What contributes more - science or religion???

[BKHere]

I think you have to distinguish between what John Byl describes as "Operations Science" versus "Origins Science".

Operations science involves things that we observe in everyday life where we have repeatable, testable, falsifiable, and directly observable events. An example would be finding a way to generate superconductivity above a critical temperature. If someone claims to have found a way to generate such a situation, the test conditions could be duplicated by someone else and then tested for authenticity.

"Origins Science", on the other hand, involves situations that are one time events and, therefore, not repeatable or directly testable (e.g. evolution, big bang, supernatural creation, etc.). Origins science uses forensic evidence to try to justify a prevailing theory. However, the way the forensic evidence is interpreted is itself theory dependent, that is, it's dependent on your particular worldview or philosophical precommitments about the nature of reality, knowledge, and allowable methods of justifying truth claims. In short, I'm saying that "origins science" is as much philosophical as it is scientific. The difficulty is, most scientists make lousy philosophers and don't know how to clearly distinguish between the two. It's also why you get such radical differences of opinions between very smart people who only end up calling each other heretics.

 

[PolyHedral]

With that attitude you will never learn anything.

Well, how do you back up a statement that essentially says, "Reasoning doesn't always work?"

 

[Frank Merton]

Well, how do you back up a statement that essentially says, "Reasoning doesn't always work?"

You actually think that reasoning always works?

What about when you are reasoning with faulty premises, or with limited knowledge? What if the reasoning required is beyond human ability? What about the Goedel incompleteness theorems?

 

[ninerbuff]

"Watson" trumping the smartest JEOPARDY players in history.


[youtube]JvdjYPLp1Uo[/youtube]

 

[Vendetta]

Then it means that we don't know what the cause of the remission was.

And nobody just prays. Even if the person does pray, they're doing other things as well.

How do you know it was the prayer that did it and not, say, a change in diet? Or environment? Or sleeping position?

Or maybe the cause of the remission was something the person did 10 years ago, and the effects just took a while to kick in.

Now... I freely admit that we would have no good reason to assume that any of these were the cause of the remission. We may even have good reason to assume that some of them weren't the cause. But doesn't prayer have this same problem?

You're right there could be other variances that could lead to cancer remission. I was just giving out a basic example cause, there are people who simply "leave it up to God" when it comes to severe illnesses I was merely using that example.

 

[waitasec]

.
Religions and beliefs can override, cancell out or prevent various unwanted events from taking place. Such things occur in a few ways. Such as alterations of someone's relationship and time/space syncronicity with their own envirement and lifestyle. When things are practiced the right way it usually adds a posative effect and influence on many circumstances with which the person will experience.

can you give me an example of this? i'm not sure if i'm getting what you're saying.
what do you mean by, "prevent various unwanted events from taking place"?

It is another ability. Beliefs are a way of affecting one's world or life by using no knowledge or reasoning at all (towards the belief itself)- by not even needing it. And that is the beauty of it. And, that is what most people do not get. So, all they do is go nowhere.

i disagree here. because it's too relative. anything goes as long as one can twist their illogical reasoning for why they would want to fly into buildings..or blow themselves up in a crowd.

I don't know. I would say authority mostly decides how to use it (i.e. whether religious reasons or not)... IMO.

imo, religious authority overrides reason for no reason other than arrogance.

 

[bobhikes]

Cub scout doing Citizenship requirements had to listen to a Civic leader.

We listened to a Lutheran Pastor

She works a full time Job. She works as a Pastor 7 days a week and on Call. She heads a Food Bank, Works for the Cub Scouts, works for the Girl Scouts, She collects clothes for the poor, Run GA (gamblers anonomous), Runs battered Womans group.

In my opinion she works a little to much but does far more for people than science will ever do.

 

[waitasec]

In my opinion she works a little to much but does far more for people than science will ever do.

i would agree...-or-...are you suggesting a person like her wouldn't be helping others without religion?

 

[TJ73]

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?

sciligion contributes as much as relience

 

[Orias]

Well, how do you back up a statement that essentially says, "Reasoning doesn't always work?"

Because man is inconsistent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because man is inconsistent?

How do you reason your way to the conclusion that reason is unreliable?

And if you don't reason your way there, how do you arrive at the conclusion?

 

[Willamena]

"Watson" trumping the smartest JEOPARDY players in history.

That's not a fair game, though - the computer can press the reply button faster.

 

[gnomon]

Cub scout doing Citizenship requirements had to listen to a Civic leader.

We listened to a Lutheran Pastor

She works a full time Job. She works as a Pastor 7 days a week and on Call. She heads a Food Bank, Works for the Cub Scouts, works for the Girl Scouts, She collects clothes for the poor, Run GA (gamblers anonomous), Runs battered Womans group.

In my opinion she works a little to much but does far more for people than science will ever do.

Science isn't a person. It's a false comparison.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's not a fair game, though - the computer can press the reply button faster.

Not it can't: it has to physically push the button as well. Besides, pushing the button is worthless if you don't know the answer.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Cub scout doing Citizenship requirements had to listen to a Civic leader.

We listened to a Lutheran Pastor

She works a full time Job. She works as a Pastor 7 days a week and on Call. She heads a Food Bank, Works for the Cub Scouts, works for the Girl Scouts, She collects clothes for the poor, Run GA (gamblers anonomous), Runs battered Womans group.

In my opinion she works a little to much but does far more for people than science will ever do.

Your opinion would be wrong.

Look, she's probably an amazing person but has she saved hundreds of millions of lives and improved the lives of hundreds of millions more?

 

[Orias]

How do you reason your way to the conclusion that reason is unreliable?

Man's inconsistency is unrealiable, which makes it seem that "reason" makes one look too far into things, making a rational approach to a subject appear emotionally based.

Reason is subjected to knowledge, which makes reason irrational (not all of the time of course), in the sense that we know nothing.

Every action affects every reaction.

A man can reason himself into believing something, even if that "something" had planned a less than pleasant circumstance for him.

Basically, you can reason yourself into taking the dark creepy ally by means of getting home quicker, but there might just be something stalking the shadows, waiting for you to look away.

I view faith and reason much like a hammer and nail, they both require some effort to get the best desired result, even it it may not go the way you want.

And if you don't reason your way there, how do you arrive at the conclusion?

The conclusion is already in you.

Reason is made to make you search, not always leading you to the right places.

Faith is made to make you believe, not always supporting you in the time of need.

Either way, conceptual conclusions are irrelevant to our own physical conclusion.

 

[PolyHedral]

Reason is subjected to knowledge, which makes reason irrational (not all of the time of course), in the sense that we know nothing.

Reasoning from either prior reasoning or assumed axioms is absolutely infallible. It is also called mathematics. Correct reasoning will only lead you astray if your premise is faulty.

Reason is made to make you search, not always leading you to the right places.

Reason, like the computer, is absolutely infallible on the condition you do not put garbage in. If you do, you will obviously get garbage out.

 

[Orias]

Reasoning from either prior reasoning or assumed axioms is absolutely infallible. It is also called mathematics. Correct reasoning will only lead you astray if your premise is faulty.

Of course what is self evident to you, may be false to others.

Infallibility does not require rationality, just choice, which may appear to actually be unreasonable.

Reason, like the computer, is absolutely infallible on the condition you do not put garbage in. If you do, you will obviously get garbage out.

That is a subject I failed to touch on, but agreeable.

But my example was leading more towards practical applications.

You can reason your way into getting something that you want, to find out that it is the complete Opposite of what you had assumed.

It's not so much on how you do it, but whether or not it's conclusions can verify the rationality or purpose behind it.

Like some things are just meaningless, yet people still try and give meaning to nothing.

 

[Kenect2]

To the people who believe that science has contributed more to society than religion - do you have some scientific evidence or theory that supports your belief?

Science has created plenty of problems for Humanity, including its contribution to the early 20th century Eugenics movement that ended in disaster. So the fact that religion has also created problems does not automatically disqualify religion as being valuable for society. If one considers the fact that Christianity has a strong emphasis on Human reproduction, then there is a case to be made that society would not be nearly as populous as it is now if it were not for Christianity.

I am a scientist and an atheist, but after looking at religion objectively, I discovered that it is more valuable than it appears. Christianity hasn't survived for 2000 years on accident.

 

[waitasec]

To the people who believe that science has contributed more to society than religion - do you have some scientific evidence or theory that supports your belief?

Science has created plenty of problems for Humanity, including its contribution to the early 20th century Eugenics movement that ended in disaster. So the fact that religion has also created problems does not automatically disqualify religion as being valuable for society. If one considers the fact that Christianity has a strong emphasis on Human reproduction, then there is a case to be made that society would not be nearly as populous as it is now if it were not for Christianity.

I am a scientist and an atheist, but after looking at religion objectively, I discovered that it is more valuable than it appears. Christianity hasn't survived for 2000 years on accident.

it is impossible to compare the two.
science has no purpose other than to discover. it is neither good or evil. it just depends. the atomic bomb was also another awful discovery.
but my reasoning is simple. guns don't kill people. people kill people.
religion kills people, it divides people and it gives people an undue sense of importance, after all what could go wrong if you are on gods side, right?.:sarcastic