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

[Melissa]

thinking of how you word your sentences now, and how you did back in 2004.. makes me laugh.

Are you talking to me? I'm in college now, I was in high school then. Of course the way I word my sentences would be different.

Here, I'll try to construct a more obvious analogy for you:

If you're playing the game of basketball, you follow a certain set of rules (these rules help the game along). Well, imagine that you decided that, for whatever reason, you wanted to invent a contrary set of arbitrary (maybe nondescript) rules for basketball. Now, that's fine and all, but those rules might not be conductive to the spirit of the game (consider the reality of epistemology and the scientific method). If you try to implement those rules, against the rules of the original game, you're going to look like an ass. Further, you aren't going to convince anyone that you're a good or fair player. Essentially, you'll just ruin the game for everyone.

It's sort of like science and faith. The principles of science are demonstrative; they are tested and work very well. We can make predictions using science, and can, using strict rationalism, find out exactly where we might have gone wrong in a specific hypothesis. In the case of faith, none of this is true. We can not form meaningful predictions using faith. We can not demonstrate faith. We can not point out precisely where one may or may not go wrong in their own practice of faith. In fact, we don't even have a semblance of an idea of what faith truly is (aside from an emotional substitution for reason).

So, science does win. Just because you try to change the rules in the middle of the game don't mean shit. Science wins.

Look, I understand what you're saying and I'm telling YOU that just because you and the rest of the world decided that science wins, etc., that argument is never going to work with people who are religious, so why even bother trying? They firmly believe in whatever it is they do, so no matter how much logic and rationalization you use, it's not going to do much good in their limited little worlds. I, personally, agree that "science wins." However, you're fighting a useless battle. It's like trying to teach someone who was born blind what the color red looks like; it just ain't gonna happen.

That, and please don't speak to me condescendingly. You aren't any better than me and I'm not an idiot.

Thank you and goodbye.

[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.

[Reidar]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

[freeridefight]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

then are you telling me that religion itself is not objective? Religion was made by society, therefore in your own words itself is objective.

And how does the scientific method influence that it is lower or the same level than religion? Yes it is self-corrective, which only establishes a higher platform on which science is better. Religions do not self-correct themselves. It says this is the way, and you are wrong. Science says I may be wrong, let's redo this.

[Reidar]

then are you telling me that religion itself is not objective? Religion was made by society, therefore in your own words itself is objective.

No. That's the exact opposite of my point in demonstrating what a syllogistic fallacy amounts to. The sum does not equate to the whole.

And how does the scientific method influence that it is lower or the same level than religion?

It doesn't.

Yes it is self-corrective, which only establishes a higher platform on which science is better.

You're reiterating my points. The fact that science is subject to amelioration makes it a logical process. It has to be able to accommodate newfound information.

[NoSex]

Look, I understand what you're saying and I'm telling YOU that just because you and the rest of the world decided that science wins, etc., that argument is never going to work with people who are religious, so why even bother trying?

I didn't realize you were arguing that scientific thought is futile in the course of convincing the faithful. I thought you were proposing some sort of strange fundamental stalemate between faith and reason - as if faith had any merit whatsoever.

But, now that I do realize your point, I'll have to respectfully disagree. "The argument" has numerous uses and is surely worth "trying." You just have to look at it from a different angle. But, as for the narrow angle you seem to be deploying here: Yes, science can "work with people who are religious." I was once religious. I know many other people who were once religious - they no longer are. This is thanks, in large, to scientific thought. So, you're wrong.

Further, I find a great deal of offense in the idea you're positing. Are you encouraging ignorance or do you just have a great deal of sympathy towards bliss?

[Melissa]

Okay, so now I'm an advocate for ignorance. Great.

Let me just say this. When I say that using scientific thought to "convert" religions people doesn't work, I am talking about the religious people who zealously believe in their relationship with God (etc) and actually dig into so-called scientific thought to find cases that support their belief and give reason to cases that don't. At the end of the day, the basis behind their belief is faith and science - though valid - is a force trying to shake them of their faith. I'm not talking about the everyday, run of the mill Christian who goes to church on Sundays and believes what his or her parents tell them to believe.

I've known plenty of people who were once religious as well, but at the same time, I've had conversations with priests and well-known speakers at my old church, asking about science. These people knew a lot about scientific discoveries and were able to work through every obstacle presented. Why do you think so many people are religious?

There are plenty of scientists that are religious as well. There are tons of engineers at my school, and a great number of them are religious. Science and religion, in my opinion, aren't two things that can successfully be brought head to head. If science alone can shake your religious beliefs, I'm sorry to say, but your belief must have been incredibly shallow.

And I'd also like to defend the "ignorance" you claim that I am encouraging. Do you really think that people who are religious are ignorant in scientific thought? Do you really think you're teaching anybody things that they don't already know? As I said - many people who are religious are also scientists. Try bringing in your "scientific thought" and making it change their beliefs.

[Reidar]

If scientific evidence was enough to quell somebody's theistic beliefs, that would, ironically, be closer to a mutual compatibility than religion existing despite science, unamenable to correction.

[shoryuken]

BUTHH.. closee thradd..

[huskar]

Well I know what actually helped to sit before this computer and typ this message . Athiests are living a pretty happy life compared to someone who is without technology living in a isolated place cutoff from civilization with religion .

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

This topic got me thinking about something my Archaeologu teacher said the other day..

we in the west have one of the scariest religions in the world; it's called science.

if you think in many ways science has many things a religion has in the sense there is a belief, a reason for life beginning and a prediction of the afterlife or rather lack of it. Science is just based on experiment and truth or "truth" rather than belief.

May sound like an odd thing to say, but if you think about it, i recken it makes sense? prehaps it's just me?

[brooklyneast05]

how is science scary? it's giving you proof/logical explanations to how the world works without condemning you to eternal suffering. that doesn't sound half as scary as religion to me.


i don't think your teacher makes very much sense.

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

I'm not saying he was right or anything..
i am simply saying it is an iteresting view on the subject.

[tripod]

It is said that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.Both science and religion are two sides of the same coin. One cannot develop without the support of other.Both are equally important to me.

[NoSex]

One cannot develop without the support of other.Both are equally important to me.

How can science not develop without religion? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Tung]

^ Word. Science isn't base off beliefs and hope. It's base off actual physical experimentation to prove hypothesis's that are brought up. You don't need religion for scientific experimentation's.

What? Are you going to pray to God and hope that a certain chemical will react with another chemical? No.

[*cakedout*]

Lol, you also can't explain love using numbers and statistics.

[NoSex]

Lol, you also can't explain love using numbers and statistics.

Some people may disagree with such a summation, you do understand?

[Blaqheartedstar]

^not joining in on the argument there.

Religion helps make people safer . It help you to become a better person. Religion 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 wouldn't know where we are, what is safe? .. such as planets or universe ..... etc ..

If both have the intention to make us safe then why argue over it? I have a religious grandmother who just can't stop her obsession over it.
I think that if God has a plan or has the power to make us safe then he will fix the major problems thats wrong with the earth now. We are obviously in danger and it can help.
But seeing how thats not going to happen its up to science to tell us what we are doing wrong, and what we need to do to fix it.
I lean more towards science because without it we wouldn't have the things we have now. yes granted it has its downs but we aren't oblivious to the world's wonders.

[fameONE]

Over the past couple years, I've drifted away from religion. I don't knock anyone who is devout to their faith of choice as long as they can be good person. Then again, who am I to judge? Being here, in a place where religion is the cause of senseless killings has brought me to my own personal belief that 'God' doesn't exist. I suppose you could say that the straw broke the camel's back (no pun intended).

[x3missy]

"The religion is responsible for its followers: therefore can be held accountable for these actions."

Religion has become a key aspect that shapes peoples' morality (For example: If you _____, _____ will result as a punishment/reward.)
We have become so dependent on religion for answers that we no longer trust our instincts to influence our judgment. Instead of a strong sense of morals created solely by instinct, religion now plays a key role. This however, varies depending on how the religion is interpreted by its follower(s). When you have people who base their morals/values/ethics entirely on a religion, there will be extremists. (Saddam Hussein, inflicted terror to unbelievers who contended against Allah and His Messenger. His actions are done “in the name of Allah”. You also have the pro-life Christian group with a history of bombing clinics (killing many, especially doctors) but, “view of themselves as heroic rescuers aligned against Godless fornicators.”)

Ex: A teenager gets pregnant after being raped by one of her family members and wants an abortion.

According to pro-life and other anti-abortion groups, abortion should not be allowed unless the mother’s life is in danger. In this situation, would you rather be religiously correct and force the teen to keep the baby against her every will? Or because of the trauma she went through, and the major lifestyle shift that results in a teen pregnancy, should she be allowed to abort the baby? Morally speaking, it would be wrong to force any women no matter what, to have a baby against her will.

I think i just turned my argument into an irrelevant one.
Mmm, later I will some how tie this all into science vs religion.

[Blaqheartedstar]

^ women should have the choice. Tired of all these religious people thinking that they rule the world and "know" what god wants.
Same with Gay marriage. Tired of signs saying that god hates gays... how do they know that? did got whisper that into their ears?
back on topic. I believe that if science and religion can co exist together, religious people needs to real up to the world and its problems and not be a blatant fool thinking that god can save us when it is ALL us that has put us in this mess in the first place.

totally focusing on the main religions here in the states... mainly Christians... all other religions are totally cool and all and i hardly ever hear anything on them.

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

I agree that when some religious people prechng about gay marriage and abortion and even getting their kids involved is highly odd, and to be completely honest i don't think its any of their business.
But saying all Christians are like that would be a very wrong assumption as it is actually only a small number. I'm a christian by choice not because i was brought up to be like that, and i attend church and no christian i have ever met is like that. Although im not sure what its like in America, all the tv shows show the extremist christians it seems.

But anyway on the topic of science Vs. religion, i don't think you can clearly have a winner, and there will always be followers of both, and why bother putting down something you do not personally believe? It wont stop anyone else believing it.
humans will neve be able to prove one side better than the other, because while we may never be able to prove if there is a god, or many gods we cannot really prove that there aren't.

[Reidar]

humans will neve be able to prove one side better than the other, because while we may never be able to prove if there is a god, or many gods we cannot really prove that there aren't.

You don't need to prove or disprove the concept of a god in an absolute regard to explain how one system is more useful, applicable, and realistic than the other.

[mipadi]

When you have people who base their morals/values/ethics entirely on a religion, there will be extremists. (Saddam Hussein, inflicted terror to unbelievers who contended against Allah and His Messenger. His actions are done “in the name of Allah”.

Actually, under Hussein, the government of Iraq was largely secular, and Hussein was anything but a devoted Muslim. I don't believe he invoked the name of Allah to justify any of his actions, unless he was perhaps pandering to religious conservatives.