What contributes more - science or religion???

[andys]

Know it all,
One minute you blame science for the evils in the world:

"...science murders babies without conscience,...science denies conception as a life"....science must be kept in check or else it will feed on humanity.

But the next minute, you assign blame (properly) to people misusing the tools that our science provides:

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

So which party is to blame? Science or people? You seem confused.

Permit me to shine some light into your all knowing head: Morally right and wrong actions can not be attributed to nonhuman things, like inanimate objects, the weather, systems of thought, dogmas, or even cuddly animals. Only a person can be a moral agent. Only a person can do right and wrong. Destruction from natural forces in the form of hurricanes or disease can be terrible, (even considered "evil" by the religious and superstitious). But such things can only be considered good or bad, NOT morally right or morally wrong. To repeat: Only human actions can be morally right or wrong.

Attributing right- or wrong-doing to anything other than a moral agent (one who knows the difference between right and wrong), is to debase the concept of morality altogether.

Granted, we often speak of things being morally wrong, say, robbery, murder, etc. But we are, of course, really referring to the act of a moral agent being wrong - committing the robbery, committing the murder.

So, science cannot "pull the trigger", so to speak, and commit a crime - only a person can do that.

If all you are asserting is that people abuse or misuse science - so what? That doesn't make science the villain. You may as well blame your car for going through a red light. The driver behind the wheel is to blame.

Any way you look at it, human beings are in the driver's seat. Science is just another tool we utilize for better or worse.

You make another, very peculiar remark.

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.

Again you persist in personifying science as though it were human, and capable of moral behaviour! How could something that doesn't think, doesn't breathe - something that isn't alive, conceivably "seek higher ethics or morals"? Are you out of your mind?

Indeed, the beauty of science is that it is impartial on all fronts. It has no self-serving agenda, no political aspirations, no authoritarian ambitions, no intolerant dogma to impose, no rituals or rules to be obeyed; it has no subjects to rule; it has nothing to gain; it places no demands upon us; it does not judge or discriminate, it can perform no atrocities against us. it can do no wrong.

For it has none of the dangerous traits of religion.

 

[Vendetta]

Science came from religion due to the zeitgeist and transfomation of agriculture. I believe its unfair to use the word contribution because scientific value and religious value has their effects in different arenas. Religion can comfort a dying patient. Invetrofertilization can give hope to women who cannot bare children. These values have their effect on different circumstances.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

Mate, they are not interchangeable.

"God" is defined as: "…(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being…" or "…(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity…"
(Dictionary search results : Oxford Dictionaries Online)

And that is certainly NOT what I mean when I say nature.

"Nature" is defined as: "the phenomena of the physical world collectively , including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations" or "the physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world". (definition of nature from Oxford Dictionaries Online)

Which is exactly what I mean when I say nature.
See the difference?

I can't believe the amount of time we have to spend teaching people how to use the English language properly on this forum...

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.

I said I'd be happy to, using my own country as an example.
Would you like to learn about it?

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.

As explained to you earlier, that is not what abortion is. Please review my earlier posts, or if you missed it, I can explain it again.

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.

Sure, but that is not science's fault.
Science is a tool, as has been explained to you many times over now.
Stop personifying this tool.
It is not a person and it does not make moral choices.

As for guiding morals it should be mentioned that of all the modern western societies USA is the most religious as well as being the worst at scientific understanding. 40% not accepting Evolution should tell you everything you need to know about that one...

What does that tell you?

More science and less religion is needed perhaps?

 

[Know it all.]

Mate, they are not interchangeable.

"God" is defined as: "…(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being…" or "…(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity…"
(Dictionary search results : Oxford Dictionaries Online)

And that is certainly NOT what I mean when I say nature.

"Nature" is defined as: "the phenomena of the physical world collectively , including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations" or "the physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world". (definition of nature from Oxford Dictionaries Online)

Which is exactly what I mean when I say nature.
See the difference?

I can't believe the amount of time we have to spend teaching people how to use the English language properly on this forum...

I had not realized that you were stuck trapped by a dictionary definition as your absolute authority, and even worse that you would claim the Christian or religions definition of "God" to be your absolute authority.

What you are doing is not the correct scientific approach.

An example is Einstein who redefined "gravity" because he found the dictionary definition to be lacking.

If your stance is trapped in the dictionary definition of God and of nature and of other terms then you are no scientist.

The reality is that all religions including Christianity and all dictionaries are wrong about their definition of God, and in fact science is wrong too in its perception of God.

If you are so trapped in the definitions given by other people then you can never find the truths.

I do know the dictionaries and religions are not correct about the real "God" but I do not claim to know what the God thing really is because that is uncertain.

:faint:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science came from religion due to the zeitgeist and transfomation of agriculture. I believe its unfair to use the word contribution because scientific value and religious value has their effects in different arenas. Religion can comfort a dying patient. Invetrofertilization can give hope to women who cannot bare children. These values have their effect on different circumstances.

Which do you think would be more comfort to a patient dying of an infection?

- the comfort of religion, faith and prayer
- the comfort of knowing that he's not actually going to die after all, because he's been administered antibiotics

I know which one I'd find more comforting.

And I think that the comfort of religion is a double-edged sword. Yes, in the short term, it might help that individual person cope with their situation better, but in the long term, it takes away a motivating force for positive change.

A person who's made his peace with what's killing him isn't someone who will fight to prevent what's killing him.

 

[MathewJames]

Scientists make/design the weapons.

Religious people use the weapons to kill other religiuos people.

I guess they need each other to make the world a living hell hole.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If your stance is trapped in the dictionary definition of God and of nature and of other terms then you are no scientist.

The reality is that all religions including Christianity and all dictionaries are wrong about their definition of God, and in fact science is wrong too in its perception of God.

If you are so trapped in the definitions given by other people then you can never find the truths.

I do know the dictionaries and religions are not correct about the real "God" but I do not claim to know what the God thing really is because that is uncertain.

Hmm.

IMO, the only intellectually honest position for someone who believes that God is undefined is ignosticism:

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Ignosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements that effectively boil down to "I can't tell you what ____ is or anything about it, but I can tell you that it exists" can be safely dismissed as logically incoherent garbage.

 

[Know it all.]

Scientists make/design the weapons.

Religious people use the weapons to kill other religiuos people.

I guess they need each other to make the world a living hell hole.

And it is only religious people that kill each other because Scientist believe in "mutual assured destruction" so Scientist remain non violent.

Ha ha ha .....

 

[jarofthoughts]

I had not realized that you were stuck trapped by a dictionary definition as your absolute authority, and even worse that you would claim the Christian or religions definition of "God" to be your absolute authority.

I think you'll find that there are two definitions for the word "god". Neither of them correspond to what I mean when I say nature.

What you are doing is not the correct scientific approach.

I'm not sure what the "correct scientific approach" has to do with word definitions, which, by the way, are essential for any exchange of opinions and facts. It simply will not work unless the people involved agree on what various words mean.

An example is Einstein who redefined "gravity" because he found the dictionary definition to be lacking.

That was because he through scientific evidence and mathematical calculations redefined our understanding of gravity. You have yet to do any such thing with regards to neither nature nor god.

If your stance is trapped in the dictionary definition of God and of nature and of other terms then you are no scientist.

When have I claimed to be a scientist? :sarcastic
I'm a science-teacher, sure, but a scientist? Hardly.

The reality is that all religions including Christianity and all dictionaries are wrong about their definition of God, and in fact science is wrong too in its perception of God.

Well, I can sure agree that all religions almost certainly is wrong about their definition of god, mainly because I do not think there is such a thing as god. Science on the other hand has no perception of god except perhaps that god is irrelevant/non-existent and certainly without consequence since science only deals with the natural and material, god being by definition supernatural and by many definitions not made of matter.

If you are so trapped in the definitions given by other people then you can never find the truths.

But I can if I just make stuff up? :sarcastic

I do know the dictionaries and religions are not correct about the real "God" but I do not claim to know what the God thing really is because that is uncertain.

Well, apparently you do since you earlier claimed that we might as well exchange the word "nature" for the word "god".
Sorry, but that will not fly. :no:

 

[Know it all.]

Hmm.

IMO, the only intellectually honest position for someone who believes that God is undefined is ignosticism:

Ignosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements that effectively boil down to "I can't tell you what ____ is or anything about it, but I can tell you that it exists" can be safely dismissed as logically incoherent garbage.

I believe you missed the point in that using a dictionary definition to categorize people and beliefs is not an effective way of finding out truths.

I read your link and it expresses one of the most confusing rantings of nonsense as I have seen in a long time.

:thud:

 

[tumbleweed41]

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:

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".

Actually, just as in discussions about evolutionary biology, it is not really about refusing to acknowledge "God". It is about refusing to use God to fill in gaps that are explainable by natural occurrences.
You seem to have the tendency to anthropomorphize both science and nature. Both are merely processes, not personifications.

 

[jarofthoughts]

And it is only religious people that kill each other because Scientist believe in "mutual assured destruction" so Scientist remain non violent.

Find me a source that says that scientists (Do you mean all of them or just some?) "believe" in mutually assured destruction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe you missed the point in that using a dictionary definition to categorize people and beliefs is not an effective way of finding out truths.

And I believe you missed my point: it seems like you're not only rejecting dictionary defintions; you're rejecting any definition at all for "God".

Any statement can't be properly evaluated until all the terms have been defined to some usable precision.

For instance: if I say to you that I own seven groonboons, how would you go about figuring out whether I was telling the truth or lying? If you don't know what the word "groonboon" means, how could you even make sense of my claim to evaluate whether it's true or false?

Same with "God": if the term has some sort of meaning, great - we can talk about it and do things like discuss whether it's reasonable to believe in such a thing. However, if it doesn't have any definition, then it's just an empty word.

I read your link and it expresses one of the most confusing rantings of nonsense as I have seen in a long time.

:thud:

Really? What parts did you have trouble with?

 

[Know it all.]

Actually, just as in discussions about evolutionary biology, it is not really about refusing to acknowledge "God". It is about refusing to use God to fill in gaps that are explainable by natural occurrences.
You seem to have the tendency to anthropomorphize both science and nature. Both are merely processes, not personifications.

When you or anyone says as you do quoted above that something is a "natural occurrence" then that is giving "nature" a personality - a "personification".

As like saying an automobile is a mechanical process because in fact some mechanic did create the car and the process.

When one claims that a hurricane is a "natural process" or "natural occurrence" then that means there is some entity called "nature" doing a process which is giving "nature" a personality akin to a God.

If one truly wants to exclude any form of God then you have to stop personalizing events with such ambivalent terms such as "nature did it" because if nature is not a personality then nature can not do anything.

Call it mother-nature or father-earth or as a God but "nature" can not do anything unless you ascribe some intelligence or purpose in nature which thereby makes "nature" as a direct synonym to God.

Stephen Hawkins claimed that the Universe could create itself from nothing without God - but that too gives "the universe" as the creator as another synonym for a God thing.

If "nature" were not a scientific version of God then nature would not have processes or occurrences or purposes except that science treats it as a personality as you did in your quote above.

:clap

 

[Know it all.]

And I believe you missed my point: it seems like you're not only rejecting dictionary definitions; you're rejecting any definition at all for "God".

Any statement can't be properly evaluated until all the terms have been defined to some usable precision.

For instance: if I say to you that I own seven groonboons, how would you go about figuring out whether I was telling the truth or lying? If you don't know what the word "groonboon" means, how could you even make sense of my claim to evaluate whether it's true or false?

Same with "God": if the term has some sort of meaning, great - we can talk about it and do things like discuss whether it's reasonable to believe in such a thing. However, if it doesn't have any definition, then it's just an empty word.

Some one claiming to know what God is - is a bit of a pompous exaggeration.

If we take it that dictionaries and religions give the definition of God then that would not be scientific and it would not be very high in faith either.

There are lots evidence outside of the Bible and outside of world scriptures and outside of dictionaries that declare a God as in reports of supernatural events and visions, as in ghosts and spirits, and scientific evidence including the "Big-Bang" as creation day, and the earth hanging perfectly by invisible powers in empty space is a far bigger miracle then anything recorded in the Bible.

When you and others base your belief (or disbelief) on dictionaries and experts and religious claims then that is why you each have a huge lacking of faith.

:drool:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some one claiming to know what God is - is a bit of a pompous exaggeration.

Do you think that it's not a pompous exaggeration to talk about the supposedly unknowable?

If you really do think the term "God" can't be defined, then why do you use it? What meaning can you express with a word that has no definition?

 

[Know it all.]

Do you think that it's not a pompous exaggeration to talk about the supposedly unknowable?

If you really do think the term "God" can't be defined, then why do you use it? What meaning can you express with a word that has no definition?

I did not say that God was "unknowable" and I did give examples where we do have evidence and proofs that there is such a thing as God.

Science does not know many things which we study anyway, and science is continually proving things that were once just speculation or theories.

A cool example which I happen to like is the common thing called "electricity" as we really do not know what electricity is.

Of course some so-and-so can throw out some dictionary definition and it is just a superficial and convenient definition of some thing people do not know.

Link here = What is Electricity?

The fact that we can make electricity visible and reproduce it and exploit it then that does not give us a realistic explanation of what that strange form of energy really is.

Some people are satisfied with shallow and superficial explanations while others of us want more.

My finding is that God is not accurately defined by dictionaries nor by religions and not by science so I seek the truths more in-depth.

:shout

 

[Vendetta]

Do you think that it's not a pompous exaggeration to talk about the supposedly unknowable?

If you really do think the term "God" can't be defined, then why do you use it? What meaning can you express with a word that has no definition?

Which do you think would be more comfort to a patient dying of an infection?

- the comfort of religion, faith and prayer
- the comfort of knowing that he's not actually going to die after all, because he's been administered antibiotics

I know which one I'd find more comforting.

And I think that the comfort of religion is a double-edged sword. Yes, in the short term, it might help that individual person cope with their situation better, but in the long term, it takes away a motivating force for positive change.

A person who's made his peace with what's killing him isn't someone who will fight to prevent what's killing him.

I think stating a patient being told he or she will get better by taking antibiotics is a cheap way to get out of the scenario. In my above scenario assume the patient was told they are dying. Religion can serve as a supportive for transitioning to extinction. Research also shows religion to help assist patients in healing and/or recovery.

Before my own mother passed away the doctor came in and told her she is dying. Imagine how devastating it is not only to the sick but the family hearing it? Doctors are bound by medical ethics to remain objective therefore my mothers doctor cannot sit there and cry with us, but her religion and faith in God helped her accept.imminent death. That was my point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My finding is that God is not accurately defined by dictionaries nor by religions and not by science so I seek the truths more in-depth.

Okay... let's get right to the meat of the matter: forget the dictionary. Forget religions and science. When you say "God", what do you mean?

I think stating a patient being told he or she will get better by taking antibiotics is a cheap way to get out of the scenario.

Why? Because it shows what the actual contribution of science can be in situations like that?

In my above scenario assume the patient was told they are dying. Religion can serve as a supportive for transitioning to extinction. Research also shows religion to help assist patients in healing and/or recovery.

Now that I think about this more, I'd say that the comforting nature of religion is over-hyped.

I'm an atheist. I have many religious friends and family members. I've also had many friends and family members die; it seems to me that these deaths affect the religious just as badly as the irreligious.

Apparently, their religion gave them no comfort.

Before my own mother passed away the doctor came in and told her she is dying. Imagine how devastating it is not only to the sick but the family hearing it? Doctors are bound by medical ethics to remain objective therefore my mothers doctor cannot sit there and cry with us, but her religion and faith in God helped her accept.imminent death. That was my point

Before my father passed away, he was given a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Still, the thoughts he expressed to us were of putting things in order and of his concern for the family he was leaving behind, not anything about God.

At his funeral (and to the consternation of the officiant who the funeral home brought in), there was no mention of God - my father had no use for God in life, so he had no use for God in death.

My wife is Catholic; I'm an atheist. When my father died, it hit her as strongly as it did me.

You don't need religion to cope with stressful times. And from everything I've seen, religion doesn't actually help people to cope with those times.

 

[Vendetta]

@9-10ths Penguin

The fact that you mentioned you're "athiest" allows me to better understand your position. Being devastated by loss affects everyone even if you're devout. Psychological studies I've come across focus on coping in devastating situations along with the psychological benefits. Frankly it doesn't matter what your opinion and mine when it comes to this issue. I highly doubt that with thousands of peer reviewed research documenting these accounts there seems to be some plausibility.

Yes without religion you can still achieve similar results but you must take in consideration whether or not the person has familial outlets he or she can count on to cope with thedevaxtation of death and/or illness. Some areligious people may not have the ability to cope just as some religious people. It varies but I just cannot discount the research and positive outcomes religions have on the psyche of the individual.