures and religions still do serve the community in ways that science hasn't yet explored.

 

If we could focus on what science does best and what religion does best it would be far better than arguing about what each is bad at. imho!

 

Okay.

So what are the strengths of religion?

[CorpusAnimus]

Okay.

So what are the strengths of religion?

 

Sorry RB, I know I can be a bit wordy at times and maybe I ask others (unfairly) to infer certain things. (But equally I don't want to patronise).

 

I thought I'd answered your question but let me try again.

 

Religions make an attempt to bring together a wider community, especially at the significant moments of our lives - marriages, births and deaths.

 

Religion is better at dealing with emotions, values, codes of conduct, public ceremonies. Nobody turns to a scientist for words of comfort when a child goes missing or a public servant gets killed in the line of duty.

 

Science might have answers as to why we've evolved in certain ways biologically and psychologically, but still can't tell us what to do with our free will (or illusion of free will).

 

Religion makes an attempt to guide us morally in our own interests and the interests of those we love and the wider community.

 

I'd love to share a story about behaviour that I've witnessed recently. Unfortunately I can't. People will get hurt emotionally. Religions generally consider the behaviour I'm talking about to be a sin. Scientists might explain that behaviour in an academic way, but don't condone or condemn.

 

I was asked to participate in that behaviour. I found a way to get myself out of it (It wasn't illegal, just immoral). It would have been easier if everybody knew I was a Christian, but I'm not. What I couldn't say is "sorry count me out I'm a scientist" and especially I couldn't say "count me out I'm an atheist" because for many people being an atheist gives you more of a green light to bend the rules, because after all, who's judging you?

 

I'm not the first person to wish there was a God despite believing there's not.

"If God did not exist, one would have to invent him. I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think I shall then be robbed and cuckolded less often." Voltaire

 

I don't want to reinvent God, but I do think religions have much to contribute in how we should behave to make the world a better place.

[CorpusAnimus]

Yes, read the book.

 

But the very title refers to stuff that's not science, anti-science or plain fraud, rather than science.

 

... and equally a lot of religion that gets criticised is not religion, is anti-religion or plain fraud ...

 

Not a significant moment at all. What Sacks said was reasonable, and I say "Amen to that" too.

 

Significant or not, I found it very refreshing that Dawkins could share a common purpose with a man of faith.

 

Welcome to SF btw. When did you know you were an atheist, and why?

 

Thank you quisquose.

 

I became an atheist when I was 15 years old. I did maths, physics and chemistry O Levels and read New Scientist and watched documentaries such as Horizon.

 

I was also (accidentally) a member of the Methodist church, who at the time had a bit of an evangelical preacher (!!!???).

 

I wanted to be a born again Christian and asked Jesus with all my heart into my life. Nothing changed and I lost my faith before I had any really. But I never lost my respect for the positive intentions and my love for the people I met at that time. I have a huge amount of respect for my pagan friends, and those who are deeply involved in their local Christian churches who counsel and comfort teenagers and others in times of need.

 

I'm not involved in those communities. I'm missing out! (Don't worry I've got my coping strategies).

[janie48]

My mum used to speak to me like that. Now it's my daughter and you.

 

What is there to accept? I've read his books, have you?

 

He has always been quite polite about the C&E and some of the traditions. He has always mentioned the logic of his agnosticism.

 

He publishes a book dismissing god, and religious people label him as "shrill", "angry", "militant", "fundamentalist", "frothing", "intolerant" etc.

 

A few years later he mentions that he likes Xmas carols on Radio 5, and the same religious people call him a "hypocrite".

 

Suddenly he reminds Rowan Williams that he's an agnostic, and the same religious people now claim he's "moderating". Didn't they read the book they all criticised?

 

It seems to me that it's his critics that have changed, more so than him. He was built up by them as some Pope of Atheism (with a capital A), which he wasn't, in an attempt to knock him down as if atheism can be knocked down with one man. Now his critics are starting to be nice to him, and claiming he's moderating, as if atheism is moderating of course. The inevitable "death bed conversion" will follow.

 

As for "mellowing", well of course I can accept that. Not only is he 71 but he's also been hurt by somebody he trusted, and heard much criticism from atheists (including me) that don't agree with him on many things. He is no longer a Professor. He's been showered with more unwarranted insults than anybody else on the planet. He might be bored with the arguments. So why not "mellow", but I doubt he's changed his mind about god one bit ... for that would take evidence.

I havn't read the book.If it was an auto biography it would have had more appeal ,as i'm more curious and interested in the character of the person and the life experiences,that shape the persons beliefs more then the logic.

Recently though i have thought about getting the book,so i'll put it on my list along with the Peter Hitchens one.