Religion answers the factual questions science neglects

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm asking in the context of the article in the OP of this thread. The article claims religion answers questions of fact which science cannot answer. I think we agree that religion does not do this.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm asking in the context of the article in the OP of this thread. The article claims religion answers questions of fact which science cannot answer. I think we agree that religion does not do this.

Well, you said "as in the way science has answered"...and to that I say no but I also say that there is more then one way to find facts (as in other disciplines).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, you said "as in the way science has answered"...and to that I say no but I also say that there is more then one way to find facts (as in other disciplines).

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that religion has established as a "fact" whether or not Jesus rose from the dead? According to whose religion?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that religion has established as a "fact" whether or not Jesus rose from the dead? According to whose religion?

No...I was thinking more ontologically.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No...I was thinking more ontologically.

How about giving a specific example.

 

[lunamoth]

Better said:

Religion answers the factual questions science has no business getting into

Better yet:

Religion addresses the human needs science cannot.

 

[Panda]

That is a real good question. I answered that here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/120189-scientism.html

Like many non-theist I'd be wary to open the flood gates to just any priori. A good scientist [IMO] is both wary of all and open to all. In short, all sciences should lean on the natural sciences for support. However, as I noted in my link above, a good portion of the science community has forgotten that it was criticisms and conflict that gave birth to many discoveries. It's fear of religion slowly turned it into a fratt party of frightened nerds. This is a diservice to science in my opinion.

I disagree with the article in your other thread, tbh the author seems to not have a clue. But if you do think religion should stay out of science where in the boundary?

 

[outhouse]

using the words factual for mythology is just wrong in itself. I call the article EPIC FAIL

 

[Quiddity]

I disagree with the article in your other thread, tbh the author seems to not have a clue. But if you do think religion should stay out of science where in the boundary?

And you say this because...? Because you disagree? Because he's an atheist and a scientist? Just curious....

 

[Falvlun]

Better yet:

Religion addresses the human needs science cannot.

I agree with that formulation. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" gets a lot of flak, but I agree with it in principle. The two are largely answering very different questions, although there is some overlap.

Science isn't "neglecting" certain questions; it just realizes that it is outside the scope of its method (like determining what is moral or not). Religion provides a sense of purpose and place that science my not be able to provide to (all) people. And that's fine.

I do take issue with the assertion that religion is "factually" answering these questions. It is giving an answer, and as long as that answer isn't causing harm, I have no problem with it providing the answer. But there is no way to determine whether that answer is actually true or not.

That's the difference: science provides a method by which you can determine whether the answer is (likely) true or not. Religion does not have a similar mechanism.

 

[SageTree]

It's funny how the one's you aren't THAT passionate about turn into pages of posts
Glad you folks enjoyed it and are talking about it

 

[Looncall]

I agree with that formulation. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" gets a lot of flak, but I agree with it in principle. The two are largely answering very different questions, although there is some overlap.

Science isn't "neglecting" certain questions; it just realizes that it is outside the scope of its method (like determining what is moral or not). Religion provides a sense of purpose and place that science my not be able to provide to (all) people. And that's fine.

I do take issue with the assertion that religion is "factually" answering these questions. It is giving an answer, and as long as that answer isn't causing harm, I have no problem with it providing the answer. But there is no way to determine whether that answer is actually true or not.

That's the difference: science provides a method by which you can determine whether the answer is (likely) true or not. Religion does not have a similar mechanism.

Very well put.

My favourite phrase for this is: "The metaphysicist has no laboratory."

However, I am reminded of a story I heard on the radio. A young student in a muslim school asked why a tiger has stripes. She was given the answer that it was because Allah wanted it that way. In view of the fact that there are very good reasons why tigers are striped, I find that tragic.

 

[waitasec]

No known religious technique can answer that claim, either. The title should be, "Religion guesses at the factual questions science cannot answer".

indeed.

 

[waitasec]

Personally, I don't see how religion is a method of inquiry at all.

good point...



this is frubal city...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with that formulation. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" gets a lot of flak, but I agree with it in principle. The two are largely answering very different questions, although there is some overlap.

There's a huge overlap. Gould's formulation only works if you either hobble religion or put artificial barriers around science.

Gould suggested that in his ideal arrangement, religion addresses the "how" and religion addresses the "why". However, religion doesn't constrain itself from answering "how" questions, and the answers that science yield speak to the truth or falsehood of various "why" claims.

Science isn't "neglecting" certain questions; it just realizes that it is outside the scope of its method (like determining what is moral or not). Religion provides a sense of purpose and place that science my not be able to provide to (all) people. And that's fine.

But that's not a full picture of religion. For instance, can you imagine what religion would be like today if no religion made any claims about afterlives or reincarnation? It would be wildly different from what we have not.

And IMO, the claim that a "soul" or some identifiable aspect of a person continues to live after the death of the person's body is very much a testable scientific claim... not only that, but it's a claim that is largely being tested by science right now.

I do take issue with the assertion that religion is "factually" answering these questions. It is giving an answer, and as long as that answer isn't causing harm, I have no problem with it providing the answer. But there is no way to determine whether that answer is actually true or not.

Don't you think that claiming certainty when the reality is uncertainty is a form of dishonesty? I have a problem with that, myself.

When we have an answer we accept as true, we have no motivation to find out the real answer.

That's the difference: science provides a method by which you can determine whether the answer is (likely) true or not. Religion does not have a similar mechanism.

But many religions claim to have one. Haven't you ever heard anyone advise another person to "pray on it" to figure something out?

 

[waitasec]

Better yet:

Religion addresses the human needs science cannot.

i would say the human wants...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very well put.

My favourite phrase for this is: "The metaphysicist has no laboratory."

Mine is a quote from Kant: "Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind." If we divide the "how" (the percepts) from the "why" (the concepts), then we end up with observations without understanding on the one hand and metaphysical systems that have no relationship with reality on the other. Whichever side we take, we lose.

 

[Falvlun]

There's a huge overlap. Gould's formulation only works if you either hobble religion or put artificial barriers around science.

Gould suggested that in his ideal arrangement, religion addresses the "how" and religion addresses the "why". However, religion doesn't constrain itself from answering "how" questions, and the answers that science yield speak to the truth or falsehood of various "why" claims.

I do agree its too simplistic to claim that science only can address the how, and religion can only address the why.

But, I also don't think that saying that science can't provide the meaning of life is introducing an artificial boundary.

And it would probably be for the best if religion got out of the explaining the origins of the earth business.

But that's not a full picture of religion. For instance, can you imagine what religion would be like today if no religion made any claims about afterlives or reincarnation? It would be wildly different from what we have not.

And IMO, the claim that a "soul" or some identifiable aspect of a person continues to live after the death of the person's body is very much a testable scientific claim... not only that, but it's a claim that is largely being tested by science right now.

I'm not sure it's so testable, since we can't exactly experience death and live to write about it.

Don't you think that claiming certainty when the reality is uncertainty is a form of dishonesty? I have a problem with that, myself.

Sure, but then again, I think we delude ourselves quite a bit over what we think we know with certainty.

Besides, its more about fulfilling certain human needs, rather than providing the actual truth.

When we have an answer we accept as true, we have no motivation to find out the real answer.

Good point. But I still think that there are some things that don't have real answers. They are inherently subjective.

But many religions claim to have one. Haven't you ever heard anyone advise another person to "pray on it" to figure something out?

'nother good point. My response, of course, is that the 'pray on it' method is flawed since it's biased from the get go. But I suppose the same accusation could be made of science.

 

[shawn001]

Religion answers the factual questions science neglects


The title of this cracks me up.

First off what religion, all the religions? So all religions answer factual questions science neglects. So they all have correct facts to support them?

What questions is science neglecting?

In the 20's humans use to think the entire universe was the milkyway. Then Hubble proved there were Hundreds of billions of galaxies.

The church use to think the universe revolved around the earth, well we know that is not true.


Did that article say "Jesus rose from the dead" is factual?

Why does it go straight into chirstanity and leave out ALL the other religions?


If it wasn't for science, religions would still be told as stories by word of mouth and we would all still be living in caves if we would have survived at all.

Its pretty funny how some people understand science to be the "enemy."

Where did that come from you suppose? Did religion make science the enemy to religion? Because the natural world didn't fit the religious books or interpretations?

People argue over evolution when its a done deal already. If they can't get past the theory of evolution and cosmology, then when they find out about what quantum mechanics is all about, that will really throw them for a loop.

 

[idav]

Religion answers the factual questions science neglects

The real question is not whether religion is compatible with science, but whether it tackles questions science ignores

​

By: Keith Ward

That is misleading. Answering something doesn't make it correct. Also not sure what a "factual" question is supposed to be lol. I notice they won't say factually answer. If anything, Religion ATTEMPTS to correctly answer questions that science does not currently have the means of testing. Science doesn't ignore it, why should they.