Science is a threat...

by homme perdu 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • funkyderek


    Science and religion are always butting heads because in essence they are the same thing. Both have theories on why we are here; however a scientist will base his theory on modern logic while a priest will base his theory on ancient tradition. The priest will use elements of the scientist's writing to try and prove his theory and vice versa.

    That's a reasonable description apart from the "and vice versa" part at the end. Revelation and ancient tradition have no place in science.

    A scientist works to understnd the facts of life whereas a priest will decide what to do with them. For instance a scientist will tell us that human males are hardwired to sow their wild oats while religion will tell men to stay faithful to their wives. Which one is correct? Well science is right in that most men are obtrusive horndogs; however religion is right in that monogamous living is simpler, safer, and healthier.

    Religion is more than just a code of ethics. While science does indeed tell us that "males are hardwired to sow their wild oats" for evolutionary reasons, religion tells us (for example) that men are inherently sinful due to the first man's eating a fruit. Now which one is correct? Also it is science, not religion that tells us monogamy is "simpler, safer, and healthier". Religion tells us adultery is a sin, and God will punish us for it.

    truth be told science is not always as exact as it claims to be.

    It rarely claims to be as exact as people expect it to be.

    Scientists differ with each other all the time just like religious leaders do.

    No, scientists differ over details while awaiting definitive evidence. Religious leaders care not a jot for evidence. Faith, the antithesis of evidence, is their guide.

    Just as many powerful people have enslaved and mislead others by twisting science as religion (i.e. hitler's experiments on the jews, L Ron Hubbard's auditing techniques).
    Both science and religion can be used to hurt people. That does not make them equivalent.
    Truth be told both have a definate place in human reasoning. When a cop looks for clues he's using science. When he plays his hunches he's using religion. Both have a definate place in solving the case.

    Nonsense! A "hunch" is not religion. It's a feeling based on experience and heuristic analysis. The hunch leads the cop to look for clues in a certain place or to thoroughly check out someone's story. In the same way a hunch may lead a scientist to experiment with particular materials or look for evidence of a particular property. It would only be like religion if they stopped with the hunch. A police officer who arrested someone at random or because he had a dream would be acting in a way more analogous to religion.

    The only way to remain a sane and rational person is to accept both schools of thought with a large grain of thought and good old fashion common sense.

    It is impossible to be a "rational person" if one believes things for irrational reasons. Revelation and tradition are irrational reasons for believing something.

  • Bas

    Science and Philosophy have always have always been my "religion". I find it far more reliable yet less "black and white" than any religion. Though I'm aware of people who find peace in Christ and all that, I could never, being too rational a person.


  • cheeseman
    Science is a threat to religion because science deals in provable facts. Religion deals in unprovable beliefs.

    Nice one RKS! It's funny because it's TRUE.

  • what_Truth?

    Funky Derek, Several scientists have incorportated religion into their works including Einstien and Mendelev. Neither one was considered any less acurate for using a supernatrual based beleif system. In fact it was a now famous tenant of the Hindu religion that helped Einstien realise how dangerous nuclear power could be in the wrong hands.

    As for monogamy, I have never heard of a scientific paper or researcher that has concluded that it was a simpler, healthier or safer way of life. I have seen scientific evidence that will tell you that if you have unprotected sex with someone with a STD you stand a good chance of getting that STD, but I have yet to see someone present scientific evidence that sleeping around can get you killed by a jellous boyfriend or a forlorn spouse. However, the bible is full of anecdotal evidence to this fact. I agree that the whole idea of mankind being cursed because a man ate a piece of fruit does sound absurd, but that doesn't disvalidate the fact that there is a lot of valuble advice and life lessons within.

    Also, while I will agree that scientists often yield to definitive evidence (though not always. Consider the ongoing debate between the so called "lumpers" and "splitters")they also deal in matters that cannot be proven (how the universe was created for example). Also there are many studies that contain so many varibles that it is almost impossible to get a straight answer (i.e. what foods are good for you).

    I agree that man's misuse of science and religion does not make them equivilant, however it does make a unquestioning beleif in either equivilantly dangerous. Human common sense is the one thing that bridges the gap between the two.

    as for the cop example, a hunch is not a result of analysis. If it were it would be possible to develop a truly intuitive computer rather than just one that works on logical probability. On the contrary, a true hunch is an illogical and unprovable feeling that things are or will be a certain way. The reason why the scientist or cop will look for solid clues to back up their hunches is that a hunch is a highly personal matter (just like religion is) while physical evidence is harder to argue with, though still not impossible.

    I strongly disagree with your asertation that "Revelation and tradition are irrational reasons for believing something." All of us do things that "just work" for some reason or another without knowing why. In fact in some cases it can be even less rational to beleive the words of a scientist who makes his conclusions based on studies you can't verify and methods you can't understand then it is to do something that has "just worked" for generations.

  • Serenity Now
    Serenity Now

    I don't think I understand this thread. Science is a threat how?

    Specifically, I'm confused because the late great Pope John Paul II stated that it's fine for science to theorize that life started with the Big Bang so long as they give God the credit for the Big Bang. The Pope, a former college professor, didn't seem to feel threatened by science then.

    However, there is a debate between religion and science when, for instance, a "scientist", i.e., the primary neurologist for Michael Schiavo in the recent court case over his wife's wishes, referred to Terri Schiavo as a "houseplant" because she was neurologically damaged. In that case, the late great Pope stressed the dignity of all human life, which was at odds with our current culture of basing the worthiness of a human life on intellectual functioning levels as determined by the science of medicine.

    The only threat, so to speak, I see between science and religion is a difference in the valuation of human life.

  • stevenyc

    Douglas Adams
    The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    Majikthise, one of the Universe's greatest philosophers:

    "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"


  • Elsewhere
    to many religions but I dont understand why. Do you think there will be an understanding between the two?

    For thousands of years religion was used to explain what humans could not immediately understand through simple observation. (Wind, lighting, planets, sun, moon, stars, electricity, life, reproduction, death, etc...)

    In time science came along and started, one at a time, explaining and describing in detail these "mysterious" things as natural events. Over time the "gods" have become marginalized and relegated to nothing more than "faith".

    Now that religion has almost no tangible "miraculous" events that science has not quantified and described using equation, the faithful believers are now lost with little more than blind "faith" to cling to.

    Humans are naturally inquisitive and need to have something tangible to cling to and since their gods have been made into a vapor by science, the faithful now see science as a threat. Basically they have watched as their gods were slowly chipped away over the centuries by science until there is almost nothing left. Simply put, religion was mankind?s first failed attempt at science just as alchemy was mankind?s first failed attempt at chemistry.

Share this