Okay, even after a year, I still stand by what I said before. ^_^
That's happened several times in the course of human history. The status quo will change, but our species will adapt.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why science is better than religion...
- Thread starter Richard J. Charles
- Start date
Okay, even after a year, I still stand by what I said before. ^_^
That's happened several times in the course of human history. The status quo will change, but our species will adapt.
Results to what attempts?
Sciences goal is just to understand the physical universe better. Technologys goals are to better human life. Their motivations come from their humanistic and spiritualistic beliefs as to whats better.
How about teaching individuals how to find internal peace. And to promote brotherly love for all. What higher goals can there be in my opinion.
For those who arent in religious-hate mode, see my reply above.
YouOnlyScienceOnce
Member
so true, scientific method is way more awesome than following a book without any evidence. Actually finding stuff out yourself and reading interesting science pieces is way more fun. Following religion just dulls your mind.
Funny you should say that, because it's a clear demonstration of the lack of experience with religion. I know that's very hard to come by these days, since, sadly, there isn't much religious variety, but the truth is this: only two religions are about following a book blindly without evidence, and in one of them (I'm not sure about the other), most of the adherents actually don't do that.
Finding stuff out for yourself is much more fun than blind obedience to a book. That's why I have my own view of Mother Kali that's different than the way She's often portrayed in the Puranas. Instead, it's based on her traditional Image (a picture's worth a thousand words), her Name (it's derived from the Sanskrit word for time), and my own experiences with Her in various other forms from other religions(such as the Moira of Greece) and my own life.
Therein lies religion in its most pure, natural form outside of organized adherence to earthly authority as if it were any more authoritative than, well, anything else. It's why in Ye Olde Days, different villages and city-states had different views of how the Gods were, different ideas as to the nature of the universe, etc, and it's the form that religion seems to be slowly taking as the years of the internet age tick by.
Then chances are either you work in some science field, or you aren't reading actual scientific literature. Reading or watching media reports about some study or studies rather than reading the actual studies (or reading a non-technical book intended for general audience) and reading actual scientific literature are worlds apart. More importantly, finding out a little about the development of modern science, and how it was pretty much the result of religion, might be interesting for you too.
You said it. Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Spinoza, and the creators of modern science (constructing and pursuing the sciences as a means to understand the divine Creator), not to mention Gödel, C. S. Lewis, Swinburne, Plantinga, William A. Dembski, Paul Davies, and other genius mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists are just dull-minded imbeciles compared to the truly great minds like Richard Dawkins (who has plenty of honarary doctorates and awards for things that have nothing to do with science, compared to another "dull mind"- Francis Collins, who, among other things, was awarded the National Medal of Science for his groundbreaking work in genetics).
There was a time when the great theistic/deistic apologists had to deal with critical attacks from those well-versed in history, philosophy, epistemology, cosmology, etc. Now the atheist literature is so juvenile it's almost heart-breaking (and while apologist responses include many of the same quality, especially those by people like Collins who have a background in some physical science but not one which really enables them to address issues of epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, etc., there are far more apologists writing who have the necessary background and intellect than there are atheists, alas). What I wouldn't give to have minds those of Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Flew, and others still around to respond to the good apologist literature of today.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You seem to have a very myopic view of what religion is.
There are plenty of religions that don't involve "following a book without any evidence".
I do agree that surfing primary literature is a lot of fun.
wa:do
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
The goal of science is to discover truth and apply it. Science has given us more in 150 years than religion has in 2,500 years.Sciences goal is just to understand the physical universe better. Technologys goals are to better human life. Their motivations come from their humanistic and spiritualistic beliefs as to whats better.
How about teaching individuals how to find internal peace. And to promote brotherly love for all. What higher goals can there be in my opinion.
For those who arent in religious-hate mode, see my reply above.
I do not know all religions, but Christianity hardly has the goal of giving anyone inner peace or promoting brotherly love. If it does then it fails miserably. Chrisitanity has only one goal and that is concerned with another life in another world. E.G. It is better to brutalize two continents of natives, torture them and instill the 'truth' in them so they can be saved, then it is to give them food, clothing, or in to express any humanity in any meaningful way.
Call me a religious hater?? Rather odd how someone who speaks of facts is called a hater.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Binary thinking is a problem in our culture. This or that, black or white etc etc.
To my mind science requires imagination. Progress requires imagination. Dogma, be it religious, political or scientific is an impediment to progress.
I am also deeply wary of aggresive assertions that 'there is only one way - my way'.
Nobody is denying that Christians have done terrible things.
But the truth is that science hasn't been dead for the past 2000 years. It was very much alive even after the fall of Rome, kept alive by Christian monks. The speed at which technology is advancing today has nothing to do with science, but because all three of the primary needs of technological advancement are being met constantly: political, economic, and social.
It is wise to recognize the difference between technological advancement and science. The two are related, but the lack of one does not negate the other. Technological evolution operates in a system not unlike the natural selection of biological evolution. About 2,000 years ago, a Greek inventor discovered the use of steam power, and all its potentials. The reason it wasn't accepted at the time had nothing to do with religion, but because of slavery. In short, there wasn't really an economic or political need for steam power.
Hate in this instance is removing all references to good, regardless of how numerous, and elevating the bad to the status of omnipresence based on semi-truths, or falsehoods derived from semi-truths.
Back to the OP question........Why science is better than religion...
First off, the question does not make sense as we’re comparing two unlike things.
I like science and love my spiritual beliefs too and find no contradictions. Science helps us understand the physical world and we can use that understanding to make life physically better. But you can find miserable people with all the physical comforts they can temporarily enjoy until their bodies get old. Spirituality is more important; it teaches us how to be peaceful and happy always.
First off, the question does not make sense as we’re comparing two unlike things.
I like science and love my spiritual beliefs too and find no contradictions. Science helps us understand the physical world and we can use that understanding to make life physically better. But you can find miserable people with all the physical comforts they can temporarily enjoy until their bodies get old. Spirituality is more important; it teaches us how to be peaceful and happy always.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is what I was thinking. The two things are unrelated- they are two totally different things with different reasons as to what they are for.
Two notes:1. Being a scientist doesn't mean anti-religion and 2. being a theist doesn't mean anti-science.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
"self-explanatory" in a very crude sense, yes. But formulae, theory goes into figuring out the nature of the universe.
'Religion' is a cultural construction to facilitate the worship of deities or present a book/ideology in which the unknown can be explained/ classified, or deified
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
If we compress meditation, prose, poetry, philosophy, ideology, dozens of literary devices, art, music, architecture, celebration, or pilgrimage into concepts such as 'blind faith', or 'YEC' and pass it off as religion then of course science is better.
But since one has to be pretty uneducated about world history and world culture to believe that religion equals talking serpents and turning water into wine, we'll assume that the OP is just one big misunderstanding.
But since one has to be pretty uneducated about world history and world culture to believe that religion equals talking serpents and turning water into wine, we'll assume that the OP is just one big misunderstanding.
Semjase
Time traveller
Science is ever evoling to a more accurate theoretical model of inner
working of nature. A belief in a God who makes no reference to advanced science
makes you think twice about certain aspects of religious material. Which is
better would come down to which is closer to the the truth about the origins of
our entire existence and which more accurately reflects the truth about everything
that is in this reality.
working of nature. A belief in a God who makes no reference to advanced science
makes you think twice about certain aspects of religious material. Which is
better would come down to which is closer to the the truth about the origins of
our entire existence and which more accurately reflects the truth about everything
that is in this reality.
