Science v. Religion: Which One Better Describes the Value Of A Human Life?

[Sunstone]

Which is better at telling us what the value of a human life is: Science or religion?

 

[James the Persian]

I feel that religion is the better one, though I accept this is subjective. In fact the question is a little too broad brushed. Science has resulted in both great good and extreme evil, as has religion (though I would argue that in both cases it is the misapplication of science or religion that is really to blame). Whether the denigration of human value comes about through science, such as eugenics, or religion, as in the various historical persecutions, both are really perversions rather than natural consequences of accepting the particular view. I would just plump for religion over science because the latter is essentially amoral, whereas all religions appear to have morality as a major part of their teachings.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which is better at telling us what the value of a human life is: Science or religion?

That is very much like asking which one better describes the taste of Thursdays.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think the valuation of human life is within the purview of science.

 

[PureX]

Which is better at telling us what the value of a human life is: Science or religion?

Neither.

Art is the category of human endeavor that best exemplifies and illuminates the value of human life, and human existence.

 

[Willamena]

Which is better at telling us what the value of a human life is: Science or religion?

Which method works best would depend on what outcome is desired, and that depends on what context of "value" is being assessed, and what context of "human life" is being evaluated. For instance, it is certainly possible to put a dollar value on the time and effort we put into arranging a "life" for ourselves; it is possible to attach a spacial and mass value to a living human being; it is possible to assess a value (or even worth) of a person for the purpose of categorizing them; etc.

 

[Ryan2065]

Science betters human life while religion and philosophy "describe" the value of human life.

 

[ayani]

religion, IMO. religion tells me about what is valuable, precious, and esteemed in the greater scheme of things.

science shows me up close how awesome and intricate these things are, and allows me to appreciate them more fully. science studies life and allows us to look into the tissue of life. science can show us how cool and complex life is, but we should not (imo) reject religious teachings regarding why life is not only cool, but precious and worth preserving.

 

[Faint]

Neither. So I voted "other..."

Science--while it affects human life--is not concerned with its "value".

And I've yet to see any religion that places value on human life. As far as I can tell, they are mostly concerned with the value of an invisible deity, or the preservation of a meme complex.

Humanism seems to be concerned with human value...but that wasn't a religion or a science the last time I checked.

 

[ayani]

Humanism seems to be concerned with human value...but that wasn't a religion or a science the last time I checked.

but isn't it the case that Humanism ::can:: incorporate (or at least not dismiss) religious elements? or it is wholly secular in its approach?

 

[JerryL]

What, actually, is the value of human life? Answer that without using either science or religion and I'll tell you which of the two better describes it.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Priceless.

 

[JerryL]

Priceless.

Some religions conclude this (certain Buddist sects come to mind), making them the best describers. Some religions however place prices on life, thereby making them the poorest. Science generally places no price at all, making it better than some religions and worse than others.

If I had to look at religions as a whole, I'd have to say that science is better with it's lack of price than religion with it's assugned price that is often less than "priceless".

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm sorry- I didn't explain that very well, I'm afraid. *blush*

To me, both science and religion denote the worth of life as priceless. If one is going the religious route, it's because we're all interconnected and are all human beings- equally deserving of respect. (Barring some examples.) Thinking of it in a scientific sense, I would also see it as priceless. How incredibly amazing a thing it is that circumstances created a creature such as a human- how fragile such a thing is in the universe. So, I suppose, one could equate that 'lack of price' with being 'priceless.'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What, actually, is [meant by] the value of human life? Answer that without using either science or religion and I'll tell you which of the two better describes it.

Precisely.

 

[[email protected]]

human life is described perfectly in the bible

 

[logician]

All life is important but no life is sacred. Our unnessary and cruel extermination of literally millions of species is an abomination.

 

[spacemonkey]

Too much value is placed on human life.

 

[Smoke]

I don't understand the question, Phil.