Why science is better than religion...

[Richard J. Charles]

First of all, my opinion is that testing your hypotheses and beliefs is a much greater approach to life than simply accepting blindly without reason (faith).
Religion is based on faith, and therefore is not based on evidence. When religious people call science a religion, I am simply astounded. Science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity to discover its own origins and purpose. If you wish to be religious as well, that is obviously fine. But I find that it is ridiculous to say that 'evolution shouldn't be talk in schools' etc. when evolution is science, and science has more evidence, by default, than religion.
But the main point of this thread is not to ridicule religion. For much of my life, I have heard people say things like 'don't reduce things to science' or 'science spoils things because there is no mystery anymore'.
This is supremely stupid. Science is considered by many to be something which destroys any meaning or mystery behind things. This is untrue.
Science enhances our understanding of things, of course. This, I am sure nobody would dislike. But, to say that science removes meaning or mystery is misguided. If discovering the truth about something removes meaning, it simply means that the meaning was simply an illusion in the first place (like religion) and that we should embrace a more rational, logical approach. We create our own meaning in life. We have family, friends, knowledge, ourselves etc. We are alive. We are fortunate to be alive, and that should be meaning enough to live.
Also, to say that science destroys mystery is wrong. Although its immediate effect is to remove mystery (why anyone would prefer mystery to knowledge is beyond me), it can in a lot of ways create new secrets and mysteries to solve.
In short, science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity which places emphasis completely on evidence. Religion is outdated, in my opinion, as it neglects evidence.
If you believe that religion is reasonable or that faith is good, please tell me why.
Thanks,
Richard.

 

[Riverwolf]

(why anyone would prefer mystery to knowledge is beyond me)

It's more fun.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science is the best method by which secular knowledge may be obtained. It is annoying when religious leaders, even ones that I find wise in most other respects, call their path a "science", when it clearly isn't.

I fully admit that my belief in God and other supernatural things is a complete suspension of logic. But I'm willing to make that leap of faith to see if the Sages' teachings are true.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I can see, science can increase one's appreciation for life.

 

[Acim]

Also, to say that science destroys mystery is wrong.

Agreed. It is a mystery to me that so called intelligent persons can accept physical existence as a) objective and b) as evidence of anything real. A mystery I tell you. Mass delusion.

In short, science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity which places emphasis completely on evidence.

Not objective of course. But yes, evidence which is all around 'me' with little to no knowledge about Me that thinks thoughts which are not observable in physical nature. Like scientific method. Can't find that in physical nature, but some say it exists, even without any evidence to substantiate this. Oh, other than non-physical means we might use to substantiate (ahem) things.

If you believe that religion is reasonable or that faith is good, please tell me why.

Spirituality is reasonable because like Reason, it relies on Thought, and given a sufficient model for Self Realization it takes an inward-out approach to correcting (or purifying) perception. The opposite of this is taking an outward-in approach to clouding perception based on a self that is at mercy of things not understood, nothing of which one has any power to deal with effectively. Perhaps another treatment (not a cure, but treating symptoms) or maybe if we throw enough money at it, we can find something that resembles correction, even while it magically seems to compound problems. Spirituality sees through (inner) vision, whereas materialism as doctrine looks on things, interpreted by mind, and reinforces fundamental error. It would have the perceiver understand that what the body sees is real (physical sight seeing physicality). Akin to arguing that the Bible is word of God because, well the Bible says so.

Faith is neither inherently good nor bad, it is placement of trust in a foundational framework, and then extends from there. If placed within on Self Awareness, it becomes self evident that this Faith is derived from Knowledge. A complete knowledge that while plausibly forgotten (in time) is implausible to deny exists, without invoking a denial along lines of, "I do exist" or "I do not know if I exist." Faith in the body as if part of that which is independent of the mind, imbues the physical existence of 'me' with illusion of self motivators. I.E. - my stomach is hungry, my legs do not want to walk any more, I'm just not physically able to love you, sorry. Faith when placed in the physical both confuses the mind and pulls a veil over Self Knowledge. Again, it can be forgotten, but not completely denied. Faith is the foundation for scientific materialism, the kind where 'objective' evidence is found in physical items. A trust based on the axiom that a physical world is self evident, even if critical analysis would, rather quickly and easily, determine there is nothing objective about this claim. It is simply lazy logic that is comfortable with idea that Self Knowledge isn't really all that worthwhile exploring. Where's the fun in that? So, I get to understand a few things about myself; I should think that would get boring after awhile. Besides, I look within, physical eyes closed and literally see nothing, but a blank slate. Yeah, there's nothing there of consequence. I'll just stick to faith in the outer world and pray to, um, uh, ya know what, that I'm not threatened by constant attacks against me. After all, the body mind is destined to die, and we only have a short while to advance (cough cough) knowledge of the world around us.

/diatribe

 

[Revoltingest]

Saying science is better than religion is like saying that screwdrivers are better than concrete blocks.
There's no such comparison, since each has separate uses.
Science gave us GPS & MagicStat.
Religion gave us LDS & magic underwear.
People enjoy them all.

 

[idav]

Agreed. It is a mystery to me that so called intelligent persons can accept physical existence as a) objective and b) as evidence of anything real. A mystery I tell you. Mass delusion.

Like you writing in this forum is a mass delusion. Starting with the outward evidence of what someone posts and bringing it in for self reflection.

Not objective of course. But yes, evidence which is all around 'me' with little to no knowledge about Me that thinks thoughts which are not observable in physical nature. Like scientific method. Can't find that in physical nature, but some say it exists, even without any evidence to substantiate this. Oh, other than non-physical means we might use to substantiate (ahem) things.

If you have little knowledge about how your thoughts are processed you need to study more neuroscience. Your thoughts being a result of electro-chemical responses.

Spirituality is reasonable because like Reason, it relies on Thought, and given a sufficient model for Self Realization it takes an inward-out approach to correcting (or purifying) perception. The opposite of this is taking an outward-in approach to clouding perception based on a self that is at mercy of things not understood, nothing of which one has any power to deal with effectively. Perhaps another treatment (not a cure, but treating symptoms) or maybe if we throw enough money at it, we can find something that resembles correction, even while it magically seems to compound problems. Spirituality sees through (inner) vision, whereas materialism as doctrine looks on things, interpreted by mind, and reinforces fundamental error. It would have the perceiver understand that what the body sees is real (physical sight seeing physicality). Akin to arguing that the Bible is word of God because, well the Bible says so.

Spirituality is opposed to reason. Like Spock vs. Captain Kirk. Emotional responses to events are rarely reasonable because with emotion we are slaves to ourselves and we use reason to counteract what nature would have us believe.

Faith is neither inherently good nor bad, it is placement of trust in a foundational framework, and then extends from there. If placed within on Self Awareness, it becomes self evident that this Faith is derived from Knowledge.

Faith is what is left over based on what we don't know.

A complete knowledge that while plausibly forgotten (in time) is implausible to deny exists, without invoking a denial along lines of, "I do exist" or "I do not know if I exist." Faith in the body as if part of that which is independent of the mind, imbues the physical existence of 'me' with illusion of self motivators. I.E. - my stomach is hungry, my legs do not want to walk any more, I'm just not physically able to love you, sorry. Faith when placed in the physical both confuses the mind and pulls a veil over Self Knowledge.

Here you are confusing physical with emotional. Hunger is not really comparable to love.

Again, it can be forgotten, but not completely denied. Faith is the foundation for scientific materialism, the kind where 'objective' evidence is found in physical items. A trust based on the axiom that a physical world is self evident, even if critical analysis would, rather quickly and easily, determine there is nothing objective about this claim.

Critical analysis makes no such determination. The only thing critical analysis would get us out of the material world is that there is more to learn. Doesn't mean there isn't objectivity just that answers only bring more questions which is why science is still needed.

It is simply lazy logic that is comfortable with idea that Self Knowledge isn't really all that worthwhile exploring. Where's the fun in that? So, I get to understand a few things about myself; I should think that would get boring after awhile.

Science does explore the self as well as I mentioned neuroscience. It answers questions about why we love and where the emotions come from.

Besides, I look within, physical eyes closed and literally see nothing, but a blank slate. Yeah, there's nothing there of consequence.

That is a good way to meditate and clear the mind of nonsense so we can percieve the truth better.

I'll just stick to faith in the outer world and pray to, um, uh, ya know what, that I'm not threatened by constant attacks against me. After all, the body mind is destined to die, and we only have a short while to advance (cough cough) knowledge of the world around us.

I agree, I'm not afraid of having an opinion and am willing to take in as much as possible with what little time we have.

 

[Renji]

Religion is a belief system. Science is not.

 

[otokage007]

It is better than religion, but the same way a mansion is better than a table. You can't compare them.

 

[Madhuri]

When you introduce the term 'better' or 'valuable' or 'good/bad', then the argument becomes subjective. What one person experiences as better than the other is quite personal.

Since becoming aware of scientific matters, and accepting many current understandings, I've gained a lot of knowledge, which I value, but on the other hand, I'm no longer the happy and hopeful person I used to be. Sometimes I really miss the old me.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I am a scientist when I go out in the field to identify the local fauna. I am religious when I draw them.

Neither is better. But someday I will die, so while I live I wish to paint the world.

 

[Adonis65]

First of all, my opinion is that testing your hypotheses and beliefs is a much greater approach to life than simply accepting blindly without reason (faith).

Hold it. What if I were to tell you that opening up to a Supreme Creator is a much greater approach to life than severely limiting yourself to personal opinions? I'm a man of faith. What is there about life that you could you possibly know more than what I know?

 

[Riverwolf]

It is better than religion, but the same way a mansion is better than a table. You can't compare them.

And likewise, I'd dispute it. I hate mansions. Too big.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hold it. What if I were to tell you that opening up to a Supreme Creator is a much greater approach to life than severely limiting yourself to personal opinions? I'm a man a faith. What is there about life that you could you possibly know more than what I know?

Through testing we can accurately determine Truth. Simply accepting a notion blindly without testing it carries the severe risk of placing faith in falsehood. Therefore, limiting oneself to personal opinions is exactly what blind faith is.

 

[Acim]

Like you writing in this forum is a mass delusion. Starting with the outward evidence of what someone posts and bringing it in for self reflection.

What is this 'outward' evidence of which you speak?

If you have little knowledge about how your thoughts are processed you need to study more neuroscience. Your thoughts being a result of electro-chemical responses.

Check that. Correlated to chemical activity, not a result of. Please do your homework.

Spirituality is opposed to reason.

I realize for you this may appear to be true. For me, it is akin to saying, Life is opposed to Reason.

Faith is what is left over based on what we don't know.

I think you mean, what we claim to not understand. Faith is, as stated previously, placement of trust in a foundational framework, and then extends from there. We have faith in materialistic evidence because we have faith that our material selves is extension of 'reality.' We have no objective evidence to substantiate this, but we do (magically) have what appears like separated, independent manifestations of other material witnesses who (magically) can corroborate our material findings.

Here you are confusing physical with emotional. Hunger is not really comparable to love.

Depends on how much one is distorting (actual) love.

Critical analysis makes no such determination.

LOL, I like the personification on this as if this is standard across the board. I'm sure it helps you / someone in believing that the refutation can be made.

The only thing critical analysis would get us out of the material world is that there is more to learn. Doesn't mean there isn't objectivity just that answers only bring more questions which is why science is still needed.

Yeah, you're showing up a good 3 steps behind what I said if this is your version of critical analysis. To help you with where you're at, I'll agree. If we are self aware of ourselves as beings of matter, then critical analysis would let us know given size of universe and time we have, there is much more to learn about material existence. All while we continue to pull veil over that which is needing to learn. But learn we must, and so press on. Full steam ahead.

Science does explore the self as well as I mentioned neuroscience.

Yeah, that is not the self. I understand for you, given allowance of awareness to this point, it is all self awareness can explore. Let me just be clear here on online forum that to me, you are not a body.

It answers questions about why we love and where the emotions come from.

Not why, but what. And at best it attempts to explain a variation on how. A variation that assumes mundane explanations ought to suffice for all learners, unless you are really really needing to get philosophical about love. But seriously stop that philosophical inquiry about Love as science doesn't have time with such abstractions. Simply not practical. And not easy to research either. Stick to love of mate which leads to courting and possibly reproduction. That is only type of love we need to be concerned about. You got that?

 

[On_a_Quest]

As far as I can tell, science and religion are usually not in opposition. If people choose to take religious myths literally, then it conflicts with science, but I find that most educated people accept the scientific theories over the religious explanations.

To me, science and religion are complimentary. They are both part of our ongoing pursuit to better understand our universe. Science gives the more concrete evidence and explanations while religion aims to explain things that still can't be explained by science. For example, last I checked, nobody has been able to prove or disprove the existence of God. There are plenty of other abstract ideas that science isn't quite able to get at. Maybe they will someday and that will further transform our idea of religion. Who knows?

Religion is also necessary because it provides moral guides and advice to people. Science has nothing to do with what it means to be a good person. That's up to religion/spirituality for that kind of guidance.

In short, they are not in opposition and you can't say that one discipline is superior to the other because they are not comparable. Both have clear functions in society.

 

[gnostic]

As revoltingest said science and religion are unrelated. You can't really compare the 2.

Religion deals with a sdeity or more, with spirituality and possibly with the afterlife, with morality & sometimes with laws. The problem with religion is that often also deal with the supernatural, which defy logic and the law of nature, eg miracles.

Science deals with observation of natural phenomena, attempt to understand and explain it (theory), and how to make use of it (application).

Can religion teach you how to diagnose and treat illness?

The best religion can do is pray or laying of hands to heal person. Does such things work? Religion can't let people understand how your eyes, ears, heart or any other organs function.

Can religion lay out the pipeline, or construct a house, road or bridge?

Religion has its limits and often impractical.

 

[Acim]

Science deals with observation of natural phenomena, attempt to understand and explain it (theory), and how to make use of it (application).

Can religion lay out the pipeline, or construct a house, road or bridge?

Is it that science deals with how to make use of natural phenomena or that it does do this?

Is laying a pipeline or building a house science?

If yes, then there are plausibly many things which appear in or around religions which could be construed as a science. I guess the "a" part in there is critical in understanding application, no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is it that science deals with how to make use of natural phenomena or that it does do this?

Is laying a pipeline or building a house science?

How is that "making use of natural phenomena"? Regardless, science was required to find out the best means of doing both of those things.

If yes, then there are plausibly many things which appear in or around religions which could be construed as a science. I guess the "a" part in there is critical in understanding application, no?

There is no critical understanding in religion. Religion is about asserting something as true (or false) regardless of rational investigation, inquiry or critical understanding.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And likewise, I'd dispute it. I hate mansions. Too big.

Either way, I'd rather be hiding in a mansion than under a table, if I needed to hide that is.