What contributes more - science or religion???

[The Wizard]

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.

I agree. I can't honestly elevate one over the other because it leads to an undue sence of importance, lol. They are both just tools in the toolbox.

 

[Frank Merton]

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.

You show almost a worshipful confidence in reason. The validity of reason is an assumption; even worse is the assumption that the reasoning used is valid. There exists a large set of things we know as "logical fallacies."

 

[jarofthoughts]

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?

We do have a mountain of empirical data describing how many people who's lives have been saved due to science (hint: we're talking Billions), and that is without mentioning the millions of ways science has enhanced our lives in addition to that.

Science has created plenty of problems for Humanity, including its contribution to the early 20th century Eugenics movement that ended in disaster.

The eugenics movement of the 20's and the subsequent use of it by the Nazis was hardly what we would call robust science, and in either case they bungled up the Scientific method by starting with the conclusion they wanted rather than following the evidence.
Still, I'll grant you that not everything done "in the name of science" has been of benefit to mankind.

So the fact that religion has also created problems does not automatically disqualify religion as being valuable for society.

No, but that is not the core of the problem though. The core of the problem with religion is that it tells people WHAT to think, and what religion wants people to think (if you'll forgive a little anthropomorphising) is often quite horrible.

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.

Even if that was true, I'm not so sure I would call that a good thing.

I am a scientist and an atheist, but after looking at religion objectively, I discovered that it is more valuable than it appears.

Each to his own I guess. I see the problems with religion outweighing the potential advantages by leaps and bounds.

Christianity hasn't survived for 2000 years on accident.

If the age of the religion is proof of it's validity, then surely both Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism has Christianity beat. :sarcastic

 

[Frank Merton]

We do have a mountain of empirical data describing how many people who's lives have been saved due to science (hint: we're talking Billions), and that is without mentioning the millions of ways science has enhanced our lives in addition to that.

We still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for religion to do what it can.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We do have a mountain of empirical data describing how many people who's lives have been saved due to science (hint: we're talking Billions), and that is without mentioning the millions of ways science has enhanced our lives in addition to that.

Heck... one individual scientist is responsible for saving about a billion lives himself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for religion to do what it can.

Religion has had thousands of years "to do what it can." Modern science has only had about 400.

You'd think that if religion was going to bother fixing poverty, hunger, fear, pain, cold, nausea, etc., it would've done it already... or at least moved towards solutions to these problems. It hasn't.

OTOH, science has made significant progress on every one of them... often having to combat the resistance of religion to do so.

 

[Frank Merton]

You'd think that if religion was going to bother fixing poverty, hunger, fear, pain, cold, nausea, etc., it would've done it already... or at least moved towards solutions to these problems. It hasn't.

People of good intentions can do good in this world, and this applies to both scientists and religionists.

I don't think many are aware of the immense good in the world the millions of people of most faiths do in their daily pastoral work. It is composed of small things that don't show up in statistics, such as when a lonely old lady has her heart encouraged by joining in prayer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People of good intentions can do good in this world, and this applies to both scientists and religionists.

I don't think many are aware of the immense good in the world the millions of people of most faiths do in their daily pastoral work. It is composed of small things that don't show up in statistics, such as when a lonely old lady has her heart encouraged by joining in prayer.

On the contrary; I acknowledge these sort of small things, but I also recognize that they're offset by other negative things. For every lonely old lady whose heart is warmed by prayer, there's another old lady whose heart is gripped with fear and worry that her grandson will be damned to Hell if he doesn't get on the "right" path (whichever path her religion deems to be "right").

Anyhow, we still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for science to do what it can.

 

[Orias]

On the contrary; I acknowledge these sort of small things, but I also recognize that they're offset by other negative things. For every lonely old lady whose heart is warmed by prayer, there's another old lady whose heart is gripped with fear and worry that her grandson will be damned to Hell if he doesn't get on the "right" path (whichever path her religion deems to be "right").

Anyhow, we still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for science to do what it can.

In a humanistic way of course

 

[jarofthoughts]

We still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for religion to do what it can.

And how do you propose religion solves those problems?

Promising eternal life doesn't make it so, and thus far religious organisations have been more occupied with hoarding riches to themselves rather than getting rid of poverty, the Catholic church has turned out to be tantamount to a criminal organization and many of the violent conflicts around the globe have religion as a part of their core, and I don't see religion getting rid of our emotions either, so what solutions does religion actually bring?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I don't think many are aware of the immense good in the world the millions of people of most faiths do in their daily pastoral work. It is composed of small things that don't show up in statistics, such as when a lonely old lady has her heart encouraged by joining in prayer.

So you propose comforting lies?
That's the solution religion brings?

I'll do without thank you very much. :sarcastic

 

[Frank Merton]

On the contrary; I acknowledge these sort of small things, but I also recognize that they're offset by other negative things. For every lonely old lady whose heart is warmed by prayer, there's another old lady whose heart is gripped with fear and worry that her grandson will be damned to Hell if he doesn't get on the "right" path (whichever path her religion deems to be "right").

Anyhow, we still age and die; we still have poverty and disease and hunger; we still fear criminals and wars and lawyers; we still experience pain and cold and nausea and grief and hatred and loneliness and boredom and shame.

In short, I think there is plenty of room for science to do what it can.

I don't want to get into a ******* battle on this, because I think there is both good and bad everywhere. It does seem to me ironic, though, that people manage to mention the harm religion does and in the same breath manage to forget that if human civilization is destroyed, it will be a consequence of the scientific revolution.

 

[Frank Merton]

And how do you propose religion solves those problems?

Promising eternal life doesn't make it so, and thus far religious organisations have been more occupied with hoarding riches to themselves rather than getting rid of poverty, the Catholic church has turned out to be tantamount to a criminal organization and many of the violent conflicts around the globe have religion as a part of their core, and I don't see religion getting rid of our emotions either, so what solutions does religion actually bring?

Science is welcome to solve what problems it can, but, so far, at least, it has solved few. In the meantime whatever mitigates human suffering is fine with me.

 

[Frank Merton]

So you propose comforting lies?
That's the solution religion brings?

I'll do without thank you very much. :sarcastic

My personal moral system would prefer lies to harmful truths. I think more extreme examples will show that this is a good principle -- such as the classic one of whether a lie is called for when the Gestapo is at your house asking about Anne Frank and she is hiding in your attic.

However, that is a false choice. To the person praying it is not a lie. Even to me, and I don't think there is anyone out there hearing our prayers, I still find truth in them.

 

[Orias]

So you propose comforting lies?
That's the solution religion brings?

I'll do without thank you very much. :sarcastic

Isn't everything a comforting lie?

 

[Looncall]

I don't want to get into a ******* battle on this, because I think there is both good and bad everywhere. It does seem to me ironic, though, that people manage to mention the harm religion does and in the same breath manage to forget that if human civilization is destroyed, it will be a consequence of the scientific revolution.

What stuff! Until recently, life really was nasty, brutal and short for everyone except a few parasites like kings and clerics. It wasn't religion that brought about the change but technology based in science.

If civilization is destroyed, it will most likely be due to religious nut cases like Ahmedinejad in Iran and GW Bush in the USA.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science is welcome to solve what problems it can, but, so far, at least, it has solved few.

You mean besides being the unquestionably most effective system we humans have ever come up with for figuring out how the world works and that has solved more problems than any other singular idea?

And you did not, in fact, answer my question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My personal moral system would prefer lies to harmful truths.

That's foolish. If something's harmful and true, then that harm doesn't depend on whether you accept it. Better to alleviate the harm by acknowledging it and preparing for it than to stick your head in the sand and delude yourself into thinking everything's all right.

I think more extreme examples will show that this is a good principle -- such as the classic one of whether a lie is called for when the Gestapo is at your house asking about Anne Frank and she is hiding in your attic.

You're moving the goalposts. The original example you gave was one of self-delusion.

If you wanted the actual analogous situation, it would be convincing yourself that you aren't hiding Anne Frank and her family:

"Well, of course we aren't hiding any Jews, Commander! In fact, let me take you upstairs to the attic so you can look around and make absolutely sure!"



"I don't need to bring any food up to the attic, because I'm not hiding anyone up there!"

Can you see how not acknowledging the truth might create a bad outcome in that situation?

However, that is a false choice. To the person praying it is not a lie. Even to me, and I don't think there is anyone out there hearing our prayers, I still find truth in them.

What does that mean? Are you confusing truth with sincerity?

 

[Frank Merton]

What does that mean? Are you confusing truth with sincerity?

Well, I know what your question means; it means you don't really understand "truth." Your understanding is just the surface.

It's late at night where I live and I'm going to bed.

 

[jarofthoughts]

My personal moral system would prefer lies to harmful truths. I think more extreme examples will show that this is a good principle -- such as the classic one of whether a lie is called for when the Gestapo is at your house asking about Anne Frank and she is hiding in your attic.

I would say that there is a SLIGHT difference between telling a lie that you know is a lie in order to directly save someone's life and lying to yourself and others about reality causing them to waste massive amounts of time if nothing else.

However, that is a false choice. To the person praying it is not a lie. Even to me, and I don't think there is anyone out there hearing our prayers, I still find truth in them.

People have the right to their own opinions.
They do not have the right to their own facts.

Also, the oft used sentence "it's true for me" is about as self-centred and ignorant as you can get.