The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  When you say Science vs Religion, what type of Science are you talking about? Is it Chemistry vs Religion or Physics vs Religion, or is it another Science?

  What is Science?

  What is the Scientific Method?

  Science is about knowing; about knowledge. We are talking about facts. Science has results in the form of progress and technology in all sorts of venues including medicine, transportation, industry, architecture, agriculture, health--you name it and science has left its imprint.

  Science is man's effort to bring to focus rational and logical examination of the real world and how it works.

  The scientific method consists mainly in gathering all the information available and testing the conclusions by making predictions as to what is expected to happen.

  Observation, fact gathering, hypothesis, testing, prediction and theory.

  Why do people become ill? The bible gives no clue that there are such things as microscopic organisms such as bacteria and viruses. People prayed for intervention when illness came. Science didn't settle for that. The various persons who respectively discovered the germ theory of disease, the reason for transmission and the preventative methodology for disinfectants and the need for hygiene did more to preserve human life than what a million prayers could produce.

  There are two very different mindsets I'm alluding to. One is passive and obedient. The other is active and productive. It is as simple as that.

  It frankly amazes me the level of personal detachment I see between all the things we have in society today so taken for granted like they fell from the sky. People readily thank an invisible guy in the sky for things produced by the intellect and hard labor of intellligent inquisitive genius in the form of creative human beings not willing to settle for mumbo jumbo.

  History tells us all we need to know if ONLY we had the curiousity to crack open a book and read about what happened the last thousand years.

  I actually think you people here haven't spent much time reading about who these men were who gave you so much you depend on for luxury, comfort, health and satisfaction.

  Who was Hippocrates? What made Aristotle so different from Moses and Jesus? Why did the church suddenly have to justify its faith by applying a veneer of logic? Do you know who Thomas Aquinas was and what effect he has had on theology? Who was Galen? What did Newton discover that changed the world so radically? What was the Age of Reason? Why did the Renaissance begin?

  If you don't know---I suggest you spend the time necessary to become familiar with this world you live in and how it got to be the way it is.
• 

  Warlock

  If you don't know---I suggest you spend the time necessary to become familiar with this world you live in and how it got to be the way it is.

  You need to become familiar with the world that exists in reality, and not the one in your mind.

  Warlock
• 

  jimbo

  The vote is in????
  
  How presumptuous can you be???
  
  The scientific method consists mainly in gathering all the information available and testing the conclusions by making predictions as to what is expected to happen.
  
  Observation, fact gathering, hypothesis, testing, prediction and theory.
  
  You pause with only debatable theory. You keep rambling on and on. Its not over until it is over and in the meantime your theories can change many times.
  
  THE JURY IS STILL OUT... THE VOTE IS NOT IN...THERE MAY BE NO WINNERS...KEEP AN OPEN MIND OR YOU MAY BE THE LOSER!!!!
  
  jimbo
• 

  Narkissos

  Newton vs. Shakespeare... who won? (etc.)

  You are judging religion by scientific standards. Should you turn the tables and judge science by religious or philosophical standards -- such as offering society and individuals a working self-understanding and tools for an optimal modus vivendi, including subjective dealing with death -- you would find it lacking, too.

  This doesn't mean science and religion (or philosophy) should "shun" each other. They can helpfully question and stimulate each other. But for this to happen one has to outgrow the "who won" mode imo.
• 

  trevor

  Could it be that those who disagree with you are disobeying YOUR self-made 'religion'?

  I do not think that Terry is trying to start a new religion but to encourage awareness and and a relationship with reality. Science is not a religion for all the reasons that Terry stated in his opening post.

  Science seeks to understand and advances as it grows in knowledge. It says we can know the answers if we apply logic. We can find out how things work. More importantly we are allowed to search for solid answers. We are not a failed species living in a shadow of disapproval because we have fallen from grace.

  We are a part reality and subject to the same life process that all living things go through. Science offers an understanding of that process in a way that religion has failed to do. Although religion has at times offered emotional comfort it has lied and failed to deliver the answers that humanity needs right now.
• 

  Terry

  How presumptuous can you be???
  
  The scientific method consists mainly in gathering all the information available and testing the conclusions by making predictions as to what is expected to happen.
  
  Observation, fact gathering, hypothesis, testing, prediction and theory.
  
  You pause with only debatable theory. You keep rambling on and on. Its not over until it is over and in the meantime your theories can change many times.
  
  THE JURY IS STILL OUT... THE VOTE IS NOT IN...THERE MAY BE NO WINNERS...KEEP AN OPEN MIND OR YOU MAY BE THE LOSER!!!!
  
  jimbo

  I have no idea what you are talking about.

  History, SO FAR, makes it abundantly evident which of the two (science or religion) has produced actual BENEFIT for mankind.
• 

  Terry

  You are judging religion by scientific standards. Should you turn the tables and judge science by religious or philosophical standards -- such as offering society and individuals a working self-understanding and tools for an optimal modus vivendi, including subjective dealing with death -- you would find it lacking, too.

  This doesn't mean science and religion (or philosophy) should "shun" each other. They can helpfully question and stimulate each other. But for this to happen one has to outgrow the "who won" mode imo.

  You CAN measure both by the same standard: BENEFIT to mankind.

  Religion only gives promises and has delivered nothing but a means of fantasizing about the future.

  Science has produced actuality.

  Really now, is this so hard to grasp??
• 

  Terry

  I do not think that Terry is trying to start a new religion but to encourage awareness and and a relationship with reality. Science is not a religion for all the reasons that Terry stated in his opening post.

  Science seeks to understand and advances as it grows in knowledge. It says we can know the answers if we apply logic. We can find out how things work. More importantly we are allowed to search for solid answers. We are not a failed species living in a shadow of disapproval because we have fallen from grace.

  We are a part reality and subject to the same life process that all living things go through. Science offers an understanding of that process in a way that religion has failed to do. Although religion has at times offered emotional comfort it has lied and failed to deliver the answers that humanity needs right now.

  Gee, Trevor--scary to think of the damage that god-think has done to the intellectual mechanism of so many people, isn't it?

  Being a JW made so many people blind and deaf they automatically defend the guy in the sky. It is very sad.
• 

  Narkissos

  Terry,

  Interestingly you left out my first question: what has Shakespeare produced?

  Religion (and philosophy) has contributed in no small measure to the social and cultural structure where science developed. Granted, it had to modify this structure to develop. But I don't see science substituting itself to religion or philosophy anymore than to literature or art.
• 

  fifi40

  Who won?

  Six million children die each year because of poverty. In our luxurious, comfortable, healthy and satisfying lives, in which science has provided us with medicine and abundances of food this happens. Is it a failing of science or is it a failing of religion? Neither, it is a failing of man, with its greedy, selfish, NIMBY approach to life.

  Terrorists can blow innocent people lives apart, literally. Is it a failing of science or is it a failing of religion? Both, extreme religious views teach hate, but science puts the weapons in the hands of warped minds.

  Global warming threatens the survival of life on planet. So the things science have given us for those fortunate enough to lead lives of luxury, are actually a cause for concern with regard to our continued existence.

  Some of the great minds you quoted believed in a greater being. They were not all right all of the time. Aristotle spoke of slavery being in accord with natural law and of the natural inferiority of women; why because this was the accepted view of his time. Einstein said "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind". His belief in a God did not lessen the impact of his life work.

  What could be benefits of religion?

  To teach and encourage morality. To lend support within a group from those with compatible beliefs in how to live life correctly. These are tangible benefits that religion can offer which science does not.

  So is it really a matter of which has won. In ways, both have failed and both have had success. Yes you will argue that the success and victory of science is, in your mind conclusive but what you fail to ask is

  Have the advancements of science in any respects damaged us, our planet and its future?

  Could the incredibly powerful tool of religion, benefit humankind, if it was employed in a virtuous way?

  Personally, I appreciate the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi, whoes considered views included

  "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems"

  "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed"

  "You must be the change you want to see in the world"

  Whatever form that change takes, if a person is a brilliant scientist who has the mind and the intellect to bring about improvement for this planet and its inhabitants or they are a believer in God who choses to share love and compassion with someone less fortunate, then they have won. As individuals they have won.

  And what possible gain is there in establishing a winner between two subject matters anyway? Should we not seek to rectify the parts of both that are wrong?