Which is Best for Building Consensus Between People? Religion or Science?

[Sunstone]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best". Best does not necessarily imply perfect. So be careful when you offer up as criticisms here things likely to happen only in the minority of cases. Also please note that intellectual honesty requires one to consider all likely interpretations of a statement, rather than only that interpretation one considers most vulnerable and easiest to attack.​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure if either can. Religion has thousands of years of failures in so many different forms that we know that in general it fails at that peace thing.
Science explains the world, the universe, and indeed it has radically changed our outlooks on life itself. But it can't solve an existentialist crisis. It isn't universally heralded like good food is. Music is well explained scientifically, but it's not the science of music that brings people together. As just as some people aren't interested in religion, some people aren't interested in science. Everyone loves comedy.
Celebrating humanity is probably more suited for the task. Science just doesn't address the being part of being human, and we have to have that for unity. Religion attempts to go their, but it just hasn't really worked well overall. More often than not it does the opposite.

 

[Sunstone]

Science explains the world, the universe, and indeed it has radically changed our outlooks on life itself. But it can't solve an existentialist crisis.

Granted. But that's holding science to a pretty high standard. Let's ask a more reasonable question. Can science help to solve an existential crisis? For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Granted. But that's holding science to a pretty high standard. Let's ask a more reasonable question. Can science help to solve an existential crisis? For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?

It can help. But it's failing to unite a stubborn portion of the population.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Granted. But that's holding science to a pretty high standard. Let's ask a more reasonable question. Can science help to solve an existential crisis? For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?

No, not as long as it requires strong objectivism. If you change the requirement of science to include inter-subjectivity as valid, then maybe. But it turns it into a form of religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best". Best does not necessarily imply perfect. So be careful when you offer up as criticisms here things likely to happen only in the minority of cases. Also please note that intellectual honesty requires one to consider all likely interpretations of a statement, rather than only that interpretation one considers most vulnerable and easiest to attack.​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

I believe that only religion can cause unity and peace. Religion at its best can inspire love for the diversity of humanity, motivate people towards altruism and instil within us all a deep appreciation of the importance of science and the natural world. Science gives us the tools to build an interconnected world but it doesn’t affect the heart in the profound way religion can. In reality we need both.

Humanity could be likened to a bird with two wings, one science and the other religion. Only if both wings are strong and equally developed can the bird soar into the heavenly realm.

 

[oldbadger]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best".​

​

OK....... I got your direction about 'pettifogging' so let me just jump straight to your own decision to alter the question in your very next post...... So it wasn't me.... OK?

Let's ask a more reasonable question.

Excellent...... a more reasonable question.

Can science help to solve an existential crisis?

An existing crisis......

For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?

First we would need to understand that the overheating of the World and all that this condition is going to impact on everything here, why don't we agree that 'science' caused all this 'existential crisis' in the first place?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

Neither is 'best' as you've already accepted, and we do need to understand that if mankind had kept away from science, immersed in amazing fantasies and mythical deities the jolly old Earth would be in much better shape than it is.

But to offer a better suggestion than your two I would suggest that the one of the very first candidates for 'Most helpful' would be a common language. From there we could look at 'diplomacy studies' and 'humanities'.

Sorry, but your choice of 'best' or 'most helpful', is not the best....... we need humanities, communication....... first. IMO.

 

[Heyo]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best". Best does not necessarily imply perfect. So be careful when you offer up as criticisms here things likely to happen only in the minority of cases. Also please note that intellectual honesty requires one to consider all likely interpretations of a statement, rather than only that interpretation one considers most vulnerable and easiest to attack.​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

It tells us about the power of science to create consensus about the real world.

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Yes and no. The lesson is that, if you have an agreed upon set of axioms and you have a solid epistemology, you have a basis for consensus.
It doesn't teach us how to get to an agreement about the axioms and epistemology.

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

Both are entirely unequipped for that task as it is not in the focus of their realms.

 

[Native]

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

First, IMO it depends on your definition of "religion". You can for instants have your religious focus on the numerous cultural Stories of Creation which are very similar and understood as such, "one religion" possibly can unite all people.

Unfortunately "religion" have been misinterpretated and misused by all kinds of egocentric "power-people" for centuries.

Scientists have tried for several decades to find "one science", without any luck so far. Different cosmological "branches" have a hard time to mingle the 4 assumed fundamental forces together to one theory which can explain everything and thus possibly unite people.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe that only religion can cause unity and peace. Religion at its best can inspire love for the diversity of humanity, motivate people towards altruism and instil within us all a deep appreciation of the importance of science and the natural world. Science gives us the tools to build an interconnected world but it doesn’t affect the heart in the profound way religion can. In reality we need both.

Humanity could be likened to a bird with two wings, one science and the other religion. Only if both wings are strong and equally developed can the bird soar into the heavenly realm.

What a cake-walk for Bahai.......
What a walk in the park.......
If somebody had come to Bahai and said, 'Here it is....... it's clever...... it's going to look like an agenda for science over religion, but I want to be 'Bahai-mate' of the month, so all the skittles are set up for you to wander in and knock 'em down'

My late Bahai wife is laughing within my head and heart just now. Of course..... she was a lab technician, her Bahai friend a radiographer, the local Bahai chairman the skipper of one of the eight biggest ships in the World, another was a top IBM analyst, and teachers, and journalists...... most of them in science or academic success.

And I can hear them all, calling out:-
Harmony of Science and Religion. Bahai.
A Common language. Bahai.
A Common purpose. Bahai.
Harmony of religions. Bahai.
One World Government. Bahai...

Which for a Bahai 'adversant' is rather irritating.
So the thread is either brilliant or the opposite.

Tut tut....... go on....... enjoy.

 

[Sunstone]

It can help. But it's failing to unite a stubborn portion of the population.

Sure, but once again -- the OP is not asking whether science is perfect at building consensuses, is it?

 

[Sunstone]

Both are entirely unequipped for that task as it is not in the focus of their realms.

Entirely unequipped? Are you saying that a shared consensus about the physical world would make no contribution whatsoever to political unity? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Sunstone]

Please folks! Read the OP! And if you don't understand it, read it again!

This thread has NOTHING to do with whether science is or isn't perfect at building consensus. It has everything to do with whether it is the best means we have for that when compared to religion. If you want to discuss the former, start your own thread.

 

[Marcion]

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

The world will be more united peacefully if there is:
* universal penal code for whole planet
* world moralist led government and world police force that has the right to correct state governments that usurp power
* more universal type spiritual cults and less sectarian or fundamentalist type religions

 

[bobhikes]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best". Best does not necessarily imply perfect. So be careful when you offer up as criticisms here things likely to happen only in the minority of cases. Also please note that intellectual honesty requires one to consider all likely interpretations of a statement, rather than only that interpretation one considers most vulnerable and easiest to attack.​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

Neither what concerns people most is the now. How do I get through my day and this involves many things that neither science or religion can support. If its snowing out do I really care about how it happened if I still need to get to work. If everyone in my community shares the same religion but my neighbor cuts me off going to work am I not still going to be pissed. Science and Religion are good with the big concepts but when it comes down to individual needs they both lack.

 

[Kenny]

Granted. But that's holding science to a pretty high standard. Let's ask a more reasonable question. Can science help to solve an existential crisis? For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?

I don't know why we can't do both.

I would say religion would have the great capacity to unite since loving the earth pretty much encompasses every faith. Once united then science can be the information system to make it happen.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know why we can't do both.

That's not the question in the OP. Start your own thread.

 

[Sunstone]

The world will be more united peacefully if there is:
* universal penal code for whole planet
* world moralist led government and world police force that has the right to correct state governments that usurp power
* more universal type spiritual cults and less sectarian or fundamentalist type religions

You're close, but you're still not addressing the OP.

 

[Kenny]

That's not the question in the OP. Start your own thread.

Then faith.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

Note for Pettifoggers: Please observe that I said "best". Best does not necessarily imply perfect. So be careful when you offer up as criticisms here things likely to happen only in the minority of cases. Also please note that intellectual honesty requires one to consider all likely interpretations of a statement, rather than only that interpretation one considers most vulnerable and easiest to attack.​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

I wish Science could build consensus, but I don't see this as a reality. Religion either. What builds consensus?

Math. Yes. Math can build consensus and things like Chess or sports, but these aren't sciences. These are hard abstractions with unchangeable parameters.