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

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  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.

  Religious views are not subject to proof because they deal with invisible characters and ever-future events just beyond testing.

  Science always deals with data acquired by testable hypothesis.

  Science changes because the facts, tested and verified, cause the changes and revisions.

  Religion is stuck in the tarpit of orthodoxy. Change is only possible by schism and a new sect. Hence we have ONE science and thousands of religions.
• 

  fifi40

  Terry

  The problem I have with your argument style is that you generalize when it suits you, but then switch to a narrow precise reasoning to force home your point and in doing so you miss out the middle section/the grey areas.

  For example this thread starts with the generalization of science v religion who won. And you quite rightly argue for science and all the benefits its has brought to man. And again quite rightly you argue that historically religion has not benefited man in the same way, and emphasise its sometimes draconian nature.

  You then go on to state that religion has no power, but then go on to list terrible atrocities which have been committed in the name of religion. I would have to argue then that one must concede that religion must reasonably be accepted as having power over people. I actually called it a powerful tool. One which you could argue could bring great benefit to mankind if used in an ennobling way. Yes history has taught us that this has not always been the case but in your own words "Personal responsibility is paramount to the consequence of the misuse".

  You know there are countless people with whom you could sit down, that would tell you the benefits they feel personally from belonging to a 'religion' or having a belief in God. Those benefits on a personal level may vary from, feeling part of a community, having a sense of where they are going, giving them some moral direction, giving them hope....the list could be endless. We as exjws all know how a person who has a faith can find a benefit in it and in the words of my favourite again, they could reason "As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, keep it".

  In a previous post of yours you listed reasons why it is unlikely that we are born into the best set of circumstances; and for many that is true. They have dire upbringings, some without education, moral training, love, encouragement or even the basic needs of a person. Science is not able to remedy all of these problems. Science does not teach us how to show love, compassion, why stealing is wrong, to care for the elderly or infirm, to be tolerant of others race and culture, or how to turn a life that is being led on a slippery slope round to one that is successful, fruitful and happy. Some people are born without the right tools for life and where is there to go learn them.

  I put it to you that were religious organisations put to good use, for some they could fill that gap. Jesus was all about teaching human beings how to treat each other and themselves. It is man that has misused that guidance.

  I know you will argue that religion, its teachings and belief in God is what has failed and is not proven. And in many ways you are right. That does not mean religion couldnt bring benefit to mankind. And if someone wants to believe that there is a greater being, to whom they are answerable, to whom they can pray for help and guidance in their times of need, then they should not be judged unfavourably for doing so. I will not be taking that comfort away from them, life is hard enough as it is. And ultimately, no one knows the answers.

  And just for the record I have no religious beliefs.....................
• 

  onacruse

  You can argue about God all you want but history has already demonstrated clearly which side brings benefits to mankind and which side keeps humanity chained in darkness.

  otoh, perhaps religion/superstition actually acts as an essential protective social mechanism, keeping mankind in a "safe" darkness (one could compare it to being in the womb), until such time as advancing understanding could be 'safely assimilated' into various cultures?
• 

  Terry

  You can argue about God all you want but history has already demonstrated clearly which side brings benefits to mankind and which side keeps humanity chained in darkness.

  otoh, perhaps religion/superstition actually acts as an essential protective social mechanism, keeping mankind in a "safe" darkness (one could compare it to being in the womb), until such time as advancing understanding could be 'safely assimilated' into various cultures?

  Essentially, this is advocating ignorance. "What you don't know can't hurt you" is a dangerous premise.

  When has ignorance given us viable choice? No, rather; ignorance is bliss UNTIL the thing you don't want to know bites you on the ass.

  Europe didn't want to see Hitler as the enormous danger he really was although every indication was there. Europe was still recovering from the loss of manpower and treasure from the First World War. Appeasement and a blind eye merely gave the Nazi war machine a chance to gain a huge momentum.

  I work with a lady who recently went in for a checkup on a bad cough. Her doctor told her she had a "spot" on her lung. She refused to go back in for a biopsy and tests. She said, "I just don't want to know."

  Astonishing to me how the rational side of humanity is so cowardly and willing to invite calamity through choosing ignorance over fact.

  Closing one eye while driving is dangerous, but; closing both eyes and turning up the music is an invitation to disaster.
• 

  Terry

  You then go on to state that religion has no power, but then go on to list terrible atrocities which have been committed in the name of religion. I would have to argue then that one must concede that religion must reasonably be accepted as having power over people. I actually called it a powerful tool. One which you could argue could bring great benefit to mankind if used in an ennobling way. Yes history has taught us that this has not always been the case but in your own words "Personal responsibility is paramount to the consequence of the misuse".

  Religion has no power. I repeat myself. How people use religion (agreement that what they are about to do is out of their hands and approved by the highest power in the universe) is justification for the worst sort of disaster to others.

  Perhaps this point is subtle, I don't know. Think of it this way. The most insidious ingredient in Religion is how beautiful it is when presented to humanity. The potential is harmony, life-giving knowledge and ultimate approval.

  That is is the surface. What is the actuality which follows? First, religion removes your sense of individuality by telling you how UNWORTHY you are. Then, it threatens death and often torture (hell). Obedience is the only path. Duty and service are required; often to the "written word". However, the actual duty is given to some PERSON or PERSONS who are doing the mouthpiece work and "interpreting" the orthodoxy. It all boils down to stripping an intelligent individual of both their rational guidance and their individuality in choice. The person is responsible for making this happen to themselves. Religion is just lying there. They have to pick it up and swallow it whole.
• 

  fifi40

  I think you may have identified the flaw in your own argument.

  You say - How people use religion is justification for the worst sort of disaster to others. The insidious ingredient...with a potential for harmony. It threatens death and often torture (hell). Strips people of their individuality, rational guidance etc.

  In all of the above it it actually man that does this. It was men who wrote religious books, men who stand on their soap boxes spouting out views and interpretations, men who condemn the listener to eternal hell and torture. And it is men that have misused a way of educating, that appeals to a wide spectrum of humans. Is it wrong to teach 'Do unto others as you would have done to yourself' or 'Love thy neighbour' or 'Look to the ant you lazy one'.

  And, again, it is men that in the field of science who have sometimes got things wrong; have created disasters because they thought they were right.

  A person has a right to believe in a superior being. A person has a right to have faith or hope. It is up to them if they hope that a cure for cancer is found or if they hope they go somewhere nice when they die.

  It is not about subject matters, Science v Religion, and which wins. Both could and should have a purpose. It is about the human beings who enter either field, and what they do with the gifts and tools they have.
• 

  RWC

  Terry, although I completely disagree with you I have enjoyed our discussion. You are correct that I believe that there is one source for the basis of morality and from my point of view that is God. I do not believe that the need for morals in a society grew simply and exclusively out of a practical need to survive. That can't be the ultimate reason because every person has the same right and human nature need to survive. So if I need to kill you to survive or to steal your "slave" asset to survive, I would have the right to do so. Your right to survive is no greater than mine.
• 

  onacruse

  Essentially, this is advocating ignorance. "What you don't know can't hurt you" is a dangerous premise.

  Perhaps.

  In the context of physical immediacy, then yes, it is a dangerous premise (as your example demonstrates).

  In the context of "what one thinks," it may or may not be a dangerous premise.

  Insofar as religion is contained within this last parameter, then it need not necessarily present a danger (I like hamburgers, you like hot dogs). And insofar as science is likewise contained, it presents no danger.

  However, either science or religion may break free (and, indeed, both have broken free) from self-preserving constraints and present life-threatening consequences. Thus, the Inquisition, and thus, the discovery of nuclear reactions; both bad (in their consequences) for humanity.
• 

  onacruse

  Hence we have ONE science and thousands of religions.

  Now that, I think, you must admit, is an over-simplification. The history of science, both as an art and as a purely intellectual exploration, is star-studded with the same contradictions and hypocrisies as religion.

  "Science" has been just as much a whore as has religion...for human nature makes whores of them both.
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Terry remarked:

  The Muslim world fell in love with Aristotle and then turned their collective back on the advancement logical thought could bring to their people. The contrast between Arabs as a people and a nation (and religion) and the logical, scientific world of technology is striking. They are largely a dependant Stone-Age people clinging to Theology and societal backwardness through gritted teeth. They seek through radicals to obliterate the proof of their own failure and backwardness by destroying the symbols of Western Scientific Prowess by blowing things ups (including their own most devout devotees.)

  Click on the title in bold for an interesting (and less simplistic and insulting) consideration of The Factors Behind the Decline of Islamic Science.

  And a bit more on Medieval Islamic Sciences.

  Thanks for triggering another interesting discussion and helping me learn more.

  ~Merry