• 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!

The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
People seek the truth in religion and others seek understanding in experiment. Both or neither can find exactly what they are seeking and both require belief to operate.
Okay, but which is more likely to uncover something that might be called "objective truth?"
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The "objective truth" about what? Please clarify.
Truth for which at least some objective evidence can be demonstrated.

"God wants you not to masturbate" may seem to be a truth for those who accept the biblical story of Onan, but the fact that we can reach the member(s) in question and achieve the desired result (very much unlike Tyrannosaurus Rex) provides at least some evidence that God does not, in fact, really give a darn.

Gravity, on the other hand, is something that God (so far as I can understand from several readings of the Bible) didn't know about, is something that science can explain in exquisite detail, and get it "objectively correct" all of the time. The same cannot, I think, be said about "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

That, as much as it is claimed to be "truth," has not yet even a single time been objectively demonstrated.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Okay, but which is more likely to uncover something that might be called "objective truth?"

It depends.

Objective truth in science is whether the universe is ten quadrillion years old or ten billion.

Objective truth in religion is whether it's a good thing to sleep with the neighbor's wife or not.

One can be happy through various paths and few of us ever find much truth and nobody ever finds it solely by his own efforts.

To each his own. I choose reason and facts and have found some truth in many places.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Truth for which at least some objective evidence can be demonstrated.

"God wants you not to masturbate" may seem to be a truth for those who accept the biblical story of Onan, but the fact that we can reach the member(s) in question and achieve the desired result (very much unlike Tyrannosaurus Rex) provides at least some evidence that God does not, in fact, really give a darn.

Gravity, on the other hand, is something that God (so far as I can understand from several readings of the Bible) didn't know about, is something that science can explain in exquisite detail, and get it "objectively correct" all of the time. The same cannot, I think, be said about "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

That, as much as it is claimed to be "truth," has not yet even a single time been objectively demonstrated.
Can science tell me why I prefer cream cheese on my toasted bagel rather than butter? Can religion do the same?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is a matter of utility. People are ultimately utilitarians when it comes to both but the reality when it comes to both they are limited yet many see science or religion giving them the answer to everything.

That I see also depends on what one has decided, that they want from this life.

It is an unlimited Truth that we can pursue, but I see that has a source that is beyond the capacity of our mind.

Regards Tony
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It depends.
If "it depends," then by definition, it isn't objective, wouldn't you agree?
Objective truth in science is whether the universe is ten quadrillion years old or ten billion.
Well, it's actually a bit less than 14 billion, but that objectivity comes only from accepting that "the universe" is the one that we can perceive. And the one that we can perceive, based on all the available science, it about that old. On the other hand, it is not clear that this 14 billion year old universe is not just one of many in a multiverse that nobody understands. By the way, the fact that I can say "nobody understands" is also, right now, another objective truth.
Objective truth in religion is whether it's a good thing to sleep with the neighbor's wife or not.
I disagree! I can conceive of situations in which sleeping with the neighbour's wife may well be a good thing. It depends, I think, on the attitude of yourself and the neighbours, and probably your wife, if you have one. It depends on whether then neighbour is your brother, and he's impotent, and he wants (as Onan's wife did) an heir who inherits most, if not all, of his own genetic makeup. It even depends on whether you have come to love your neighbour's wife, and she you, and your respective partners have done the same...it has happened! I actually know of two couple who made precisely that switch.
One can be happy through various paths and few of us ever find much truth and nobody ever finds it solely by his own efforts.
I think, actually, that you are both right and wrong. Yes, there are various paths by which we may find happiness, but in my readings of many human thinkers and authors, I have found many who have found strong truths, and very often, through little except their own efforts.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.
"Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope."

Not exactly .
Science is based on human experiments and reason while the truthful Religion is based on Word of Revelation and reason . And yes, science and religion don't have to be at odds with one another if correctly understood. And the truthful religion is very humble.
Right, please?

Regards
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims.
Exactly what false promises and claims are coming out of science?

We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.
Boy, who in science is promising paradise?

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Okay, I get it, you're trolling the site.


Good bye.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But religion often does seriously oppose what science has to say and vice versa. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating Creationism vs Evolution in these forums.

You can hardly fault science for the insistence of some theists in taking pride of their ignorance.

Ultimately, that is all that it comes down to.

The existence of those debates is proof that there is opposition and always will be because both narratives are in opposition to each other. Like Rashomon.

Nope. That is raising Creationism (or what is perhaps unproperly know by that name) to a level of legitimacy and respectability that it does not even understand.

Which is to say, you are talking about a fictional version of Creationism.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If "it depends," then by definition, it isn't objective, wouldn't you agree?

Not really. There is reality and there is our interpretation of it based on science, religion, or other.

Well, it's actually a bit less than 14 billion, but that objectivity comes only from accepting that "the universe" is the one that we can perceive. And the one that we can perceive, based on all the available science, it about that old. On the other hand, it is not clear that this 14 billion year old universe is not just one of many in a multiverse that nobody understands. By the way, the fact that I can say "nobody understands" is also, right now, another objective truth.

Certainly no one understands.

I believe it's entirely possible that the universe is unimaginably old, even eternal. Not infinitely old, merely that it has always existed in some form.

I disagree! I can conceive of situations in which sleeping with the neighbour's wife may well be a good thing. It depends, I think, on the attitude of yourself and the neighbours, and probably your wife, if you have one. It depends on whether then neighbour is your brother, and he's impotent, and he wants (as Onan's wife did) an heir who inherits most, if not all, of his own genetic makeup. It even depends on whether you have come to love your neighbour's wife, and she you, and your respective partners have done the same...it has happened! I actually know of two couple who made precisely that switch.

I don't disagree but there are general rules of behavior and as a rule killing and adultery are negatives. And as a rule we can't necessarily spot the exception before or after the fact.

I think, actually, that you are both right and wrong. Yes, there are various paths by which we may find happiness, but in my readings of many human thinkers and authors, I have found many who have found strong truths, and very often, through little except their own efforts.

Being right and wrong is all any of us can hope for. I merely pray I'm right as often as possible especially about important things to me, mine, and humanity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

The reality is everyone uses reason and logic to justify their view, but science limits their claims to that which can be falsified based on objective verifiable, and will not make claims beyond this.

I am a scientist. and from my perspective this is rather bizzaro to say the least. To begin with science does not claim: (1) It is the tools to create a paradise. (2) Science cannot predict the future. Thou some individuals make foolish claims with crystal balls and test tubes. (3) Science does not offer salvation to anybody nor anything. (4) Science does not claim to be the truth. (5) Science does not calim claim to solve all our problems, nor journey to the stars (good stories for science fiction.)
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
I am a scientist. and from my perspective this is rather bizzaro to say the least. To begin with science does not claim: (1) It is the tools to create a paradise. (2) Science cannot predict the future. Thou some individuals make foolish claims with crystal balls and test tubes. (3) Science does not offer salvation to anybody nor anything. (4) Science does not claim to be the truth. (5) Science does not calim claim to solve all our problems, nor journey to the stars (good stories for science fiction.)

Every time you mentioned science in your posts, replace "science" with "religion".
If you don't see things differently then, that's all upon you.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

It seems to me that you are confusing science and science fiction.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science fiction : fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Every time you mentioned science in your posts, replace "science" with "religion".
If you don't see things differently then, that's all upon you.

Huh?!?!? My response was about science. I did not mention religion. Please clarify your response.

My views on religion are another issue if you wish to discuss that. The only relevant to the question is believe there is Harmony between science and religion as a principle of the Baha'i Faith.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is a matter of utility. People are ultimately utilitarians when it comes to both but the reality when it comes to both they are limited yet many see science or religion giving them the answer to everything.

This may be true in many cases for religion, but no science nor scientists claim 'the answer to everything.'
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
The reality is everyone uses reason and logic to justify their view, but science limits their claims to that which can be falsified based on objective verifiable, and will not make claims beyond this.

I am a scientist. and from my perspective this is rather bizzaro to say the least. To begin with science does not claim: (1) It is the tools to create a paradise. (2) Science cannot predict the future. Thou some individuals make foolish claims with crystal balls and test tubes. (3) Science does not offer salvation to anybody nor anything. (4) Science does not claim to be the truth. (5) Science does not calim claim to solve all our problems, nor journey to the stars (good stories for science fiction.)
Yet Stephen Hawkings one of the most respected and eminent voices in the field of science said that we must leave the planet or go extinct
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It seems to me that you are confusing science and science fiction.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science fiction : fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
Pretty much on the spot, Christine.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
It seems to me that you are confusing science and science fiction.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science fiction : fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
And yet we have climate scientists telling everyday if we do this, that and the other thing we will be able to reverse climate change. And people believe them. It's not that I don't believe in climate change but I tend to doubt we can somehow reverse it through the magic of technology or any other means. Yet somehow without evidence the belief without any evidence that we can reverse it persists. So I am going ask you: who keeps telling us we can reverse climate change?
 
Top