Where do Science and Religion agree?

[Peacewise]

Well over the last few months I've been studying the online lecture series on Non Violence at

Overview: Strategic and Principled Nonviolence I | Berkeley History Lecture

which is presented by Michael Nagler from Berkley University.

So I'd just like to share an idea with you at the beginning of this thread and then request that people apply that idea to the thread title. Cooperation and competition, there is a tendency of humans to notice competition and ignore cooperation, some examples follow.

The title of this section of the forum.. Science Vs Religion - presented as competition.

Road rage, who ever get's happy with the 999 drivers on the road who obey the road rules, but does get angry over the 1 driver who cuts you off.

Survival of the fittest is an inherently competitive concept, yet it's been revealed that cooperation not merely within species but inter-species is more conducive to evolution.

The adversarial process of the legal system is competitive.

The recording of history, history is often recorded as a series of snapshots from one war or battle to the next, ignoring the peace between, or if not ignoring it then relating that peace to how it was affected by the war.

Islam and Christianity, there is one concept presented within these religions in two ways. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "want for you brother what you want for yourself" I discussed this with a christian and a muslim and BOTH of them concentrated upon the differences between those sayings, yet both of those concepts have as their key point asking a person to be considerate of another.

In my opinion man's greatest strength is our ability to cooperate, yet competition dominates our vision, seeming to obscure the reality that more is achieved by cooperation.

So where do Science and Religion agree?

Now I am well aware that there are many differences between these and that those differences are well discussed in other places, so please do not bring them into THIS thread, please cooperate in this matter.

Just to get the ball rolling... What does science have to say about the social concept of
"treat others as you would have them treat you."

When do atheists and scientists agree that this is a worthwhile thing for people to do?

 

[Peacewise]

Ok the thread has been running a short while, has 17 views and no replies - consider this bump with a brief discussion of cooperation.

Firstly thanks very much to the 17 people who viewed and not having something to say about where Science and Religion agree, cooperated with me by not posting, thank you!

Yet the very act of not posting something about where science and religion agree reveals that 17 people (may) not be able to see where these systems of thought are cooperating.

What about Murder.
Social science suggests that murder is not a worthwhile contributer to society, and religion agrees - stating "thou shalt not murder".
another aspect of where science agrees with religion.

Please people do you have any more?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know specifically the points that science and religion agree, but I do agree that cooperation, rather than competition, should be our focus-- in basically all things, and not just talking religion and science.

I do think that our species has evolved to need society, a group to survive. We now need to expand that mentality to other groups and our natural world. So, morals within both religious and nonreligious groups that contribute in a concrete way to the betterment of society and the natural world, I would consider a perfect area where both groups could cooperate.

For example, I think that religion can be a great motivator and organizer to get people doing good things, like running a soup kitchen. I think often that the non-religious are motivated to do good things as well, but we often lack the structure, the organization. So perhaps we could somehow work together to get more soup kitchens up and running.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Social science shows that many of the 'rules' of religions are also the necessary 'rules' for social survival.
The overall concept of "Do unto others" provides a framework for social cohesion. Which is why it is one of the most common religious concepts in the world.
But once the religious rules depart too far from that basic concept, such as rules on worship, or rules on behavior that has no ill effect on others, the social survival element is gone and is replaced by social control.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Religion and science agree where religion says something correct.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science and Religion deal with pretty much distinct scopes, so there is not really much to agree or disagree about.

They _do_ however have a degree of duty to learn from each other. Scientific prowess has changed social circunstances to a point that religious teaching ought to consider, for instance. Reciprocally, science does not usually involve ethics matters to any significant degree and ought to consider that at some point as well.

 

[Peacewise]

I do think that our species has evolved to need society, a group to survive. We now need to expand that mentality to other groups and our natural world. So, morals within both religious and nonreligious groups that contribute in a concrete way to the betterment of society and the natural world, I would consider a perfect area where both groups could cooperate.

For example, I think that religion can be a great motivator and organizer to get people doing good things, like running a soup kitchen. I think often that the non-religious are motivated to do good things as well, but we often lack the structure, the organization. So perhaps we could somehow work together to get more soup kitchens up and running.

Thank you for the response Falvlun. I presume that since you mention that our species has evolved to need society, a group to survive you also note and accept that the religious is one type of group. Religion is part of society and has evolved within it. The contribution of a moral framework by religion to society is a confirmation that religion has something to offer society. Psychology and social science also notice that particular morals created, or revealed by religion remain worthwhile to society even outside the religious context.

Soup kitchens is one example, kindly provided by Falvlun, of how giving to those in need is both socially worthwhile and religiously worthwhile.

 

[Peacewise]

Social science shows that many of the 'rules' of religions are also the necessary 'rules' for social survival.
The overall concept of "Do unto others" provides a framework for social cohesion. Which is why it is one of the most common religious concepts in the world.
But once the religious rules depart too far from that basic concept, such as rules on worship, or rules on behavior that has no ill effect on others, the social survival element is gone and is replaced by social control.

Thanks for the contribution tumbleweed41.

I agree that social science shows that many of the 'rules' of religions are also necessary 'rules' for social survival and that specifically the overall concept of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is highly worthwhile for society. I note that religion and social science agree with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

I note that even though the entire point of this thread is to explore the similarities and even though tumbleweed41 has kindly contributed to this outcome, s/he still feels the need to point out a difference, adding in a "But..."
Despite the potential veracity of your "But..." I respectfully request that all contributers please focus on where science and religion agree.

 

[Peacewise]

Religion and science agree where religion says something correct.

Thank you for the contribution DeitySlayer.
It is interesting to note that you imply that only science can provide a something correct, implying that religion needs to agree with science for religion to be correct.

It seems plausible that there may be a two way relationship between the two systems and that when science says something correct it may agree with religion.

For instance, since several others have accepted that the concept "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a religious concept that has been agreed upon as a correct social science concept, it is plausible to me that religion falls within the field of social science.

This is confirmed by the lecture series I have linked to above and Nagler reveals that religious concepts of social science have often remained unchanged for thousands of years, yet it is only recently within modern science that these concepts are being studied within the scientific methodology, and that these studies CONFIRM what religion has to say about social science.

Thank you for the opportunity to reveal that fact.

 

[Peacewise]

Science and Religion deal with pretty much distinct scopes, so there is not really much to agree or disagree about.

They _do_ however have a degree of duty to learn from each other. Scientific prowess has changed social circunstances to a point that religious teaching ought to consider, for instance. Reciprocally, science does not usually involve ethics matters to any significant degree and ought to consider that at some point as well.

If a person defines science merely in the realms of the 'hard sciences' like astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology then it is true that science and religion have less to agree about than if a person includes the 'soft sciences' of psychology and social science for the comparison.

So please LuisDantas DO contribute to finding where Science and Religion agree within this thread.

For instance science DOES consider ethics to a significant degree, within medicine ethics is significantly important in the decision making process, of patient care including old age care, pediatrics, surgery, drug delivery, mental health, of humane research and so on.

Likewise it is known that the creators of the Atom Bomb at times struggled with the ethics of their science.

Whilst applying the religious concept "do unto others as you would have done to you" is necessary for development of a wide variety of engineering solutions, for instance the concept of safety is about considering the health and well being of others, just as the "do unto..." quote implies.

Thank you for assisting me in discussing these important agreements between religion and science, most especially the concept of safety as a consideration of others.

 

[LuisDantas]

If a person defines science merely in the realms of the 'hard sciences' like astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology then it is true that science and religion have less to agree about than if a person includes the 'soft sciences' of psychology and social science for the comparison.

So please LuisDantas DO contribute to finding where Science and Religion agree within this thread.

For instance science DOES consider ethics to a significant degree, within medicine ethics is significantly important in the decision making process, of patient care including old age care, pediatrics, surgery, drug delivery, mental health, of humane research and so on.

It is true and social and human sciences do employ philosophical and religious concepts such as ethics, but I don't think it is accurate to say that those concepts ARE scientific themselves.

On the other hand, behavioral psychology and other sciences can certainly be of use to improving said concepts. Still, I don't think there is much true agreement there, nor would it be reasonable to expect any. There is far too little basis for even attempting agreement - or, for that matter, meaningful disagreement.

Likewise it is known that the creators of the Atom Bomb at times struggled with the ethics of their science.

Which only shows that they are people and have other aspects to their existence besides those relevant to science.

Whilst applying the religious concept "do unto others as you would have done to you" is necessary for development of a wide variety of engineering solutions, for instance the concept of safety is about considering the health and well being of others, just as the "do unto..." quote implies.

Thank you for assisting me in discussing these important agreements between religion and science, most especially the concept of safety as a consideration of others.

Sorry, I don't follow you. How does Engineering use the Golden Rule?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Science and religion agree on many things for people who generally understand neither science or religion.

 

[Peacewise]

Sorry, I don't follow you. How does Engineering use the Golden Rule?

An engineer needs to consider the safety aspects of the project they are building/designing.

The golden rule which I presume you mean as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has the key concept of considering others.

Do you follow me now?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Despite the potential veracity of your "But..." I respectfully request that all contributers please focus on where science and religion agree.

Excuse me. I did not know we were supposed to ignore any potential contradictions between verifiable science and religious teachings.

Please continue...

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really, sorry. It seems to me that you are seeing a connection while in fact illustrating how independent two areas of knowledge are.

 

[Peacewise]

LuisDantas, do you agree that "Do unto others what you would have do unto you" is about considering other people?

 

[Peacewise]

Excuse me. I did not know we were supposed to ignore any potential contradictions between verifiable science and religious teachings.

Please continue...

It is not that we are ignoring those potential contradictions, it is that they are already being explored ad infinitum in hundreds of threads elsewhere. Please explore the agreements and similarities within this thread.

Since I follow principled non violence I require myself to explain why I request this. It is known that people find it very easy to see differences, to discuss them and to focus on them, hence why there are hundreds of threads that discuss the differences between various systems.

Yet there are relatively few threads that discuss the similarities of various systems. The focus of the differences between science and religion creates a competition between the two, leading inevitably to an adversarial debate of one side versus the other, from there it's a slippery slope.

I request that within this thread WE ALL reject that adversarial debate and instead focus upon the agreements, that we focus on cooperation.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas, do you agree that "Do unto others what you would have do unto you" is about considering other people?

Sure. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Engineering, however. At most it can be said to relate to Engineers due to their nature as human beings.

But that is quite a stretch.

 

[Peacewise]

Do you agree that an engineer must consider the safety aspects of their project?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you agree that an engineer must consider the safety aspects of their project?

As much as any other person, certainly. But not at all due to the fact that its activity is so directly grounded on science.