What contributes more - science or religion???

[Know it all.]

says you, using a ubiquitous machine that allows you to communicate to anywhere on the globe within a fraction of a second. Unless there's a religion out there teaching Quantum Electrodynamics, please try again.

I did not mean to say that science has not shaped our society and I surely do like my computer and the Internet and all my electronic devices.

My point is that religion or people's ethics have been used strenuously to keep science out of extreme debaucheries.

As like the Internet has to be governed by China to keep the USA from using the Internet as a political weapon, and we had to make rules to slow down online prostitution and hate groups and etc.

Science unchecked is dangerous indeed, and our culture has been shaped more so by the controls put onto science rather then by science unchecked.

I love science when it is done right and hate science when it is used wrong.

:thud:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I like science but it is religion that pushes science to the higher ethics and morality which science does not have.

That is quite the claim.
Care to provide verification?

 

[Know it all.]

That is quite the claim.
Care to provide verification?

I did give the example of the Internet which you must have failed to see in my short post.

So we can also view the science of nuclear weapons where it is ethics and self-fear that prevents science from destroying the entire world.

Abortion is still a lingering debacle where science murders babies without conscience, and it is because science denies conception as a life and demands human life as animal evolution.

And there truly are many examples as like non-nuclear cruise missiles which kill indiscriminately, biological and chemical weapons and narcotics, and more.

It is not a matter of "verification" as it is just facing the wide-open and widespread realities where science must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I did give the example of the Internet which you must have failed to see in my short post.

So we can also view the science of nuclear weapons where it is ethics and self-fear that prevents science from destroying the entire world.

Abortion is still a lingering debacle where science murders babies without conscience, and it is because science denies conception as a life and demands human life as animal evolution.

And there truly are many examples as like non-nuclear cruise missiles which kill indiscriminately, biological and chemical weapons and narcotics, and more.

It is not a matter of "verification" as it is just facing the wide-open and widespread realities where science must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity.

Your claim was that religion pushes science to higher ethics. Yet you have not provided an example of religion itself doing so.

 

[Know it all.]

Your claim was that religion pushes science to higher ethics. Yet you have not provided an example of religion itself doing so.

Ethics and morality are no part of raw science and those qualities come from outside of science.

Religion is being used in a broad sense, and it not the same as to say which Church or which religion, but we can say that ethics and morality are indeed the sphere of religion and not of science.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Religion is being used in a broad sense, and it not the same as to say which Church or which religion, but we can say that ethics and morality are indeed the sphere of religion and not of science.

Nonsense. The ethics and morality of our modern western societies are, if anything, secular in nature. Our morality does not, thankfully, come from religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

To the extent that there is a religious source of morality, it is remarkably at odds with itself.

 

[andys]

"...it is ethics and self-fear that prevents science from destroying the entire world."

"...where science murders babies without conscience, and it is because science denies conception as a life and demands human life as animal evolution."

How silly. You are personifying science. Flash bulletin, science isn't a living organism with an agenda to destroy the world.

"...science must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity.

No. Religion must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity, as it always does once it is allowed to form a theocracy and exert its merciless will over its subjects.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ethics and morality are no part of raw science and those qualities come from outside of science.

Religion is being used in a broad sense, and it not the same as to say which Church or which religion, but we can say that ethics and morality are indeed the sphere of religion and not of science.

No, we cannot say that "ethics and morality are indeed the sphere of religion...".
Ethics are the result of societal evolution and group survival.
You are correct that "Science"itself does not give us morality. In fact scientific discoveries often give us even more ethical questions.
It is up to us as humans to guide science for the betterment of society.

 

[Skeptisch]

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

No contest! Science.:shout

 

[Know it all.]

How silly. You are personifying science. Flash bulletin, science isn't a living organism with an agenda to destroy the world.

No. Religion must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity, as it always does once it is allowed to form a theocracy and exert its merciless will over its subjects.

I did not mean to give that "silly" impression because I do know that "science" is not a living organism nor a life form.

My point is that science is like a loaded gun laying around in a house where anyone might pick it up to use in malicious contempt, or anyone might stumble onto it and accidentally shoot some one.

Of course that does not mean that religion is the opposite and I agree that religion needs to be kept in check too.

The sad reality of today is that very much of ethics and morality is based only on the base emotions and popular opinion and the demands of force.

It does seem that religion has the more likely possibility of returning humanity back to a higher moral ground while science does not even seek higher ethics or morals in its lifeless stance.

:drool:

 

[tumbleweed41]

.... while science does not even seek higher ethics or morals in its lifeless stance.

Natural science deals with natural phenomena. It's purpose is not do define ethics.
However, anthropologists and sociologists, along with biologists, can and have found how social ethics arose among differing cultures.
Religion may have arose to give authority to social ethics, however, religion did not create social ethics. That was a natural result of societal evolution.

 

[Know it all.]

Natural science deals with natural phenomena. It's purpose is not do define ethics.
However, anthropologists and sociologists, along with biologists, can and have found how social ethics arose among differing cultures.
Religion may have arose to give authority to social ethics, however, religion did not create social ethics. That was a natural result of societal evolution.

So nature has improved humanity by naturally raising our ethical standards.

And this is a sensible reason why "nature" is viewed as just another name of the "God" thing.

:bow:

 

[jarofthoughts]

So nature has improved humanity by naturally raising our ethical standards.

And this is a sensible reason why "nature" is viewed as just another name of the "God" thing.

:bow:

Of course, we could always take the shorter, less confusing route, and call it "nature"... :sarcastic

Notice: You never replied to my posts #34 and #39. Any chance of continuing that discussion?

 

[Know it all.]

Of course, we could always take the shorter, less confusing route, and call it "nature"... :sarcastic

We might also call that as the more disingenuous of ways.

It is just refusing to acknowledge "God" while giving all the same attributes and character under the name of "nature".

Notice: You never replied to my posts #34 and #39. Any chance of continuing that discussion?

I do believe I did indeed reply to your post #34 with my post #37 declaring that you sit yourself up as some superior evolved entity and thus your self as more humane to your inferiors and I reject that stance of yours.

i.e.
Your ideal and claim of our western society being more humane is both pompous and wrong.

Then in your post #39 you proceeded to self praise and repeat the same claims with examples of the higher status of your self and your idea of humane superiority so there is nothing I could add in reply against such a self righteous stance.

I stand by what I said and what I posted as mine are correct and true.

 

[jarofthoughts]

We might also call that as the more disingenuous of ways.

It is just refusing to acknowledge "God" while giving all the same attributes and character under the name of "nature".

Why on earth would we want to call a natural process that is fully explainable and backed by empirical data "god"?
Because you really want us to? :areyoucra

I do believe I did indeed reply to your post #34 with my post #37 declaring that you sit yourself up as some superior evolved entity and thus your self as more humane to your inferiors and I reject that stance of yours.

i.e.
Your ideal and claim of our western society being more humane is both pompous and wrong.

Then in your post #39 you proceeded to self praise and repeat the same claims with examples of the higher status of your self and your idea of humane superiority so there is nothing I could add in reply against such a self righteous stance.

I stand by what I said and what I posted as mine are correct and true.

And you have yet to provide anything but your opinion to the matter. How about some empirical data to show me where I am wrong?

 

[Orias]

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?

They both do.

The cards were played so they could both coexist, without one, I don't believe the other would exist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Both have contributed to the development of society as a whole, however, overall, I would say science. Many, not all, religious beliefs tend to hold society back.

Agreed....

 

[waitasec]

science.
religion would have us be fearful of the unknown...
and conjure up superstitions and disgusting bronze age customs.

 

[Know it all.]

Why on earth would we want to call a natural process that is fully explainable and backed by empirical data "god"?
Because you really want us to? :areyoucra

When you or anyone calls any phenomenon as being a "natural process" then that is giving a type of "God" meaning to the word or name of "nature" as if nature has some control and purpose of its own.

That being so "nature" is simply a synonymous word replacing the "God" thing.

And you have yet to provide anything but your opinion to the matter. How about some empirical data to show me where I am wrong?

You have not given any "empirical data" for your self, and your opinion is not superior to mine.

You claim the western societies are more humane (supposedly because of our ethical science) while I say we in the USA are just as barbaric as any other people and in some ways we are far worse than other Countries.

Some people seem to view "abortions" as being done humanely but I say there is no humane way of murdering an innocent and healthy unborn baby.

The western Countries' (the USA's) attack and occupation of eastern Countries ( A and I ) are examples of our superior science being misused for evil purposes.

:clap