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

[Sunstone]

I will go with philosophy. Which is considered a science

By whom is philosophy considered a science? It's my understanding that the methodologies of the sciences and the methodologies of philosophy significantly differ from each other, albeit there is some overlap.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is he in control or not?

People always have freedom of choice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Golden Rule can justify it.
The 10 do not prohibit things like slavery, child abuse, or domestic rape.

It’s up to us to stop these evil practices.

 

[Heyo]

It’s up to us to stop these evil practices.

... by using reason and the scientific method.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It’s up to us to stop these evil practices.

Thus the Bible is inadequate as it doesn't grant protections from or prohibitions against these things.
Morality begins by considering what others want and need, not what I want and need. Treat others as I want to be treated, and we are still trying to heal the divisions amd prevent further damages and division.
But when we think about others, then there is no room for that crap.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... by using reason and the scientific method.

I don't think science will unite, but it may be a bridge that gets us there, but it is a highly corrosive acid on beliefs that have divided us. Such as conservative and fundamentalist religious views. Perhaps it will be what dissolves all that, and helps clear the way for something that can unite people. After all, it science that affirms the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, that sparing the rod leads to better child development, and there is no magic mumbo-jumbo reasons to be afraid of people or hate them because they're different. Like how we've learned it really is best for everyone if we don't concern ourselves with the sexual orientation of others.

 

[McBell]

People always have freedom of choice.

so then he is not in control.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think science will unite

I don't either (as pointed out in post #8).
But accepting science as a valid tool for establishing facts is essential. Once we have the facts, we can discuss what to do about them using reason.
Denying reality, as religions use to do, doesn't help.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How does this negate the barbarism in the Bible you claim does not exist?

But wait, now you do a turnaround saying that the barbarism in the Bible was required because they were in the desert?

What does barbarism outside the Bible have to with barbarism in the Bible?
Were you not saying that there is no teaching of Barbarism in the Bible?

You seem to be forgetting what you post.

Only that harsher laws were required by Moses and Muhammad because they had to try and contain crime in an open setting.

 

[loverofhumanity]

... by using reason and the scientific method.

yes by whatever means necessary.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thus the Bible is inadequate as it doesn't grant protections from or prohibitions against these things.
Morality begins by considering what others want and need, not what I want and need. Treat others as I want to be treated, and we are still trying to heal the divisions amd prevent further damages and division.
But when we think about others, then there is no room for that crap.

Yes it’s inadequate now, that’s why God sent other Prophets such as Baha’u’llah.

Baha’u’llah’s Holy Book is the first religious book in human history to officially outlaw and abolish slavery.

Baha’u’llah Frees the Slaves

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only that harsher laws were required by Moses and Muhammad because they had to try and contain crime in an open setting.

That's what they say everywhere. That strict laws amd harsh penalties are necessary. Probably no one was more extreme and brutal in punishment that Vlad Dracul III, and not even he could eradicate crime or develop that level control. He tried, but ultimately the communal golden goblet he established was stolen.
People are people. Harsh penalties do not work as effective crime deterrents.

Yes it’s inadequate now, that’s why God sent other Prophets such as Baha’u’llah.

Baha’u’llah’s Holy Book is the first religious book in human history to officially outlaw and abolish slavery.

Baha’u’llah Frees the Slaves

And that religion is notorious for placing Baha'u'llah in impossible situations, such as meeting people who were dead hundreds or even thousands of years after some of those people died.
Blatant and obscene lies, those aren't holy or righteous.

 

[McBell]

Only that harsher laws were required by Moses and Muhammad because they had to try and contain crime in an open setting.

ignoring your fail does not make it go away.

I suggest you rework your sermon to better fit the facts.
Audience be damned.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nah!
Science doesn't mean methadolgy. Where did they dig that one up.
Science has a latin base, and it's all about 'knowing'. The trouble with knowledge is that we change our minds about it.

Religion is all about belief in God(s) and some system of worship and living.

Now I have already dropped both of those for a World unity and offered Universal Language and Better Communication as alternatives.

Now you can tell us what you believe in but I've already told about what I think. OK?

LISTEN to what I'm saying,. I Never said that science MEANS methodology. Science IS A methodology. It is BY FAR the best method human beings have ever found for figuring out how the universe functions. In order for this method to work it requires consensus... that is everyone uses the SAME method for determining the truth.

Religions on the other hand all offer DIFFRENT methods for worshipping a god or gods and following the will of said god or gods. That is to say there is NO consensus among religions for the method that should be used.

Thus the answer to the OP is obvious. Science is far more likely to bring consensus among people than religion.

 

[oldbadger]

LISTEN to what I'm saying,. I Never said that science MEANS methodology. Science IS A methodology. It is BY FAR the best method human beings have ever found for figuring out how the universe functions. In order for this method to work it requires consensus... that is everyone uses the SAME method for determining the truth.

Religions on the other hand all offer DIFFRENT methods for worshipping a god or gods and following the will of said god or gods. That is to say there is NO consensus among religions for the method that should be used.

Thus the answer to the OP is obvious. Science is far more likely to bring consensus among people than religion.

And No.
Science doesn't mean methodology imo. One could arrive at some science by methodology, but ... I dont agree with what you say.
But if there would be One World religion then your point about religion is de bunked as well.
I like neither for a good communication system to all people.
Religion can lead to Theocracy. *shivers*.
And science could lead on to Technocracy, *yuk* .
The trouble with religions is that they do not recognise all others.
The trouble with sciences is that they do not recognise all others.

And neither of them are capable of communication with all of the people.

So......No to both, I think, as the best vehicles for general agreement ...

 

[QuestioningMind]

And No.
Science doesn't mean methodology imo. One could arrive at some science by methodology, but ... I dont agree with what you say.
But if there would be One World religion then your point about religion is de bunked as well.
I like neither for a good communication system to all people.
Religion can lead to Theocracy. *shivers*.
And science could lead on to Technocracy, *yuk* .
The trouble with religions is that they do not recognise all others.
The trouble with sciences is that they do not recognise all others.

And neither of them are capable of communication with all of the people.

So......No to both, I think, as the best vehicles for general agreement ...

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: ... Evidence. Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses.

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~ : The ...
sciencecouncil.org

Of COURSE science is a methodology! As the above definition states it is 'a systematic methodology based on evidence'.

You really should work on your reading comprehension. The questions asked in this thread was which was MORE LIKELY to achieve consensus. It never asked which one is capable of communication with all people or if either either one CAN achieve consensus... simply which one is MORE likely to reach that goal.

 

[oldbadger]

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: ... Evidence. Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses.

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~ : The ...
sciencecouncil.org

Of COURSE science is a methodology! As the above definition states it is 'a systematic methodology based on evidence'.

You really should work on your reading comprehension. The questions asked in this thread was which was MORE LIKELY to achieve consensus. It never asked which one is capable of communication with all people or if either either one CAN achieve consensus... simply which one is MORE likely to reach that goal.

So you think that your idea of science can reach consensus by shouting your opinions at folks?
You're showing just how science can fail at consensus.

I see other definitions of science.
So no consensus there.

 

[Deeje]

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

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.

If all subscribed to the same religion and lived according to the tenets of that faith, accepting it as the only truth, then how would that scenario play out compared to what we see today?

It’s not as if science has no areas of contention, but the core beliefs are accepted by all. If religion operated the same way, wouldn’t we see the same level of acceptance as we see in science? So why the differences? Why is there no real consensus? Don’t we have to get to the bottom of that question? Where did all these very different belief systems come from?

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?

No. There can never be consensus because, unlike science, there is no universal God or one universal truth to which all subscribe.
Spirituality is a unique faculty in humans that is unlike academic intelligence which bases its conclusions on its own established facts. Science has a universal standard that is accepted by the majority. It is reinforced by an academic establishment that entertains no exceptions to its truths. Any contention is met with cold rejection and even ostracism.

Religion is a choice, based on many personal components like upbringing, indoctrination and level of spirituality.....science is not open to such personal choices.

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

Neither....because humans are not robots and personal choice is a hard won right for most of us. We value our freedom to choose, but science leaves no room for any real choice....it is actually a dictator......something that is unacceptable to most people in any other area of life. If God is seen as a dictator, then that is unacceptable to many people, but they will accept science as a dictator without reservation.....I guess it depend on what we want to believe and how well it sits with our own sensibilities.

Humans can not deny their spirituality...history attests to the fact that it is unique to us as a species....so where do we put our differences if the world is to unite? To some spirituality is barely there...for others it is a strong need. There is the main problem as I see it.

Something’s gotta give.

If there is one God, and one truth, then I believe that it is up to God to call the shots in this question. Does he tell us what he will do about uniting the world? I believe he does...but it means that one dictator will overthrow the other. Who will win? And what will this mean for the “disciples” of each belief system?

Time will tell, I guess.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So you think that your idea of science can reach consensus by shouting your opinions at folks?
You're showing just how science can fail at consensus.

I see other definitions of science.
So no consensus there.

Oh, please DO provide an accepted definition of science that states it's not a methodology. And science isn't the reason why we're failing to reach consensus. We're failing to reach consensus because you refuse to accept the universally accepted definition of what science is.

 

[Deeje]

you refuse to accept the universally accepted definition of what science is.

And there it is.....the difference between religion and science. Refusing to accept the tenets of one belief system, whilst accepting the other without question. Never the twain shall meet. It works both ways.