Why science is better than religion...

[TurkeyOnRye]

Science is great, but we need to take the conclusions of others with a few grains of sea salt. The scientific method is good, but it is not perfect by any means. Mystery looms no matter how much we think we know. What worries me is how applicable researchers tend to think their findings are, but even moreso is how their findings get distributed. Often the media will completely spin, sensationalize or demonstrate scientific findings in a completely unscientific way. Given that the mass media is where most human beings get their information, I'd hate to think what half-truths and misinformation is being spread.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, the Bison is still around, but not exactly as a wild species any longer. If you want a better example of human-caused extinctions and destruction of environment, take a look at the IPSO report on the world's oceans that came out about a month ago.

I'm aware of the fact that humans have tragically caused extinctions.

You must be joking? We have added 40% to atmospheric CO2 levels in the last century, and even if we brought the increase to a halt now, it will take thousands of years before the changes we have set in place are undone.

Do you remember a few years ago when Mexico City was quarantined off because of the bird flu? No one was allowed to go outside or drive cars for a week. Within a few days, the air was far fresher and cleaner than the people there could remember, so much so that some broke quarantine just to breathe it.

CO2 doesn't just sit there waiting to be dispersed; it's breathed in by plants. While deforestation is definitely a problem and needs to stop, the high levels of CO2 would likely provide a heaven for plant life, which, if civilization fell, would return to similar grandness as before, breathing in all the CO2 we pumped out, while releasing even more oxygen for the survivors to breathe.

It's a given that the Arctic Ocean will completely melt in a few decades, and the Greenland ice sheets as well. If we keep on our present course (and there's no sign that we are stopping any time soon), there will be a remnant of the human race clustered around the Arctic Circle in a century or two, clinging to survival. And I haven't even mentioned the nuclear threat that hasn't gone away.

If the ice caps melt, it actually wouldn't affect the water levels all that much. Don't forget that most places in the world are currently thousands of feet above sea level, while if the ice caps melt, it would raise levels about 200 feet. That would cause lots of problems and deaths, don't get me wrong (a quick look shows that Florida's iconic peninsula would no longer exist, for example), but that's hardly a problem for the entire species.

The nuclear threat, of course, is definitely still a problem, since India and Pakistan are still in their cold war.

There are changes we have made, which have never been factors in previous times of great changes that caused past extinctions. For example, a lot of the adaptation type of climate change deniers, such as Bjorn Lomborg, toss up the PETM of about 55 million years ago, as an example of a similar time of great sudden atmospheric changes that didn't cause many land species extinctions. But, during the PETM, there were no roads, cities, or large human populations, standing in the way of animal migrations...and there sure is now! Some of the extinctions and near extinctions that have happened already are linked to the barriers we have put in the way of normal, animal migrations. Long story short, one of the key factors working against our future odds is the plant and animal extinctions we are causing from our impact on the environment. We don't know how much of the natural biosphere we need for our survival, and we might not find out until it is too late.

So, the fact that we are blocking animal migration routes with cities (a problem I don't deny), means that we're also in trouble? What's the connection?

As for that Yellowstone Caldera; we probably don't have to worry about it that much, since the caldera is moving over a thicker region of the continental plate, which make it less subject to volcanic activity as time goes on.

Huh. Good to know.

If there was a collective attention on the environment, like there was 40 years ago, it wouldn't take a lot of individual effort. It's hard to believe that a little over 40 years ago, the first Earth Day was a pivotal event featuring major Congressmen as speakers; and Richard Nixon took note and created the EPA which today's Republicans are trying to dismantle. Nixon didn't act because he was an environmentalist! He was a typical Republican...but a pragmatic Republican, who had to bring in some reforms that the corporate interests in the Republican Party said were job-killers. The problem today is that apathy, resignation or just plain wishful thinking has brought most progress on the environment to a halt.

Didn't help that Ted Turner's attempt to get kids to care, Captain Planet, sucked so hard that it made kids not care even more. My caring for the environment was brought about by Ecco the Dolphin and the Sonic SatAM show, which were far more effective, but not as popular.

I do care; don't get me wrong. I REFUSE to drive any car that isn't fully electric, so I won't have my own car until I can do so efficiently, I recycle as much as I can (side note: because people aren't recycling paper consistently, the process actually causes more harm to the environment than it helps :sad4, and I'm perfectly okay with putting garbage in my pocket until I find a trash can. But that's all I can do.

 

[work in progress]

There is no way we will keep going the way we do. When the scales tip the populations will decrease and it will stabilize. Just like when the plague hit Europe things flourished afterwords because there were less people competing for resources. Whatever causes the population to decrease will be to our benefit in the long run.

I don't know how the point can be made more clearly that we are entering times that have never existed before, therefore we have no precedent to work from - not even the Black Death. There were less than half a billion people on Earth when that plague killed half of the people in Europe. Atmospheric CO2 levels were less than 280 ppm. There was room to start over back then; the landscape and environment of Europe hadn't been irreparably damaged. I'm questioning whether the world as it exists today will follow a similar pattern, or whether the positive feedback effects that we have set in place will drive whoever's left during that time right to extinction.

I'm an optimist but the fact is simple. Either technology solves the issues or our populations will suffer. Pretty simple really. Everything we are doing is the reason we are surviving and once it stops we will have to survive a different way.

Right now, my first question is whether the lack of resolve to do much about the state of the world is mostly due to human failings, or is it mostly the product of a deliberate strategy of leaders in government and industry to let the world go over the edge into a major extinction and have the hubris to assume that the effects will not be serious enough to kill them or their descendents....I'm thinking the latter scenario better explains what is happening today.

 

[work in progress]

Do you remember a few years ago when Mexico City was quarantined off because of the bird flu? No one was allowed to go outside or drive cars for a week. Within a few days, the air was far fresher and cleaner than the people there could remember, so much so that some broke quarantine just to breathe it.

CO2 doesn't just sit there waiting to be dispersed; it's breathed in by plants. While deforestation is definitely a problem and needs to stop, the high levels of CO2 would likely provide a heaven for plant life, which, if civilization fell, would return to similar grandness as before, breathing in all the CO2 we pumped out, while releasing even more oxygen for the survivors to breathe.

I'm not a scientist! But the people who are, and specialize in climate research say consistently that it will take about 100,000 years for natural earth processes to absorb the carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere and oceans, and bring us back to under 300 ppm. This isn't just a matter of opening the windows to let the house air out! And, according to the botanists who are studying the effects of higher CO2 on wild and agricultural plants, the extra carbon is not going to increase growth of hardly any of the plant species that will be of help to us...weeds seem to be about the only ones who are going to thrive and make use of the extra carbon. Higher CO2 levels will actually cause a fall in agricultural production.

If the ice caps melt, it actually wouldn't affect the water levels all that much. Don't forget that most places in the world are currently thousands of feet above sea level, while if the ice caps melt, it would raise levels about 200 feet. That would cause lots of problems and deaths, don't get me wrong (a quick look shows that Florida's iconic peninsula would no longer exist, for example), but that's hardly a problem for the entire species.

What about the Mekong Delta, and the floodplains in Bangladesh and India which grow nearly all of the world's rice? Also, there are many inland areas that will sea their underground aquifers filled in with sea water. The Earth we have now is running out of good growing lands, largely thanks to massive topsoil erosion over the last half century. We can't afford to lose valuable farm land, and have any hope of feeding 7 billion people.

The nuclear threat, of course, is definitely still a problem, since India and Pakistan are still in their cold war.

Even the CIA publicly states that the most likely flashpoint towards a nuclear war is India and Pakistan. How much more likely will that be when agricultural yields fall and they are seriously fighting over their disputes on the rivers that flow out of the Himalayas?

So, the fact that we are blocking animal migration routes with cities (a problem I don't deny), means that we're also in trouble? What's the connection?

More animal extinctions will include the ones (most of which we are unaware of now) that are necessary to maintain a healthy biosphere for accommodating our food-growing and other uses. More humans - less other animals = massive extinction down the road for us.

 

[idav]

I don't know how the point can be made more clearly that we are entering times that have never existed before, therefore we have no precedent to work from - not even the Black Death. There were less than half a billion people on Earth when that plague killed half of the people in Europe. Atmospheric CO2 levels were less than 280 ppm. There was room to start over back then; the landscape and environment of Europe hadn't been irreparably damaged. I'm questioning whether the world as it exists today will follow a similar pattern, or whether the positive feedback effects that we have set in place will drive whoever's left during that time right to extinction.

Because most times through out the history of the earth it has been less hospitable than now except for the time around the dinosaurs. That is one of the reasons we are flourishing so easily. The earth changing will be good for the earth but likely not for any species but again if fluctuates and I would expect no less with or without us. If it gets less hospitable for life then good for the earth. Humans are part of nature afterall.

Right now, my first question is whether the lack of resolve to do much about the state of the world is mostly due to human failings, or is it mostly the product of a deliberate strategy of leaders in government and industry to let the world go over the edge into a major extinction and have the hubris to assume that the effects will not be serious enough to kill them or their descendents....I'm thinking the latter scenario better explains what is happening today.

The issue is our failings in some areas while other areas flourishing. We aren't failing to keep plenty of people alive at the cost of not being able to keep up with the demand for the earths resources and stripping it of life. At that rate eventually it will swing around once resources run out at which point technology will not be able to save people as well as it has been. This can come in many forms from more people dieing of heat exhaustion and starvation to people getting countless more viruses that we lose control of.

Because of the earth being a water planet, global warming will likely trigger another ice age.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not a scientist! But the people who are, and specialize in climate research say consistently that it will take about 100,000 years for natural earth processes to absorb the carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere and oceans, and bring us back to under 300 ppm. This isn't just a matter of opening the windows to let the house air out! And, according to the botanists who are studying the effects of higher CO2 on wild and agricultural plants, the extra carbon is not going to increase growth of hardly any of the plant species that will be of help to us...weeds seem to be about the only ones who are going to thrive and make use of the extra carbon. Higher CO2 levels will actually cause a fall in agricultural production.

We have the ability to turn non-farmland into farmland through irrigation.

Besides, the change in water levels would cause land which is currently bad for farming into good land for farming.

What about the Mekong Delta, and the floodplains in Bangladesh and India which grow nearly all of the world's rice? Also, there are many inland areas that will sea their underground aquifers filled in with sea water. The Earth we have now is running out of good growing lands, largely thanks to massive topsoil erosion over the last half century. We can't afford to lose valuable farm land, and have any hope of feeding 7 billion people.

There shouldn't be 7 billion people on the planet, anyway. If anything we're doing is harming anything, it's that far more than anything else: there's simply too many of us, and we're incapable of simply thinning out the population because of ethical obligations; the only way we could is gradually through birth control.

Even the CIA publicly states that the most likely flashpoint towards a nuclear war is India and Pakistan. How much more likely will that be when agricultural yields fall and they are seriously fighting over their disputes on the rivers that flow out of the Himalayas?

Don't you think the two countries would collapse first?

More animal extinctions will include the ones (most of which we are unaware of now) that are necessary to maintain a healthy biosphere for accommodating our food-growing and other uses. More humans - less other animals = massive extinction down the road for us.

Not necessarily. I think I heard somewhere that every human on the planet is descended from only a few tribes. All we'd need is a very small portion of us to survive and we'd come back.

It's not an all or nothing deal.

 

[Orias]

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).

Life isn't something you can really test, you make mistakes and try to prevent the same mistake from happening, but mistakes will continue to be made.

Faith is nothing more than an attachment to one's pursuit.

Religion is based on faith, and therefore is not based on evidence.

Science is also based on faith, or at least in your case it seems.

For most people...yea, but otherwise evidence doesn't really concern anything physical, since science itself trends along a metaphorical line.

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.

Endeavor does require a certain amount of devotion to an aspect, otherwise it wouldn't really be cared to be pursued.

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.

I agree, though science can't really test anything in the far past or the far future.

Science has some wondrous theories that I get along with pretty well, what I don't really like though is people proposing that science shuts down religion, simply because the relatively new creation has advanced our way of life. Science, religion, art...they are all the same because they all came from the same source of life.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Isn't this kind of contradictory to what you said before?

Religion is based on faith, and therefore is not based on evidence.

Also, to say that science destroys mystery is wrong.

You said that already.

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.

Evidence is completely subject to the individual, what matters is survival. Thats what purpose is.

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

Not all religion is good, at least for those that seek a spiritual truth.

But then again, religion is merely an aspect that provokes awareness, because it is an approach that is intended to fully apprehend a path of devotion, which varies again from person to person.

In my view at least, any commitment of any type speech or symbol is a way to provoke familiarity and awareness.

 

[Leftimies]

Well, it seems like people here miss the point. At least some of them.

Religion and science...is one better than another? They are not universally comparable. Religion has its practical limits when dealing with practical issues relating to understanding the structure of our material world. And, how to shape our world.

But Science too has its limits, and those limits are not small ones. Science is cold and distant, arguably, not human in nature. It doesn't give obligation to do right or wrong, and in fact, serves any master willing to take it as his own. Science helps us to understand what we are made of, how our bodies and mind work, but at the same time, it distances us from our own self. Science-centric view makes the person experience his/hers action as a result of physical factors and variables, rather than the one experiencing his/hers actions truly as oneself.

Science holds the law of nature, it acts as way to explain our material world. To me, Religion acts as a way to explain who we as humans are, not as a species (of course we developed from apes), but as spiritual, experiencing beings.

I'm sure we can explain existence through science due time. But as of now, it cannot explain what is beginning of time and what is the end of time. And how there could possibly even be beginning or end, because what could possibly have existed before beginning or how on earth anything could exist after ending of time? Yet, universe has birthday, so the duration is real, what was before or what will be, just cannot be answered.

The whole question of existence is something surreal to behold, and neither religion or science can give us any real answer to that. They are two different ways to approach it:

*one focuses on our material world and finding the truth through very elaborate and critical system, while not having real obligation towards right or wrong (science).

*one focuses on individual's self and relying on given human wisdom, with the "there will be another world after end of time"-mindset, maintaining societal order with goal of not being obstacle/harm to others (religion. *though they come in varying quality).

Combine them both and you get the whole package.



PS. If my post was extremely lacking in terms of coherence, let it be known that I haven't slept in like 30 hours. I am so tired and can't get a grip of my thoughts UGH. My apologies.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Hello, Richard and thanks for your post. Many people equate faith to blind belief, but that is not the Bible's definition of faith. Instead, the Bible speaks of evidence of realities and legal guarantees of things hoped for. (Hebrews 11:1)
While I believe nearly all religions are based on lies and myths, the one true faith is based on facts and realities.
Nor is all that is called "science" is really science. As in all fields of human endeavor, scientists are subject to the same biases, preconceived ideas, and peer pressure. Particularly with the ToE, I think many evident facts are ignored, and the implications of these facts denied. As Hebrews 3:4 states: "Every house is constructed by someone" With what implication? The verse continues: "He that constructed all things is God."
Speaking of the intricacies of the cell, Michael Behe called these a loud, piercing cry of DESIGN. Living or non-living, design needs an intelligent designer. I believe the facts speak for themselves. True science and true religion have no quarrel. I think, however, that just as there is much false religion, so there is much falsely called science, that is nothing but speculation accepted as fact.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think, however, that just as there is much false religion, so there is much falsely called science, that is nothing but speculation accepted as fact.

Most religion is based on nothing more than speculation and an acceptance of presuppositions with no supporting evidence.

While I believe nearly all religions are based on lies and myths, the one true faith is based on facts and realities.

And how is one to decide the "one true faith"? Certainly not on holy texts, as they are biased and speculative. Most contain grievous errors. Faith is not a good determining factor, as faith is not based on reason. Faith, more often than not, is emotional, which is not a good judge of anything.

Many people equate faith to blind belief, but that is not the Bible's definition of faith.

Paul certain thought it was. He was quite against using science and philosophy to determine the course of one's actions towards religion. He called the knowledge of man useless in regards to faith.

Instead, the Bible speaks of evidence of realities

Such as?

and legal guarantees of things hoped for.

Which boils down to nothing more than speculative metaphysics.

 

[sandandfoam]

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

I wholly agree - moreover I don't think that you would argue against the notion that a good laugh can do the same.
I love science but I don't like exclusivism (is that a word?

 

[Kemble]

I love science but I don't like exclusivism (is that a word?

Right, but I just haven't seen any other method with as good of a track record. Religions like Christianity, Islam, etc. operate mainly in the value-morality domain. Science occupies the cause-effect, explanatory-applied sphere. Ideally. If we consider Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA.

 

[sandandfoam]

Right, but I haven't seen any other method with as good of a track record.

Track record in what?
The Far Side beats Nature hands down in terms of laughs.

 

[Kemble]

Ever wash your hands before eating?

 

[sandandfoam]

Ever wash your hands before eating?

Sure, however I do so because of culture not science.

 

[Kemble]

Well thank science for driving that cultural behavior.

 

[sandandfoam]

Well thank science for driving that cultural behavior.

If I were to thank science I would also have to curse it for the atom bomb and modern warfare.

No, I think it best to understand science as a mode of knowledge accumulation rather than a thing to be admired or thanked.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

I love science... but I don't use it to determine my place in society or my morality.

Not that it doesn't have any part to play in that... but my religion/culture is a much larger part of it.

That also doesn't mean that I don't question my religion... even though my faith remains pretty stable.

wa:do

 

[Iti oj]

@ river wolf. The melting of the ice caps.is.not just about flooding but about the destruction of a system. And thats the true problem. Were talk complete climate change weather pattern change our planets thermostat etc.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

Not necessarilly true. When 'better' or 'more valuable' mean 'having greater success' then the subjectivity is only in what one considers success. Science has had many goals and has great success at achieving them. Religion does not seem to have any goals. Unless killing or converting non-belivers is a goal. The betterment of the here and now surely does not seem to be a goal of any religion.

Science is MUCH BETTER then religion at producing results. Hardly a subjective statement.