What contributes more - science or religion???

[Breathe]

And not every genuine religion is really healthy for everyone.

Could you elaborate on this please, Luis? I'm not sure if I've understood or misunderstood, so I'm seeking clarification.

 

[LuisDantas]

What I mean, Odion, is that people have a variety of mindsets and spiritual vocations. There is no previous assurance that any given faith will necessarily know (more properly, teach) how to deal with those personal characteristics in a constructive way.

For instance, I'm fairly certain that I would absolutely rot if I believe in the Abrahamic God. I'm too much of the self-righteous sort. I would end up throwing the "wrath of God" left and right as if I thought I was Percy Jackson, only yielding WoG instead of lighting bolts.

 

[PolyHedral]

It will not help you to attain freedom from misery...

It might do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me put it this way, PolyHedral: science is the way for finding out how to deal with the world that exists beyond our personal characteristics. Religion is the way for dealing with our more abstract and personal goals and hopes. The frontier is fuzzy, and religion definitely benefits from the Human Sciences, particularly Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology, but there is still a difference and there is still a need for both.

 

[Breathe]

Lol! Thank you for explaining, Luis, I totally understand what you mean, and agree with your sentiment.

I can't imagine you as being a judgemental sort though.

 

[atanu]

It might do.

PolyHedral

That is not science. That is another religion -- albeit a false one -- utopia.

Just as science has no pretension of what its objectives are, true religions also do not have. It is how we understand, wearing our coloured glasses, that matters.

I will just cite one example. Buddhism begins with the premise that the world is duHkha (discontent or pain whatever). It does not promise any utopia.

...

 

[PolyHedral]

Science doesn't have any objectives, being only a body of knowledge. The only thing that could be described as an objective is wanting to extend that knowledge.

However, a greater understanding of the universe allows you to manipulate it to a greater degree. As machines become more complex and more self-managing, humans have to expend less and less effort to achieve more and more. The logical end result of that trend is post-scarcity economics, i.e. physical utopia.

 

[Know it all.]

(Other than the technology developed for the station that is used in other industries for improving lives)

And religion will never cure disease, provide energy, purify wells etc, etc, etc

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

We don't have rights. We have privileges that we allow one another and in most modern Western societies, which by the way are the most secular in history, these privileges stand stronger than ever.

The sad fact that you degrade our human rights down to "privileges" means that they surely do not stand as you say - stronger.

I still very much like science but science needs to be strongly held in check to a higher level of ethics and morality or else we are all in jeopardy from its possibilities.

Newsflash: You ARE an animal. Taxonomically speaking, an ape.
In what way does science deny human rights? Science is a method of inquiry...not an ideology...

If humans are indeed "apes" then we have no human rights and no merit of individuality and "apes" can be captured, caged, exploited or destroyed since they are just animals.

It is religion that declares each person as a child of God having individual human rights.

Would you say that the eradication of deadly diseases, the feeding of millions, the increased access to information, modern medicine and access to vast amounts of energy would help building a better society?

Such scientific discoveries do build us a better infrastructure and better comforts but those do not build better people as in better character and integrity.

And those things of feeding, medicine, energy, economics, have been done based on the human rights and human religion pushing the science into the better areas.

Raw science has little regard for what it sees as plentiful "apes" that suffer or die off.

I always find it a bit rich when people bash science...on the internet.
If you don't like science I'm sure there are still some tribes in the Amazon or similar that will take you in. :sarcastic

This is not a matter of rejecting science but rather trying to give science a higher calling of ethics and morality.

Like abortion is science without conscience.

In my experience, the love, justice and forgiveness that religion offers is usually lacking as well.

I definitely agree that religions have fallen short, but science is not even in the race.

Religion pushes up-to love, justice and more, while science treats such things as trivial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I definitely agree that religions have fallen short, but science is not even in the race.

Religion pushes up-to love, justice and more, while science treats such things as trivial.

No more than, say, woodworking. You're trying to make science out to be something it's not, and then criticize it for not meeting your false expectation.

Science is a tool. It's used by people. Those people still have to make ethical decisions about how to use it. Just as a truck doesn't "care" if it's used for good or bad, neither does science. Those sort of determinations are made by the people using it.

Still, even though a truck is amoral in and of itself, this doesn't stop us from asking whether an ambulance makes more of a contribution to society than a church. Same for science vs. religion.

It's a bad idea to try to get morals or ethics from science. Science is a human endeavour that's subject to morals and ethics. What it gives us is factual knowledge; this knowledge helps to inform our decisions, including our moral and ethical decisions.

 

[atanu]

I definitely agree that religions have fallen short, but science is not even in the race.

Some of us believe that both science and religion are from God and neither have fallen short. It is for us to make them work for or against.

...

 

[Know it all.]

No more than, say, woodworking. You're trying to make science out to be something it's not, and then criticize it for not meeting your false expectation.

I confess to this as true but I do not offer any repentance.

I do want for science to be much better, and I do not like its shortfalls.

Science is a tool. It's used by people. Those people still have to make ethical decisions about how to use it. Just as a truck doesn't "care" if it's used for good or bad, neither does science. Those sort of determinations are made by the people using it.

Still, even though a truck is amoral in and of itself, this doesn't stop us from asking whether an ambulance makes more of a contribution to society than a church. Same for science vs. religion.

It's a bad idea to try to get morals or ethics from science. Science is a human endeavor that's subject to morals and ethics. What it gives us is factual knowledge; this knowledge helps to inform our decisions, including our moral and ethical decisions.

To all this I agree, and it is well said.

:bow:

 

[Know it all.]

Some of us believe that both science and religion are from God and neither have fallen short. It is for us to make them work for or against.

...

They both fall short of my own expectations, and as such I try my part to improve both.

:yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Not really. Correctly practiced, religion applies and sometimes, when it is not too fundamentalist, attempts to improve on the knowledge of moral and ethical principles.

However it is important to realize that religion is just a human activity like so many others. It often loses its way and becomes a hindrance. And it certainly isn't the sole or even necessarily the main source of moral principles even if we restrict ourselves to correctly, wisely practiced religion.

A very good argument can be made that philosophy and psychology did a lot more for the advancement of morals than even carefully selected religious practice. I like religion, but it has a nasty habit of taking too much credit for itself.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

Science is a method of inquiry. It is not a religion, a philosophy or a person.
The only ethic of science is one of inquiry, evidence and truth.

The sad fact that you degrade our human rights down to "privileges" means that they surely do not stand as you say - stronger.

Can you name a time in history when people have acted more humane towards each other, when people have had more personal protection and where they have been more free to express themselves than they currently do in modern western societies?

I still very much like science but science needs to be strongly held in check to a higher level of ethics and morality or else we are all in jeopardy from its possibilities.

Science is a method of inquiry. What people use science for is up to the people wielding it. It is unwise to confuse the two.

If humans are indeed "apes" then we have no human rights

Just because we are apes doesn't mean that we are not human. Ape is a taxonomical term indicating relatedness. Chimpanzees are both apes and chimpanzees. Humans are both apes and humans, just as we are eukaryotes, animals, mammals and vertebrates.

and no merit of individuality and "apes" can be captured, caged, exploited or destroyed since they are just animals.

How is this different to how humans have been treated throughout history and indeed are still being treated many places in the world?

It is religion that declares each person as a child of God having individual human rights.

And what rights are declared for humans by religion?

Such scientific discoveries do build us a better infrastructure and better comforts but those do not build better people as in better character and integrity.

Knowledge allows us to make decisions on better grounds. That knowledge comes from science, not religion.

And those things of feeding, medicine, energy, economics, have been done based on the human rights and human religion pushing the science into the better areas.

Examples and sources for this please.

Raw science has little regard for what it sees as plentiful "apes" that suffer or die off.

Science is a method of inquiry. It is not a religion, a philosophy or a person.

This is not a matter of rejecting science but rather trying to give science a higher calling of ethics and morality.

Science is a method of inquiry. What people use science for is up to the people wielding it. It is unwise to confuse the two.

Like abortion is science without conscience.

While there are many forms of abortion, in most cases it is the removal of a clump of cells that cannot be considered a human by any stretch of the imagination. In Norway voluntary abortion is allowed up until the 12th week of pregnancy which corresponds with the formation of the nervous system, which means that there zygote in question cannot feel pain.

 

[LuisDantas]

Abortion is not "science without conscience". Saying so is a misrepresentation of both abortion, science and conscience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Depends on what you are looking at that is being contributed.

 

[Know it all.]

Can you name a time in history when people have acted more humane towards each other, when people have had more personal protection and where they have been more free to express themselves than they currently do in modern western societies?

I do not accept it as accurate to say or to imply that some how our western society is shaped by science, or that science played some larger role then religion or other factors which have shaped our society.

In fact we do know from history that the ancient Greek society considered themselves as the best society and they had modern science in their own opinions too, and we still today use Greek names for the stars and we use Greek words as names in our scientific studies.

Then so did the Roman empire view themselves as the greatest of societies as did the Chinese empires and the American Indians are said to have only turned more hostile after the invasion of their lands, then the great British empire brags about its lingering benevolence, and now the USA claims to be the super best while the majority of the rest of the world sees the USA as otherwise.

I honestly say of people that see this world as "more humane" that those people are those on the upper parts (the oppressors) which stand crushing the lower parts (the oppressed) because it is not "more humane" to those underneath.

This world and our western society only appears more peaceful and more "civilized" only because "science" has created better (as in more effective) ways to suppress or kill any opposition so we have peace through the newly refined and improved brute force of our worldly masters.

Peace without justice is oppression.

)(

 

[PolyHedral]

I do not accept it as accurate to say or to imply that some how our western society is shaped by science...

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.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I do not accept it as accurate to say or to imply that some how our western society is shaped by science, or that science played some larger role then religion or other factors which have shaped our society.

Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. The last 200 or so years have belonged firmly to science when it comes to the advancement and development of society and whether you like it or not modern western society is the most humane in history. And that is in great part due to our advances in scientific understanding.

In fact we do know from history that the ancient Greek society considered themselves as the best society...

While we owe a lot to the Greeks in terms of philosophy, democracy and mathematics, what ancient societies thought of themselves is irrelevant. I'm sure the Taliban considers the "best" society to be one where strict Sharia law rules and where girls are denied any form of education but that doesn't make it so. However, I am prepared to show that modern western society, as exemplified by my own country (and many others for that matter) is empirically more humane than any previous society in history.

I honestly say of people that see this world as "more humane" that those people are those on the upper parts (the oppressors) which stand crushing the lower parts (the oppressed) because it is not "more humane" to those underneath.

And who exactly are we talking about here?
Somalia?
Afghanistan?
Or any number of failed states that have denied themselves and their people the opportunity to become a modern society?

This world and our western society only appears more peaceful and more "civilized" only because "science" has created better (as in more effective) ways to suppress or kill any opposition so we have peace through the newly refined and improved brute force of our worldly masters.

None of that would matter if our technology and science hadn't also provided us with resources beyond anything anyone has ever had available at any time in previous history.

Peace without justice is oppression.

Peace for whom?
Justice for whom?
Oppression against whom?

You need to be more specific here if you want me reply properly.

 

[ThatAutisticGuy]

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer