Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[gnostic]

The world in front of our eyes/ the world behind our eyes.

Again, not clear. It could mean anything.

Are you talking about brain, thought process, emotion/behavior, consciousness? Soul?

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

As you yourself said in another post, correlation doesn't imply causation.

You have your answer there.

Comparing religion and science is an irrelevant thing to do, they don't serve the same role, function or anything else. (and matter of fact, in religions like Hinduism and Islam; science or study of nature serves a function within the religion itself and what it asks of it's followers)

 

[cladking]

Again, not clear. It could mean anything.

Are you talking about brain, thought process, emotion/behavior, consciousness? Soul?

Yes! Also beliefs, model formation, language and its acquisition/ comprehension/ production, emotions, competence, and state.

"Thought processes" sums it up reasonably well in our language.

Ancient people believed they had many dozens of senses and we've winnowed (distilled?) it down to five. If you want to know how things in the environment affects individuals or groups of individuals you might find more clues in religion than you do in "science" because science can't see the individual but only the type, category, or sort. They see a representation of the species so how can they possibly understand individuals and without understanding even one individual they can't understand the species, consciousness, or the forces that act on the "sort". Science believes many things but the most dangerous belief is that they understand things like people or why we do what we do. This is why we end up with city crippling wars on poverty, world crippling wars on covid, and CO2 producing wars on global warming. It does little good to understand causes if you are blind to effects. It's no use to see induction if you don't even know that the derivative is necessarily dependent on definitions and language. Correlations are interesting but without a little "inside knowledge" they will be misinterpreted.

 

[THOD]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

These two make up a dualism.
Science is the practice and application of coming to understanding.
Religion/spirituality simply provides a means for coping with that which we do not understand.
Where science does not reach, spirituality fills the void so that the chaos of not knowing doesn't overwhelm us.

 

[gnostic]

Science believes many things but the most dangerous belief is that they understand things like people or why we do what we do. This is why we end up with city crippling wars on poverty, world crippling wars on covid, and CO2 producing wars on global warming.

Sorry, but you are blaming science for all these?

Poverty, diseases and pandemic, wars, people killing others, people killing animals for sports or for foods, etc, have all existed long before there were science.

Politics and social castes or social hierarchies have long predated science, where the strongs and richs have exploited others, and they have do with acquiring powers and self-interests than science.

Even ancient religions do this, whether it come from ancient Egypt, from the Semitic Levant and Arabia, from Greece and Rome, from Indian subcontinent, from China and Japan, and even from the Maya culture/religion. All these religions exploited the cultures, deeming who deserved more and who deserved little. And these believers of religions get into everywhere in cultures and societies, into politics and controlled their actions, including wars.

And since the you want to bring up things like pollution and climate changes, it is not science, but government policies and industries and consumers’ needs that have led to global waste levels. Consumers are driven by wants and needs, while industries exploit all this, to profit from their wants and needs, while government policies have allowed industries to get away with it, and ignored climate changes, because they see no needs to change, as lot they can fill the treasury with taxes on both industries and consumers.

Plus, natural resources don’t last forever, but it is both governments and industries that gutted the natural world. And it is they who tried to ignore realities of climate changes and covid outbreaks as long as they have, until it is too late to ignore them.

Do you even understand how little money scientists make? How both government and industries profit from their discoveries and mis-use the science especially if it should make money?

No, the most dangerous things is letting rich industries and governments getting their hands on science. They are ones that control the direction the nations are heading.

 

[gnostic]

These two make up a dualism.
Science is the practice and application of coming to understanding.
Religion/spirituality simply provides a means for coping with that which we do not understand.
Where science does not reach, spirituality fills the void so that the chaos of not knowing doesn't overwhelm us.

Science deals understanding the natural and physical world, and these understanding are being tested, and therefore contribute to knowledge.

Sure, such knowledge are never perfect or absolute, hence the needs to change any knowledge, when there are new evidence and new information. Science allowed for correction, modifications, improvements, and if necessary, replace obsolete knowledge.

Religions have more to do with beliefs, faiths, rituals and customs, and less to do with knowledge.

It may benefit people in terms of providing comforts, personal spirituality and guiding people to moral life.

But religions also painted fantasies of deities and spirits that controlled people’s lives, and promises of afterlife, whether through transmigration of the souls, resurrection and other eschatological beliefs.

But even the benefits can be sought in non-religious environments.

For instances, the Bible and Quran have meaning morals and codes that are outdated and barbaric.

Both scriptures condone slavery and encourage patriarchal hierarchy, which leads to inequality, not just between man and woman and between social classes...but also “us versus them” mentality - between the believers/followers and nonbelievers.

And I am not just talking about religious wars between Muslims and Christians, they fight among themselves, sect against sect. Violence can occur because of slightly different beliefs.

And even when there are no wars to fight, the treatment of nonbelievers are clear. Even if nonbelievers lived in the cities or nations for generations, they are often treated as second-citizens, simply because they don’t belong in the same religions. Those who believe, get special treatments or enjoy special privileges.

Morality in religions can be warped, allowing for inequality and biases.

I thought it was terrible and unjust for countries, like Saudi Arabia preventing Christians from carrying their bible in public, but in Australia, that support secularism, where there should be equal privileges among all citizens, we have some Christians trying to ban a single mosque being built in a suburb or a town, for Muslims who are also Australian citizens. There are churches everywhere, much more than needed in a single suburb, and yet some would rise up against one mosque?

Both Christians and Muslims have history of treating their own citizens poorly, especially those in minorities, based on beliefs and customs.

No Christian and Islamic morals are outdated in many areas.

 

[THOD]

Religions have more to do with beliefs, faiths, rituals and customs, and less to do with knowledge.

Exactly my point.
Faith and rituals are means to provide us comfort despite our lack of knowledge.
For example, humans have grown intelligent enough to be able to know they will someday die, which often leads to existential crises.
Belief if an afterlife is simply a means of coping with the fear of inevitable death.

Morality often also gets conflated with religion when it often actually serves practical purposes.
Burying our dead has somehow become ritualized when the earliest reasons for doing so were likely to prevent attracting scavengers, pests, and disease.

 

[cladking]

And since the you want to bring up things like pollution and climate changes, it is not science, but government policies and industries and consumers’ needs that have led to global waste levels.

No consumer ever said that we should pay ever more money to CEO's as they wrecked products and brands. No consumer ever said give me a refrigerator that won't even work for three years.

No consumer ever said pump my pork full of sodium tripolyphosphate and pay off the feds so you don't even have to put the adulteration on the label. No consumer ever said sell me a pound of pork and a pounds of water and charge me for three pounds of pork.

No consumer ever said make the products smaller and hide it well enough that I don't even realize I['m paying more. Be sure to collude with the stores to put it on sale the first time so if anyone notices they won't get mad. Make sure that my recipes don't work any longer with the new smaller amount. Always charge me more at the register than the price on the shelf. And be sure to have packaging that can't be opened until the contents explode all over the work area.

It is government that helps these companies destroy competition and themselves for profit. And it is the old boys club at the top that rakes in and keeps almost all the profits. Where the CEO's deserve to be driven out of business by more efficient and more honest companies or run out of town on a rail we instead give them all the wealth of this generation as they steal the wealth of the next ten generations.

Do you think "religion" set up this state of affairs? Did your pastor ever say "render to Caesar what is our Lord's."? "Render to the money changers which is our future and our children's' children's future."?

We are told that it is science that says ADM must waste our planet's resources but you may be right that it has more to do with corruption. Maybe it's religion responsible for the fact everything done to fight our belief in global warming has been counterproductive as we continue to make refrigerators that last for ever briefer periods of time.

Religions have more to do with beliefs, faiths, rituals and customs, and less to do with knowledge.

You might be correct and I might be correct at the same time that this is all based on ancient knowledge. It would explain why religions rings true for so many people if I am correct. If men were born with the need to have a single God then why did ancient people believe in many? Are we to believe that the Holy Trinity is a mere holdover from the days we used to be superstitious?

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

Both are reliable in their specific domains, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[syo]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

Religion. It speaks universal truths.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Religion. It speaks universal truths.

So many that one can pick or choose as many as appeals to one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

I couldn't take your poll because you give only the two options, and neither is correct. The truth is more complicated. You don't go to religion to find out the age of the universe, and you don't go to science to find out the morality of things.

 

[metis]

and you don't go to science to find out the morality of things.

To a certain, but very limited extent, one can.

Humans are social animals, and pretty much all social animals have a "pecking order", namely certain behaviors that are encouraged while certain others are discouraged, whether they be genetically linked or developed socially over periods of time.

In anthropology, one of the things we do is to study the behavior of other primates, and it's amazing how similar much of our behavior is. However, they're not quite as good at Torah study.

 

[paarsurrey]

I couldn't take your poll because you give only the two options, and neither is correct. The truth is more complicated. You don't go to religion to find out the age of the universe, and you don't go to science to find out the morality of things.

I agree.
Science has no business with morality, strictly speaking. Right, please?

Regards
___________________
Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script.
Science and Morality

 

[paarsurrey]

To a certain, but very limited extent, one can.
Humans are social animals, and pretty much all social animals have a "pecking order", namely certain behaviors that are encouraged while certain others are discouraged, whether they be genetically linked or developed socially over periods of time.
In anthropology, one of the things we do is to study the behavior of other primates, and it's amazing how similar much of our behavior is. However, they're not quite as good at Torah study.

Isn't the behavior of other primates institutive/natural, please?
Do these primates while doing this behavior/acts make things called artificial by the humans, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?
Both are reliable in their specific domains, I understand. Right, please?

Religion. It speaks universal truths.

Because both religion and science have Methodology to do things in their specific domains. Right, please?

Regards

 

[syo]

Because both religion and science have Methodology to do things in their specific domains. Right, please?

Regards

Yes.

 

[paarsurrey]

↑
Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?
Both are reliable in their specific domains, I understand. Right, please?
↑
Religion. It speaks universal truths.

Yes.

Thanks and regards

 

[metis]

Isn't the behavior of other primates institutive/natural, please?
Do these primates while doing this behavior/acts make things called artificial by the humans, please?
Right, please?

Regards

As with humans, much of their behavior is learned, and we know this because primatologists have seen changes in behavior with some that was not found in others, plus they've shown an ability to think creatively.

Here's one case in point: Washoe (chimpanzee) - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

As with humans, much of their behavior is learned, and we know this because primatologists have seen changes in behavior with some that was not found in others, plus they've shown an ability to think creatively.

Here's one case in point: Washoe (chimpanzee) - Wikipedia

On a uni psy test one of the questions was something like (it waa a long time ago) What can Washoe do the Can Can can't?