Religion
Related: About this forumWhy not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal?
The question was asked in another thread that I think deserves further discussion. The entire question is as follows...
For me, the answer is simple; Science is a search for knowledge, not a search for meaning. Science produces knowledge that is true for everyone. Science is self correcting. Religion does none of that and fails at every attempt to produce knowledge that is true for everyone.
And you?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)would agree with you. I know they believe in evolution.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Are science and religion equal?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)are 100% right they are equal and I have no problem seeing them stand alone because both makes sense. I hope it answers your questions. To me it's simple but others will disagree.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)either but the basics.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)but art is, which is what religion would be without the claims of literal truth and political nonsense.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Art can make things that are not literally true, but nonetheless true for those that see them. To some Mozart is beautiful, to some Chinese opera is. To insist that the onyl things that are real are things that are emasured is also a flasehood, as people live and die for culture every day.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)it means that while we are railing against the religions, we do not smash the art and poetry in them, nor do we assume that all the knowledge we need is going to roll out into nice empirical data. I am not saying you did, but others like Dawkins do.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Science answers the how questions and religion answers the why questions"
Leaving aside the idiocy of even assuming that "questions" can be divided so neatly into two types, and assuming that each type is only addressed by one of science and religion, religion does a really sucky job of answering even the questions it is claimed to have hegemony over, by comparison to science.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Religion offers mere speculation, nothing more.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Religiosity intrudes into the scientific realm all over the place, and worse, in the political sphere religion based moral theories are used to push for repressive prejudicial and irrational legislation and the theoretical basis for those theories is held to be above questioning because it is "god's will". We as a society are hobbled by the intrusion of irrational magical thinking and theorizing, a morality based on flawed contradictory and nonsnsical Bronze and Iron Age sacred texts. We are diminshed by religion. Separate Magesteria is nonsense.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)what I was saying was that it shouldn't. I agree with you completely regarding the detrimental results.
TygrBright
(20,726 posts)It's like saying "we need to treat fruit as equal to cats."
They're different things. You can say "peaches are fuzzy and so are most cat breeds," but...
confusedly,
Bright
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)TygrBright
(20,726 posts)... you have only two choices:
One would be to ask them to clarify what they mean by "equal" and the other would be to explain politely that you don't feel you can discuss the topics on that basis, and suggest a different and presumably neutral and respectful conceptual matrix for the discussion.
On the other hand, if you just want to point out how wrong they are, or validate your own point of view, you can expose them to ridicule.
Your time & effort, your choice.
helpfully,
Bright
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Science and religion are not equal. There is no dispute over that.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,082 posts)If people take part in it with good intentions, then it can produce good outcomes. But it can be misdirected and abused.
Neither do anything like producing 'truth' or 'meaning'. They both give you a fairly arbitrary outlook on life.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)what i do find interesting in this so called debate is science is used to confirm or deny such things as the writings in the dead sea scrolls. i just read where they discovered new meaning of a very important text of the old testament using the latest imaging techology. i could go on but you get my drift.
janlyn
(735 posts)However, the belief in life after death fascinates me. I am not talking about the standard belief in a heaven so much, as the belief that something of us lives on where we cannot percieve.
I remember the first time I read about string theory that I thought that science might in the end provide proof of life after death.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What does that have to do with the issue at hand?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think science and religion are not opposed to one another.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Why or why not?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)and why. For me that is not against religion. If you are set in your ways and believe everything you have been taught and there is no wiggle room than science can be scary to you. But that is not the case for me. Science is what it is, and religion is what it is.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)While I understand what you are saying, it has nothing to do with the question being asked.
Are science and religion equal? Why or why not?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If for you, science and religion are equal, why should you be taken seriously?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)One is liquid and the other is static. Thus it be a night and day thingy.
LTX
(1,020 posts)And what do you actually mean by those terms?
static doesn't move while liquid flows. Religion has remained unchanged for hundreds of years while knowledge has expanded at an incredible rate. 60 years after the first human flies we land on the moon. We have discovered DNA, the Lego block of life.
It is kind of odd, though, how an illiquid thing like religion can give rise to such an abundance of disparate beliefs. And how a liquid thing like science can be so difficult to budge at times.
Religion hasn't spawned a multitude of beliefs it has spawned a multitude of rituals. Science is driven by facts so as new facts are revealed more questions come into being based on the new facts. If it seems that a particular segment of science has stalled it is waiting for a new fact to be revealed.
LTX
(1,020 posts)You may find the Oxford project of interest. http://evolution-of-religion.com/
Science and religion are both evolving products of an evolving human consciousness. As for science in particular, it evolves in ways much more complicated than mere fact-accumulation.
They seem to be trying to prove that religion is tied to our DNA. I wish them luck in that. All ancient religions were a plea to the natural world to cut them some slack. And that is quite understandable. But to try and say that the God of the Gaps is in our DNA is bit of a stretch.
LTX
(1,020 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)facile summations of both religion and science.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It must change hour by hour!
"No one should put a period, where God has put a comma."
With every new thing science reveals, religion must celebrate it and adapt to this form of revelation.
Example, "Jesus said, 'You have heard it said of old......, but I now say to you......'"
The only way you could have made that statement is just not eohave the slightest knowledge of what religion is all about.
LTX
(1,020 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You spend a lot of time telling people that, but refuse to explain yourself. Perhaps that conversation you want to have can begin here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But generally those changes have been the result of either scientific discovery (abandonment of special creation, the heliocentric model, etc.) or secular ethical progress. Not so much of this "change from within" stuff a lot of people think goes on. It changes very slowly, and there are sizable groups that will oppose the change for as long as they can, but it happens.
rug
(82,333 posts)Would you say chemistry and physics are equal?
How about astronomy and music?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,104 posts)...he asked whether they were equally valid methodologies for understanding.
In that respect, I think we would all agree chemistry, physics, and astronomy stand on equal footing.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That response is a perfect example of the obfuscation usually seen when questions like this are asked.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #58)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)You used a question mark.
Response to rug (Reply #63)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)You then highlighted another poster's, more complete, question.
Response to rug (Reply #66)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,104 posts)...one of which was this:
Far be it from me to judge, but you should consider reading the OP in its entirety before electing to respond. Just a thought.
rug
(82,333 posts)He asked the question in the headline.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,104 posts)Because the context of the question was rather clearly presented.
But let's, for the sake of argument, just say you're correct. The question was worded poorly. Cleanhippie has since clarified specifically what was meant by the question. Do you have an answer, or is it your intent to prattle on about his skill at composition (or lack thereof)?
rug
(82,333 posts)But let's not. I've heard enough prattle.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I really doubt it.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Religion is traditionally the lens by which people construct themselves, their culture, and their place in the world. Having said that, religion promises what it cannot deliver, frightens with powers it does not have, and falsely represents the universe as being divinely ordered, which it is not. It is far better to find "meaning" in the real world based on what we actually know than it is to continue to live according to pre-modern fantasies.
Warpy
(110,744 posts)but they can never be equal.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm a man of faith (an unusual faith but faith all the same) and the fact is that science and religion don't use the same tools or address the same questions. Science tells us what a human is, how we move, breathe, reproduce and, soon, how we think. Religion/philosophy tells us what it means to be human, what we should cherish and strive toward. Science, as you say, produces answers which are true for everyone, reproducable and reliable. Religion/philosophy is inherently personal and subjective and, to some extent, irrational. Science is about how, religion/philosophy is about why. Science looks for facts, religion/philosophy looks for truth.
They are equal as forces in the world and, in some cases, in a person's life but their individual strengths are not equal. Science should be taught in schools and universities. Religion should be taught in the home or the church or coven (or maybe a Comparative Religions class). When I commune with my chosen deity, I'm not engaging my science-brain and when I construct a correlational study or analyze a case report, I'm not engaging my faith-brain. While the two are equally strong forces in my life, they look at different questions in different ways and shouldn't be confused. In my life, science and faith are like a pair of shoes: You get further on both than you do hopping.
Quick note: That's not to disparage those who find meaning outside of faith. We each have our own path to walk.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Religion "tells" us nothing of the sort. It provides guesses. "Tell" implies some kind of authority or reliability, whereas religion ultimately has neither.
After all, Fred Phelps' religion "tells" him that homosexuality is evil and will bring his god's judgment down on our country. He therefore strives for its demonization and elimination. Is his just another "path to walk"?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Almost all religions provide revealed wisdom that is beyond rational discussion: it in fact "tells" us what it is to be human and that is that. Philosophy, on the other hand is all about rational discussion and arriving at some understanding of what it is to be human, but in general everything in philosophy is up for debate.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or as the old joke goes, if you took all the philosophers in the world and laid them end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion!
Bad Thoughts
(2,513 posts)Philosophy does not go out into the field. Philosophy does not encounter humanity as it exists and acts. It's all well to compare what religion and philosophy provide, but philosophy is itself a limited endeavor because it fails to gather evidence about what real human do.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..and inaccurate. there are philosophies.. formal and informal (ie, philosophies of life).. which are entirely concerned with humanity as it exists and acts, and which choose to ground their ideas in empirical analysis of behavior both gross and individual.
secular humanism springs to mind.
don't forget.. 'philosophy' includes 'ethics'
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)You might just be surprised.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Why SHOULD those who believe science and religion are equal in the search for meaning be taken seriously. Since it was YOU who asked that to begin with, will you explain why anyone should take you seriously?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Having one's beliefs and reasoning questioned is a brave, but difficult, test. Not all are up to the challenge.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)As far as he has any coherent theology, it's some kind of hyper-Calvinism that supposes that the saved have already been selected, everyone else is damned and he's just pointing that out. Essentially, he's a scumbag gloating at the condemned. His path is one of hatred and bigotry that ignores the most basic principles of human compassion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If someone honestly believes that certain behavior is disapproved by their god, is it not moral to try and prevent that behavior?
Liberal believers think that poverty and discrimination are opposed by god, so they work to eliminate them. We're supposed to praise and encourage that, yet the justification and reasoning are exactly the same in Phelps' case.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Phelps can attack me because my reasoning is different to his and you can criticise me because I think my chosen deity opposes prejudice and discrimination (although, as an experiential faith, mine is based on personal gnosis rather than revelation) but let's be honest here, there is no scientific reason to oppose Phelps because science doesn't make value judgements at all. Presuming you're an atheist, you base your morality on compassion and human empathy. So why the fuss when I say that my chosen deity encourages me to base my morality on the same thing?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"personal gnosis"? Are you able to read his mind?
You judge him based on your faith, he judges you based on his. Same thing. You haven't said anything to distinguish between them. There is an inherent problem in basing any kind of morals on religious faith - do you see it yet?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)He posts them online. He's basing his theology on a (highly selective) reading on the Bible. Here's one major difference between us: My morality and theology encourage me to help people and show compassion to others, Phelps' encourages the exact opposite. By their fruit, shall ye judge them (to slightly mangle a scripture).
You also haven't said anything to distinguish between morality based on empathy and compassion and morality also based on empathy and compassion which happens to be encouraged by a deity.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If god really does oppose homosexuality, and will judge our nation if we allow it, and Phelps learned this through "personal gnosis," is he wrong to be doing what he does? In his own way, he is showing compassion to everyone in the country in order to spare us the wrath of god.
You are judging him based on your faith, he is judging you based on his. You've gotten nowhere.
Or perhaps are you claiming that YOUR "personal gnosis" give you the ability to tell everyone else what god wants us to do? That your faith is superior to everyone else's?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Oh, I think he does oppose homosexuality. That's because god is an asshole looking for reasons to condemn people. Phelps and god think much the same way. That's why god is utterly unworthy of worship.
In his own way, he is showing compassion to everyone in the country in order to spare us the wrath of god.
Again, that's not why he does it. He does it to rub everyone's nose in them being condemned. He is, in effect, trolling everyone. We know this because he posts his sermons online.
You are judging him based on your faith, he is judging you based on his. You've gotten nowhere.
And you judge him based on your own morality so you've gotten nowhere as well. Your morality doesn't automatically become superior to mine just because your's doesn't have a deity in it.
Or perhaps are you claiming that YOUR "personal gnosis" give you the ability to tell everyone else what god wants us to do? That your faith is superior to everyone else's?
Nice try but I didn't say that or anything like it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)(you claim to know his true motivations and thoughts, after all) and that you know god better than Phelps (or anyone else, apparently - your "personal gnosis" factor), the trap you have fallen into is one that you will never get out of.
What everyone needs to realize - you and Phelps - is that there is no way this dilemma will be resolved through religion or religious faith. NO ONE has a hotline to god. NO ONE truly knows what a god (if it exists) wants from us. You don't know any more than Phelps does. But you both sure think you do.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I have explained how I know Phelp's motivations three times now. You don't want to understand it and I lack teh patience to keep explaining it to you. Peace with you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You read some of his sermons online and decided that you know what his motivations are. An impressive skill, to be sure.
But you and he are still in the same spot, and neither of you knows any better than the other what your gods want.
I can understand why you'd rather give up than seriously analyze the problem here. Much easier to just go on being certain that you know better than anyone else what god wants. Just like Phelps.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Religion/philosophy tells us what it means to be human, what we should cherish and strive toward."
...
Science looks for facts, religion/philosophy looks for truth.
...no it does not.
Religion makes unsubstantiated and unsupported claims to that effect, but anyone can do that. My 5 year old nephew can do that. That is entirely different than telling us "what it means to be human" or telling us what "the truth" is. The only thing religion has ever told anyone is what religion wants them to think.
For some people that's enough. Those people make me depressed.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)religion functioned as a form of science for most of human civilization. I mean, for most of our existence as a species, anytime someone wanted to know why something was happening, like seasons changing, earthquakes shaking everything or rain falling or whatever, they always asked a priest. I think of religion in terms of a type of protoscience. Early people just didn't know what caused almost anything around them. They didn't know about plate tectonics for instance or planetary motion and Solar system physics, evolutionary biology or what caused anything really. People just made stuff up the best they could to explain physical phenomena and religion served that purpose and out of a very strong human need to have an explanation for everything it developed and evolved into what it is today.
To me religion is to science what alchemy was to chemistry or astrology was to astronomy.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I agree. Religion is to science as witch doctoring is to medicine. The parallels could not be starker.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)of a few experts, kept in museums.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)application of superstitious notions to fill in answers about existence without the need of any concrete evidence. Science and Religion have notion in common are totally different sets of actions.