The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

BilliardsBall · May 21, 2019

blü 2 said:
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'.

It's not arrogant to discuss the kind of eugenics and forced sterilization/abortions you suggest, it's arrogant to play God and takes lives and do it.

blü 2 · May 21, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
It's not arrogant to discuss the kind of eugenics and forced sterilization/abortions you suggest, it's arrogant to play God and takes lives and do it.

If I were playing God then as you know God has no objection to abortion or infanticide at all. Not only does he approve those things when done by his followers, [he] makes abortion / miscarriage a routine part of nature for all placentals.

Stop telling women what they can and can't do. Stop treating them like breeding cows, who have no choice either. Roe v Wade has set the correct balance.

sealchan · May 21, 2019

The Reverend Bob said:
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 wouldn't be if on the side of religion it was meant ALL religions or the methodolgy of religion IN GENERAL instead of a particular religion. Understanding religion or faith would then be subject to a more objective characterization.

And if the scientist were more recognized as being an individual with very subjective investments in their relationship with science we might better realize the subjective elements of any scientific practice.

sealchan · May 21, 2019

ImmortalFlame said:
Science has never offered "salvation", and there is no general belief among scientists that science can solve "all" problems. Regardless, science as a tool has been used to improve billions of lives all around the world, more than doubling average life expectancy and improving the standard of living for practically everyone on the planet. It never presents itself as perfect, it just works.

So your comparison is flawed.

Hasn't science enabled great evil? Think of the history of the development of weaponry or the impact to ecosystems across the globe.

And with religion deeply embedded in the lives billions of good people doing good things, how can we measure the aid that religion has produced by helping to resolve our inner existential dilemmas and freeing us to think of others?

sealchan · May 21, 2019

LuisDantas said:
Uh, sorry, but that does not make a lot of sense.

Science is science. Religion, if it takes itself seriously, has no reason to oppose it.

I think that it is a bit beside the point to cast the OP as arguing that it is saying it is not possible to reconcile religion and science.

viole · May 21, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Perhaps you can dig deep some time to possibly show less respect for a religious adherent.

What do you mean? I always respect the believer, I do not respect the belief. Since you do the same with sinners/sins, I am not sure why the double standard.

And how could I possibly respect the belief? If you think rationally one second about that, you would realize immediately that Jesus sacrifice either never happened or it was lame.

Your call, really

Ciao

- viole

LuisDantas · May 21, 2019

sealchan said:
I think that it is a bit beside the point to cast the OP as arguing that it is saying it is not possible to reconcile religion and science.

That is not what I said, nor what I implied.

The OP is misrepresenting science, that is all.

Audie · May 21, 2019

sealchan said:
Hasn't science enabled great evil? Think of the history of the development of weaponry or the impact to ecosystems across the globe.

And with religion deeply embedded in the lives billions of good people doing good things, how can we measure the aid that religion has produced by helping to resolve our inner existential dilemmas and freeing us to think of others?

Science? Why not go after all technology, starting
with the sharp stick, the rock, and fire? That is where
the trouble started.
The entire American prairie was an artifact of the native's
use of fire, and the nature of the hardwood forests as well.
"Effect on ecosystem" ya know.

Science is a way of thinking. Objectively observe, and
assess, and test. That enables all sorts of things.
Like not getting eaten by hyaenas as often.

Religion is magical thinking. What good is that
supposed to do?

Morality, ethics, "doing good things" is part of
human nature, and has nothing to do with
religion.

Religions like to co opt such as morality, to increase
their power. To pretend they wont exist without
religion teaching them is garbage.

Audie · May 21, 2019

viole said:
What do you mean? I always respect the believer, I do not respect the belief. Since you do the same with sinners/sins, I am not sure why the double standard.

And how could I possibly respect the belief? If you think rationally one second about that, you would realize immediately that Jesus sacrifice either never happened or it was lame.

Your call, really

Ciao

- viole

It is good to respect the believer, as long as
they do not show they are unworthy of respect.

sealchan · May 21, 2019

Audie said:
Science? Why not go after all technology, starting
with the sharp stick, the rock, and fire? That is where
the trouble started.
The entire American prairie was an artifact of the native's
use of fire, and the nature of the hardwood forests as well.
"Effect on ecosystem" ya know.

Science is a way of thinking. Objectively observe, and
assess, and test. That enables all sorts of things.
Like not getting eaten by hyaenas as often.

Religion is magical thinking. What good is that
supposed to do?

Morality, ethics, "doing good things" is part of
human nature, and has nothing to do with
religion.

Religions like to co opt such as morality, to increase
their power. To pretend they wont exist without
religion teaching them is garbage.

I'd say religion is preferred fiction and that it is the role of fiction to help us ground and establish our morality. Any particular moral decision can be seen as an element of a human story and fiction is the art of exploring human moral territory.

To see religion as merely magical thinking is to criticize it for its worst elements alone while absolving science of all responsibility for the development of toxic and destructive technologies. That is the sort of biased arrogance I see this OP as taking aim at.

sealchan · May 21, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
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.

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.

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.

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 .

Then what's your beef with science?

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.

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.

It would be ironic if two global alliances opposed not primarily by religious differences were to ever threaten each other with a war that could end human civilization...but, of course, that could never happen because...science.

Audie · May 21, 2019

sealchan said:
I'd say religion is preferred fiction and that it is the role of fiction to help us ground and establish our morality. Any particular moral decision can be seen as an element of a human story and fiction is the art of exploring human moral territory.

To see religion as merely magical thinking is to criticize it for its worst elements alone while absolving science of all responsibility for the development of toxic and destructive technologies. That is the sort of biased arrogance I see this OP as taking aim at.

The biased arrogance here is from you, assuming
you know so well that you understand what I said
and why I said it.

Religion without magical thinking is no religion at all.

Of course religion is not merely magical thinking.
Look at the industry it has become! I suppose some
of it has some tenuous relationship to "god" and the
"bible", There is after all, KJV language in
prosperity gospel!
"Money! Cometh unto me now!"

And of course, as I said, religions like to co opt morality.
Such morality and ethics as have been tacked on to
various religions can be taught as well without recourse
to magic and gods.

I in no way would absolve "science" of all responsibility,
and I neither stated nor implied that; you just made
that up. Straw-man city.

I notice you backed away from going after all of human
learning and technology, as if "science" (you know,
observation, objectivity, testing) somehow stood outside
of all the rest of human endeavour.

sealchan · May 21, 2019

Audie said:
The biased arrogance here is from you, assuming
you know so well that you understand what I said
and why I said it.

Religion without magical thinking is no religion at all.

Of course religion is not merely magical thinking.
Look at the industry it has become! I suppose some
of it has some tenuous relationship to "god" and the
"bible", There is after all, KJV language in
prosperity gospel!
"Money! Cometh unto me now!"

And of course, as I said, religions like to co opt morality.
Such morality and ethics as have been tacked on to
various religions can be taught as well without recourse
to magic and gods.

I in no way would absolve "science" of all responsibility,
and I neither stated nor implied that; you just made
that up. Straw-man city.

I notice you backed away from going after all of human
learning and technology, as if "science" (you know,
observation, objectivity, testing) somehow stood outside
of all the rest of human endeavour.

My apologies to you or anyone whom I appear to have misrepresented. These sorts of discussions are always multi-faceted and require a great deal of time, more time than I am giving them today.

I will return to this topic with my own thread to help ground some of the loose use of terms and context that happens when comparing and contrasting science and religion.

ImmortalFlame · May 21, 2019

sealchan said:
Hasn't science enabled great evil? Think of the history of the development of weaponry or the impact to ecosystems across the globe.

Science is a tool. In the wrong hands, it can be used to cause tremendous harm. But the good that science has achieved simply can't be matched.

sealchan said:
And with religion deeply embedded in the lives billions of good people doing good things, how can we measure the aid that religion has produced by helping to resolve our inner existential dilemmas and freeing us to think of others?

It is also embedded in the lives of people doing awful things, and has historically been used as justification for countless crimes and atrocities. I'm not sure it's meaningful or even possible to "measure" the harm its done vs. the good its done when compared with science, but I feel it's quite definitive that the good science has done and its general impact on human civilization makes religion look utterly ineffectual. In the last hundred years alone, it has done more for the actual, demonstrable betterment of humanity than religion has in thousands of years.

Audie · May 21, 2019

ImmortalFlame said:
Science is a tool. In the wrong hands, it can be used to cause tremendous harm. But the good that science has achieved simply can't be matched.

As per what I said about science being
observation, objectivity, testing and
extrapolating, I dont think you can separate
"science" out from daily life of most
every person.

It is really what separates us from other
creatures, dont you think so?

Instinct, conditioned response, superstition
and magical thinking probably predate anything
we could call "scientific thinking", or "human".

cladking · May 21, 2019

Audie said:
Instinct, conditioned response, superstition
and magical thinking probably predate anything
we could call "scientific thinking", or "human".

...so animals are superstitious!

If not, then why not?

Audie · May 21, 2019

cladking said:
...so animals are superstitious!

If not, then why not?

I expect cats are superstitious about
The Origin of Catfood.

Audie · May 21, 2019

cladking said:
...so animals are superstitious!

If not, then why not?

This may not be related, but if you do
not know the term "cargo cult" this will
be of interest:

50 Years Ago: Cargo Cults of Melanesia

corynski · May 21, 2019

The Reverend Bob said:
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. And let us look at our current situation involving the environment, we can't blame religion for that can we? 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.

But it's hardly that simple......'science' doesn't 'do' anything, does it? People do good or bad things with science is more accurate I would think. Science is the structure of knowledge, an understanding of how the world 'works' isn't it? And scientists seek corroboration, or agreement, regarding what they observe.
Religion is an entirely different animal, concerned mainly with the control of groups of people. None of it can be corroborated and agreed upon, because each belief system is created by a group of humans as a structure for their group. So, obviously Anthropology is not taught to children for a reason, and that is it teaches children to think logically, not to just accept those myths offered by religion.
Regarding population growth, science has long known about the exponential growth rate of our species, and of the possible consequences, but could do nothing because of religion. Religion inevitably falls back on 'God will provide'..... or the 'righteous will survive'....... or some such.
Science is involved with learning, or 'exposing', the structure of the universe, and is 'forward' oriented, while religion is involved with the present control and direction of groups of people, based on past beliefs and writings.

We Never Know · May 21, 2019

shunyadragon said:
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.

Your post is as follows "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.)"

Change the word "science" to "religion" and it's equally says the same.

The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ontological Naturalist

Aura of atheification

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Reality First!

No Slack