jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Isn't everything a comforting lie?
Is it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What contributes more - science or religion???
- Thread starter PennyKay
- Start date
Is it?
Frank Merton
Active Member
Life is still nasty, brutal, and short. That for a few rich countries and a few rich in the rest of the world, it is a little less nasty, brutal, and short is a good thing -- science (really technology, but this is only possible because of science) can be a good thing -- but even for them the improvement is slight. Instead of dying on the average at 50, we die on the average at 80. What is that compared to the eons?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
What, a near doubling of the average life expectancy isn't significant?
Also, the GLOBAL average life expectancy is 67.2 years (at birth), while the top average life expectancy in the world is 82.8 years (Japan).
The countries that fall below your average life expectancy of 50 are generally countries like Somalia, Malawi, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan, in other words so called failed states.
But hey, I'm sure religion has some really significant contributions to compare to the near doubling of average life expectancy... >_>
Source: List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frank Merton
Active Member
I'm glad you are so happy with it.
The planet is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion (that they get these numbers accurately within an order of magnitude is astonishingly impressive). The first complex life appeared about half a billion years ago, the dinosaurs were around about 200 million years. Mankind evolved maybe 200,000 years ago. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years and the ensuing Empire another 400 (some historian please correct me if this is off).
I'm 67 years old, although I feel much younger, my father died when he was 62. Those numbers seem kinda irrelevant.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So, you'd prefer to be dead? :areyoucra
Aren't you happy with people living longer and better lives?
Frank Merton
Active Member
The Buddha, we are told, decided it was time for him to die when he was 80.
An extra 30 or 40 years of life is better than a kick in the pants.
... unless it's an extra 30 or 40 years of being kicked in the pants, I guess.
Depends whether you count the Byzantine Empire as part of "the ensuing Empire", but that's probably a whole off-topic thing that we don't need to get into.
In what context?
In my context, i.e. my own subjective point of view, the length of time I can expect to live is extremely relevant.
Edit: anyhow, the absolute contribution of science isn't what we're talking about here; the topic is the relative contributions of science and religion. So you don't care about things like doubling of lifespans and orders-of-magnitude reductions in infant deaths... fine. But are there any similar contributions of religion that you do care about?
Last edited:
Frank Merton
Active Member
Comparing the contributions of religion to the contributions of science is like comparing the contributions of music to the contributions of science.
They each contribute. I like both apple pie and cherry pie.
They each contribute. I like both apple pie and cherry pie.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Not sure how this is relevant... :sarcastic
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
The basis for this whole discussion, I think, is that music and science, apple pie and cherry pie can all exist together without problem and contradiction.
Religion and science, it appears, cannot.
Frank Merton
Active Member
Yea, damn sarcastic. I thought you were being pedantic and tiresome. Sorry.
Frank Merton
Active Member
It depends on the religion and it depends on the science.
I don't think I would like apple and cherry in the same pie.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Of course, but (and I am here referring to the largest religions) many of the claims made by religion, that one should believe if consistency is to be upheld, are in direct conflict with science.
Miracles, virgin births (Okay, so fish and lizards can pull that off, but mammals? Hmmm... Maybe Jesus was a lizard...), not to mention the completely unsubstantiated claims of gods, heavens and hells are all unreconcilable with science.
Never tried it.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Frank Merton
Active Member
Usually faith can find ways to reconcile itself with knowledge; if not, it tends to change. This process often requires generations -- look at the modern Roman Catholic church as compared to the Middle Ages.
I dunno. Maybe you guys will succeed in destroying religion; I rather doubt it and hope not. Then, again, maybe they will prevail. Either case, I'll be long gone.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Religion changes only when it is forced to do so.
It took the Catholic Church about 350 years to fess up and apologize for the way they had treated Gallileo and they are barely accepting Evolution as it is now.
Religion is, whether people like it or not, a huge negative influence on our search for knowledge, for instance when it comes to Stem Cell research these days.
I don't really have that much against whatever people believe in their own homes.
That affects me not at all and I don't really care.
The problem is when people think that arguments from religion actually should have a say out here in the really real world and when they think it should influence our legal system, our educational system and our research.
In other words; religion, shut the @#%& up and we'll have no problem.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Seemingly, religions exist in separation and contradiction in others.
Though, it seems that science is able to bring these ties closer together.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
That is because you are putting more value for one than the other....most scientist would say religion has no place in science and as a scientist myself I concur. Religion deals with the metaphysical which is unobservable. Only athiest and theist imply the above.....although theist imply the opposite of what is said above.