Religion and Science are NOT counterparts!

[Norsefire]

Commonly, people treat it as if either

A) you're religious
B) you're scientific

Or, that religion and science are two options on an equal level

Not at all; religion is on a higher level that science. Now, before all you atheists cry out "WHAT!", allow me to explain. I classify religion on a higher level because it does more than science; science is better for what it does, which is explain the world. Undoubtedly, this is a fact. However, religion goes beyond explanations, and instead delves into the realm of society, philosophy, spirituality, and morality, and it operates as a valuable tool for all of those things. Religion has more uses.

Science, as useful as it is, cannot answer moral or philosophical questions.

However, my main point is that they are not mutually exclusive; you can be a religious scientist.

 

[(Q)]

I classify religion on a higher level because it does more than science

Or, more likely, because you're a complete idiot and an indoctrinated Muslim.

 

[chris4355]

Commonly, people treat it as if either

A) you're religious
B) you're scientific

We classify things all the time, humans are great at that.

Or, that religion and science are two options on an equal level


Not at all; religion is on a higher level that science. Now, before all you atheists cry out "WHAT!", allow me to explain. I classify religion on a higher level because it does more than science; science is better for what it does, which is explain the world.

Explaining the world is not enough for you?

Undoubtedly, this is a fact.

Actually religion tries to explain the world too.

However, religion goes beyond explanations, and instead delves into the realm of society, philosophy, spirituality, and morality, and it operates as a valuable tool for all of those things. Religion has more uses.

You don't need religion to have morals. Philosophy is not a religious practice. Spirituality has yet to prove to even mean anything or work. Many non-religious things can operate as valuable tools for all these things.

Science, as useful as it is, cannot answer moral or philosophical questions.

Thats not what its used for, but logical scientific reasoning can answer basic things like that even better than religion.

However, my main point is that they are not mutually exclusive; you can be a religious scientist.

A religious scientist is a walking contradiction.

Do me a favor...

throw away your computer, internet, tv, car, cell phone, home phone, clocks, watches, shampoo, lights,ipod, toaster, oven, speakers... basically any device made within the last 120 years, and then tell me if science has not made a major impact in your life, if anything much bigger than religion ever could.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

More silliness. Of course one can be a religious scientist. The one is based in pure facts. The other is based in pure belief. I don't know that one is "higher" than the other. It's like comparing Love and Cold. Can you be in love and cold? Of course. These things are more closely related than religion and science and yet you can be them both.

 

[spidergoat]

Religion does tend to concentrate more on subjective issues of social ethics and morality. However, science has much to reveal about those things too. It also introduces new advances that the religious must make judgements about, such as nuclear war, stem cells, reproductive rights and procedures. Religious people need their leaders to make up their minds about these things, and then pass their opinions down so you can have blind faith in their human judgement.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Spidergoat-What? So because I am a theist I am unable to come to my own opinions on such matters? Why try to force religion into things where it is unnecessary?