Science vs. Religion The Great Debate

[Relative]

Hello
I've been wondering alot about this idea. After reading many books on the subject, I have truly come to see that science and religion really compliment one another. They are not seperate but rather, intertwined and make sense both ways when you truly look at it. You have to get rid of your bias I suppose but when you open your mind to both sides, everything really fits together. What do you think?

 

[§outh§tar]

You need to give more info on your 'discovery' before we can justifiably tear it apart.

JK

 

[spidergoat]

I like Galileo's idea, that if scientifically revealed truth seemed to contradict the bible, it just meant that our interpretation of the bible must have been wrong, since he considered the bible infallible.

 

[Poor Player]

I agree with you. I also invite you to join the discussion under "Is science a religion?". It is probably mistitled given what I really wanted to dicuss which is closer to your title but not quite. I clarified my questions in my last post there. We could also just combine them somehow if you want. Here is a copy of my last post there:

"Thank you for the outstanding Dawkins article. It actually addressed some of my unstated interests on this topic rather well. Unfortunately, I think he has missed a very important point about faith. Faith is not necessarily the enemy. Maybe a better question for many of us is "What place has faith and morality for the man (or woman) of science and reason?" Does not faith inform our morality?

Dawkins touches on this in his words about having a "rational moral philosophy" that is informed by science. What does this rational moral philosophy consist of? What should it consist of? If all morality is subjective then why should we even strive for any kind of uniformity?

These are very important questions in the perilous world we live in today. To this last question I suspect the answer is a resounding "We should care, because if we don't, we will most likely all perish as a species". I have heard it argued by some that a common ethical foundation is not needed in the world today. That evolution has endowed us with all that we need to survive indefinitely: self-interested rationalism. I think that particular article of faith is very weak.

I'm not sure we can have a rational moral philosophy without having faith in something. We are only human. Science can inform our faith, but it cannot abolish the need for it, if we care at all about our long term survival. Faith is merely an obvious component of human nature. It gives us direction. It guides us into the great unknowns of life.

Will I live to see tomorrow? Will any of us? How long will we live on as a species? The answers, no matter how subjective, are simple articles of faith but they instruct us how to live our lives. Can a meaningful morality exist without faith? I doubt it. I suspect we need to have faith in new things, informed greatly by science, but not defined by it. Faith is invaluable to us."

 

[MarcAC]

"Thank you for... [] ...Faith is invaluable to us."

Well said.

 

[MarcAC]

...You have to get rid of your bias I suppose but when you open your mind to both sides, everything really fits together.

Quite well too, I think.

The conflict arises in people's minds when they think that religion is static while science evolves. The truth is religious belief evolves as much as scientific beliefs ('facts') evolve.

Humanity is religious in their beliefs... in-so-far as religion is based on faith. In-so-far as science is a system of beliefs, all of which can be reduced to a basic intrinsic faith, science has its roots in religion, though it is commonly sought to draw a line between the two.

Though they will never openly admit it, many scientists (without whom there would be no science) adhere to their beliefs with religious fervor - that is why radical theories aren't often welcome and are met with firey debate - especially when the interpretations of available evidence are ambivalent.

Also taken from a related thread...

Only science can give us the real answers. Only science gives us a process for finding the truth.

Science, as it is often referred to on this forum... especially in the religions forum... is an ideal. This (quoted) statement in itself is a statement through faith though attempts can be made to support it. Science by nature is a process of finding a common frame of reference... there is no truth in science... only observation... whatever 'truths' there are, they are those defined by us at the root of science... the 'truths' of mathematical logic. Science gives us a process to establish objective agreement. Wether agreement indicates truth is another matter.

 

[mario]

Truth comes from repetiton. There is agreement because there seems to be no other option.

Oh there may be theories in science that have an element of "faith" in them...but faith goes out the window once a theory is proven to be fact (or not fact). Science can confirm it's suspicions. Religion basically can't (except when we die). Science builds upon itself...all the weird and complicated math that we have today came from 1+1=2. How can religion keep changing and mutating from scriptures that were meant to be steadfast? Yet jesus himself changed a lot of rules. In the old testament it was ok to have animal sacrifices to praise god. And god preferred it too. But jesus told people to stop doing that. That it was wrong. So actually religion has evolved even during biblical times. But what good is a religion when the rules can be changed at any time? At least in science 1+1 is still equal to 2.

 

[Poor Player]

Science is not so much a system of beliefs or an ideal but a system of objective factfinding. Once the individual facts have been found and then survive a long term rigorous peer review process, then they are "believed" or more accurately "accepted". The scientific process is designed to specifically eliminate bias and ideals where possible. It is successful when accurate predictions can be made about the future behavior of a given finding. Religion has no such process. It is entirely subjective in every way and that is why it is so prone to error. One culture believes one thing while another believes totally differently.

It is not an article of faith to say that only science can lead us to the objective truth because that is what modern science is specifically designed to do. There is truth in science if you define truth as a universal standard. We can send spacecraft all the way across the solar system using gravity assists from other planets because the law of gravity is true there as well as here and we can predict its behavior.

But what science cannot do is tell us how we should live. This is where faith becomes so valuable. If I believe the world is truly in great peril, and I believe that we collectively can save it, then those beliefs inform my values and my morality and ultimately my behavior. You might disagree and believe it's all a waste of your time. Again, your beliefs have informed your behavior. So we all have a system of beliefs but we do not all rely on science to inform them, mold them, and change them. Many rely instead on religions based much more on traditions and subjective experience.

It is a shame that many cannot see the promise of having a faith based on the scientific process. A faith that would instruct us how to live, how to treat others, and what to value in the world. We have no such faith today. Maybe we never will. We may never live long enough as a species to see it arise. I would argue that we probably won't unless we find a way to create it.

 

[Poor Player]

My last post on the other very similar thread (Is Science a Religion?):

To further the debate I just found this interesting quote in an article for Daedalus (Summer 2003) by James Carroll. (http://www.amacad.org/publications/back_issues.htm)

" Absolute claims are the issue. The challenge for religions of all kinds, but perhaps especially for religions based on narratives of divine revelation, is to make positive assertions of faith that do not simultaneously denigrate the different tenets of faith held by others. Religious denigration is a source of violence. “There will be no peace among the nations,”
the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng has written, “without peace
among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions. There will be no dialogue between the religions without the investigation of the foundations of the religions.” The new condition of world politics that has brought so much trouble with it is also the source of hope, because formerly triumphalist traditions now have no choice–precisely because of religious elbow-rubbing–but to encounter the truth claims of others. That means that the foundational assumptions of every religion must now be the subject of reexamination. "

He didn't mention it at all in the article, unfortunately, but science has been reexaming the foundational assumptions of all religions for the past four hundred years or so. NASA even has an entire program called "Origins" which spawned the Hubble telescope and many other similar astronomical observatories that have given us so much new information on how we all got here in the first place. So the question I raise is "Can we really have a new faith based on science, or do we have to settle for integrating science with the old religious traditions first, where possible, before people will ever embrace a new ethical foundation?".

 

[MarcAC]

Truth comes from repetiton...

I can't agree with that statement. It's like saying if everybody thinks I'm an idiot then I'm an idiot... or... if all the evidence available through current methods indicate that the sky is moving around the earth and everyone accepts this, well, the truth is, the sky is moving around the earth. Unless you base your definition upon repeatable observations which would seem to give truth a non-foundational character... something that changes with time... a few hundred years ago it was true that the Sun went around the earth through repeated observation, now it's true the earth goes around the Sun through repeated observation. Which is the reality then? It's like you're saying truth is what we make it (or how we see it) - but is that then reality?

Science can confirm it's suspicions. Religion basically can't (except when we die).

Confirmation is respective of the availlable evidence. Scientists may not accept religious evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less (at least to the religionist). So if my son is sick, I pray for his recovery, he gets well - evidence. If I pray for his recovery, he dies, does that negate the former situation? No. God has will, whatever He wills happens, no what I will.

Science builds upon itself...all the weird and complicated math that we have today came from 1+1=2. How can religion keep changing and mutating from scriptures that were meant to be steadfast?

The steadfast scriptures will serve as 1+1=2 in this analogue... then all the weird complicated math is developed from the scriptures, thus the existence of concepts like The Trinity, The Bible Code.

Yet jesus himself changed a lot of rules. In the old testament it was ok to have animal sacrifices to praise god. And god preferred it too. But jesus told people to stop doing that. That it was wrong.

Jesus did not say scrificing animals was wrong as far as I know. He addressed the people's motives for doing what they were doing.

So actually religion has evolved even during biblical times. But what good is a religion when the rules can be changed at any time? At least in science 1+1 is still equal to 2.

Religion evolves based on the 'steadfast' scriptures (1 + 1 = 2). I doubt, if any scripture is read with more than a surface understanding, that there will be any situation where one phrase of scripture is an anithesis to another.

 

[MarcAC]

Science is not so much a system of beliefs or an ideal but a system of objective factfinding.

The definition in itself defaults it to being an ideal. I contend, though we use the word objective, it can easily be reduced to individual scientists' subjective views of their world.

Once the individual facts have been found and then survive a long term rigorous peer review process, then they are "believed" or more accurately "accepted".

The question here would be how do you define 'fact'? It seems it is referred to as something that is tested and accepted - in these terms, facts change. I do not see the need for quotations.

The scientific process is designed to specifically eliminate bias and ideals where possible. It is successful when accurate predictions can be made about the future behavior of a given finding. Religion has no such process. It is entirely subjective in every way and that is why it is so prone to error.

I fail to understand one thing here, the use of the phrase "prone to error". Can you clarify this a bit and maybe provide some examples? But definitely, religion will have no significant (in the long run) process of peer review, due to the fact that the only 'review' you should be concerned about is that of The Source, The Creator, God. In science, the mindset is "other scientists are watching". In religion the mindset is "God is watching" - why give a hair's breadth about what your peers think after that?

It is not an article of faith to say that only science can lead us to the objective truth because that is what modern science is specifically designed to do. There is truth in science if you define truth as a universal standard. We can send spacecraft all the way across the solar system using gravity assists from other planets because the law of gravity is true there as well as here and we can predict its behavior.

I contend that it has to be a statement of some amount of faith due to the fact that all other processes of finding truth are ignored... then again... you define truth as a universal standard. Interesting definition. What is a universal standard? We speak of the Universal Law of Gravitation, yet, when we observe the universe at large scales we have to invent these "Dark" anomolies of matter and energy. Pun intended because we are totally in the dark as to what exactly they are. Isn't it an article of faith to accept the Universal Law of Gravitation as truly universal while inventing something called Dark Matter and Dark Energy due to the fact that you do not see this law being obeyed at some point? Somewhat like my post to Mario with regards to me praying to God for the health of someone and they die, then I say it is God's will. Which is more justified?

So we all have a system of beliefs but we do not all rely on science to inform them, mold them, and change them. Many rely instead on religions based much more on traditions and subjective experience.

It is a shame that many cannot see the promise of having a faith based on the scientific process. A faith that would instruct us how to live, how to treat others, and what to value in the world. We have no such faith today. Maybe we never will. We may never live long enough as a species to see it arise. I would argue that we probably won't unless we find a way to create it.

It is quite interesting when you think of the whole issue of objective and subjective. It is the general notion that objective is "better". I ask why? The whole point of the matter is that you don't trust yourself enough to stand alone in the way you see things, yet you will trust the other man who can just as easily be put in your place(?). If I define yoU + Me = Truth i.e. U + M = T. You are defining things equally. That is, for U (yoU), U + M = T, except, of course, the postions are reversed. So it would seem, then, that U = M. Or M + M = T -> U + U = T -> 2M = T, 2U = T Just a multiplicative factor after all - it doesn't seem to add to or detract from the Truth function. Everybody's interpretation is of equal value. It seems, to me, the distinction between subjective and objective is like combining two drops of water to make a larger drop. Does anything change about the quality of the water? It's still H2O. I am not bashing objectivity, I'm just defending the subjective - both are valid means of discovering truth.

 

[MarcAC]

"Can we really have a new faith based on science, or do we have to settle for integrating science with the old religious traditions first, where possible, before people will ever embrace a new ethical foundation?".

Integration is unavoidable. Humanity is religious in its foundations. Our religious sense developed parallel to our sentient nature. It is inseparable from us. Then again this all depends on what "old religious traditions" means.

 

[Poor Player]

MarcAC, I responded to your post in the other thread because I didn't start this one and don't want to take it over. The threads are very similar as you have seen. It will be easier to just focus on one.

 

[Doomdayx]

Hello
I've been wondering alot about this idea. After reading many books on the subject, I have truly come to see that science and religion really compliment one another. They are not seperate but rather, intertwined and make sense both ways when you truly look at it. You have to get rid of your bias I suppose but when you open your mind to both sides, everything really fits together. What do you think?

if you look at the realities of life and the laws of nature with one eye, it is sicence.
if you look at the same realities of life and the laws of nature with two eyes, it is the religion.
one eye observes the physical (the manifest), the other the spiritual (the invisible).

 

[mario]

"one eye observes the physical (the manifest), the other the spiritual (the invisible)"

How can you observe the invisible?

 

[okinrus]

Well, here are my thoughts. Every possible scientific theory could be considered religious. Pencils, papers, and computers all could be considered religious. They all could be worshiped, but science perceives no supernatural properties attached to these objects. But who decides that they do not. An hindu statue may, to me, look irreligious; but to an hindu, the statue may certainly be religious. A paper listing the Ten Commandments may, to me, be historical; but to the next person may be religious. These examples, I think, illustrate that if the court is going to apply separation of church and state as a legal principle the justices will have to judge, not by their own opinions, but the by the opinions of a substantial portion of the American people.

Evolution is a case in point. For many Americans evolution either contradicts their religious beliefs or doesn't tell whole story. For these Americans evolution is indeed religious. Having accepted the theory as true, the theory is irreligious to me. But, upon investigating the opinions of others, the theory is religious.

As a counterexample, take a statue of the goddess of Justice. Irreligious to me, religious to the Greeks, the statue stays because the majority of Americans don't believe the statue is religious.

Unfortunately, this interpretation lends itself to arguments where the majority decides. But, because the individuals making the determination are unbiased, the majority should be kept in check.