On the Battlefield of Religion Versus Science

[Guitar's Cry]

That simply suggests a similarly patterned thought process. I suppose mathematics is also independent of the mind?

(Just to keep things on the table not end up confusing folks by playing Devil's Advocate...)

I do actually assume something outside the mind, and that that world gives rise to my being.

But I think that ignoring the inner world of the human is ignoring the very processes by which we order and form reality (resulting in a co-creative perspective). It is also dangerous; it objectifies a being with the capacity and tendency to suffer.

 

[Jose Fly]

Guitar's Cry,

Why do people fight so hard for one system or one ideology?

In some cases I've seen, people go from having an ideology to becoming an ideology. Thus, any criticism, disagreement, or contradiction is taken as a personal attack.

Why do folks insist on melding science and religion

For some folks I know, it's because they recognize that science has an authoritative position in the Western world, so they don't want their religion to be seen as in conflict with science. Thus, they do what they can to meld their religious beliefs, which are important to them on a personal level, with science.

why do folks try stamping out religion or ignoring science?

The folks I see who are trying to "stamp out religion" are pretty clear why they do so. They see religion as a negative influence on society and individuals and believe that as long as a society's laws and policies are dictated in part by "superstition", the society's progress is hindered.

Those I see ignoring science do so for a myriad of reasons, the most common being the simple fact that the finding of science directly contradict their cherised personal beliefs. And when push comes to shove, they side with their beliefs and ignore/deny science.

But it seems lately the religious folks are getting the short end and maybe that's boiling my argumentative blood.

How so?

To just the public in general or a specific audience?

Both, but primarily the general public.

 

[ChristineES]

Science and religion doesn't have to clash. Sure, to a person who takes Genesis- the creation part and Adam and Eve, completely literal may have trouble with some of what science says.

I love science, I loved science before I became a Christian. I was told by my teachers that I have a scientific mind. If I would have continued science in a college setting, I would probably have still have been a theist. When I took Physical Anthropology a few years ago when I went back to college, it didn't clash with my theism at all- and the Chemistry class I took didn't either. The Anthropology class was my favorite ( even though I was an accounting major).

There are plenty of theists who accept science.

 

[painted wolf]

Science appears to have become what religion once was and in some ways still is: a study delivered to laymen in the confusing, esoteric language of a community of specialists that often delights in pomposity, claiming ultimate truth.

You mean like doctors and mechanics? Or engineers or soldiers?
Every specialized group has specialized language.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

You mean like doctors and mechanics? Or engineers or soldiers?
Every specialized group has specialized language.

wa:do

Very true but it seems science isn`t very good at translating this language for the layman.

I understand this in not necessarily the job of science but it would cause less problems if it could be done.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Very true but it seems science isn`t very good at translating this language for the layman.

I understand this in not necessarily the job of science but it would cause less problems if it could be done.

Many things are impossible to make understandable to the layman.

 

[linwood]

Many things are impossible to make understandable to the layman.

I reject this entirely.

 

[painted wolf]

I think that is changing... with the explosion in scientific blogging by members of the scientific community, they are quickly gaining experience in sharing their knowledge with the average person.

I think part of the problem is, once again, poor science education. When you have to have a major discussion just to get the proper use of the word 'theory' in science, it tends to bog things down... a lot.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

I think that is changing... with the explosion in scientific blogging by members of the scientific community, they are quickly gaining experience in sharing their knowledge with the average person.

I think part of the problem is, once again, poor science education. When you have to have a major discussion just to get the proper use of the word 'theory' in science, it tends to bog things down... a lot.

wa:do

Very good point.

I also see that it is changing a bit with help from the internet.

Many more talented writers have been able to interpret science into terms the layman can understand.

I have a few favorites of my own.

 

[Sunstone]

Science appears to have become what religion once was and in some ways still is: a study delivered to laymen in the confusing, esoteric language of a community of specialists that often delights in pomposity, claiming ultimate truth.

I don't know of any scientific claims to ultimate truth. Could you offer an example or two?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't know of any scientific claims to ultimate truth. Could you offer an example or two?

Don't mind me, I was just spouting off.

But what I was referring too was the sentiment that science is the only way to knowledge. In other words, only science yields truth.

 

[rojse]

Interestingly, this brings up one of the points that prompted me to write this thread. I've been in arguments before, and have seen debates about the same issue, where psychology and sociology was denounced (I use that word purposely because it fits the way I heard it) as unscientific. I've heard physicists say the same of biologists.

I think that's more a case of "my science is better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Or perhaps not an appreciation of the different material that each concerns themselves with. Either way, both are closed-minded and say more about those arguing than the science in which they argue against.

As a somewhat intelligent but uneducated layman, I see all of these - biology, sociology, and psychology - as proper sciences - they are rigorous in their methodology, have stringent educational-based entry requirements, try to create replicable results, document evidence for other groups to replicate, have sources to peer-review work and so forth, the combination of which I associate with proper science.

 

[darkendless]

Don't mind me, I was just spouting off.

But what I was referring too was the sentiment that science is the only way to knowledge. In other words, only science yields truth.

Based on the standards science sets for itself, science is the only way to truth. In terms of truth, religion is a moving target.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

I know that I'm joining this very interesting discussion late, but I thought I'd contribute the last two cents from my pocket here.

I see science and religion as apples and oranges. They're both fruity and have a common ancestor, but they have diverged so greatly in time that it's difficult to see the resemblance.

I find it funny that people are referring to "science" as a field unto itself, instead of the methodology it describes. This methodology has many adherents, but it's only in a metaphorical sense that they may be referred to as "the faithful." It has measurable results, because it has to, or it's not science.

One can use scientific principles to study the origin and maintenance of religion (psychology, linguistics, neurology, sociology, etc etc), and presumably a scientifically-oriented experiment would perform the same across the world (or, again, it's not science).

To look at science through the lens of religions across the world, you will get wildly different results. Not predictable, not universally useful, not empirical, but entirely up to an individual. Which is as it should be, right?

The frescoes in the Sistine Chapel are inconceivable without Michelangelo; in contrast, evolution was not discovered solely by Darwin, and if he didn't publish about it, someone else would have eventually.

Big big differences I see; too big to even make any speculation as to whether science will "take the place" of religion (or spirituality, or art, or what-have-you).

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

For the record, we Baha'is proclaim--indeed, celebrate the harmony of science and religion, which we see dovetailing very nicely!

Each is important, and each is incomplete without the other!

Briefly, science explains the "how" of existence, while religion explains "Who" and "why."

And the quickest way to get into trouble is to try to use either in the place of the other.

Further, the Baha'i sriptures say this:

“[E]ven in Europe it is admitted that religion is the opponent of science, and that science is the destroyer of the foundations of religion. While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! Nay, for God, knowledge is the most glorious gift of man and the most noble of human perfections. To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, beauty and the means of approaching the Threshold of Unity. It is the honor and glory of the world of humanity, and the greatest bounty of God. Knowledge is identical with guidance, and ignorance is real error.

“Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties of pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose hearts are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the lowest depths of ignorance and foolishness, and who have wasted their lives!”
—(Some Answered Questions, page 137)

Best!

Bruce

 

[jrbogie]

Science appears to have become what religion once was and in some ways still is: a study delivered to laymen in the confusing, esoteric language of a community of specialists that often delights in pomposity, claiming ultimate truth. It seeks to remove human bias, but has more so emphasized the exclusive tendency of humanity while denying the meaningful, existential aspects of it.

nope. scientific methodology has allways been the same. it has nothing to do with ultimate truth. science provides methods and tools for the formation of hypotheses and searches for physical evidence to form theories about those hypotheses. it then applies the evidence to either support or discredit these theories.

Science seems to have lost its connection to the human spirit. In a way, it magnifies the empiricism of Hume by removing anything of introspective thought as mere illusion.

This makes it seem vapid; devoid of any meaning beyond the simple collation of data. The meaning it provides appears to me to be formed into empty, saccharin platitudes meant to keep folks from existential malaise and suicide.

science has never and will never have any connection to "the human spirit", whatever that is. scientists are sciences most severe critics. every theory is continually being tested and retested to substantiat it's validity. as an example, for hundreds of years, newton's law of gravity was the the gold standard in physics. then one day old al einstein was having his morning coffee and thought "gee, sir isaac was full of crap. gravity doesn't respond to newton's law. gravity exists because space is warped. the stuff is bent", well not exactly those words but you get the point. now stephen hawkings and others are doing their best to shoot holes in alberts theories on the subject. these damn scientists just won't let their peers oneup them will they?

We can, of course—and many do—synthesize scientific knowledge with humanistic depth, such as philosophy, religion, and art. But, oftentimes, voicing these personal syntheses either comes in the form of proselytizing or is met with cries of being uneducated, misinformed, delusional, out-of-line, or out-of-context.

you can, of course, synthesize scientific "knowledge", but a scientist would never do such.

But the nature of science does require the removal of the human element as much as possible to remove bias. So my complaints are irrational. Science is not spiritual. It is philosophical only insofar that it uses axioms and logic. And it is only artful if the individual finds something aesthetic in it.

now yer talkin. could not agree more.

But humans reject meaningless and interject meaning—spirit, purpose—where it collides with their existence. I am not just an organic machine operating on causal laws. I am more than a chemical or physical process. I am a suffering complexity containing, as Whitman once said, multitudes.

oops. and you were doing so good.

And thus the religious meet the scientific on a battlefield. They are two forces with similar interests and methods of diffusion. They are two structures providing something useful to humanity. But they cannot get along except in the individual.

this "battlefield" only exists in the minds of the religious faithful. science does not even consider religions or gods. indeed einstein concluded that the human mind is not capable of knowing such things as gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. al was the definition of agnostic.

The Intelligent Designer who accepts evolution and God has synthesized two models for the sake of bringing something meaningful to something that appears unavoidable. The Hegelian who sees the unfolding Absolute spirit in the expansion of scientific discovery is seeking purpose in a formidable tool. The Romantic who looks inwardly into his experience of biology and sees a deep connection to an abstraction of nature is breathing life into a categorized model.

Science and religion are only enemies outside of the individual. They only clash when they don their pompous armor and draw their particular tools of truth as weapons against each other.

no, they are only enemies "inside" some religious individuals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I reject this entirely.

Laymen often reject the idea that there are things they can't understand. Not everything can be meaningfully understood through incomplete analogies and inaccurate comparisons.

 

[RomCat]

Religion and science have the same source - God.

 

[darkendless]

Religion and science have the same source - God.

Science is independent of God and should stay that way. Early scientists made errors in their estimations in many cases by trying to attribute god into their equations, and trying to make their estimates fit inside the biblical timeframe.

 

[RomCat]

The author of science is God.