What contributes more - science or religion???

[PolyHedral]

What are the weaknesses of science?

Also, I know why people can't answer your question. You are being too specific.

 

[Vendetta]

Ha my views has nothing to do with selection bias or being too specific. If anyone has an understanding of grammar they would understanding in making a factual statement such as "religions retard society and are not beneficial" you are making a generalization upon the thousands of religions that exist. Therefore I am giving people a task to prove at least 3 non-monotheistic (since majority of us has some knowledge of monotheism here) faiths that retard education and society. My point is to people is that you have to choose your words carefully. If I said silver forks make food taste bad then I have to prove that the elements used to make.silver forks.contribute to bad tasting food. I just can't sit there and say "well to me food taste bad when I use silver forks." You can't make a factual statement without proving all silver forks.made by all manufacturers make food taste bad.....feel me?

BTW Union made an invalid factual claim hence is why I said the above.....

 

[Vendetta]

Weakness of science can only be measured by its limitations. In comparison to other solar systems Earth is a young planet and humans a young species. Science can only observe what is only geocentrically available and some distant planets. Science can only theorize based on elements that exist on earth, or extraterrestrial objects such as meteorite particles to understand life and origins of the universe. Who knows? What if there are gaseous sentient beings floating through space? Or transparent deities? Science, even now isn't advanced technologically to have definite answers for a lot of things. Science has theorized that parallel universes exist but there is no proof. To me those limitations are weaknesses that may or may not come in the future.

 

[outhouse]

Who knows?

thats a good point

on one side you have people with the latest technology, researching facts and doing work daily to help solve answers with a open mind.

on the other you have people following a 3000 year old sheep herders myth, who have closed minds and nothing is up for question or debate. This myth is imagination based at that.

What if there are gaseous sentient beings floating through space? Or transparent deities?

what if i just use my imagination and give you answers, people are used to it. would you accept these answers?????? after all your asking imaginary questions, they deserve imaginary answers.

Science has theorized that parallel universes exist but there is no proof

this is true

it is not sciences job to prove anything, its not what they do.

science has basically take god out of the picture and shoved him back to 13.7 billion years as to where a few hundred years ago people believed the earth was 6000 years old.

science has never had all the answers

that doesnt mean a myth is correct in any shape or form

 

[waitasec]

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.

you said it not me

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.

look at the HDI
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and make your own conclusions...




thank you luisdantas...

 

[PolyHedral]

Weakness of science can only be measured by its limitations. In comparison to other solar systems Earth is a young planet and humans a young species. Science can only observe what is only geocentrically available and some distant planets. Science can only theorize based on elements that exist on earth, or extraterrestrial objects such as meteorite particles to understand life and origins of the universe. Who knows? What if there are gaseous sentient beings floating through space? Or transparent deities? Science, even now isn't advanced technologically to have definite answers for a lot of things. Science has theorized that parallel universes exist but there is no proof. To me those limitations are weaknesses that may or may not come in the future.

There are unanswered questions, sure, but nothing can answer those questions reliably if science can't.

 

[Iceberg]

For me society is about people, Science gives us things and information most of this stuff we can do without. Religion gives us community and focus things that will always be needed.

That be said religion has a much heavier cost than science. Science very rarely on its own inspires society to do anything. Religion used improperly greatly inspires society negativily.

So Religion contributes more to society but also causes more problems.

I would have to disagree with you on this. In modern day, science contributes much more to society than religion. At least in the Western world. Look at the airplanes, cars, computers, the internet, electricity, education, healthcare, astronomy and cosmology etc etc etc.

Social studies have brought us much more tolerant society. Homosexuality is for example not regarded as a crime or a sin anymore. You can say different things about feminism, but feminism has brought us womens freedom no doubt about that.

Of course religion still plays a roll in our society, but the influence of the church has diminished (thank God :bow and almost all of its political power is gone. Look at the Middle Ages, where the church was the "de facto" ruler in most of Europe. Don´t think many people would go back to that time.

 

[Iceberg]

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:

Both religion and science are tools, used by human beiings. So in a way, religion could also be a loaded gun laying around, couldn´t it? My point is, that you can use religion both ways, evil or good.

Sure those two topics are different from one another in the way, that science deal with facts, religion deals with ethics, moral and faith in something. We do not demand ethics from science, but we can put ethics into it, meaning science for the better of humanity.

And I do disagree that religion is closer then science, in making society better, and more ethical. How was it, when religion ruled our daily life, in the Middle Ages? Also some congregations in USA comes to mind, where christian pastors rule the life of large grups of people. Have anything good come out of that?

I have nothing against religion, we must respect eachothers faith, including atheism, wich is a faith in and of itself. Many christians seem to belive that God has some kind of a patent on ethics. That´s a lot of bull...

 

[Iceberg]

When you or anyone calls any phenomenon as being a
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

I have nothing but a big respect for the United States of America. But no country is perfect. This abortion thing; if you are so eager to safe the unborn, don´t you think it the societies duty to provide a good decent life for this child to grow up in?

The latter I agree with...

 

[Frank Merton]

There are unanswered questions, sure, but nothing can answer those questions reliably if science can't.

Depends on what you mean by "science."

Not to quibble, but I do think that religious inquiry can in fact be scientific. If one is objective, skeptical but not cynical, and open minded, cannot we say that one is scientific?

 

[Frank Merton]

I would have to disagree with you on this. In modern day, science contributes much more to society than religion. At least in the Western world. Look at the airplanes, cars, computers, the internet, electricity, education, healthcare, astronomy and cosmology etc etc etc.

In other words, you find technology to be more of a contribution than happiness, peace, fulfillment, social cohesion, etc.?

Social studies have brought us much more tolerant society. Homosexuality is for example not regarded as a crime or a sin anymore. You can say different things about feminism, but feminism has brought us womens freedom no doubt about that.

Did science bring about the end of slavery or was it mostly a religious movement? While science contributes to the weakening of homophobia and sexism, is the progress against these really attributable to science or to the activity of people of good will?

 

[Orias]

In other words, you find technology to be more of a contribution than happiness, peace, fulfillment, social cohesion, etc.?

That should be obvious. Literally.

Did science bring about the end of slavery or was it mostly a religious movement? While science contributes to the weakening of homophobia and sexism, is the progress against these really attributable to science or to the activity of people of good will?

Indeed, observation has brought an end and a beginning to a number of things. Mostly that of which is thought to be conducive towards man.

 

[Frank Merton]

Please elaborate -- are you saying that it is literally obvious that technology is better than happiness, etc.?

Frankly your message is too brief and I can't make sure what you are trying to say. Do you use "observation" as a synonym for "science?" What has that to do with it?

 

[Iceberg]

In other words, you find technology to be more of a contribution than happiness, peace, fulfillment, social cohesion, etc.?

Did science bring about the end of slavery or was it mostly a religious movement? While science contributes to the weakening of homophobia and sexism, is the progress against these really attributable to science or to the activity of people of good will?

To the first question I would say yeas, though peace on Earth is still an utopia, so neither science or religion has contributed anything toward that goal. Religion has certainly brought fulfillment to some, but so has atheism, so religion alone can hardly be thanked for that. Social cohesion is a matter of politcs rather than science or religion. The question then is, what politicians take more into account, religion or science. Sure, politicians may go to church every Sunday (specially in USA), but when it comes to the reality, I think they look more to science than faith.

People of good will aren´t necessarily religious. God does not have any "patent" on good ethics. And you can´t thank religion for ending slavery. At least not religion alone. Many people of good will took part in that development. Some christian churces in America seem to fight for the reinstitution of slavery. Go to "Landover Baptist Church" forum. I don´t know if that forum is meant to be a satirical joke or not, it´s hard to belive that such an ignorant human beings really exists. But if these hillabillies really do, you see that religion in and of itself does not automatically mean better ethics on the subject...

 

[PolyHedral]

Please elaborate -- are you saying that it is literally obvious that technology is better than happiness, etc.?

I think he means that technology's effects has brought more happiness than religion.

 

[Iceberg]

I think he means that technology's effects has brought more happiness than religion.

Well, we might have to define the word "happiness," but I promise you one thing: My sons seem to be a lot happier in front of the TV, with their Playstation, than they are in church... :yes:

 

[Frank Merton]

To the first question I would say yeas, though peace on Earth is still an utopia, so neither science or religion has contributed anything toward that goal. Religion has certainly brought fulfillment to some, but so has atheism, so religion alone can hardly be thanked for that.

The statement held technology as superior to just about anything. I do not argue with what you say, but only with the idea that we can expect to get happiness, peace, fulfillment, and so on, from technology.

My experience is that happiness comes from something I might call "spirituality" (as long as it is understood that this is not a reference to spirits). On the other hand, I have learned that fulfillment is probably an illusion, a desire we have that only leads to frustration. As you say, i

 

[Iceberg]

The statement held technology as superior to just about anything. I do not argue with what you say, but only with the idea that we can expect to get happiness, peace, fulfillment, and so on, from technology.

My experience is that happiness comes from something I might call "spirituality" (as long as it is understood that this is not a reference to spirits). On the other hand, I have learned that fulfillment is probably an illusion, a desire we have that only leads to frustration. As you say, i

I agree with you, both fulfillment and happiness comes from something we can call spirituality. Then science and religion are only tools for humanity to reach these goals.

And then we would also realize, that it´s up to the individual to decide wich has brougt more to one´s happiness, science or religion....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My experience is that happiness comes from something I might call "spirituality" (as long as it is understood that this is not a reference to spirits).

If you aren't referring to spirits, exactly what are you referring to?

 

[waitasec]

In other words, you find technology to be more of a contribution than happiness, peace, fulfillment, social cohesion, etc.?

if i may, it's true that religion can offer those things but you can't attribute that to religion exclusively. what else does religion offer?
a sense of undue importance, division, and sense of moral superiority all
because of the belief that "god is on my side".