• 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

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
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.
And those strange ideas being what?
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
please stop confusing science with science fiction.
When people stop telling other people that science and technology will stop mass extinction by sending us into the stars, when they stop telling us that somehow climate change can be reversed, when they stop telling us they can cure all diseases and when stop talking about "technological singularity" and "transhumanism" and how this or that gadget is going to make life wonderful then I'll stop confusing science with science fiction because they started it. I been sold this stuff most of my life from Uncle Walt Disney himself, how Monsanto and General Electric are going bring us into a glorious future.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When people
As I said, science is not responsible for what other people say science says. If you want to know what science says, ask science.
stop telling other people that science and technology will stop mass extinction by sending us into the stars
You're joking! What scientist ever seriously said that would happen? Or did you just see a rerun of Blade Runner?
when they stop telling us that somehow climate change can be reversed
Science says that if you reduce the quantity of greenhouse gasses you'll reverse climate change, and if you increase the quantity you'll make it worse, what specific error do you see in that claim?
when they stop telling us they can cure all diseases
When did ever science make such a claim? The best science could say is that they hope they'll get better at trying to do that.
and when stop talking about "technological singularity"
That's not a claim by science, it's an hypothesis for discussion. What do you have against discussion?
I been sold this stuff most of my life from Uncle Walt Disney himself, how Monsanto and General Electric are going bring us into a glorious future.
Then blame Disney, don't blame science. Your misdirected sweeping statements don't reflect a lot of credit on you. Instead they make you look like a cheap shot artist.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
What scientist ever seriously said that would happen?

Stephen Hawking among others.

Science says that if you reduce the quantity of greenhouse gasses you'll reverse climate change, and if you increase the quantity you'll make it worse, what specific error do you see in that claim?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science author Susan Solomon says it is essentially irreversible.
International Study: Climate Change Irreversible

When did ever science make such a claim?

Popular Science.
We Are Closer To Curing All Diseases Than We Think
 

It Aint Necessarily So

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. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims.

Science is based on rational skepticism and empiricism, which causes it to question all claims and to observe nature in search of regularities. Its inseparable connection to our common physical reality is what allows its conclusions about the nature of reality to be so useful. Science makes no promises, so it makes no false promises, which basically negates your central thesis.

Religion is faith-based, meaning that it is not anchored to anything except imagination, and thus can't be used for much except to comfort. It's not surprising, therefore, that the two methods generate different and often conflicting ideas about the nature of reality.

For example, Christianity teaches that external reality can be modified with prayer, a claim grounded in faith, not empiricism (evidence), but testable empirically nevertheless. Science has studied the claim, and found prayer inefficacious. Cardiac patients undergoing major invasive cardiac procedures were divided into three groups - those not prayed for, those prayed for but weren't told about the prayer, and those that knew that they were being prayed for. Those in the dark that they had been prayed for did no better than those not prayed for. Those that knew that they were being prayed for did worse than either of those two groups.

One of these two methods - faith versus empiricism - produced a false claim. Your attempt to equate them is ill-founded.

We are told both can be used to make the world a better place.

Perhaps, but let's look at their respective track records and see which has made the world better.

We can see how science benefits mankind. Science lights up our homes at night, has put men on the moon and brought them home, and has conquered polio and small pox. Science makes our lives longer (80 is the new 60), healthier (better nutrition, antibiotics), more functional (eyeglasses, artificial knees), more comfortable (air conditioning), more efficient (especially in communication and transportation), easier (electric motors and microwaves), and more interesting, as with this activity we're participating in now involving computers, fiberoptic and electric cables, radio communication, and satellites.

Science has given us incredible access to information. It's literally true that if the Library at Alexandria still existed and your home was between it and the Library of Congress (US), that I with my smart phone could have any answer accessible to you before your car rolled out of its driveway going to the library, and I would have access to much more than you did anyway - things such as pop culture ("Who is that actress and what do I know her from?" while watching her).

What are the contributions if any of the religions to the human condition that aren't available without religion? What does religion have to offer people who have learned to navigate life without it?

Once again, your effort to show how similar these two systems of thought is ill-founded. Their methods couldn't be more different, their utility is dissimilar (I can't find any use for religious thought in my life, but use science continually), their claims about reality, are radically different, and their arcs or trajectories through history are the opposite as one is becoming a progressively larger part of human life while the other is becoming less significant.

Once again, your effort to equate them seems unjustified. The differences are radical, and the similarities that you claim are there just aren't.

Promises, promises, promises.

Science promises you nothing, but keeps delivering nevertheless. Religion makes promises that can't be verified and don't need to be kept.

Once again, these are not similar but dissimilar.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation"

No. Science knows nothing of salvation, and as I noted, promises you nothing, although it is not unreasonable to expect much from it anyway given its track record.

people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems

That Jetsonian utopia where mom pushes a button and dinner is served was once a popular meme, but I think that we're a little more realistic these days. Science can't solve the global warming crisis coming, for example. It can only inform and warn us. I think that that's pretty well understood. Science will solve none of our problems, but may give us the information we need to solve some of them if we use the fruits of science wisely.

But why would people expecting more from science than what science actually offers be a negative reflection on science?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

Why all the religious language when discussing science? Science is not our savior. It is our benefactor. It cannot save you from yourself or from a failed state. Once again, science can only offer answers. Governments that can deliver the benefits of that knowledge (along with security, prosperity, opportunity, etc.) are the good ones. The citizens of those nations that cannot bring the benefits of science to their people obviously will not enjoy those benefits, but that's not a defect of science.

let us look at our current situation involving the environment, we can't blame religion for that can we?

No? These are all former or present Christian politicians in America :
  • "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities - this is who they put in charge of protecting natural resources)
  • "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla
  • "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.
If we need salvation, it is from that.

So don't give me that "science does nothing but good" spiel. It doesn't.

Science does nothing but discover and share its discoveries. It does no harm. Governments and industry might do harm with scientific knowledge, but talk to them about that, not the scientists.

But religion often does seriously oppose what science has to say and vice versa.

It doesn't matter to scientists if religions accept or reject their discoveries. Science isn't listening to the religions or any other nonscientific interest, and doesn't care who agrees with its findings except qualified scientists .

The arrogance lies not on what science is but in how humanity views it and utilizes it.

Then what's your beef with science?

many see science or religion giving them the answer to everything.

Once again, why lay that at the feet of science and scientists?

In the meantime, please feel free to utilize the fruits of science to misrepresent it by exaggerating its promises, blaming it for the failure of governments and businesses to use science wisely, and not just down-playing, but completely ignoring its benefits. I haven't seen a single word from you in praise of anything science has done for humanity - just an effort to reduce it to religion's equivalent. You haven't addressed a single benefit to science, just what you see as its failures to live up to promises that I don't recall anybody making.

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.

What scientists are telling us is that human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere for years, which is resulting in the warming of the earth. We are also told what some of the consequences of that will be, many catastrophic. That's it. Use the information if you are wise enough, or don't and roll the dice.

But it is science and science alone that gives us this information and the opportunity to mitigate if not prevent disaster. You saw Christianity's contribution to the effort in the quotes above.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Stephen Hawking among others.
What were the words he used?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science author Susan Solomon says it is essentially irreversible.
That doesn't address the question I asked @reverend Bob ─ if we sufficiently reduce the quantity of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, will that alleviate climate change?
That's hardly a claim by science to have done so or to be able to do so.
 

BilliardsBall

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.

There seems to be a difference to me between a scientist who works hard to suspend judgment and bias, to carefully assess, think and study--and Jesus Christ, who IMHO died a horrible death by torture and rose from the dead, because He loves me.
 

Gandalf

Horn Tooter
People fail to see that science is just a useful tool for life along with many others. Indeed I do not enjoy the conflict between the two but I ultimately have great respect and need for both. I cannot understand God's creation without science and I cannot commit to the principles of science without an appreciation for God's works. Science does not profess a world view or an end goal, it offers us no salvation and nothing else beyond. You are adding to science what is simply the crux of many religions but not science itself.

This whole thread is founded upon misleading dribble.
 

Gandalf

Horn Tooter
Another note I should add as a deist is that there simply is no salvation in deism, what God does is what he does and it is left at that. There is no end goal for humanity cause we do not judge or consider ourselves equal yet alone worthy of God himself. As humbling as it is to know your a water bag floating on a rock circling a ball of fire that will surely be the end of us it is not up to me or others to predict or testify we know the will of that which is our Lord. That is not how deists roll buddy, we are pretty nihilistic when it comes to claims of salvation and divine retribution even.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
There seems to be a difference to me between a scientist who works hard to suspend judgment and bias, to carefully assess, think and study--and Jesus Christ, who IMHO died a horrible death by torture and rose from the dead, because He loves me.

Jesus? That was not much of a sacrifice, I am afraid. That was actually pretty lame.

Ciao

- viole
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
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.

Religionists and scientists yes but both science and the teachings taught in the Holy Books are only light upon light.

It’s people that have caused problems throughout the ages by disobeying the laws of religion and misusing science for harmful purposes.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I didn't mean "salvation" in the theological sense of the term.
OK, but then you are conceding that science and religion are not offering the same thing, because you are using "salvation" to mean different things, depending on which of the two you are talking about.

Science offers knowledge of nature.

Religion offers a guide to living your life: purpose and meaning, a source of comfort and steadiness against the ups and downs of life, community, solidarity with the past through tradition, a means of meditation and achieving stillness and balance in life through ritual and contemplation, art, music etc.

It seems to me that the two have almost nothing in common, actually. It is for this reason that I see no inherent conflict between them.

Conflict only arises when one of them leaves its proper domain and starts to interfere with the other, for example through the distortions of creationism, or the attempt by some of the New Atheists to misuse science to try to supplant the role of religion.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There seems to be a difference to me between a scientist who works hard to suspend judgment and bias, to carefully assess, think and study--and Jesus Christ, who IMHO died a horrible death by torture and rose from the dead, because He loves me.
Thanks for that.

He's talking about scenarios in the next hundred years that may require humans to live elsewhere than earth or perish. Indeed you'd agree (rather than complain) that it's reasonable to think the disasters he mentions are possible. And it may be that humans could develop techniques to detect planets hospitable to earthlings around other stars, but they'd be essentially guesses; and could come to build self-contained, self-fueling ships to allow humans to live in space, presumably at a constant acceleration / deceleration of 1g, for centuries.

Or those things may not happen, and alternative solutions may be necessary ─ compulsory sterilization after the first or second child, living in space stations or in moon colonies till the earth cooled / ceased to be radioactive / became fertile again and so on.

But I still don't know why you think discussion of such matters, such possible challenges where people will ask science for answers, is 'arrogant'.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
What were the words he used?
That doesn't address the question I asked @reverend Bob ─ if we sufficiently reduce the quantity of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, will that alleviate climate change?
That's hardly a claim by science to have done so or to be able to do so.
*******How did this happen? I have not written this, about Stephen Hawking or Susan Solomon. **What happened?**These are not from me!!! The link, neither!!! *******
 
Top