False dichotomy - science or religion

[lewisnotmiller]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

 

[Spiderman]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm delighted that I got your creative juices flowing

It makes me feel like my presence at RF is accomplishing something lol

 

[Ellen Brown]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

I'm obstinate enough to insist that science and religion are two different tools that can be used separately or together to work on a problem. I have a little bag of tools which all look different and are used to do different things. Sometimes though, I can use a hammer to strike a screwdriver to do something.

In the thought process it is likely that we have many tools but have not named them. So, we have religion and science, then perhaps we have to deliberately ignore something to think about something else. Perhaps another tool is self control and another is frustration? I'll admit to crying in frustration when a problem seems too intransigent, only to later find that I just needed to think about it another way.

It has never been either/or to me.

 

[Misunderstood]

I am not sure what you mean by a "False dichotomy", as that could mean so many things. My thoughts would look something like this. Sorry, I am not sure how to draw on here I will give it a try though.
________________________________
| ____________|
|GOD |Science |
|______________________________|

Is this something along the lines you are talking about?

Edit: After posting this looks nothing like it should.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not sure what you mean by a "False dichotomy", as that could mean so many things. My thoughts would look something like this. Sorry, I am not sure how to draw on here I will give it a try though.
________________________________
| ____________|
|GOD |Science |
|______________________________|

Is this something along the lines you are talking about?

Edit: After posting this looks nothing like it should.

Hi mate...sorry, not sure exactly what you mean, but appreciate you joining the conversation.
To hopefully try and clarify, I guess I'm suggesting that God and Science are two tools people use to see the world, and to determine morality, etc. For a monotheist, I would guess that both tools are used in conjuction with each other to some degree (perhaps one is more important in a given situation, but both have some impact).

But my point was that I don't see them as the only tools involved in determining decisions on things like morality. I think there are many things at play, and I think that's universally true.
So saying (for example) that monotheists use God (only) and that atheists use science (only) to make decisions seems a false dichotomy.
And, further than that, saying that people use some mix of God and science to make decisions also seems false to me.

@Ellen Brown seems to have a handle on what I meant.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm delighted that I got your creative juices flowing

It makes me feel like my presence at RF is accomplishing something lol

For what it's worth I think you contribute to this big melting pot.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm obstinate enough to insist that science and religion are two different tools that can be used separately or together to work on a problem. I have a little bag of tools which all look different and are used to do different things. Sometimes though, I can use a hammer to strike a screwdriver to do something.

In the thought process it is likely that we have many tools but have not named them. So, we have religion and science, then perhaps we have to deliberately ignore something to think about something else. Perhaps another tool is self control and another is frustration? I'll admit to crying in frustration when a problem seems too intransigent, only to later find that I just needed to think about it another way.

It has never been either/or to me.

This makes sense to me. I like the analogy of having different tools we bring to work on a problem, and I particularly like how you said some wouldn't even have names. I completely agree.
One slight addition I would make, though, is that sometimes those tools come into play whether we want them to or not.

For example, if self control or frustration can impact on our decision making or morality (and I agree they can in certain ways) then our inability to decide when they impact is also a factor. Whereas a hammer is only used when I want it to be.

 

[Spiderman]

For what it's worth I think you contribute to this big melting pot.

It's a nuclear family!

 

[sun rise]

I basically agree with the OP. Religion to me is about "why" and science about "how". Religion talks about why we exist, what the purpose of life is and how to find ultimate meaning. Science talks about what can be known through the intellect and by experiment.

Of course it's possible to state that one or the other talks about everything but I just don't see it that way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I basically agree with the OP. Religion to me is about "why" and science about "how". Religion talks about why we exist, what the purpose of life is and how to find ultimate meaning. Science talks about what can be known through the intellect and by experiment.

Of course it's possible to state that one or the other talks about everything but I just don't see it that way.

I guess, though, that's where I'm trying to suggest it's more than that. It's not just the 'why' of religion, and the 'how' of science. (Basically what I'm describing as a false dichotomy)
Instead, there are LOTS of hows and whys at play (even if science and religion are 2 of the biggest and most influential of them).

 

[Misunderstood]

Sorry that did not come out as I wanted. I will try again to explain. I had a box with God in it with a smaller box with science in it, that is inside the God box.

I feel within God (or spirituality) everything is contained. Science is inside spirituality but science holds everything that is within our physical realm. Now I see you hold different views than I do so you may have a different dichotomy. But within these two fields I feel all tools are held.

There are many tools within these tool boxes, but I feel all tools are with in these two toolboxes.

 

[Misunderstood]

With your reply to 'Sun Rise' I think I might be seeing where you are coming from. Let me see if I can put it down as I am seeing it in my mind, but not sure if I am understanding it yet. Let me know if I am going the right way.

You feel that a person can be compelled to think and act a certain way as far as right and wrong (morality) in how we treat others and interact. This can be done without any religious or scientific aspects? But other compelling aspects of life?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Sorry that did not come out as I wanted. I will try again to explain. I had a box with God in it with a smaller box with science in it, that is inside the God box.

I feel within God (or spirituality) everything is contained. Science is inside spirituality but science holds everything that is within our physical realm. Now I see you hold different views than I do so you may have a different dichotomy. But within these two fields I feel all tools are held.

There are many tools within these tool boxes, but I feel all tools are with in these two toolboxes.

There are different kinds of thinkers but all created by God. One kind of thinker looks at a problem and then decides what to do and does it. Another kind looks at the evidence as it piles up but makes no decision until it is almost too late, then does something to take advantage of all the changes in the data to make the best choice. There are probably lot of other kinds of decision makers too.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Science may uphold knowledge, but all truth comes through faith.

 

[Jumi]

Religion doesn't have to conflict with science. It's unfortunate that in much of the world, it does.

 

[Misunderstood]

I guess I have felt that we are who we are by our spiritual link to God and our acceptance of His ways. Our physical bodies (the scientific self), A combination of neurons, chemicals and the way they influence our psychology. So I guess I feel we only have the two parts.

But, I have given thought to a third component (what you may be saying), and have been giving it more credence as I work though my beliefs. If we consist of our physical self and spiritual self as part of God. Would not we all be one with God? So the third part would be some type of humanity or spirit apart from God (our free will). If that is the case we would use tools of self, along with our physical and spiritual self.

That is about all I got on this subject, thanks for listening.

 

[sayak83]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

Hinduism and Buddhism, as religions, are fundamentally concerned with identifying the root causes of suffering in all its forms (pain, anxiety, stress, disaffection, depression, ennui etc. etc.) and eradicating them and all their associated side effects (anger, hate, violence, despair, greed etc.) completely from the human psyche. So, from an Indic religion perspective, what science is tasked with differs entirely from what religion is tasked with...though both can (and should) inform each other.

 

[joe1776]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

I think human behavior is motivated by unconscious human needs and has little to do with science or religion. For example, Donald Trump is primarily motivated by a common human need -- the need to feel superior to others and to be recognized as superior. This need is stronger in him than in the average human. It's a need commonly high in people who are ambitious for wealth, fame or political power.

 

[Marcion]

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

In some modernised spiritual paths this distinction between motivations of a purely rational or scientific origin and motivations driven from a preferred spiritual philosophy have become much more non-conflicting and more naturally blended. Religious dogmas are absent and the spiritual philosophy has become closely associated with real personal development that can actually be experienced.

 

[exchemist]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

Agree entirely about the false dichotomy and with the analogy of different toolkits for different problems, put forward in some of the responses. I do not however see the role of religion as simply a source of morality. That seems to me to focus only on external results, ignoring the role of religion in the inner life of the person, When I use the toolkit analogy, I mean it as frameworks for helping us, as individuals, in dealing with various aspect of human experience and the human condition we find ourselves in.

Science is obviously the pre-eminent tool for understanding nature, but there is far more to human experience than that, as the human needs for art, literature, music, society and love all in their various ways attest. Religion I see as part of the Humanities, enabling us to think about such things as our purpose in life, our relations with other individuals and with society, including, but far from limited to, moral issues. It also provides community, a means of achieving calm and meditation, sometimes aided by ritual, a sense of community, continuity with the past and a sense of being part of a tradition, and so on. Science has little to offer in such areas: it is not its job.

So the way I see it, there is relatively little overlap in function between science and religion and thus no need for conflict.