What contributes more - science or religion???

[jarofthoughts]

Here, I will explain myself with a real example. Years ago I landed a peachy caretaking job, which paid all expenses and gave me a beach front and the chance to write my books. The guy I caretaked for was Jewish. His lifestyle and choices, including his religion and beliefs, lead to and contributed to the cozy place and lifestyle that I endured.

Now, I am not Jewish. I do not have Jewish beliefs. But, that does not stop me from crediting the Jewish religion- which contributed to my dream life in one degree to the next. You see, I don't have to believe in something in order to appreciate, credit or value the effects that some belief has caused in my life. Can you understand where I'm coming from on this scenerio? It is not that difficult to understand.

I could see you crediting the guy giving you this opportunity, but how do you know that he wouldn't have done the same if he didn't hold Jewish beliefs?
If you replace the person with someone else, say someone who wouldn't give you the chance, would that somehow change if he just picked up the Jewish faith?

A good carpenter will be a good carpenter whether he believes in a god or not, just as he would whether he wore a pink t-shirt or not.

I still fail to see the relevance.

 

[The Wizard]

I could see you crediting the guy giving you this opportunity, but how do you know that he wouldn't have done the same if he didn't hold Jewish beliefs?
If you replace the person with someone else, say someone who wouldn't give you the chance, would that somehow change if he just picked up the Jewish faith?

A good carpenter will be a good carpenter whether he believes in a god or not, just as he would whether he wore a pink t-shirt or not.

I still fail to see the relevance.

Those "what if" scenerios are not on parr to the point I'm talking about. All of that is just pondering more bouncing situations. I am not here to splice hairs on how a religion/beliefs can influence a person's lifestyle, emotions, personality, demeaner and therefore the skills they perform.

Once again, the same analogy here to elaborate my point. If you enjoy a vacation visiting the Great Pyramids, how can you leave out or discredit the religion that was involved with the creation of the Great Pyramids? Were various religions and beliefs not involved with the creation of it and therefore the creation of your wonderful vacation experience?

Is it really so irrelevant? Is this irrelevant in concern to reality or just the way you choose to credit people, things and events? Two seperate issues I think.I guess you're assuming the cause and effect train of religions and beliefs stop once one steps outside of a church or something- but you're still having a conversation with people about religion on a thread with religion on the title and on a religion education forum- in a culture influenced in part from religions and beliefs.

I don't see anything irrelevant about religion and beliefs. Whether or not you want to consider that part of reality or credit it is your choice though... IMO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science. Without a shadow of a doubt. Science has done more in the last 100 years to benefit and shape the way we live our lives than religion has in well over 2,000 years.

 

[Hawkins]

Decided to start a new thread after reading some comments on a previous thread I started.

What do you consider contributes more to a society, science or religion?

So your question is "do humans rely more on the tree of knowledge or the tree of life"?

God made the tree of life hidden while humans climbing up high in the tree of knowledge. Hope that helps.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Science. Without a shadow of a doubt. Science has done more in the last 100 years to benefit and shape the way we live our lives than religion has in well over 2,000 years.

The real benefit of Science is the technology that has changed life of only a few of us. It's benefits have been greatly exaggerated.


Half the worlds population lives on less then $2.50 a day. Only 20% of people make more then$10.00 a day. So the change you are talking about has been experienced by only a few. The planet it self has payed for this change. Amphibians are going extinct and the climate is changing. We from the rich western countries greatly exaggerate the impact on the common man. It may take at least another 100 years to truly come to terms with the price we, and all our fellow creatures, had to pay for this increase in life style that science has provided.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

If the 20th century has shown us anything, it is that Humans do not need religion to infect injustice on each other.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The real benefit of Science is the technology that has changed life of only a few of us. It's benefits have been greatly exaggerated.


Half the worlds population lives on less then $2.50 a day. Only 20% of people make more then$10.00 a day. So the change you are talking about has been experienced by only a few. The planet it self has payed for this change. Amphibians are going extinct and the climate is changing. We from the rich western countries greatly exaggerate the impact on the common man. It may take at least another 100 years to truly come to terms with the price we, and all our fellow creatures, had to pay for this increase in life style that science has provided.

And the question I ask is... So?

Firstly, if it weren't for modern agricultural farming and genetic engineering, millions of people living in such countries would starve. Not to mention the impact modern transport has had on such areas, as well as the increase in tourism to such countries.

If you feel guilty about the advantages science has given you, you're free to pass it up. But, considering you're sitting at a computer right now, probably in a nice, warm house with central heating, filled with genetically engineered food and taking advantage of modern medicine, your argument feels less like a moral high ground and more a citadel of hypocrisy.

 

[Vendetta]

so you cannot tell me what non monotheistic religions out there have contributed more than science...

You haven't even begun to answer my questions. Why should I address yours if, by making factual statements and I challenge them should I then in return, answers yours? It doesn't make sense. Its not about me unable to, its about me challenging you and your inability to read, and answer my questions. There is a level of impotence in your knowledge yet you wont admit it.

 

[waitasec]

You haven't even begun to answer my questions. Why should I address yours if, by making factual statements and I challenge them should I then in return, answers yours? It doesn't make sense. Its not about me unable to, its about me challenging you and your inability to read, and answer my questions. There is a level of impotence in your knowledge yet you wont admit it.

you're funny
the thread is what contributes more...
you have yet to say why you think the minor religions of the world have.
i rest my case.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If the 20th century has shown us anything, it is that Humans do not need religion to infect injustice on each other.

Amen.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am not here to splice hairs on how a religion/beliefs can influence a person's lifestyle, emotions, personality, demeaner and therefore the skills they perform.

If we don't know how, or even if religion influences a persons skills, why on Earth did you claim that we should be grateful to religion for the various tasks that people perform? :sarcastic

Once again, the same analogy here to elaborate my point. If you enjoy a vacation visiting the Great Pyramids, how can you leave out or discredit the religion that was involved with the creation of the Great Pyramids? Were various religions and beliefs not involved with the creation of it and therefore the creation of your wonderful vacation experience?

Hardly a relevant comparison.
The pyramids were built for religious reasons.
I assure you, my porch is not.

Is it really so irrelevant? Is this irrelevant in concern to reality or just the way you choose to credit people, things and events? Two seperate issues I think.I guess you're assuming the cause and effect train of religions and beliefs stop once one steps outside of a church or something- but you're still having a conversation with people about religion on a thread with religion on the title and on a religion education forum- in a culture influenced in part from religions and beliefs.

There is no reason to be grateful for a connection that you cannot show is actually there.
So far you have avoided/failed to show that this is the case.

I don't see anything irrelevant about religion and beliefs. Whether or not you want to consider that part of reality or credit it is your choice though... IMO.

Religion is of course a part of reality and affects many things, but that doesn't mean we should give credit to religion for everything that people do, which is more or less what you claimed.
Heck, you'd have to make a strong case to convince me that we should be grateful even in those cases we know that religion has an effect.

 

[Vendetta]

Fair enough. I'll take a stab at it and see where it leads us.

Using the Oxford Online Dictionary definition of religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods", I have this to say about the way religion holds society back.

1. They all involve Blind Faith, that is, belief in a view of reality that has no evidential backing. This is in and of itself both dangerous and holds society back because laying weight to opinions that are 'just because' or 'because [insert deity/deities] said so' without any evidential backing that such a deity/deities even exist opens a potentially very poisonous can of worms.

2. It is essentially the wish to be a serf. One postulates that there is some higher being without any evidence that this is so and then proclaims one's servitude to said deity. This removes personal responsibility and induces one to acts one would not otherwise have undertaken, which can have terrifying results.

3. Most, if not all, religions are dogmatic in their foundation, meaning that they are for all intents and purposes are against change. If they were in favour of change then they would die out as the question of validity is sure to pop up pretty soon, and seeing as there is no evidence to support the notion, they would fall.

4. False delusions of grandeur. I have yet to see a religion that does not portray humans, and often a particular group of humans as being special. The notion that the universe was created for them is also very common. This has dangers of its own, best described in Douglas Adams' "Puddle Analogy".

[youtube]hDC_NcihiV8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDC_NcihiV8.

I will tackle proposition 1. "Blind faith" of any kind can be both dangerous and benefitial. We all have faith (whether we accept that reality or not) in an unforseeable thing whether is having faith in that the mailman will deliver our mail or crossing a crosswalk. The aformentioned two has possible dangers. For one, upon crossing a crosswalk, someone may not see you and run you over, or someone may not yield to you. With mail, if you are an elected official whose policies are controversial, you are susceptible to attacks via mail (e.g. bombs, bioterrorism) with religion, the only true danger is fanaticism and it's overhearing nature upon oneself and others. However, in examining real danger for the average person, that is doctors, lawyers, who ground themselves on religion, their positions in society while grounding themselves on faith, pose no real danger. In fact even if their faith is wrong how is belief in it of itself dangerous when humans do it everyday on a variety scale? Blind faith in whatever you believe in is no more dangerous than crossing a cross walk or waiting for your mail.


Proposition 2. If you assume most followers of a theistic faith wish to be serve or slaves perhaps you may be open to take a different approach. Going back to the Abrahamic faiths most specifically Islam I was perplexed when I read the following verse: "we are nearer to you than your own jugular vein." Now aside from the more controversial verses, and from my own conversations with Muslims, you not only worship God in admiration and servitude, muslims believe through prayer (and faith) they can achieve conne ection with God. In addition many religionist under the Abrahamic umbrella believe this and because of that special connection comes the responsibility of maintaining life on earth. According to Muslims, humans are "God's viceroys" on this planet. Jews, Muslims, andChristians, unanimously agree that because humans have been endowed with intellect, we have a greater duty to the world and each other and if such duties are violated the transgression is born on the soul until retribution follows. I am aware pantheists have a similar notion.

Proposition 3.
You need to be more specific when you mention change because I am not sure if you are referring to the commmunites or the scriptual text, customs etc. In any event religions themselves have changed over time. Many practices and customs have adapted to the social climate of our times. For instance, interpretations on doctrinal practices have been interpreted by scholars in more of a modern understanding. In some areas yes certain ancient practices still do exist, but apart of the consequence of change, is the fact that there are going to be variations of how people view the religion and interpret scriptural text, hence, that is why you have sects and variations of how people view their religion. Not sure if this entirely address this point but you were not clear on your assertion of change either.

 

[Vendetta]

Finally proposition 4.......

I partially agree. Human beings who have for centuries practiced religion had the geocentric thinking that our planet was the center of the universe. I also agree that those Jews, who believe they are God's chosen people is a racist ideology, or the Christians who believe someone will roast in he'll forever simply because they don't confess to follow Jesus and similarly the Muslims. However in knowing that all religions ought not to be culpable for these views held by these three faiths. From my own personal studies Buddhism holds the philosophical view of being "desire-less" as a way of getting rid of those thoughts or materials that continually affect us. In fact if I can offer any religion Buddhism does not place the human before all, as there are buddhist who believe all life is sacred.

Nice try jarofthoughts....

 

[Vendetta]

Btw athiests claiming there is no god are in a similar boat of proof like thrusts who say a god or gods exist.

 

[Orias]

i think this stems from our innate sense of curiosity
the dangerous part is to assume we know anything...and that is why i think religion is not so good...

and to be fair, science can be arrogant with the knowledge it has discovered....WMD's for example, but then again it's up to us...isn't it?

I agree with you completely.

Besides the dogma, I believe religion has more conducive angles and teaches a wide view of perception, while at the same time it narrows one's views.

So let's put it this way, religion is more regressive, simply because most religions claims singular truth. But...if one were to open their mind to the grey areas I think they would find how beneficial "hybrid" spirituality can be.

 

[waitasec]

I agree with you completely.

Besides the dogma, I believe religion has more conducive angles and teaches a wide view of perception, while at the same time it narrows one's views.

So let's put it this way, religion is more regressive, simply because most religions claims singular truth. But...if one were to open their mind to the grey areas I think they would find how beneficial "hybrid" spirituality can be.

imo, once a philosophy claims singular truth that is when philosophy ceases to be philosophy and becomes religion.

 

[Orias]

imo, once a philosophy claims singular truth that is when philosophy ceases to be philosophy and becomes religion.

Not all religions claim singular truth though.

That's what makes this a tricky thread, it's a comparison of two sciences, and the thousands of sub-catagories that follow.

 

[waitasec]

Not all religions claim singular truth though.

That's what makes this a tricky thread, it's a comparison of two sciences, and the thousands of sub-catagories that follow.

so, what is the difference between a religion and a philosophy?
i failed to add control as discerning the difference between the 2.

 

[Orias]

so, what is the difference between a religion and a philosophy?
i failed to add control as discerning the difference between the 2.

I'm going to try the dictionary definitions, and we will see where this leads us.

phi·los·o·phy n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

re·li·gion
n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom: get religion Informal 2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

It seems to me that philosophy is in religion, but religion is not in philosophy, but has the potential to be.

Control I believe is a big issue. I underlined and bolded some definitions that seem to fit together.

I think that religion is moreso a controlling aspect which voices and demands compensation, whereas philosophy is the quiet kid in the corner, planning his every move, observing every motion and putting it into play at the "right" moment.

Docendo discimus- Teach in order to learn.

Eram quod es, eris quod sum- I was what you are, you will be what I am

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses- If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher.

Latin proverbs always make my day

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

And the question I ask is... So?

Firstly, if it weren't for modern agricultural farming and genetic engineering, millions of people living in such countries would starve.

Many people are starving.

You are correct that the green revolution of the 1970s. has lead to feeding the poor. These gains are now being undone in many parts of the world. The worry to day is that many of these genetic engineered crops need more water then the traditional crops. The water level of the wells have constantly dropped in many areas due to the human scientific advances that cause global warming. The biodiversity of these crops has been limited and now many scientists worry that this might cause the poor to become more poor. Many now believe that wars fought over oil today will be wars of water tomorrow.

It has been been argued ( I believe it to be true) that much of the decrease in world poverty is due to the redistribution of resources under the socialism of India in the 1970's and China. If you take those gains out of the mix. The worlds poor is less well off then they were before.

Also much of this poverty has been caused by the increase of the power of Europe and America. China and India were both more wealthy then Europe before colonialism. It was the technology that was developed through scientific method that allowed the white man to rule the world. The life expectancy of India dropped after the British took the place over.

Not to mention the impact modern transport has had on such areas, as well as the increase in tourism to such countries.

Modern transportation and meat production are two of the biggest problems we face to day. It is the cause of global warming. Today we are having one of the greatest mass extinctions that our world has ever seen. To me things like environmental tourism is just making a purse out of a pigs ear. It's going to happen anyway let us use it for the good.

If you feel guilty about the advantages science has given you, you're free to pass it up. But, considering you're sitting at a computer right now, probably in a nice, warm house with central heating, filled with genetically engineered food and taking advantage of modern medicine, your argument feels less like a moral high ground and more a citadel of hypocrisy.

You do not know me. If I went over my life story and told you about my life style and the things I have done. I am sure you would feel foolish that you made this comment. I struggle every day with my own personal desires for comfortable life style. I believe that these comments need to be said over and over again as long as the mass of humanity is living in their own filth.
My personal hypocrisy does not change that fact.

My point is not that science is bad. It is not, knowledge is a good thing. The greatness of modern life due to science has been limited to just a few. Until the poor and the planet become more important then our personal wealth. I won't see it a great thing. Humans have twisted both science and religion to the vices of their own greed.