From my perspective the question of which won, science or religion, is an spurious argument to make. Both have clearly benefited society and both have caused harm. If benefit is only measured in technological advances science clearly wins unless you fail to include the religious motivations of those striving to make the advances. I can't imagine that some of these advances were not pursued by people who did so because they were religious and wanted to benefit society to help others as they were taught in the Bible. By the same token, to claim that science is not influenced by faith or a belief system is nonsense. Take for example the "scientific" work done by Nazi Germany based on the belief that their race was superior and they attmepted to prove it through science. This may have been fake science, but nonetheless it was done in the name of science. My thought is that society cannot exist the way we know it without the influence and contributions from both.
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
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.
I left out Shakespeare for a reason. Shakespeare isn't Science or Religion!'
Religion...has contributed in no small measure...
Okay, but can you expand? Can you enumerate? Can you give examples? Can you quantify this contribution in a side by side examination as I did in my first statement?
My point is that religion is more of a salt and pepper condiment than a meal itself.
I say that science puts food on our table and you say that religion gives it flavor. Okay. But, that is more damning by faint praise than playing a trump card for the Almighty.
But, I don't see science substituting itself to religion or philosophy anymore than to literature or to art.
Okay. But, you can't live off salt and pepper.
By the way, I agree with Harold Bloom about Shakespeare "inventing" the human. Which is to say metaphorically that the King James Bible lives and breathes more because of Shakespeare than because of the actual content of scripture itself. Having said that, I think your point is more well taken in regard to Religion than to Science.
-
Terry
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.
Poverty (the poor you always have with you) is the failure of responsibility to provide in the face of opportunity. Religion provides no relief opportunity at all for poverty (hence Jesus' words).
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.
The 9/11 terrorists were religious zealots, not scientists. An airliner is hardly a weapon of science! Religious megalomania fuels the determination to win at the cost of humanity itself.
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.
There were Ice Ages in the distant past followed by global warming that made the ice recede. The global warming that chased away the Ice Ages came from where? Was it man's technology? Certainly not! Global cooling and global warming have always been a part of the cycle of life and death on Earth. I hate to break to you, but; the issue of Global warming is a pawn in the hands of power brokers. As such it is a wedge issue to divide people and conquer them and is more dangerous for the political power it carries than the actual harm from a rise in temperature.
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.
The data and the technology produced by theists or deists or even atheists is not BECAUSE OF their views for and against religion, but; IN SPITE OF. Religion is irrelevent to your point. Further, metaphor is metaphor.
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.
Morality, in the final analysis is a practical matter. Religion offers doctrinal opinions as to WHY people should not kill, for example. Life and death are clearly absolute values with or without religious belief. Religion has an absolutely miserable track record of compatibility between groups, diverse peoples and "other" views. Count the religious wars and the number of deaths through history if you doubt this. Living life "correctly" is a matter of being healthy, happy and comfortable in the long run. Religion's greatest success stories involve relatively young people DYING for a cause. Christians and Muslims of an intense nature embrace THE END rather than the continuance. JW's are an excellent example of people who are stalled in progress toward higher education and comfortable preparation for old age. Why? They count LIFE NOW as inconsequential and do not PLAN for anything that isn't handed to them by the invisible guy in the sky. This is a PRACTICAL matter which refutes your claims.
So is it really a matter of which has won. In ways, both have failed and both have had success.
The failure of Science is what? The success of religion is what? You've given no examples of either.
I've CLEARLY cited numerous examples (I listed them) which purport to demonstrate the success and failure of each. I must have missed your list.
Have the advancements of science in any respects damaged us, our planet and its future?
Here is an opportunity to discern the difference between one thing and another can come to an understanding--or--to completely miss the point altogether. Is there anything which cannot be abused if used improperly? Food, for example. Can you use food improperly? Can you eat too much of the wrong food and destroy your health? Certainly! Do we then blame the farmer? The grocer? No. Personal responsibility is paramount to the consequence of the misuse. So too with the technology of science. In the Middle Ages an army could surround a fortified castle and use a catapult to launch diseased caracasses over the wall to infect the population with plague. Should we blame the dead carcass, the catapult manufacturer, or the mind that conceives the strategy? So too with science. Germ warfare is older than you might imagine.
Proper or improper use of nature itself has always been with mankind to use for advantage or for dastardly holocausts. The harm done is the in the nature of man's ability to THINK HARM to others. Science is the demonstration of man's ability to PROVIDE BENEFIT to others.
Could the incredibly powerful tool of religion, benefit humankind, if it was employed in a virtuous way?
Religion has no power. Religion is a binding agreement of minds toward some purpose. The healthy, logical and rational mind produces the fruits of health, longevity and success. The superstitious, mystical mindset embraces the illogical and insular tendency to break away into small groups who feel threats and live only for the moment when the sky god kills everybody but them.
Christianity, from the outset, was sects warring against one another. When the Roman Emperor provided shelter and political power to the church it wiped away competitors with a vengence. Crusades and Inquisitions showed the fearful consequence of empowering their "virtue". The Protestant Reformation showed the other ugly side of Christianity when the Catholics and Protestants clashed in war after war and humanity perished in its wake. The Muslims conquered the Roman Empire and pushed Christianity back until the tide turned. The sword of Allah burned libraries and destroyed art and science faster than men could produce it. Judaism hardly ever had much in the way of political power, yet; when it did--the vicious treatment of unbelieving neighbors demonstrates the inhumanity of their godly aspirations as "chosen people."
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"
Ghandi opposed British IMPERIALISM. The British empire was ruthless in exploiting its possessions. Ghandi used passive resistance to demonstrate to the world the measure of brutality the English possessed and shamed them before the world. When the British partitioned India it created the kind of artificial powderkeg that pitted two religious groups against one another and the massacre which followed clearly proves what utter lack of VIRTUE either side had compared to the British. Religion played no moderating role whatsoever. Ghandi was murdered by one of his own, you'll recall.
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.
Belief is irrelevent. It is WHAT IS ACTUALLY DONE which counts! Religion could wish everybody to be healthy and happy in paradise all it wants--but--it is unwilling to actually DO ANYTHING CONCRETE to bring about this ideal.
Science is a practical application of the mind to THE REAL WORLD. Progress and technology are the fruits of science. Illusory longing for heaven is just a daydream. You can hardly put the potential on the same balance scale with the actual and call it a draw!
The contents of a religious person's character or imagination doesn't do anybody else any good at all if they don't get up off their duff and MAKE A CHANGE IN THE WORLD for the better.
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?
The problem with religion is that it paralyzes humanity into a STATUS QUO. The Dark Ages were dark because religion swept mankind into a standing still waiting for the return of the Lord. Everybody scrambled to look as righteous as possible so god wouldn't strike them dead.
Kings did their evil deeds because they had a Divine Right to do so.
The Church could tell heaven what policy was going to be on earth and it would be binding!
The common man has been held in the vise grip of BELIEF to his own detriment.
The most righteous people (Puritans) who settled America thought the could and should be "perfect". They led horrible lives of incredible repression trying to do so. Women and children suffered most.
The thinking in the U.S. is still contaminated by this contagion of waiting for THE END.
Hal Lindsey and the LEFT BEHIND series aptly demonstrates how preoccupied Americans still are with the 2nd Coming fantasy. JW's are held in thrall to Armageddon. So what? SO NOTHING GETS DONE that can improve people's lives FOR REAL.
The progress (real progress) that mankind has experienced has come from the relatively few men of logic, genius and science who bucked the trend and produced USEFUL information (data) which has enabled us to move forward century by century.
The last 200 years are incredibly easier for the poorest person in our midst than in the previous 10,000 years thanks to scientific thinking and methodology.
The average "poor" person in America has a microwave oven, a color TV, satellite or cable, a refrigerator and a working stove. Compare that to continents where science is but a rumor.
-
Terry
If benefit is only measured in technological advances science clearly wins unless you fail to include the religious motivations of those striving to make the advances.By the same token, to claim that science is not influenced by faith or a belief system is nonsense.
So far, I've heard NO benefits of religion named. "Motivations"? If you live in a village where you and your people are starving and wracked by disease and I am "motivated" to wish you well and pray for you---you will still starve and perish from disease. Something practical needs to be done. It matters not if you rely on the good "motivations" of the local Witch Doctor or the visiting Catholic priest. Somebody has to provide the technology to plant and harvest and to immunize the dying. Period!
I can't imagine that some of these advances were not pursued by people who did so because they were religious and wanted to benefit society to help others as they were taught in the Bible.
Once again, the "motivation" and the consequences must be weighed side by side. Religion relies on prayer and prayer is notoriously vapid comfort to a person with small pox. Could you name a few scientists who were able to produce great discoveries because of religion rather than because of a great education in science?
You see, you must distinguish what the USEFUL component is in the actual aid given to humanity. Religious education MUST include math, physics and medicine for any ultimate benefit to accrue.
When we measure benefit it must be tangible and not merely "intended".
-
RWC
I must respond to the comment that morality is a practical matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. For someone who does not believe in God or a religious moral code, than morality is different for each person. What you think is moral someone else will think is immoral. There is nothing practical about something that varies from person to person. For example, I assume you would think that taking another person's life is wrong and therefore immoral. However, there are others who clearly believe that taking a life is moral under some circumstances. Such as the elderly who are infirm and can no longer benefit society but instead are a strain, some believe that it is moral for them to be killed for the benefit of society as a whole. There is no absolute moral code outside of religion that would prevent this thought from being "moral". Yet it undermines the "practical" thought that morality would prevent us from taking a life, even if it is for alleged beenfit of others. My point is that it is religion that gives and has always given the world a moral code not a random notion of what is practical. This does not mean that there haven't been horrible deeds conducted in the name of religion, of course there have been. But that does not discount the overall benefit that has arisen from a moral code that finds its beginnning in religion or a belief in God.
-
RWC
Can I name some scientists who made great discoveries because of religion without their scientific training? Of course not. Their scientific training does allow them to make these discoveries. But does that mean that a scientist's religious belief does not play a part in his scientific endeavors? Attempting to limit religion to a motivation and discounting its influence is a fallacy. Religion is not designed to make scientific discoveries but the original question was which has benefited society the most. Science without a religious motivation to help mankind behind it is very limiting. To use your example of the poverty stricken village, science may provide the technology to plant and harvest, but what provides the thought to share that technology with others so that their suffering may be relieved? It can't be money because it is a poor village with no ability to pay for the technology. It can't be to benefit the human race because of the notion of survivial of the fittest would dictate that the weak go and the fittest survive and scientific logic would dictate that the less people to share limited resources the better. It must be something intangible, something that tells men to help others that are less fortunate then them even though they receive no tangible benefit from doing it. That arises from religion and the moral code that comes with it, not science.
-
Terry
RWC: I must respond to the comment that morality is a practical matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You didn't really give this one minute's thought, did you? You couldn't have.
Let's break this down and make it easy to understand.
What is MORALITY other than an extension of how we treat ourselves? What helps US and hurts US is easily understandable from day to day. It is a matter of practice that learning what harms us is pro-survival. There is no debate on poison or fire or injury; we automatically avoid it. Any living thing shrinks from harm.
MORALITY enters into it as we encounter others. Society is US (ourselves) many times over. Humans are all alike in our creature vulnerability and basic needs. Food, shelter and clothing are practical matters. Deny another person the opportunity to feed themselves or clothe and shelter themselves and you'll automatically understand what harm you cause.
We need others to survive above mere subsistence. This means we have to treat others in such a way they don't EXCLUDE US from the benefits of social embrace.
Going to the grocery store naked will get you kicked out. Yelling obscenties at a teacher will find you expelled. Stealing your next door neighbor's car will result in arrest. It is all an obvious PRACTICAL matter. No genius required.
. However, there are others who clearly believe that taking a life is moral under some circumstances.
Why pretend this is rocket science or that a supernatural list of Do's and Don'ts is necessary?
However, there are others who clearly believe that taking a life is moral under some circumstances.
Where you live killers aren't arrested and prosecuted????? There are no courts of law in your town? Why pretend outlaws get away with aberrent behavior? They don't. Why don't they? People don't TOLERATE this kind of behavior and never have. Are you arguing that the Old Testament law didn't provide a death penality? Of course not. Well, neither do the most primitive societies fail to punish killers for killing. It is a practical matter.
Such as the elderly who are infirm and can no longer benefit society but instead are a strain, some believe that it is moral for them to be killed for the benefit of society as a whole.
And who gets away with this? Nobody. Why pretend killing the elderly is the rule of thumb in society? Only religion prevents your grandmother from being strangled by the postman? Oh come on now!!!
There is no absolute moral code outside of religion that would prevent this thought from being "moral".
Last time I checked NOBODY sane advocates punishing people for the THOUGHTS they have except religious zealots!
Yet it undermines the "practical" thought that morality would prevent us from taking a life, even if it is for alleged beenfit of others.
All social groups enforce the necessity of protection under some form of constabulary, police or "arm" of government. Even the most primitive tribes have policies of retribution for acts of violence. MORALITY is precisely practical in that it DOESN'T BENEFIT anybody to act on their whims in the face of retribution. We all check our emotions BECAUSE it is impractical to face the consequences of our naughty and selfish thoughts.
My point is that it is religion that gives and has always given the world a moral code not a random notion of what is practical. This
Sigh. Anybody can figure out what is good for their own life to be free from trouble by the time they are 10 years old. Learning how to treat OTHERS is largely the result of experiencing the FEEDBACK you get from your social group when you try to treat others in a way that you'd prefer not to be treated yourself. In other words: it is a PRACTICAL matter. I don't think you understand that being "practical" isn't random exactly because we all share a common nature: human nature. We must all have the same things to survive and to prosper. Our tastes differ as we are individuals. Yet, that doesn't empower us to get away with anything stronger than eccentric self-expression. This is quickly ended when we intrude into the space of another person. It is a PRACTICAL lesson we learn and live by.
The population of the earth is spread far and wide. Why? Why would anybody live in the most extreme climates? Did you ever stop to think why? As families on earth grew above a certain size there were oddballs and eccentrics whose behaviors were not tolerated and they were expelled from the tribe or village. They left and move elsewhere. This happened over and over and over all through history. That is the result of having different views and personalities. You either get along or you are forced to move along. Today we have a vast variety of customs and beliefs among peoples. Yet, you won't be able to give me a list of civilized people who permit liars, thieves, murderers and such among them. It isn't religion---it is a matter of everyday practice. It is a PRACTICAL MATTER.
People with similar odd beliefs flock together. (Las Vegas has legalized prostitution and gambling. If you don't like these things you won't move there--will you? No. Why? It is IMPRACTICAL. See my point?
-
Terry
Attempting to limit religion to a motivation and discounting its influence is a fallacy.
And which fallacy are we talking about?
To use your example of the poverty stricken village, science may provide the technology to plant and harvest, but what provides the thought to share that technology with others so that their suffering may be relieved?
You miss the point of responsibility. Why? It is each person's responsibility to use their own intelligence to seize the opportunity to improve life for themselves. The village with the poverty and disease suffers from a lack of KNOWLEDGE because they have no science.
-
fifi40
For starters as I am about to eat.........
Your response - Religion provides no relief opportunity at all for poverty
Reply - Have you heard of the Salvation Army
Your response - An airliner is hardly a weapon of science.
Reply - I didnt mention airliners. But do you consider bombs, guns etc to be necessary things invented by man for our luxury world?
And in response to your comments on Global warming, do you dispute that the style of our everyday luxury lives is impacting on the Ozone and global warming? There is a £14 million prize up for grabs for the scientist who discovers how to take Carbon dioxide and other pollutants out of the atmosphere to balance the effect of what we are putting into it.
See you later
-
Terry
For starters as I am about to eat.........
Your response - Religion provides no relief opportunity at all for poverty...Salvation Army.
Stalking the wild mushroom?
The Salvation Army is not a way out of poverty. Education is. The Salvation Army is subsistence employment and not much more than that. You can be sure that technical skills trump quoting John 16:3 as a way out of poverty.
But do you consider bombs, guns etc to be necessary things invented by man for our luxury world?
The will to use knowledge for power over others has been present from the beginning. Alexander the Great conquered the world largely due to having the phalanx which was a technological advance. Atilla the Hun conquered the civilized world with the invention of the saddle which was a technological advance. The arabs under Col. T.E.Lawrence defeated the Turks by hit and run raids on the railways. This was a strategic advancement which avoided direct conflict. The actual technology or strategy is irrelevent to the employment of these means for good or ill. Animals employ technology of sorts to camouflage themselves or to attack and destroy. It is in the nature of life to destroy or be destroyed. Who do we blame for the nature of nature itself?
And in response to your comments on Global warming, do you dispute that the style of our everyday luxury lives is impacting on the Ozone and global warming? There is a £14 million prize up for grabs for the scientist who discovers how to take Carbon dioxide and other pollutants out of the atmosphere to balance the effect of what we are putting into it.
I dispute the relevance to the natural ebb and flow of climate changes. Change is inherent in nature itself. Pollution is a practical matter of what society will permit for the tradeoff of cheap fuel. If we have the will to pay more for our energy we will cut back on polluting industry. If we don't have the will the consequences are evident. Global warming is just a pawn and not the real agenda. Politicians and power brokers come to power by getting people alarmed over some ___cause___which they exploit by arousing fear. People will sign away their rights easily when they are afraid. Once the fearmonger gains the power to legislate the issue disappears and the harm is done.