Science vs. Religion - Must We Choose Between Them?

by bavman 74 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Let us look at this from a different perspective.

  Religion and Science are both the result of some need.

  What is the human need to know?

  Humans are vulnerable and short-lived. Humans rely on their wits to survive in a hostile world. Man's reasoning power is his greatest tool of survival historically.

  What man does not know he must guess at. A wrong guess can poison or cripple him.

  Rather than guess outright, an experiment can often give clues to the true state of things BEFORE harm is done.

  (A man sees berries growing on a bush. Should he eat them? He might be starving and simply not care to wait and observe the dead birds at the bottom of the bush before injesting them.)

  Information is vital to correct choices about matters of life and death. Guessing and being wrong can kill you or endanger you and your loved ones.

  Consequently, in the history of mankind there has been a steady progression of ways and manners of gaining information at the cheapest price that must be paid to injury.

  Religion is man's first attempt at understanding the universe. It is mankinds way of making sense out of why things are the way they are by surrounding the details with a story and characters.

  Next, philosophy was man's method of reasoning out cause and effect and the nature of things.

  Eventually, experiments were used to test man's ideas and show them to be demonstrably true or false before accepting them.

  As mathematics became more sophisticated its use to measure and quantify enabled experiments to be more and more precise.

  Men who were not afraid to use their mind to discover how things worked and why created technologies that made life simpler, faster, easier and allowed more and more free time for enjoyment.

  Somewhere along the line Religion and Science began to clash and became enemies.

  Rather than submit to measurement, skepticism and demands for quantification and logical proofs; religious leaders became highly indignant and intolerant of being questioned.

  Yet, religious men who possessed genius began trying to organize religious thinking into more logical presentations and arguments.

  By the time of the Protestant Reformation men were ready for argumentation that pitted ideas against orthodoxies.

  The by products of religion were always promises of a better tomorrow and mere persecutions and death today.

  The by products of science were so many that the list has grown endless:

  Identification of the causes of disease and infirmity and a methodology of treating sickness with innoculations, hygience, better diet and an understanding of germs and bacteria in food preservation and preparation.

  Longer life-spans.

  Living conditions improved and labor-saving devices gave families free time to spend more electively.

  Transportation times were shortened.

  Agricultural advances. More people could be fed on the same plot of land than ever before.

  Refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating in the winter.

  Heart transplants, artificial limbs, gene therapies.

  Fertility clinics. MRI scans, X-rays, CAT scans.

  Surgery. Anesthetic.

  Computers, communication breakthroughs in radio, television, cellphones, satellite surveillance, Global positioning systems, radar, sonar, etc.

  By the time all of us were born there was more luxury available at a cheaper price than ancient man ever dreamed of. Not a month goes by that some new breakthrough is not announced and it is commonplace to us so that we all just yawn and take them as a natural course of life on earth.

  So, yes--we must CHOOSE between Science and Religion if we care about our mind.

  Do we owe ourselves the best information possible about our planet, ourselves and our future? Do we want the clearest picture of how things really are, how they work and make the best decisions possible about our future?

  Or, do we want to soothe fears and anxieties about our short life span and pretend there is a way out from superheroes in the sky who will save us?

  The choice is clear.

  Religion keeps us ignorant by feeding us a carrot at the end of a stick we never get a bite of. Relgion is comforting as a bedtime story where you live happily ever after.

  Science deals with actual facts that can be measured and tested and makes predictions that are verifiable.

  Religion is elusive and deliberately untestable in its mysticism.

  Religion uses words with vague meanings that no two people agree on the definition of.

  Science requires peer testing and verifiability.

  There can be no middle ground between superstition and reality.

  It is a kill and eat world. Elves do not make our shoes and Santa does not bring us presents.

  The choice you make defines you as what kind of thinker you are. Are you an intellectually honest person? Or, do you prefer the pretty lie that makes you feel more secure?

  Trying to have it both ways is greedy and unrealistically immature.

  You cannot eat your cake and still have it. Sorry, but this is a fact that no religion can miraculously do away with.

  The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth cannot mix with myths, lies and exaggerations.

  In any compromise between man and poison; the poison always wins.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  One big dispute between the two is- how did we get here? Science and religion come up with completely opposing views, you can't support both ideas at the same time without being a hypocrite.

  Does considering that this is not a religious question make one a hypocrite?

  At some point, "will it rain this week?" was probably considered a "religious" question. I don't think "religion" lost anything by giving up that one to meteorology. On the contrary it became more "religious" -- or "spiritual," if you prefer.

  I don't see how it makes one a hypocrite not to give any credibilty to an invisible man in the sky when thinking of how we got here. We may aswell add fairies, unicorns, men from mars or Ra the Sun God to the many things we must think about when wondering how we arrived here, for there is just as much proof for them.

  I'm not sure how something becomes more religious or spiritual if you find out there isn't a God behind it, but a rational scientific explanation, as a belief in God is the basis of the kind of religion we're talking about here.
• 

  trevor

  Of course the question of whether we must choose between Science and religion is another way of asking - are we alone of does the ultimate scientist dwell in outer space?

  If we believe we are alone, then we are more likely to try harder to sort out our own problems. But if we have a vague idea that a benevolent being is lurking in the sky, who will sort it all out at the end of the day, then we will be inclined to sit back and wait, hope and believe. The one thing we are less likely to do is act decisively.

  To some people the comfort of believing that they are not alone is of more value to them than the benefit that honest and logical reasoning can offer them and holding on to their beliefs is of more value than holding on to life. Comfort is their greatest value. There is a human tendency to move towards comfort and pleasure even at the expense of a longer and more rewarding life.

  I personally allow room for the possibility that there may be a pervading life force that exists outside of our physical world. I do not assume that it is benevolent or expect intervention in my life. I take on board Carl Jung’s idea of a collective conciseness but the jury is still out. I have had experiences that make it difficult to deny that there may be some truth in his concept. James Thomas has made some impressive posts and I have learned a lot from Terry and his ability to logically clarify the state of play. Little toe seems to have found a way to harmonise what appear to be conflicting approaches to this subject.

  I see no need to know the meaning of life with absolute certainty. I rule nothing in and nothing out but I will not sacrifice my power of reasoning in return for the comfort of belief. We all have different needs, weaknesses and strengths and very few people live without the comfort of some form of illusion. I hang on to a few of mine just in case that rainy day comes around .
• 

  Paralipomenon

  The two mindsets just don't breed alot of harmony.
  
  A creationist could find a cave with fossils of every single missing link and denounce it as demonic trickery.
  
  A scientist could watch Jesus descend physically from heaven and perform miracles and would try to prove mathematically that it didn't happen.
  
  The main issue is accepting the other side exists is, in a very minor way, validating their claim. So arguments continue to surface until one side can claim victory.
  
  At the end of the day, some people need facts, some people need faith. If people could accept that everyone has different needs and leave it at that, things would be much happier.
• 

  Narkissos

  sw,

  You didn't get my point, I have probably expressed myself poorly.

  One big dispute between the two is- how did we get here? Science and religion come up with completely opposing views, you can't support both ideas at the same time without being a hypocrite.

  Does considering that this is not a religious question make one a hypocrite?

  At some point, "will it rain this week?" was probably considered a "religious" question. I don't think "religion" lost anything by giving up that one to meteorology. On the contrary it became more "religious" -- or "spiritual," if you prefer.

  I don't see how it makes one a hypocrite not to give any credibilty to an invisible man in the sky when thinking of how we got here. We may aswell add fairies, unicorns, men from mars or Ra the Sun God to the many things we must think about when wondering how we arrived here, for there is just as much proof for them.

  I'll try to break it down:

  1. You assumed that (a) religion and science offer mutually exclusive answers to the question, "How did we get here?" and (b) you can't support both without being a hypocrite.

  2. (a) I questioned the assumption that "how did we get here?" is a religious question; or, if you prefer, that religion has anything specific (and potentially anti-scientific) to say in reply to this question; (b) if I consider this question to be an entirely scientific, not religious, one, I can accept the scientific answer to it, but at the same time feel free to ask other, unscientific questions, to religion (about a possible "meaning" or "purpose" for my life, for instance), (c) would that make me a hypocrite?

  That was the point of my question. I didn't mean to call you or anyone else a hypocrite.

  I'm not sure how something becomes more religious or spiritual if you find out there isn't a God behind it, but a rational scientific explanation, as a belief in God is the basis of the kind of religion we're talking about here.

  I must explain what I meant by "more religious" or "spiritual". What we loosely call "religion" in history (and prehistory) covers a wide range of beliefs, imaginary maps, and practices. In ancient times or the middle ages it was not as clearly separated from what we now regard as independent fields, such as politics, medicine, science, art, technique. The separation of fields in the Western modern era has narrowed down the area of validity and responsibility of each field and increased its specificity. If you are ill you go to the doctor instead of the priest (most of the times). If you still go to the priest he will probably send you to the doctor -- he actually may be acting against the law if he doesn't. As a result, religion concentrates on what is considered to be its particular domain. In that sense religion has become more religious, or spiritual. Of course there are many exceptions to this rule, and the USA seem to offer plenty: religion that implies a political agenda, an alternative (pseudo-)"scientific" cosmogenesis, health and wealth recipes, etc. But those I think are epiphenomenal aberrations within a massive trend of specialisation over several centuries (of course I see that from a European perspective).

  Btw, my remark was not limited to monotheistic religion, although the Western modernity happened to emerge and thrive in a Christian setting. But what I said of the "priest" I could have said of "God". As a result of specialisation / separation of fields the modern Western "God" himself has become more "religious" or more "spiritual," and the Christian theological tradition allowed for that even though it was not the only cause for it.
• 

  done4good

  I still need to read through this whole yet, but for simplicity's sake I'll cut to the chase. To the extent that religion can be proven a myth, (which, for the most part CAN be), one would be foolish to continue belief in a specific something or other just because he or she wanted to IF they knew better. What it comes down to is what CAN we know? This takes one on a journey of research if he/she is honest and patient with themselves. In the end, if you apply pragmatic thought with some basic common sense, the answer will become more clear, but only then. I don't like being dogmatic about these things, but in the end, as a bottom line, one will have to choose between the plethora of existing religions, and of provable science. Which ONE do you think is gonna win?

  j
• 

  bavman

  Religion is man's first attempt at understanding the universe. It is mankinds way of making sense out of why things are the way they are by surrounding the details with a story and characters.

  It is also a way to experience something larger than ourselves and a way to make connection to our fellowman. It is more in tune with the arts than the testing and poking of science (not that there is anything wrong with that).

  Rather than submit to measurement, skepticism and demands for quantification and logical proofs; religious leaders became highly indignant and intolerant of being questioned.

  Yet, religious men who possessed genius began trying to organize religious thinking into more logical presentations and arguments.

  By the time of the Protestant Reformation men were ready for argumentation that pitted ideas against orthodoxies.

  The by products of religion were always promises of a better tomorrow and mere persecutions and death today.

  Not all religion is like you just described.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Narkissos,

  I can see the crossed wires came about because of a different view of the word 'religion'. I did assume it to mean the theory of God in this instance and thread, perhaps I was wrong. Being too metaphorical can cause all kinds of misinterpretations, and I apologize for my part.

  Looking for the meaning of life may be more about spirituality than scientific answers, it's all about how we view the world personally after and during all our life experiences, so your earlier post makes more sense now.

  I will stick to my idea that science holds more answers than 'God', and I have used my 'spirituality' to come to that conclusion. If indeed you did not mean God, can you tell me your views on God vs science, for my own curiosity, whether or not it was the argument the thread starter intended?
• 

  Narkissos

  sw,

  I regard "God" as a historical construct which gradually emerged from polytheism 2,500 years ago; in at least two different ways as represented by post-exilic Judaism and Greek philosophy -- the key word, on both sides of the Mediterranean, being the number one. And, ironically, modern -- or classical -- science (17th-19th centuries) can be traced back to the very same idea; its "objective" description of reality had to posit a fictitious "universal observer" who could embrace the whole "thing" as a unique field; i.e. in the exact place of the "God" of metaphysics. This, I think, is no longer scientifically tenable with general relativity and quantum physics (at least what I perceive of it).

  The classical definitions of "God" and "science" are in competition because they both represent the same idealistic view of reality as one. And that view is exclusive and totalitarian by essence. We may be slowly waking up (again!) to diversity and in this perspective rediscover the value of older polytheistic patterns, such as the notion of a "personal god" to which I can subjectively relate and that helps in building a relative self-understanding but is not responsible for everything and everybody...

  How metaphorically or realistically such myths are perceived, btw, may depend on every "one" -- not only every person, but every subjective moment or intersubjective configuration...
• 

  funkyderek

  bavman:

  I dare to say science and religion are two different animals. They may try to explain similar things but in different ways. An example of trying to explain a similar thing might be the age old question of how did we get here? Some might point to a particular creation myth that they know of because of the culture they grew up in. Some might point to the scientific view of evolution. Is either of these more right or more wrong than the other? I dare to say no. I believe they are simply two different ways of trying to explain the same question.

  Science and religion are not simply two different possible answers, each deserving of equal merit. The myths invented by ancient (or even modern) peoples are just not equivalent to the scientific answers discovered by rigorous examination of the available evidence. The former are inconsistent with reality and with each other. They are, at best, guesses made by people who just didn't understand the world as well as we do today. Almost without exception, wherever these myths are specific about the nature of the universe, they are wrong - really, genuinely, measurably wrong.

  Which brings me to the subject of myth. Are myths false, untrue stories? I again dare to say no. I don't recall the name of a Native American man who said this but his preface to his peoples creation myth explains this thought well. He said, 'I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true.'

  No argument there. Myths and legends can have poetic resonance and moral lessons; they can tell us about the hopes and fears of the ancients who wrote them. But so can fairy tales. And indeed any form of art. To the extent that religion is art, I see no conflict with science. Art and science are genuinely "non-overlapping magisteria".

  To me religion is a different way of experiencing reality than science. Both can be true and helpful, both can be untrue and hurtful. It is up to us to find what works for us and communicate to others what is hurtful not only to ourselves but to society.

  The problem is, how do we judge what is true or false, helpful or hurtful? Given that science constantly compares ideas to the real world while religion, for the most part, does not (especially where we are contrasting it with science), isn't "what works" the exclusive province of science? Isn't religion about following the rules and believing the myths without regard to how well they correspond to reality?

  I don't believe man will ever live without either religion or science nor would I want us too. We need religion and science to be whole persons and to live a life that is not dry but instead enriching.

  I live without religion and I think I'm a whole person. I can't see how my life would be further enriched by believing unproven nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong. I find religion fascinating as a subject, and there's no doubt the world would be greatly diminished by the absence of the ceiling of the Sistine chapel or Handel's Messiah. But as for actually believing it? I don't see how that would improve my life one iota even if I could somehow manage to do it.