Is Science Better Than Religion?

[Ben Dhyan]

You really think theist are treated poorly here ?

Do you think that fanaticism and fundamentalism are acceptable???

By atheists like yourself...yes..

Anyone is acceptable so long as they treat other members ok on a continuing basis....occasional lapses are inevitable, but your atheistic fanaticism and obsessive compulsion to persistently harass religious members on every thread you can, every day....is bad news...

 

[McBell]

Is Science Better Than Religion?

Yes and no.

It's an interesting question. Lots of people would say yes. Lots would say no.

Agreed.
But there are some of us who yes and no.

But the question of whether science is better than religion is not a question scientists would necessarily ask. 'Better' or 'Worse' are, really, unscientific terms that don't carry much in the way of information beyond emotional predisposition.

The subjectivity of good and bad make them pretty much useless in science.

So what question should we ask instead?

No Idea.

'Is Science a a more effective/efficient/appropriate method for solving problems than religion?'

Again, yes and no.

The answer is: Yes, in many areas. But not all.

The reality is that neither religion nor science is better than the other. Simply, science is more effective at solving problems in many areas than religion.

If a man has no arm, no amount of prayer in the world will grant him a new arm. Only science can develop prosthetics and robotics that will replace a missing limb.

If a country requires food aid as the result of a natural disaster, religion may be more efficient at generating food donations to help that country than science, at least in the current systems we have.

One day science may overtake religion as more effective and appropriate systems are developed that make charity obsolete, but neither religion or science is better than the other - one is simply more efficient at solving problems.

It depends upon what the final goal is.
Sometimes religion can be the better choice.
Of course, you would have to figure out what parts of what religions.....

 

[outhouse]

By atheists like yourself...yes..

Provide sources. Go back and show where I have treated anyone poorly.

 

[outhouse]

, but your atheistic fanaticism and obsessive compulsion to persistently harass religious members on every thread you can, every day....is bad news...

You can call backing academia what ever you want. I rarely stray into faith.

 

[Mycroft]

Science and religion are not related at all, so I don't see how we can really compare them.

Ii is like comparing oranges with doorknobs.

I must disagree with the right honourable gentleman. Many people believe that their god will solve their problems for them. Some even reject science (i.e. medicine) in favour of divine intervention altogether, albeit in extreme cases.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Provide sources. Go back and show where I have treated anyone poorly.

How many times have you responded to my posts with a "unsubstantiated rhetoric" comment, or some other vague mantra of dismissal....when the subject matter is of a religious nature and beyond the purview of material reality? These threads are in the Science and Religion section...and religious discussion can deal with concepts concerning reality beyond human understanding...though not necessarily beyond spiritual realization by an initiate. So you know this and yet you do not refrain from incessantly provoking the religious posters with inane interjections of this nature that are logically inappropriate... I think the correct term for what you do is trolling...but in any event, you would do better to cease interjecting on threads for the sake of inserting your inappropriate one liners

 

[gnostic]

I must disagree with the right honourable gentleman. Many people believe that their god will solve their problems for them. Some even reject science (i.e. medicine) in favour of divine intervention altogether, albeit in extreme cases.

Science relying on testing the hypothesis or theory, if it is true or not, on verifiable observation and evidences.

Religion rely only on faith through the person's belief and from the perspectives of Christianity and Islam, on dogma with scriptures, never mind there are no evidences to support such belief and devotion. Miracles are the hallmark of what these believers in, based on flawed testimonies of bunch of superstitious people.

Miracles, in religion, defy reality and the law of nature. I would equate such miracles as "supernatural", and most often it is the naive and the ignorant who believe in such magical hocus-pocus.

Tell me, Mycroft:

Can a snake (Genesis 3) or donkey (Numbers 22) really talk to people with human voice and human understanding?

Sure they can, with a bit of trickery with camera, and you got the wise-cracking Francis, Mr Ed, Doctor Dolittle or Harry Potter, or some cartoon animations.

And according to the Qur'an, Solomon had the ability to hear, understand and talk to birds and ants.

Primitive and backward people have been believed in animals that could talk for millennia, that predated the writing of any biblical literature.The irony is that both Muslims and Christians have blamed contemporary pagan religions, on spreading fables and superstitions of talking animals, but in their own scriptures they have such verses that parodies exactly the same nonsense. Such double-standard that Christians and Muslims have never cease to amaze me.

I can't remember if it was in Exodus or in Joshua, but I seemed to recall a battle in which God stop the Sun from moving in the sky. But the truth - astronomically and scientifically - it is the Earth that move, rotating on its axis, not the Sun physically moving across our sky.

It is not possible to stop either the Sun or Earth from moving, and jump-start it to move again. Only the utter idiots would believe that such thing could happen.

It is science that give us a better understanding of the world around us, and I mean world as in nature.

Neither the bible nor the Qur'an are science textbook. They explain nothing about biology, geology, meteorology, astronomy, etc. Neither scriptures teach mathematics.

At best, the scriptures give people basic, if not outdated laws and ethics. That's the only wisdom they provide. Everything else relied on superstitious nonsense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can call backing academia what ever you want. I rarely stray into faith.

You appeal to authority is laughable...you think Wiki pages represent academia...it doesn't... And btw, since you are always on about academia, what are your academic qualifications anyway? I know it isn't in English...

You may not stray into faith as a proponent, and that's fine, now if you did not interject into faith as a obsessive compulsive antagonist ...that would be fine too..

Nothing I've said on this and other posts and threads on this matter implies I mean you should give religious posters a free ride....but you should post with integrity and not step over the line....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is Science Better Than Religion?

It's an interesting question. Lots of people would say yes. Lots would say no.

But the question of whether science is better than religion is not a question scientists would necessarily ask. 'Better' or 'Worse' are, really, unscientific terms that don't carry much in the way of information beyond emotional predisposition.

So what question should we ask instead?

'Is Science a a more effective/efficient/appropriate method for solving problems than religion?'

The answer is: Yes, in many areas. But not all.

The reality is that neither religion nor science is better than the other. Simply, science is more effective at solving problems in many areas than religion.

If a man has no arm, no amount of prayer in the world will grant him a new arm. Only science can develop prosthetics and robotics that will replace a missing limb.

If a country requires food aid as the result of a natural disaster, religion may be more efficient at generating food donations to help that country than science, at least in the current systems we have.

One day science may overtake religion as more effective and appropriate systems are developed that make charity obsolete, but neither religion or science is better than the other - one is simply more efficient at solving problems.

Science is better with religion, the greatest scientific discoveries of all time have been a battle of science v atheism

 

[outhouse]

..when the subject matter is of a religious nature and beyond the purview of material reality?

That's means it is unsubstantiated. Its pretty simply, just because you have faith does not make it real.

Asking to show evidence a concept exist is not treating anyone poorly.


If we did it your way, all mythology is now credible.

 

[outhouse]

You appeal to authority is laughable...

That's is your opinion only.

 

[outhouse]

How many times have you responded to my posts with a "unsubstantiated rhetoric"

It will remain that way until you start providing sources to back your opinion which you demand more often then not as certainty.

You make claims you cannot cash.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's means it is unsubstantiated. Its pretty simply, just because you have faith does not make it real.

Asking to show evidence a concept exist is not treating anyone poorly.

If we did it your way, all mythology is now credible.

But don't you see...the material world of substance is not the spiritual domain...scientific methodology is based in reproducibility of results...matter is pretty much a dumb substance that can be made to do things by superior human consciousness....the concept of spirit that is dealt with in religious discussion, as it is understood, is the reality on the other side of the concept, is divine consciousness, and here it is the other way around....it is relatively dumb mortals that can be made to do things...

Now it matters not that this can't be proven by religious folk in the scientific sense of proof, for that is a given, we understand it and do not try and say otherwise ...so if you are made aware of this, and yet keep on with the incessant "unsubstantiated rhetoric", etc., wherever a religious member makes a general comment pertaining to religious doctrines or understanding.....then that is not reasonable.... Keep religious members honest by all means, but don't interject obsessively with the same taunts about things that can't be substantiated and accepted so by the posters ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's is your opinion only.

Yes, it is my opinion...others have their own opinion...no problem...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It will remain that way until you start providing sources to back your opinion which you demand more often then not as certainty.

You make claims you cannot cash.

Here we have a problem...read my recent post (73) on this and let's see if you want to keep this up...I am a reasonable person....

 

[outhouse]

wherever a religious member makes a general comment pertaining to religious doctrines or understanding.....then that is not reasonable.... Keep religious members honest by all means, but don't interject obsessively with the same taunts about things that can't be substantiated and accepted so by the posters

Again, letting all mythology fly as real is not doing anyone any good. Letting opinion run free unchecked is not what debating is all about.

The trick here is not to make claims you cannot substantiate, if you are debating.


I do not enter same faith discussions if you want to discuss doctrine.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science is about the real world and religion is all make-believe stuff. So there!

 

[JayJayDee]

The can, but for the most part they do not. Its not the religions fault per say, but the theist that interpret the text with no education what so ever and find positions against academia.

Academia may well be wrong....it is human thinking when all said and done......but they will never admit this. The Bible is not a science textbook and doesn't pretend to be. But when it touches on matters of true and provable science it is very accurate.

The earth itself is very ancient. The Bible agrees with this. Animals can adapt to their environment by making small changes in their physical characteristics to accomodate changes in climate or food supply. Scientists took that small molehill and made an unsubstantiated mountain out of it. Anyone who fails to climb that mountain is laughed out of the scientific community as uneducated and moronic. We know what peer pressure is and it doesn't just affect teenagers.

It is theoretical science that is at odds with belief in an intelligent designer. Everything in nature screams that it is produced by an intelligent designer. I hear about "natural selection" all the time as if the selection was made intelligently....yet they say there is no intelligence behind the selection...it is at the mercy of blind random chance mutations. The endless string of fortunate co-incidences that made all that we see on earth today. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind could not see that design requires a designer.

 

[Bunyip]

Academia may well be wrong....it is human thinking when all said and done......but they will never admit this. The Bible is not a science textbook and doesn't pretend to be. But when it touches on matters of true and provable science it is very accurate.

The earth itself is very ancient. The Bible agrees with this. Animals can adapt to their environment by making small changes in their physical characteristics to accomodate changes in climate or food supply. Scientists took that small molehill and made an unsubstantiated mountain out of it. Anyone who fails to climb that mountain is laughed out of the scientific community as uneducated and moronic. We know what peer pressure is and it doesn't just affect teenagers.

It is theoretical science that is at odds with belief in an intelligent designer. Everything in nature screams that it is produced by an intelligent designer. I hear about "natural selection" all the time as if the selection was made intelligently....yet they say there is no intelligence behind the selection...it is at the mercy of blind random chance mutations. The endless string of fortunate co-incidences that made all that we see on earth today. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind could not see that design requires a designer.

Academia may well be wrong....it is human thinking when all said and done......but they will never admit this. The Bible is not a science textbook and doesn't pretend to be. But when it touches on matters of true and provable science it is very accurate.

The earth itself is very ancient. The Bible agrees with this. Animals can adapt to their environment by making small changes in their physical characteristics to accomodate changes in climate or food supply. Scientists took that small molehill and made an unsubstantiated mountain out of it. Anyone who fails to climb that mountain is laughed out of the scientific community as uneducated and moronic. We know what peer pressure is and it doesn't just affect teenagers.

It is theoretical science that is at odds with belief in an intelligent designer. Everything in nature screams that it is produced by an intelligent designer. I hear about "natural selection" all the time as if the selection was made intelligently....yet they say there is no intelligence behind the selection...it is at the mercy of blind random chance mutations. The endless string of fortunate co-incidences that made all that we see on earth today. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind could not see that design requires a designer.

Simply because biologists do not see the signs of a designer - what they see looks more like natural selection, not an intelligent design. Hence the notion of natural selection is more popular, it reflects the observed evidence better than does an intelligent designer.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science is better with religion, the greatest scientific discoveries of all time have been a battle of science v atheism

No, science has been repeatedly held back by religion. Look at the regressive influence of creationism for example.