sealchan
Well-Known Member
In discussions regarding the relative merits of science and religion, I find that there is a sense of common ground between the two such that each can be seen as competing modalities. Yet in arguing about their relative merits each side tends to overstate their own favorites virtues and overburden the opposing sides with its vices. As such we have the perfect recipe for talking right past each other. In this thread I hope to lay out some of the aspects of religion and science that make them comparables even as they also get characterized as opposites and incompatible by many.
Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.
Both religion and science are "institutionalized" meaning they are supported and maintained by institutions which manage and promote the practice and interest of their "way of knowing truth". As institutions with members both religion and science then also have a presence and influence in politics. The institutions then can shape public policy and they represent an authority or power of representation on behalf of its members.
Religion and science are multi-disciplinary meaning that science has a number of specialties which focus on a certain range of phenomenon whether physics or chemistry or psychology or sociology. With respect to religion we have the major and minor branches of a variety of religious traditions. As a corollary we can also say that both religion and science have their "hard" or strong forms and their "soft" or weak forms. For science the disciplines that are most able to make use of the experimental process are seen as stronger forms of science even as good scholarship which gathers and categorizes data more than performs repeatable experimentation is still seen as good "science". In religion we have active participants who participate fully in a particular religion's "methodology" and espouse that religion's "myth" as instructive but there are also others who find value in method and myth but do not implement it fully in their own personal life. They may be seen as "spiritual but not religious" perhaps.
Now when comparing and contrasting the two I often find that on the one side science promoters retreat to a position where they claim science is only a methodology and they target religion as Institutionalized. When a religion promoter tries to hold science accountable for its influence on society the science promoter cries foul and says that science is not responsible. When a science promoter critiques a religion as having a inherently deficient "way of knowing truth" it fails to come to an agreement with any given religion-promoter what they would agree on it that religion's methodology for determining truth.
Another disparity I find is that science promoters claim the whole of its multi-disciplinary approach while religion promoters often claim only the particular belief system of their religion. But I think that in spite of any given believer wants to promote, for the sake of a balanced argument they must also promote all sincere religious systems when comparing their own to that of science. This leaves many exclusionary believers in a difficult position, but that is a secondary concern if they wish to promote religion per se against the multi-disciplinary character of science. They should acknowledge that whatever claim to truth they espouse for their religion, a non religion promoter is going to look at that as merely one in a range of methodologies available. Failure to do so is to already hobble one's self in the argument.
My hope is that this thread can inspire debate about the above and serve as a reference for critiquing other exchanges which seek to come to a sincere discussion about why people find value in religion and in science and how we might come to better mutually understand each other should we take up a position as a religion promoter of science promoter...which is something I can quite easily find myself switching between depending on the "center of gravity" of any particular thread.
Any and all sincere comments welcome.
Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.
Both religion and science are "institutionalized" meaning they are supported and maintained by institutions which manage and promote the practice and interest of their "way of knowing truth". As institutions with members both religion and science then also have a presence and influence in politics. The institutions then can shape public policy and they represent an authority or power of representation on behalf of its members.
Religion and science are multi-disciplinary meaning that science has a number of specialties which focus on a certain range of phenomenon whether physics or chemistry or psychology or sociology. With respect to religion we have the major and minor branches of a variety of religious traditions. As a corollary we can also say that both religion and science have their "hard" or strong forms and their "soft" or weak forms. For science the disciplines that are most able to make use of the experimental process are seen as stronger forms of science even as good scholarship which gathers and categorizes data more than performs repeatable experimentation is still seen as good "science". In religion we have active participants who participate fully in a particular religion's "methodology" and espouse that religion's "myth" as instructive but there are also others who find value in method and myth but do not implement it fully in their own personal life. They may be seen as "spiritual but not religious" perhaps.
Now when comparing and contrasting the two I often find that on the one side science promoters retreat to a position where they claim science is only a methodology and they target religion as Institutionalized. When a religion promoter tries to hold science accountable for its influence on society the science promoter cries foul and says that science is not responsible. When a science promoter critiques a religion as having a inherently deficient "way of knowing truth" it fails to come to an agreement with any given religion-promoter what they would agree on it that religion's methodology for determining truth.
Another disparity I find is that science promoters claim the whole of its multi-disciplinary approach while religion promoters often claim only the particular belief system of their religion. But I think that in spite of any given believer wants to promote, for the sake of a balanced argument they must also promote all sincere religious systems when comparing their own to that of science. This leaves many exclusionary believers in a difficult position, but that is a secondary concern if they wish to promote religion per se against the multi-disciplinary character of science. They should acknowledge that whatever claim to truth they espouse for their religion, a non religion promoter is going to look at that as merely one in a range of methodologies available. Failure to do so is to already hobble one's self in the argument.
My hope is that this thread can inspire debate about the above and serve as a reference for critiquing other exchanges which seek to come to a sincere discussion about why people find value in religion and in science and how we might come to better mutually understand each other should we take up a position as a religion promoter of science promoter...which is something I can quite easily find myself switching between depending on the "center of gravity" of any particular thread.
Any and all sincere comments welcome.
Last edited: