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

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Who won? Neither.

  Both are fooled by randomness, and they don't know it.

  Warlock

  Hmmm. To me, this is tantamount to saying: "I don't care, I am going to watch tv now...."

  Narkissos said

  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.

  Interesting contrast here. I would juxtapose that it isn't science and philospohy that are at odds, but milleniums old religion that are steeped in dogma and tradition that are at odds with science. If a philosophy that is truly helpful can come out of science, then certainly it would minimize, if not elminate the need people have to believe in a higher power. Most people will agree that they don't need a religous dogma or belief in a higher power to tell them to be nice, work hard, etc.

  Here is an example of why science consistently "wins" these debates. Behavoral scientists are studying why people do evil things. I realize some thiests here may feel that their research is handicapped without reading about Satan, but I am willing to leave these guys alone in a room without a bible and let them chisel away at this problem. Would it make sense to tell people still that the "devil made us do it?" Even among mainstream Christian religions, there is a "theological" debate with the bible as the sole basis of evidence and arguement on this question. To say the devil makes us do it removes personal responsibility. To say we are responsible disturbs the more conservative wing of Christianity as it goes against certain passages of scripture. Thus a "theological" debate on very real issues, and a book several thousand years old with charecters never seen, only written about are used to explain behavior today. Whatever is the right answer theologically in no way helps practically. Science alone can answer these questions.

  "Right or wrong" questions of morality are relevant. Very much so, and we need to move and frame the debate strictly out of a religous context and move it to a philospohical context. That is a much more objective and fair play ground to discuss this. Ethics and morals can then be discussed free from invisible, missing gods who haven't shown up in thousands of years.

  Qcmbr said

  Science cannot disprove God - its utterly impossible but they pretend to have a go as though science could conceive the universe without conferring upon the observer godlike power - it cannot disprove God without creating God.
  
  Science is actually the same as religion with one different aim - one seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from intelligence and the other seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from chaos. Both make things up to fill the gaps based upon observed fact and both bring great benefits (social cohesian through to dna studies) and both carry great risks (bigotry throughto nuclear war) they do not need to fight each other since there is far too much in this world to discover and too many myths to replace to waste time throwing rhetoric at each other. We all believe some as yet unprovable myths - so what.

  Why does Science need to disprove an invisible being? Why does Science need to disprove the pink elephants and invisible spaghetti monsters of the world? The burden of proof is on the beliver. (yes, believer! not "eyewitness", not "photographer", but believer. That is all thiests have.)

  Science is not the same as religion. I don't think your charecterization of the one difference between Science and religion is something most people would agree with, but, anyone can read this thread and see who has facts, and who has emotional belief. Science try's to explain gaps with current knowledge, and not ancient dogma from ancient books. Having studied religion all my life, I know that is a fact about religon!

  My vote on this thread: Just re read it! Find out who quotes history and who is upset and is telling you that god exists! He has too! Just reread it and see who has made sense with facts. It's pretty clear to see from where I sit....
• 

  aniron

  re:Global Warming

  I'm beginning to wonder about it one lot of scientists say yes its man causing it, another lot say no, its a natural happening.

  I was watch one of those program about the earth I think the series was called "Earth Story" about how the earth was formed etc..

  They were going on about the Ice Age (not the films). These scientists come on and the talk about the last Ice Age being 10,000 years ago. How the ice came and practically covered the British Isles to a depth of 2-3 miles.

  Then what got me they then said "Of course we are still in the end period of the last ice age"

  Now if we are in the end period of an ice age isn't that why the ice is melting?

  They also went on about how areas now covered in ice, by taking core samples, were at one time not covered in ice or had only 25-50% lass ice than they do now.

  So on one hand I hear one group of scientists saying its all part of earths cycle, ice age ending etc.

  Then the other group saying its all caused by man.

  Maybe man has just helped the end of the ice age along more quicker.

  No wonder people get confused.
• 

  Terry

  To say that morality is practical and then to argue that a person will adhere to the moral code of his society in order not to be shunned, to me is saying two different things all together.

  Nope. Didn't say that. I said society (even small and primitive ones) enforce practical rules by laying down the law and dealing with troublemakers. Being shunned can certainly be a consequence, but; it is only a casual means of enforcement. There are a vast array of retaliations to prevent nutjobs from being a law unto themselves.

  First, your arguement appears to be that morality in a society is something that society determines what it will say is right or wrong.

  And this is irrefutable~!

  But there has to be a basis for that morality and those societial decisions.

  Oh, really? I stated the basis: human nature itself. I also explained why. We all have the same creature needs and suffer the same harms. THAT is the basis for determining what hurts us and what helps us. This isn't rocket science.

  Killing has not always been against the norm of society. Just look at Nazi Germany, within that society it was not only legal but encouraged to kill Jews under the morality of that culture

  The philosophy of Germany conditioned its citizens to accept the premise that individuality was a crime and that only service to the Master Race (doing their duty) was a purpose for all the people. Nazi Germany was an Altruistic state (even though that sounds counter-intuitive). You gave your life for others and the "others" were defined as the State and the Race. The core issue created to arouse fear among the people was Racial Impurity. The Jews were blamed for just about everything. The "impurity" of the race had to be expunged. Nobody was allowed to question the leadership (Hitler). The state itself could determine what was good for the Volk (people). Ad Hoc rules could be created on a whim and enforced with great brutality and the people would not blink an eye in protest.

  Having said that; it is not at all unusual for a societal group to identify and label a scapegoat as "enemy". The point I addressed was that the Society itself maintained law and order among its own. Jews were not considered fully human. Not a hundred years ago in our precious U.S.A. black people were not considered fully human. And this opinion was held and practiced by God-fearing, bible-thumping Christians.

  If your argument is that morality is practical because people will adhere to the moral code for their own survival, than you have to ask the next question, who establishes the moral code.

  You are getting yourself in very deep water here and are about to refute yourself! WHO establishes the moral code is irrelevent to the fact there always IS a moral code and it IS enforced. You are hung up on the idea that there is only ONE worth considering worthwhile. This is your prejudice and can in no way be validated by history. If you will trouble yourself to read about the early settlements in America by the self-righteous Christians you'll be shocked and appalled at the consequences of failing to follow the arbitrary dictates of the community. You could be killed for not going to church on Sunday, for example! There is ALWAYS a way of putting "morality" into a context that is justified.

  If it comes down to each individual's decision of right and wrong and they just have to find the right goup to fit in, than it is completely random

  Here is where you are the most wrong. You are describing the reality of mankind and of nature itself (which, I assume you believe comes from God!!) and calling this reality "random".

  It is a kill and eat world and none of us got to vote on it being that way. It is ugly, no doubt about it. But, it is what it is. Not liking it is pretty much beside the point.

  Why do you think that society, and as you have argued for all time societies, have made killing another human being immoral and something that would not be tolerated?

  Killing a slave, for example, was destroying an asset. It was a practical matter to not destroy an asset. Women throughout history have been regarded as PROPERTY! Destroying a woman was destroying some man's property. It was a practical matter. We've attached romantic significance to things which had no actual context in previous centuries.

  Children were produced in agricultural communities as farm hands who could and would do considerable labor. It was a practical matter to discipline them, but, not cripple them.

  Today we have a smudged view. Our notions are distorted about what society has always been because we are fat, lazy and do very little actual (from scratch) labor to produce the things we have. Nature is quite brutal. We don't HAVE TO own slaves. We don't have arranged marriages to produce children to labor in our corn fields.

  And do you think that the role of a religious belief has played absolutely no role in steering soceity from allowing killings, murder, adultry, etc.?

  Frankly, self-justification is necessary. Everybody self-justifies. Have a religious book and a voice from on high tell you to go in to the neighbor's village and destroy every living thing makes you feel better afterward. But really, you commit the massacre because you want the other guy's goodies. Religion is a way of explaining to our conscience that the worst we do is okay and also a way to punish ourselves for the same acts.
• 

  Terry

  Science is actually the same as religion with one different aim - one seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from intelligence and the other seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from chaos

  Astonishing statement. Really, really astonishing.
• 

  Terry

  So on one hand I hear one group of scientists saying its all part of earths cycle, ice age ending etc.

  Then the other group saying its all caused by man.

  Maybe man has just helped the end of the ice age along more quicker.

  No wonder people get confused.

  To put a perspective on it you must realize that the conduit of information to the world at large is a FILTER. WHO decides what the story is to be? WHO decides how it is written?

  The way an issue is framed and the manner in which information is presented controls how an issue is perceived. If you don't understand how that works just pick up a copy of the WATCHTOWER and you'll have no better example.

  Whose voice reaches your ears? What is their motive? What is their gain in presenting it to you?

  Figure out the politics of the FILTER and you will understand whose voice you hear and why.
• 

  stark

  Science is a religion that puts it's faith in facts and evidence not a god(s) or leader(s).

  5go, for that statement to be accurate, wouldn't every person who puts their "faith in facts and evidence not a god(s) or leader(s)" have to personally and empirically test each fact and test each piece of evidence?

  For example when a Professor stands in front of a class and says that spontaneous generation are how worms get into a piece of meat on a plate, isn't it faith in their leader, (the Professor), that causes a student to accept the teaching as fact? And it's not until a Louis Pasteur comes along and checks for himself, that it's discovered that modern science (modern for that day) was wrong?

  So now I have to ask myself, after reading Terry's first post on science vs religion:

  Do I have complete faith that what Terry wrote was written after an objective, unbiased, search and study of all the proper materials and accept his teachings with faith and say that Terry is true?

  Or

  Do I look at what he wrote with a more critical eye and check maybe a fact or two?

  Let's look at his first assertion:

  Religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.

  Science asks questions.

  Religion purports to answer questions.

  It is certainly true that Religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone, or something. For me I trust God and I trust the Bible.

  But Science also trusts someone or something. The scientist trusts the scientist who came before him and he trusts the science that that came before him. Look at the laws of motion, or energy, that everyone accepts as true, even the scientist.

  I do agree that Science asks questions and that Religion answers questions, and I would have to add that since all religions differ in their answer they are either all wrong, or only one of them is wrong...my vote is for Christianity.

  Really though, doesn't Science purport to also answer questions?

  I suspect Terry's agenda is something other then a fair contest between science and religion.
• 

  Qcmbr

  "Science is actually the same as religion with one different aim - one seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from intelligence and the other seeks to explain purpose by recourse to order from chaos
  
  Astonishing statement. Really, really astonishing."
  
  Why do you find this astonishing?? Science tries to make sense of this world and so does religion. Both start from a hypothesis whch is then tested by anti-thesis and eventually all people come up with their own personal synthesis (many religions, many schools of competing scientific thought - they can't all be true holds for both disciplines).
  
  One of the biggest challenges we have in communication is trying to help people understand that we all are aiming at the same thing (truth) and that we all use similar methods to find it (we experience) we then use a multidude of interpretative methods (intuition, guesswork, logic, imagination) and then we derive meaning from our interpreted data and see how to apply it. Let's see an example of science as religion for what I mean.
  
  Paleontologist discovers dinosaur bones. Fact. The paleontologist wants to construct a theory of how that fossil arrived at that location and imagines all the scenarios that fit his/her worldview while rejecting all others (therefore to a mainstrem scentist this would mean that humans didn't kill it nor did a flood wash it there but it may still mean that some comet/global warming/dino flu are possible depending on which story they are most persuaded by.) The paleontologist then constructs a story - probably with plenty of made up 'filler' (skin colour, did it swim or walk, what was the average weight, what did the soft body parts look like, pack or solo, hunter or scavenger and so on. Best guesses but guesses nontheless made by weighing the evidence against 'acceptable to their worldview' options.) Then this dinosaur gets its own book, its own lifestyle, it might even get a film about it and it'll almost certainly get taught with all its made up stuff when the only real facts were the bones and where they were found. The story however, is what we as humans are interested in so that's what we provide, we want godzilla style rex because they have personality and so that's what the scientist (as storymaker priest) gives. We want massive cataclysmic change to destroy them (see Disney's Dinosaur) so that's what we get and we get it from the scientists who right the best stories and who are not one united mass but a broad church of competing theories. For years the majority stepped in line to Newton's church of gravity until someone pointed out that it was only an approximation of what was happening and isn't actually 'true' - we still don't understand it but there are plenty of thinkers proposing new 'laws' and theories to fill the gap. They preach their ideas as vociferously as any firebrand preacher and as we've pointed out before they can't all be right - no matter how dogmatic they are. The devotee of the paleontologist's latest book (Abiogenesis chapter 1) will happily quote selected studies that support their accepted position and then will apply that interpreted data to their world as they will - they may use it as the reason to disbelieve God, they may see it as a personal call to stop global warming, they may even see a need to evangelise the uneducated to accept their interpretation of the story of that dinosaurs' demise and so on. The point is the fact was at the beginning but there is a whole load of biased processing going on in between. Somewhere the bones became many peoples competing agendas. People who line up to slam creationists have an agenda (that's not a criticism.)
  
  Now let's see an example of religion as science.
  
  Believer finds a written account of an event. The fact is that the written account exists. Said believer wants to construct a theory of how that account appeared obviously favouring the ideas that it is an honest truthful account that backs up their religious worldview (the 'this prophet would come to our church and recognise our teachings' thinking) probably rejecting but considering the possibility of fraud. The believer constructs a story with 'filler' (probably derived from their own experiences so 'factual' but filler nonetheless.) The evidence available to the believer is experential (answered prayers, divine ecstacy, particapatory miracles and so on) and so factual and is actually repeatable and testable (religionists report similar experiences over and over again so much so that they have their own language to describe the shared experience.) The written account gets its own story and evidences cited to back that story up. It is peer reveiewed and falsehood exposed - it may well be pulled or edited. The process is scientific and the conclusions reached have solid scientific principles underlying them (trial, theory, testing, research, peer review, publication). Those willing to try the same experiments outlined by the written account are very, very likely to get good results. A law has been established beyond the doubt of the devotee. As a good scientist does they then feel a need to convince as many people of the truth thus discovered. There is a lot of biased processing going on in between the fact and the story. How the believer reacts to the accepted truth depends on their agenda, they may feel a need to believe in God, go and preach, look after this planet better and stop global warming. People who line up to slam anti-religious scientists have an agenda(that's not a criticism).
  
  What I'm saying is that its very unscientific for anyone to claim that (my)religious expeiences didn't happen (i.e. my facts are worthless.) It is scientific to claim my evaluation of those facts is based on a flawed premise and to explain it another way but it wouldn't be scientific to not try the experiments that I did to get the results I did. To claim that religious people don't want truth is as childish as me saying that all non-believers are heading for hell ergo its a better bet to believe just in case. Religion uses scientific principles just the same as every other branch of science. The results get written up and the experiments can be repeated. Christians/religious believers are scientists but not all scientists are religious.
  
  We keep getting caught up in agendas not facts and undoubtably those who disagre vociferously with what I've written above will be driven by their own agendas that underlie their interpretation of the facts.
  The noodle monster is an example of an agenda which doesn't even bother with any pretense of fact but uses pure imagination as its stated starting point, as such its an unscientific strawman that people use to prove that religion is just the same which is silly like someone disproving dinosaur bones by making a plaster cast of a bone and burying it in the garden.
• 

  RAF

  I guess it's all about how
  Science and religions fill the blanks (nobody is supposed to believe what is improvable YET) since you do believe in blank filling with not proof you are trusting someone (a human being - in other word a scientist is not God each have their own speciallity and they do not agree on everything either)

  Spirituality is not a religion - But religions use spirituality in the right or the wrong way (that's when in spirituality you have to understand where religious people had filled the blanks from what they have been inspired in there own time whith they're own knowledges). Spîrituality is about to catch what is essential in life in time (and to understand that everything is contextual). A bold statement can be wrong as it can be right (depends on what we are talking about in the details).

  In other word religions are as limited as sciences (what they can deal with in the matter at their own stage) when spirituality is totally open to whatever have it's importance in context.
• 

  Terry

  The scientist trusts the scientist who came before him and he trusts the science that that came before him. Look at the laws of motion, or energy, that everyone accepts as true, even the scientist.

  Wrong. Trust has nothing to do with experiments which are repeatable and which make prediction which always are verifiably true. Trust, in the sense of "faith", has nothing to do with science. An established theory is always falsifiable (which is the goal).

  State of the art means "so far, so good".

  The "accepts as true" part is correct insofar as the data confirms what is accepted.

  Think again.
• 

  Terry

  Science tries to make sense of this world and so does religion.

  Science deals with "what IS" and religion just makes it all up. How different can things get?