Religion or Science

[Marshal Murat]

Religion or Science?

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward? Is this thread going to be banned a minute after conception? Are they two sides to a coin? Do people put too much faith in science?

A friendly discussion so that we can draw off those who would try to destroy the other thread about Science being the New Religion.



(Seems strangely reminiscent of another article)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward?

Well my position is they are both needed equally for balance and understanding.

[Zaknafien]

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.


Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would submit that science, while great for the body, provides nothing for the soul. The mind gets a kick from both.

What does science tell us about ourselves? That we are animals? Does it gives us ethics? Does it teach us compassion? Does it give us something to hold onto when we need it?

I would submit that it doesn't. When I have a problem personal I need to solve I will either sit down and read philosophy or I will get down on my knees and prey. I've never fealt the need to do equations to sort out my problems.

The current problems in the Public Sector in Britain and America are excellant evidence that science (mathematics) cannot predict human behaviour. They said we were all out for what we can get and that if you give civil servants targets and rewards they will work better.

It didn't work. Which suggest the econimists were wrong and Civil Servants were actually out for more than power or money.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The title itself is an affront to common sense. Like it or not most people feel there is more to all this than just being born, living and dying. Were not exactly sure what it is but its there all the same. Thats why theres that thread on what is spirituality? Others call us insane. But whos to judge?

[Zaknafien]

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want to make them feel like their lives mean something or that they're special; whatever it takes to make you be a good person is fine with me as long as its moral and peaceful. but randomness and chaos rule the universe, your life is only a flicker in the cosmic span of time, and in the end all you are or ever were is a collection of molecules made of star-dust in millenia past. thats why you should make the most of the life you have, do good works, understand the universe you live in, and enjoy yourself.

[HoreTore]

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want

How nice of you. Thanks. Im not either. You really think you belief in aliens is superior to a belief that we all came from some grand design. It makes more sense that all this was an accident?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself.

Does that apply to everyone. Do you think you could if it hadnt been drilled into you since birth?

I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

Ancient man could. Tribes in the amazon can.

So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

Which makes you a proud member of the Church of Science.

[Zaknafien]

Yes. there is an astounding amount of evidence that evolution of life is accidental and random based on outside influences. the belief in extraterrestial life is only logical given the number of stars in the universe. hopefully it will soon be proven beyond any doubt with the latest vehicles on mars and around jupiter, not to mention the discovery of "new earth" so close to our own. But im sure that then the creationists will find some way to squeeze these new discoveries into their theologies too, just like they did when science proved the truth of our solar system, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

A few weeks of getting bashed around in the back room should cure that I keep telling him moderation is key. You cant just say Im right and your wrong because your foolish although I support your right to be a fool and get away with it back here.

[Zaknafien]

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist.

Oh please do tell more?

alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic.

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

[Zaknafien]

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

Uh, well yes, I think most people would agree that the large majority of people on the earth are, well, stupid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

I'm not going to argue with you about Alien life. I know of no empirical data that suggests God does not exist however.

[Zaknafien]

What do we mean when we say that something exists? As far as human beings are concerned, nothing exists unless it manifests itself in some form, shape or manner to man or to his extended sensory perceptions.

If something is claimed to exist but does not impinge on man in any way whatsoever, we can safely say that it does not exist as far as human existence is concerned. This purported mirage may still exist somewhere in the universe or another universe. However, since this alleged object or event does not manifest itself to us, it does not affect us in any way whatsoever and we must simply state that it does not exist as far as human beings are concerned.

Religious people argue that, although they cannot prove that god exists, atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. This argument is inherently faulty.

It is logically impossible to prove that an object or event does not exist. However, it is the essence and the backbone of science to provide evidence that something does exist. If something exists, such as energy, matter or space, it manifests itself to us by objective evidence. We can measure such manifestations or we can take objective images of them.

It is axiomatic in the affairs of man, and steeped in common sense that, whoever makes a claim, has to prove its validity. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If a person should claim that the moon is made of green cheese, he has to prove that the moon actually consists of green cheese, instead of rock, as established by previous, hard, factual, objective evidence. It is logically impossible and absurd to demand that, whoever does not accept the claim that the moon is made of green cheese, should disprove the claim.

Only persons, who do not utilize logic, will accept as true statements that are completely unsupported by factual evidence. Yet, this form of irrationality and lack of fundamental logic is the foundation of all religions. Since approximately 80 % of the world population accepts the completely unsubstantiated statements of various religions, 80 % of the world population suffers from a severely distorted and thus ineffective worldview.

Christian dogma expects people to believe the fairy tale of Noah’s ark, although it is patently impossible to squeeze even samples of billions of the world’s animals into one small ark. Rational persons consider such stories ludicrous. And yet, such is the brainwashing power of religion, that the majority of the people on earth accept such fairytales as facts.

The bible account of the creation of man and the universe, as set forth in the Book of Genesis, is in such contradiction to irrefutable facts that a rational person cannot help but laugh about such fantasies. It may be all right for children to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but functional adults are expected to outgrow such fairy tales.

Another absurdity is imbedded in the fact that every religion claims to pray to the one and only true god. How can such contradiction be rationalized? Who is the true god? Allah, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or Buddha, or Krishna?

Where was the Jewish God Jehovah, when Hitler incinerated five million of his chosen people; where was the Buddha when Truman vaporized 250,000 Japanese women and children; where was the Christian God when Stalin killed thirty million Christians?

It defies rationality when religious persons pray to these same gods for individualized help and salvation.

It is pointless to get involved in endless discussions regarding the existence or non-existence of god and the moral qualities of such a god. Such nonsensical and unproductive discussions have raged for the last three thousand years.

One of the problems in theism, the belief system involving a personal god, revolves around the allegedly benign nature of god, the existence of evil, and the resulting inconsistency in the concept of an omnipotent god.

The mere existence of evil in this world makes the existence of a benign god impossible: If god were omnipotent, he could eliminate evil and if he were benign, he would want to do so. Furthermore, if god were all-good, as he is supposed to be, he could not sin. However, if he were all-powerful, he could sin.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:

If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.

If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.

Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.

Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.

Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolen

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Okay, laying aside the Epicuran part for a second.

God(s) do(es) not impact our reality? Okay, but we're talking about it, so it is present in our conciousness, we just can't detect it with our senses. If everything is a mirage and God is an idea rather than a physical manifestation then you cannot say he doesn't exist because we are arguing about his existance. Therefore the issue of his existance is part of our reality.

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

As to Noah's Ark, Genesis and Epicurus; consider the following. God is outside our understanding and therefore anything we know about God is imperfect. When Genesis was written it was not possible to concieve of the way in which the world was created, so the story is a missinterpretation. Similarily understanding God's benevolence assumes that we understand God's intent and long term plan. The death of 5 million Jews led to the creation of modern Isreal. You can use that arguement, or even better, you can say that God gave us free will and is not responsible for our actions.

Therefore any evil act is not the responsibility of God, because he chose to give us free will and therefore cannot stop us from doing anything. I find it difficult to believe there was no small voice in the back of Hitler's head, he just didn't listen.

I personnally subscribe to the concept of free will, in which case how can God be directly responsible for my actions or my good or evil intent.

[Strike For The South]

You are cherry picking man. God is ominiptent but he gives us free will also the reward we get after death is much better than anything on this earth. Therefore you should not fear death becuase its just a step

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK what atheists site is this opinion of yours taken from? Also would you like me to start posting pages of stuff that refutes that from christian and other religious sites?

Now I see why others hate my cut and paste jobs

[Zaknafien]

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

Well, people who totally reject the idea of God out of hand and leave open no room for the possibility he might exist aren't my favourite people, but then I like determined agnostics less. I had this discussion with a girl I know last year and she said that people that don't believe in God break her heart. Especially her friends.

We can deal with the religious extremists together Zak.



On another note, I wonder if the hardline nature of many American Christians flying in the face of common sense is really counter-productive. They aren't able to accept contradiction in the Bible, while I just put it down to human incompetance.

Oh, and don't call my Phil, I don't like how it translates.

[JAG]

You have to ask?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

Now thats what Im talking about. Do I believe hat the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal? Hell no. But I still dont think their crazy. You should be more careful how you phrase things and label people. Some might take offense.

Im guilty of the same in many a topic I must admit. Those concerning Islam come to mind.

[Zaknafien]

Apologies :) And yes, I beleive that the work of scores of cosmologists and physicists and the large amounts of studies done on the expnansion of the universe and the power of prayer and the placebo effecft and the evolution of life on earth has done much to empirically prove "God" as the Judeo-Christians define it, does not exist. Physicist Victor Stenger has done some great work in this area, his newest book is enlightening. "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

[Spetulhu]

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

That's a fallacy. You only know tables are man made because you have been told men make them. How do you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

Who said the creator ever appeared, further, if you have already accepted one incredible happening what does one more matter?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

More likely they were made by robots. Now If i didnt know that the robots were made by man I might assume that tables are made by robots and if you tell me their made by man Ill tell you your crazy I saw the robots making them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't disrespect the rabbits, remember Monty Python.

[Zaknafien]

well thats venturing into the realm of ridiculousness--like saying "I dont know China exists since I've never been there."