• 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

exchemist

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.
I assume you are not in fact a clergyman and that the "reverend" part of your handle is not intended seriously.

So far as I am aware we are not told by either religion or science that they can create a paradise.
I don't know maybe medicine, AI and robotics, sociology and etc and etc. So many disciplines have been claim to offer us hope and promise, that we will be able to solve this or that problem through them. Don't give me that "No one ever says that" line because people say those sort of things all the time. Go to any science news site and you will see many article with "Science promises to X will help us solve Y in the near future" tagline.
How is that "salvation"? What are we supposedly being "saved" from by robotics - or even medicine? After all we all die in the end.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
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?
Hang on, you are telling us in the first sentence of this very post that climate scientists are telling us every day we will be able to reverse climate change.

And then you end by demanding "Who keeps telling us we can reverse climate change?"

Have you forgotten where you heard this, in between starting your post and finishing it?

(I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say such a thing, by the way.)
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Doubling the life expectancy in 1st world countries, but your savior has not been that great in the 3rd world, in fact it has often been used to cut their life short.
Source, please.

And let us look at our current situation involving the environment, we can't blame religion for that can we?
No, but religions also cannot present potential solutions. Science can.

But what tools has humanity used to decimate the environment in which it lives, obviously scientific knowledge and technology. So don't give me that "science does nothing but good" spiel. It doesn't.
I never said "science does nothing but good", that's a dishonest strawman - I even said that scientists don't regard science as "perfect", so your retort here is just blatant dishonesty. The point is that science achieves things that are unparalleled by any other means, and that you characterisation of science and the claims it makes were false. Science is humble enough to know its limits and not over-promise. No claims of salvation, no claims that it's perfect. It simply looks at a problem and works to solve it, which has done more reliably than any other methodology in the entire history of humanity.

Religion is not even remotely an equal to science in terms of claims, goals and achievements. Your comparison is absurd.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
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.

I see a difference. Try to have a similar discussion with people all over the globe only by praying, and tell me what happens.

Ciao

- viole
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Sorry for the generalization, perhaps I should have used the term "Most people" rather than "We". Fact are you cannot reconciled what religion says is true with what science says is true any more that you can reconcile Capitalism and Marxism. Both have similarities but ultimately they oppose each other in their message.
This is total nonsense. They deal with quite different aspects of human experience and barely overlap. Science has no "message", for a start.
 

exchemist

Veteran 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. 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.
No, those debates simply show that there are some particularly ignorant strands of religion (especially in the US Bible Belt) that cling obstinately to ideas long since given up by most thoughtful religions.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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?


That is something of a false claim . there is considerable evidence of conditions throughout millions of years of history, of previous warmings and how they stabilised. Difference is that in the past there was no human intervention so the cycles took thousands, even tens of thousands of years. Now with the pollutants that humans are pumping into the environment it is happening on a much more rapid scale. Remove those pollutants and voila!,

And that is what science does, it evaluates evidence. It does not guess "d'oh! I dont understand so god"

And of course you have not addressed the claims of paradise made in your OP
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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

Your citing one scientist, which does not represent science, nor scientists regardless of his supposed reputation. He was expressing his frustration due to the abuse of humans for our planet and does not remotely describe your view of scientists. Over emphasis of individual personalities and beliefs in both science and religions is a problem.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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?

Yes, most scientists, including myself, believe that human pollution is a major cause of climate change. It is not magic technology, and it is more than obvious if we are the cause, it is possible if we reverse the trend of pollution, then we could reverse climate change. The problem comes whether we could reverse the human pollution of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Not all scientists believe we can completely reverse the trend, but do support reducing the human pollution to reduce the impact of the changing the climate.

There are many benefits to reducing the pollution including increasing the quality of life, and conserving resources that scientists overwhelmingly advocate. So does Hawking.
 
Last edited:

usfan

Well-Known Member
Science is an nonpartisan tool. Many religious beliefs attempt to hijack it to strengthen their faith. But regarding the Big Questions.. How, Why, What, When, science cannot say, because those are outside of its scope.

Scientific methodology could be used, with the supernatural, IF.. the supernatural always responded to specific stimuli. But since it does not, science has no comment.. the supernatural is outside of natural laws, and cannot be analyzed scientifically.

..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
~Albert Einstein
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
There is no conflict between faith and science, or the empirical interface with life, and abstract beliefs. Some people lean more to one over the other, but both are there, in our being.

Most of the time, our abstract beliefs about the universe are irrelevant in our daily lives. Our beliefs about God, origins, or eternity do not come into play when we start the car and drive to the grocery store, or reboot our computers to type opinions on forums.

We have a blend of empirical knowledge and faith, in most of our interactions with the world we are in. Our knowledge base consists of experiential knowledge, observational belief, and abstract faith.

Most of our faith in the things of this world have an empirical basis. There IS a scientific reason for these things, whether we know it or not.
But there are some things we believe that are outside of empirical knowledge. These are matters of faith, or abstract belief, based on a number of factors. We have nothing objective to verify our opinions or beliefs, but we believe them anyway. Perhaps there are subjective or intuitive reasons for our beliefs, but they lack the objectivity to call them 'empirical.'
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
I assume you are not in fact a clergyman and that the "reverend" part of your handle is not intended seriously.

So far as I am aware we are not told by either religion or science that they can create a paradise.

How is that "salvation"? What are we supposedly being "saved" from by robotics - or even medicine? After all we all die in the end.

So basically you are saying that their is no one here or anywhere else in the entire internet or world telling us that someday science and technology will someday save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease? Funny because all I had to do is throw a few search terms in Google and I found thousand upon thousand of people and institutions publishing all sorts of webpages telling us that someday science and technology will save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease. Why are you in denial about this?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
So basically you are saying that their is no one here or anywhere else in the entire internet or world telling us that someday science and technology will someday save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease? Funny because all I had to do is throw a few search terms in Google and I found thousand upon thousand of people and institutions publishing all sorts of webpages telling us that someday science and technology will save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease. Why are you in denial about this?
No, I asked you a question, viz. how can the technological advances in the areas you mention be seen as "salvation"?

In my universe that question is not tantamount to asserting that "their [sic] is no one here or anywhere else in the entire internet or world telling us that someday science and technology will someday save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease". After all, our lunatic asylums are full of people making far-fetched statements. You cannot expect me to know everything that they may say. But perhaps you are better informed than I on what they say?
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
No, I asked you a question, viz. how can the technological advances in the areas you mention be seen as "salvation"?

In my universe that question is not tantamount to asserting that "their [sic] is no one here or anywhere else in the entire internet or world telling us that someday science and technology will someday save us from mass extinction, climate change and disease". After all, our lunatic asylums are full of people making far-fetched statements. You cannot expect me to know everything that they may say. But perhaps you are better informed than I on what they say?
I didn't mean "salvation" in the theological sense of the term.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I didn't mean "salvation" in the theological sense of the term.

I believe you would find the consensus here is
to the effect that you have some strange ideas.
with no basis in fact or logic.

Maybe you need to review them a bit, or find
a new hobby, this one is getting you nowhere
good.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
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.
I'd say that science would claim to arrive at its conclusions by honest and transparent argument from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment (empiricism and induction) but never claims that its conclusions are absolute statements. Whatever religions do, that doesn't describe it.
But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims.
I can think of many false promises made by at least the Abrahamic religions. But what's an example or two of a false promise by science? As distinct from mistakes and frauds, whose errors were discovered and addressed by science?
We are told both can be used to make the world a better place.
Aspects of medicine have made the world a better place. Aspects of physics have brought us electricity, electronics, metallurgy and materials science including plastics, weather forecasting, GPS, informed us of the cosmos and the sub-atomic realms, and so on. But all of those can be good or bad depending on how humans employ them, and science is not so silly as to pretend otherwise.
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.
With respect, you're confusing optimism and optimistic fictions (the Jetsons spring to mind) with promises.
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.
Understanding of human nature is indeed a work in progress, and I don't know about religion but I know science has never made any claim to a complete description of it. The mapping of the brain, and hypotheses and experiments as to the nature and physiology of consciousness, are likewise works in progress, and science is the first to admit there's a long way to go.
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.
Perhaps the place to start would be to familiarize oneself with what each is actually claiming, as distinct from what anyone else says each is actually claiming.
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
And further what I just said, please stop confusing science with science fiction.
 
Top