science vs religon, which one is important and needed ? Rating Options

[demolished]

i think this is a tricky question if you think about it.

is science important or .. religon ? why tho .. ?

Religon helps make people safer . It help you to become a better person. Religon is mainly about beliefs and how to become a better person . . . the problem is . . did anyone prove that gods existed ? etc ..

Science helps people to be safe. Science tell us what to aware of. Without science, we wouldnt know where we are, what is safe? .. such as planets or universe ..... etc ..


if you think carefully, it could be tricky, you dont know which one is " more " important

do you people understand what i'm saiding ? just think bout it.

tell me what you think ?

[Tung]

Sigh..you just don't get it. Let me break this down for you..and I hope you do actually read everything before replying.

Do you know what an ideology is?

Science is a social institution about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding, even among those who are part of it. We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge that we call scientific, is somehow apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think that science is objective. Science has brought us all kinds of good things. It has tremendously increased the production of food. It has increased our life expectancy from a mere 45 years at the beginning of the last century to over 70 in rich places like North America. It has put people on the moon and made it possible to sit at home and watch the world go by.

At the same time, science, like other productive activities, like the state, the family, sport, is a social institution completely integrated into and influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions. The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists, after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, state, a productive structure, and they view nature through the lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Above that personal level of perception, science is molded by society because it is human productive activity that takes time and money, and so is guided by and directed by those forces in the world that have control over money and time. Science uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the dominate social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. More than that, those forces have the power to appropriate from science ideas that are particularly suited to the maintenance and continued prosperity of the social structures of which they are a part. So other social institutions have an input into science both in what is done and how it is thought about, and they take from science concepts and ideas that then support their institutions and make them seem legitimate and natural.

It is this dual process, on the one hand, of the social influence and control of what scientists do and say, and, on the other hand, the use of what scientists do and say to further support the institutions of society--that is meant when we speak of science as ideology.

Not saying, that science is a bad thing, we just have to realize the bias and limitations science do have. And the same could be said about religion. Nobody wins.

/debate

[freeridefight]

Sigh..you just don't get it. Let me break this down for you..and I hope you do actually read everything before replying.

Do you know what an ideology is?

Science is a social institution about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding, even among those who are part of it. We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge that we call scientific, is somehow apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think that science is objective. Science has brought us all kinds of good things. It has tremendously increased the production of food. It has increased our life expectancy from a mere 45 years at the beginning of the last century to over 70 in rich places like North America. It has put people on the moon and made it possible to sit at home and watch the world go by.

At the same time, science, like other productive activities, like the state, the family, sport, is a social institution completely integrated into and influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions. The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists, after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, state, a productive structure, and they view nature through the lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Above that personal level of perception, science is molded by society because it is human productive activity that takes time and money, and so is guided by and directed by those forces in the world that have control over money and time. Science uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the dominate social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. More than that, those forces have the power to appropriate from science ideas that are particularly suited to the maintenance and continued prosperity of the social structures of which they are a part. So other social institutions have an input into science both in what is done and how it is thought about, and they take from science concepts and ideas that then support their institutions and make them seem legitimate and natural.

It is this dual process, on the one hand, of the social influence and control of what scientists do and say, and, on the other hand, the use of what scientists do and say to further support the institutions of society--that is meant when we speak of science as ideology.

Not saying, that science is a bad thing, we just have to realize the bias and limitations science do have. And the same could be said about religion. Nobody wins.

/debate

Religion and Science are both ideologies. However, I am saying that Science is the better of the lesser pair because the evidence of it's accomplishments are right in front of us. The basic scientific principle shows this. You always end up with an exact answer, even if it wasn't the one that you intended. You always find out something about your problem, and therefore are making progress.

Religion does NOT do this. Religion does not have pure basic evidence of whatever they claim to be right or true over the human society and race. Religion goes off the ideas that were based on a human society that can no longer be based upon ours' today, because of how long ago they were made.

I understand that science can be misinterpreted by the many people that are scientists and/or involved in the many connections with the ideology. However, science's ideas would have a much more basis on today's society than religions'.

Science wins, because it is based on today's society and can always be revised.

Religion's ideas are far to out of date of apply to today's society. Today, we all just have philosophies that can be revised accordingly to the ever changing society.

Go ahead and break that down.