What contributes more - science or religion???

[ImmortalFlame]

Many people are starving.

You are correct that the green revolution of the 1970s. has lead to feeding the poor. These gains are now being undone in many parts of the world. The worry to day is that many of these genetic engineered crops need more water then the traditional crops. The water level of the wells have constantly dropped in many areas due to the human scientific advances that cause global warming. The biodiversity of these crops has been limited and now many scientists worry that this might cause the poor to become more poor. Many now believe that wars fought over oil today will be wars of water tomorrow.

Except for the human scientific advances that are actually generating more fresh water now through more sanitary means than at any point in history? Also, since when have genetically engineered crops needed more water than traditional crops? Do you have any evidence to support this? Fact is that if it weren't for the advancement of science, a hell of a lot more people would be starving, and without the advancement of science we would not have anywhere near the facilities nor supplies to try and reach those who still are. Your argument is kind of like saying hospitals don't do as much to help save people as they could because people are still dying of disease.

Also much of this poverty has been caused by the increase of the power of Europe and America. China and India were both more wealthy then Europe before colonialism. It was the technology that was developed through scientific method that allowed the white man to rule the world. The life expectancy of India dropped after the British took the place over.

... And has since been doubled worldwide by the advancement of medical science.

Modern transportation and meat production are two of the biggest problems we face to day. It is the cause of global warming. Today we are having one of the greatest mass extinctions that our world has ever seen. To me things like environmental tourism is just making a purse out of a pigs ear. It's going to happen anyway let us use it for the good.

And, again, what do you think it is that allowed us to recognize that problem and try to deal with it? Science.

You do not know me. If I went over my life story and told you about my life style and the things I have done. I am sure you would feel foolish that you made this comment. I struggle every day with my own personal desires for comfortable life style. I believe that these comments need to be said over and over again as long as the mass of humanity is living in their own filth.
My personal hypocrisy does not change that fact.

My point is not that science is bad. It is not, knowledge is a good thing. The greatness of modern life due to science has been limited to just a few. Until the poor and the planet become more important then our personal wealth. I won't see it a great thing. Humans have twisted both science and religion to the vices of their own greed.

So, you're not saying science is bad - you're just saying that it's been "twisted"? Sounds to me like pomposity more than anything.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. Without scientific advancement in agriculture that are responsible for feeding half the world's population, there would a lot more sick and dying in the world. There are few so blind as to claim that the state of things now are anywhere near as bad as they were globally for millions of people just over 100 years ago. Are people still suffering? Sure. But thanks to science it is a damn sight less than it would have been, and on the whole science has had a hugely positive effect on the lives of pretty-much every human being on the planet. To dismiss this simple fact and claim that science is not doing it's job purely because some people are still suffering is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[PolyHedral]

BTW, Yogi, could you tell me the death rates from smallpox in 1900 and from smallpox now?

 

[waitasec]

I'm going to try the dictionary definitions, and we will see where this leads us.

phi·los·o·phy n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

re·li·gion
n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom: get religion Informal 2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

It seems to me that philosophy is in religion, but religion is not in philosophy, but has the potential to be.

Control I believe is a big issue. I underlined and bolded some definitions that seem to fit together.

I think that religion is moreso a controlling aspect which voices and demands compensation, whereas philosophy is the quiet kid in the corner, planning his every move, observing every motion and putting it into play at the "right" moment.

Docendo discimus- Teach in order to learn.

Eram quod es, eris quod sum- I was what you are, you will be what I am

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses- If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher.

Latin proverbs always make my day

as far as i can tell, when someone tells me what to do in order to get from point A to point B and it's the only way, meaning the moral, right or correct way...then i gotta call foul ball.
it's almost as if #8. A system of values by which one lives (#6 and #8)
isn't possible to achieve on your own simply because someone who is considered to be morally superior hasn't figured it out for you.

 

[The Wizard]

If we don't know how, or even if religion influences a persons skills, why on Earth did you claim that we should be grateful to religion for the various tasks that people perform? :sarcastic

You are changing my point with new words. I never used the word "grateful for various tasks" anywhere. I have repeatedly said that that wasn't my point in almost every recent post towards you. Like I said, it's your choice on the part of credit or appreciation. Using the word, "grateful" is changing what I’m saying and my original point. My point is not about whether you should be grateful or not or submit to a religion that creates values for you. It is about what's relevant in reality. Furthermore, what I was saying is that religions and beliefs played an influence on the event. Somewhere in the entire scenario and event it had an influence- and therefore extended it's presence onto your porch. I don't see how it couldn't of been a part of it. How could it NOT be a part of it when it includes a "religious person" and his lifestyle?" Odds are that somewhere, somehow and in some way, shape or fashion, religion and beliefs influenced the events and outcome. Saying otherwise sounds like more of a stretch.

If it were a non-religious person doing your porch then non-religious things would be influencing the outcome concerning that person. But, It still doesn’t mean religions and beliefs didn’t influence him and become part of the outcome. Maybe, old religious aunt Thelma talked him into putting his add into the yellow pages. Maybe a guy on his way to buy or throw away some religious books accidentally bumped into you on the sidewalk thus spinning your head to notice the carpenter’s add on the bulletin board. But, whatever that is a part of the situations will in effect be a part of the outcome of your porch- among other things.

And, like I said, I'm not here to splice hairs on how religion and beliefs influence the guy's performance of a skill. I'm sure it does influence something somewhere along the line. This depends on the person though doesn’t it, which is another point. But, it isn't just a skill that's doing your porch anyway. It is a person and lifestyle bringing the skill to your porch. A lifestyle with religion and beliefs in it, which will alter circumstances.

Hardly a relevant comparison.
The pyramids were built for religious reasons.
I assure you, my porch is not.

See, you're again digressing the main point here. I thought that my Great Pyramid Vacation example would make things more obvious for you. Now, another new word that you have injected is called, "reason", which throws everything off my point again. I am not talking about "religious reasons". I’m talking about the presence of religion and belief- It's cause and affect influences, whether a reason is a part of it or not. Even though the Great Pyramids were highly inspired for religious reasons that is not my point. I'm talking about cause and effect processes, influences and that which will cause and create.


Once again, The Great Pyramids were a part of your wonderful vacation- therefore religions and beliefs were also a part of it thus adding to the benefit. Right? So, it is not irrelevant in reality- just relevant in your own choice in values and credit. Correct?

I can assure you myself, almost 100%, that your porch wasn't made with for “religious reasons”, unless it was a porch of a church or the guy donated in part to religious inspired causes. Or, he is working because aunt Thelma is driving him crazy with her gospel shows, etc, lol. See... but that still isn't my point anyway.

There is no reason to be grateful for a connection that you cannot show is actually there.
So far you have avoided/failed to show that this is the case.

Once again, you're using this new word called "grateful,” which is a completely different point in respects to peoples own choices. Just because you cannot see the connection of something doesn't mean it won't exist. Odds are that it had its hand and influence in the event and circumstances. The speculation would be endless and I don't have time for endless hair-splicing.

Religion is of course a part of reality and affects many things, but that doesn't mean we should give credit to religion for everything that people do, which is more or less what you claimed.
Heck, you'd have to make a strong case to convince me that we should be grateful even in those cases we know that religion has an effect.

You keep falling off the track with your new word called, "grateful." I am not saying to give credit to religion for everything people do. I have not said that anywhere. I am just saying that it was involved with the creation of most things. I mean, if a religious guy is making you a porch, how can religion and beliefs not be part of the event of someone skillfully making you a porch (the total equation)?

To say it will not extend onto your porch in some outcome or fashion, when it most likely influences all types of aspects about the person and what he does and how he does it, is quite a stretch. But, once again if you choose not to value that part of reality it is your choice. We all choose what to credit or not out of things, even if it was part of it… IMO.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You are changing my point with new words. I never used the word "grateful for various tasks" anywhere. I have repeatedly said that that wasn't my point in almost every recent post towards you. Like I said, it's your choice on the part of credit or appreciation. Using the word, "grateful" is changing what I’m saying and my original point. My point is not about whether you should be grateful or not or submit to a religion that creates values for you. It is about what's relevant in reality. Furthermore, what I was saying is that religions and beliefs played an influence on the event. Somewhere in the entire scenario and event it had an influence- and therefore extended it's presence onto your porch. I don't see how it couldn't of been a part of it. How could it NOT be a part of it when it includes a "religious person" and his lifestyle?" Odds are that somewhere, somehow and in some way, shape or fashion, religion and beliefs influenced the events and outcome. Saying otherwise sounds like more of a stretch.

If it were a non-religious person doing your porch then non-religious things would be influencing the outcome concerning that person. But, It still doesn’t mean religions and beliefs didn’t influence him and become part of the outcome. Maybe, old religious aunt Thelma talked him into putting his add into the yellow pages. Maybe a guy on his way to buy or throw away some religious books accidentally bumped into you on the sidewalk thus spinning your head to notice the carpenter’s add on the bulletin board. But, whatever that is a part of the situations will in effect be a part of the outcome of your porch- among other things.

And, like I said, I'm not here to splice hairs on how religion and beliefs influence the guy's performance of a skill. I'm sure it does influence something somewhere along the line. This depends on the person though doesn’t it, which is another point. But, it isn't just a skill that's doing your porch anyway. It is a person and lifestyle bringing the skill to your porch. A lifestyle with religion and beliefs in it, which will alter circumstances.



See, you're again digressing the main point here. I thought that my Great Pyramid Vacation example would make things more obvious for you. Now, another new word that you have injected is called, "reason", which throws everything off my point again. I am not talking about "religious reasons". I’m talking about the presence of religion and belief- It's cause and affect influences, whether a reason is a part of it or not. Even though the Great Pyramids were highly inspired for religious reasons that is not my point. I'm talking about cause and effect processes, influences and that which will cause and create.


Once again, The Great Pyramids were a part of your wonderful vacation- therefore religions and beliefs were also a part of it thus adding to the benefit. Right? So, it is not irrelevant in reality- just relevant in your own choice in values and credit. Correct?

I can assure you myself, almost 100%, that your porch wasn't made with for “religious reasons”, unless it was a porch of a church or the guy donated in part to religious inspired causes. Or, he is working because aunt Thelma is driving him crazy with her gospel shows, etc, lol. See... but that still isn't my point anyway.



Once again, you're using this new word called "grateful,” which is a completely different point in respects to peoples own choices. Just because you cannot see the connection of something doesn't mean it won't exist. Odds are that it had its hand and influence in the event and circumstances. The speculation would be endless and I don't have time for endless hair-splicing.



You keep falling off the track with your new word called, "grateful." I am not saying to give credit to religion for everything people do. I have not said that anywhere. I am just saying that it was involved with the creation of most things. I mean, if a religious guy is making you a porch, how can religion and beliefs not be part of the event of someone skillfully making you a porch (the total equation)?

To say it will not extend onto your porch in some outcome or fashion, when it most likely influences all types of aspects about the person and what he does and how he does it, is quite a stretch. But, once again if you choose not to value that part of reality it is your choice. We all choose what to credit or not out of things, even if it was part of it… IMO.

Mate, by your reasoning, everything affects everything else. And you know what? I agree, and I've always agreed. That is simple Chaos theory right there and it has a lot going for it. But as I've pointed out several times, that doesn't make religion special. Sure, in certain circumstances you can see a strong influence of religion, but in most mundane tasks, the influence is small and rather insignificant. I'm not saying it isn't there, just that in many circumstances it is so small as to be practically irrelevant. Just like wearing a pink t-shirt.

I expect there are many many things that would affect my carpenter's skill much much more than whether he believes in a god or not.

For instance he might be in a bad mood that day because some @#%&! cut him off on the highway. Should I give credit (if you prefer that word) to the guy cutting him off then?
He might be in a good mood because his wife woke him up with some fellatio and a nice breakfast. Should I give credit to his wife then?
He might be sore because he got drunk at a bar last night and got into a fight. Should I give credit to the guy he was having that fight with?
And so on and so forth ad nausium.

Everything affects everything else. We agree on this.

But I see no reason to treat religion in any special way in this context and certainly not in the case of my carpenter's skill when it comes to building a porch.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

BTW, Yogi, could you tell me the death rates from smallpox in 1900 and from smallpox now?

Thank you for bringing this up. What a wonderful accomplishment for all of mankind. This is one of the best examples of when science has been used to benefit everybody. The small pox virus has been driven to extinction in the natural world. Unfortunately it still lives in military labs in both Russia and America. Lets just hope that the knowledge we have gotten from scientific method is not used to weaponize it.

Today we are on the verge of sending two more human disease to their death both the guinea worm and polio are both on the edge of extinction.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Except for the human scientific advances that are actually generating more fresh water now through more sanitary means than at any point in history?

You are probable correct. Still who is receiving this clean water. It certainly is not the poor of the world.

In many parts of the world, a changing climate (Do to global warming brought on by modern technology) is drying up traditional water sources, leaving many of the worlds poor without access to safe water. This can cause conflict over resources, the poor women of the poor families to walk miles for water, this leads to death and illness from drinking unsafe water, and affects food production, leading to hunger and increased global food prices.

I will bring up just one fight over water.

Bolivia's Cochabamba protests of 2000, also known as the "Cochabamba Water Wars," Were in response to Bechtel and a few other companies who jacked the prices of water so high that that the poor had to pay such high could not afford to eat. This was due to the 15% profits guaranteed to the companies. This lead to riots and even shootings between the police and Army. The Government did get rid of the companies after a while. You must remember that 20 percent of the earth's people use 80 percent of the planet's resources. That is true with clean water also.

Again this shows that only a small part of humanity gets the real benefits that science offers that is all I am saying.

Also, since when have genetically engineered crops needed more water than traditional crops?

This is what Dr Vandava Shiva ( received the Alternative Nobel Prize from the swedish government and is a well known scientist.) has to say on this subject. Genetically engineered crops are monocultures and have to be grown in particular ways. An example of this is the large companies now produce crops that the seeds of no longer grow a new generation of plants. This is done so poor farmers can't save the seeds and need to buy new ones each year from the companies to keep profits up. They must buy this type of seed to sell their crops on the world market. This creates monocultures of very few types of plants.

Biodiverse ecological farms address the climate crisis by reducing emissions of Green House gases such as nitrogen oxide, and absorbing carbon dioxide in plants and in the soil. Biodiversity and soils are the most effective carbon sinks. They also help adapt to climate change and drought by increasing soil organic matter which increases the moisture holding capacity of soil, and hence provides drought proofing of agriculture.

Biodiverse organic farms increase food security by increasing the resilience and reducing the climate vulnerability of farming systems. They also enhance food security because they have higher production of food and nutrition per acre than Green Revolution monocultures which measure the yield of our commodity, not the total food output, nor the nutritional quality of food.

Biodiverse organic systems also address the water crisis. Firstly, production based on water prudent crops like millets reduces water demand. Secondly, organic systems use ten times less water than chemical systems. Thirdly, by transforming the soil into a water reservoir through increasing its organic matter content, biodiverse organic systems reduce irrigation demand and help conserve water in agriculture.

Maximising biodiversity and organic matter production thus simultaneously increases climate resilience, food security and water security.

Vandana Shiva replies to Henry Miller
This is the best info I could find online. I have books on this subject.

... And has since been doubled worldwide by the advancement of medical science.

Two comments on life expectancy:

-There is a closer correlation with clean water and waist disposal then medical science on how long people live.

-Life expectancy has increased in rich countries in other places it has decreased. The World Health Organization recently gave out a report that Life expectancies for African children have dropped significantly over the past ten years. Now 44 African countries have Life expectancies of under 50 years old.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I have saved your personal insults for last

So, you're not saying science is bad - you're just saying that it's been "twisted"? Sounds to me like pomposity more than anything.

Again read what I said and try to think why are you having such an emotional response to me bringing up the suffering of the worlds poor.

My point is not that science is bad. It is not, knowledge is a good thing. The greatness of modern life due to science has been limited to just a few. Until the poor and the planet become more important then our personal wealth. I won't see it a great thing. Humans have twisted both science and religion to the vices of their own greed.

your argument feels less like a moral high ground and more a citadel of hypocrisy.

I can't understand why you want to call me names please read what I said.

The real benefit of Science is the technology that has changed life of only a few of us. It's benefits have been greatly exaggerated.

I think I have backed up this statement extremely well. I have only touched on a few subjects. I believe that it is the rich that have benefited most from science. This is a fact that can not be denied.

To dismiss this simple fact and claim that science is not doing it's job purely because some people are still suffering is missing the forest for the trees.

Were did I say that science is not doing it's job? Science is not a person it has no job. I said people twist to to their own use. And the poor don't benifet from it as much as the rich (I define rich people as folks who make over $10 a day because that is the top 20%)

If you want to still challenge me on my facts I am more then willing to respond with studies and many more facts.I frankly love to post on this subject I believe it is the most important subject we can talk about.

I have never said I don't have a good life because of modern technolagy. Still, I know first hand what the poor live like. To me the poor is more importent then sciencetific method or religion. I spit on both If it hurts the poor.

 

[Morpheus]

Science without religion breeds materialism.
Religion without science breeds superstition.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science without religion breeds materialism.
Religion without science breeds superstition.

And what, if anything, is wrong with materialism? :sarcastic

 

[Vendetta]

Im surprised. No response lol

 

[Know it all.]

Science without religion breeds materialism.
Religion without science breeds superstition.

Wow, smart words, and surely unusual to see such on this board.

Rest assured that the dogs here will attack and feed to cover up such intelligent discourse.

Cheers.

:yes:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science without religion breeds materialism.
Religion without science breeds superstition.

Wow, smart words, and surely unusual to see such on this board.

Rest assured that the dogs here will attack and feed to cover up such intelligent discourse.

Cheers.

:yes:

If one defines materialism in the philosophical sense as all things that exist are composed of matter, or to extend the concept further as physicalism where the concept includes not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, etc... Then yes, I can see that science, particularly when it comes down to physics and the Laws of the Universe, does indeed "breed" materialism.

As for Know-it-all's statement insinuating a lack of intelligence among RF members, remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the splinters in others.:foot:

 

[Vendetta]

I agree with tumbleweed....there are many intelligent posters here. Kind if an unfair assessment to make

 

[Ubjon]

Science without religion breeds materialism.
Religion without science breeds superstition.

:areyoucra

It might sound catchy but makes little sense.

Science has been getting on quite well without religion for quite some time and if you think that religion somehow keeps science ethical then you're wrong. Actually religion is often a barrier when it comes to developing new technologies which can improve peoples lives such as in stem cell research.

At this point in time its irrelevent whether or not a adherents of a particular religion accept or deny science, they all cling onto their superstitious beliefs.

 

[ninerbuff]

:areyoucra

It might sound catchy but makes little sense.

Science has been getting on quite well without religion for quite some time and if you think that religion somehow keeps science ethical then you're wrong. Actually religion is often a barrier when it comes to developing new technologies which can improve peoples lives such as in stem cell research.

At this point in time its irrelevent whether or not a adherents of a particular religion accept or deny science, they all cling onto their superstitious beliefs.

Which is why I don't understand it when the bible thumpers say that the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Science does NOT have to conform to religion, whereas religion already has conformed to science.

 

[Ubjon]

Which is why I don't understand it when the bible thumpers say that the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Science does NOT have to conform to religion, whereas religion already has conformed to science.

It is bizzare. When science undermines religious belief then they claim that faith trumps science but when they (normally through ignorance) believe that science supports their beliefs all of a sudden faith is put on the shelf.

It boils down to confirmation bias. Going with whatever supports your position and ignoring that which doesn't.

 

[MadStyle]

Well, let's see here: Religion contributed greatly both negatively and positively. But the problem is that the positive side of it is only small and local scale. Religious ideas will turn an ignorant rapist into an uneducated person who now only wants to contribute to society in a good way.
But religions also start wars and are responsible for fanaticalness. This is a very bad issue point of religion because it affects negatively more than postively.

Science on the other hand, is bad and good. Bad because it is what gives the weapons to the wars religions started.
Good because science has cured more diseases and saved more lives than religion.

Overall, you need a mix of both. If you have the faith and goodness from religion and the techonology and medicine of science, then you are all set to be perfectly humane.

But in the debate, I think science has the overall hold. Religion has yet to figure out how magnets work.

 

[Skwim]

Science without religion breeds materialism.

Hardly.

Religion without science breeds superstition.

Ditto.

Wow, smart words . . . .

 

[Vendetta]

I hate when people pin scientific acheivements against religious achievements that is like comparing how many.medals Usain Bolt had in the Olympics against how many medals a kid with down syndrome had in the special olympics. These two categories don't cross but parallel. Science has both strengths and weaknesses just like religion. Too many of you non-scholars cannot even show me how 3 non-monotheistic faiths contribute to the "retardation" of education and society much less can you qualify your opinion about religion.