Religion vs Science...why?

[dr2005]

NOTE: Please keep this debate civil and on-topic. If it starts to degenerate into another believer-bashing/atheist-bashing thread, I will close it. You have been warned.

Anyway...as someone who takes an interest in both religion and science, I've been struck for the last few years at the number of people who portray the two as competing forces vying for supremacy in the modern world. I have read countless articles and comments claiming that science is undermining religious belief and is a threat to entire ways of life, and people who advocate it likewise; conversely, I have read countless articles and comments dismissing religion as superstitious nonsense, claiming that science has effectively annihilated it and that science can now provide all the answers we could ever need. I cannot begin to describe how fundamentally flawed I find both these positions and their derivatives, and it starts from a very basic premise: religion and science are not, in my view, competitors unless you make them out as being competitors. Science is nothing more and nothing less than a repository of knowledge gathered by a certain means, categorised into the areas of biology, chemistry and physics we are familiar with. It is of immense use and powerful in that regard; however, it provides no precepts as to how one is meant to use such knowledge, or whether such knowledge is in itself a good thing. Similarly, religion is intended (key word there being "intended") to be a guide to how to live life as part of a community, whatever form that community takes, and emphasising our place in the world; however, it cannot tell us the mechanisms governing this world or the wider Universe, or how they came about beyond a very superficial answer. Both therefore have very different functions, and as such I see no clash between them, yet one is routinely used to bash the other in a way which makes no sense to me at all. This is not based on a lack of scientific understanding on my part, I believe - I know about and understand things like the LHC, after all - but as I'm more of an advocate of Einstein's views on science and religion, I will admit I'm genuinely confused.

So, as is my way, I thought I'd throw this one open to the floor. Why do you believe that religion and science are being pitted against each other in this manner? Do you believe it is valid? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm genuinely interested to see where this goes, as it's something that's been bugging me for years...

[Cosmo]

I see it that way because if it was up to Religion, mostly Christianity, we'd still be in the dark ages. Case in point: Galileo. So it always seems to me that whenever someone such as the Pope says that Science and Religion are compatible, to me I see that as if they're saying "Okay yes we know we were wrong about how the world works and yes we did try to stop anyone discovering how it really works because that would mean we'd be wrong, but now we agree with science!" - and the only reason they're doing it is because they actually have to because we've progressed to the point where we realise that Science is actual provable fact whereas the Church would have us just take their word for it when they're probably wrong anyway. So I suppose I harbor a bit of resentment because of the amount of science and understanding they deliberately held back, and so I see it as kind of pathetic when they say that they're still compatible.

That said, I like that they're not trying to stand in the way as much anymore. And there are some things that can't be explained by science. Science can't explain everything so Religion is there for everything else I suppose. I just don't like seeing people's religion getting in the way of Science - the two can exist in unity, side-by-side: people just have to be willing to let it do so.


Disclaimer: having read through my reply, I have a feeling my grudge is more against some of the sects of Christianity than religion as a whole. Consider my response directed towards them rather than religion as whole, because I love a few such as Buddhism.

[Xujhan]

What is it you feel that religion provides that secular alternatives don't? Recognize that science isn't the only secular alternative to religion; philosophy is another, and poltics arguably a third. I don't believe anyone suggests that any of these individually is all that is necessary to uphold a society, only that religion isn't itself necessary. If you think that religion dictates how to live well, that is a question that can be answered with a mix of science and philosophy.

The problem with the kind of religion you're advocating, in my eyes, is that it lacks justification. Why should we accept a particular set of moral principles or other such norms as the right ones? Any answer that doesn't invoke god is non-religious, and any answer that does invoke god is then in a position of having to demonstrate that god exists to validate the argument.

In short, I don't see religion as having any more significant upside than providing comforting feelings to the religious, and on balance I don't think that justifies the harm caused by religion.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I see it that way because if it was up to Religion, mostly Christianity, we'd still be in the dark ages. Case in point: Galileo.

I must admit I did wonder if Galileo would come up - and it's quite ironic because the claim he was making was not in fact the nature of the dispute. Galileo's fundamental problem was that he sought to assert as truth something for which he could not actually provide evidence, and indeed was not fully proven until long after his death with the advance of telescopes - in short, he asserted the truth of his theory without sufficient evidential basis and ironically committed bad science in the process. He was of course vindicated after the event, but at the time it would be comparable to someone from CERN asserting with 100% certainty that the Higgs boson definitely exists while the LHC is still trying to find it, if it exists at all. The Church's conduct in the whole affair was bordering on scandalous, and that is not in dispute, and there was a great deal of politics and narrow-mindedness involved in certain decisions, but the ultimate problem was lack of evidence and Galileo's unwillingness to accept that claim by others.

As a counter-point to the general issue raised, I could of course cite the work of Arabic scholars in medicine and astronomy, as well as the work of Gregor Mendel and others like him, in suggesting that religion is not always the obstacle to greater knowledge that it is so often portrayed as being.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

What is it you feel that religion provides that secular alternatives don't? Recognize that science isn't the only secular alternative to religion; philosophy is another, and poltics arguably a third. I don't believe anyone suggests that any of these individually is all that is necessary to uphold a society, only that religion isn't itself necessary. If you think that religion dictates how to live well, that is a question that can be answered with a mix of science and philosophy.

The problem with the kind of religion you're advocating, in my eyes, is that it lacks justification. Why should we accept a particular set of moral principles or other such norms as the right ones? Any answer that doesn't invoke god is non-religious, and any answer that does invoke god is then in a position of having to demonstrate that god exists to validate the argument.

In short, I don't see religion as having any more significant upside than providing comforting feelings to the religious, and on balance I don't think that justifies the harm caused by religion.

While all of the above may be valid comments in themselves, you have not answered the question I asked: namely, why religion and science are pitted against each other in the manner described. What you are explaining is why people reject religion overall, but that does not go towards explaining the issue this thread is concerned with and I am somewhat surprised that you have missed the mark so. In addition, asserting science as a "secular alternative to religion" does not make it so, and in effect you are merely demonstrating the phenomenon I described rather than providing an actual explanation for it.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by dr2005

So, as is my way, I thought I'd throw this one open to the floor. Why do you believe that religion and science are being pitted against each other in this manner? Do you believe it is valid? If so, why? If not, why not?

In my opinion, I believe the answer is quite simple; because both are different. Unfortunately, society has made Science and religion a debate because there ultimately is no winning argument. As far as I know, science is all about testing and shit like that, so it's all about understanding the world around you and religion is the only thing that they can't understand because there is no evidence. Having no evidence doesn't prove anything. So in the end, people get frustrated. Science people ask "why do you believe in [insert religion]" and religious people reply "because I can." When white people were scared of native tribes and sociologists (or whatever) started to study them, we started to understand the native tribes because we were able to observe evidence and interpret information. Opinions changed. But when people desire to understand something that hasn't been proven to be observed but only through belief, it's not very satisfying and therefore throws society into a continuous loop. This continuous loop was all started with a spark of curiosity simply because the concept is different than what we originally believed. Do I believe it's valid? Well, I think it's in human nature to seek to understand and therefore it's perfectly rational for people to question religion or question the intent of science pursuers, but I don't think they should be competitors because, as I mentioned, it only sends us into a continuous loop. Hopefully that makes sense and I answered the question correctly.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

While all of the above may be valid comments in themselves, you have not answered the question I asked: namely, why religion and science are pitted against each other in the manner described.

Why are they? Because people are argumentative and like competing. I don't think that's a very interesting question, personally.

Originally Posted by dr2005

What you are explaining is why people reject religion overall, but that does not go towards explaining the issue this thread is concerned with and I am somewhat surprised that you have missed the mark so.

Love you too.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In addition, asserting science as a "secular alternative to religion" does not make it so, and in effect you are merely demonstrating the phenomenon I described rather than providing an actual explanation for it.

Neither does asserting that religion "is intended to be a guide to how to live life as part of a community" make it so, and I would say that's a much more glaring omission than any I made. Why, other than your own divine authority, is that what religion is 'really about'? And since it seems my original post wasn't clear enough: any religious justification for a proposition eventually rests on the claim "my god exists," (or perhaps more generally "my religion is true") otherwise it would be a secular justification. Both of those claims conflicts with science because they make empyrical claims that are unsupported by evidence.

Lastly: you didn't answer my question either, and it wasn't even a hard one.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I think they're pitted against each other because people see that science and religion are methods of understanding the world we live in. Since they're both methods of gaining knowledge, that puts them on the same playing field, so common-sense then dictates one should challenge the other. Also, there probably are historical references, where religion kept saying one thing because science couldn't explain it but science then managed to explain it, so it was suggested that science booted religion out of that particular area. For example, in Christianity, Leviticus 13/14 describes how a priest should treat someone who is ill in the community by animal sacrifices. Later, science came along and discovered a medication or form of surgery that remedies the same illness in a more efficient manner. Thus, Christianity's way of treating illnesses got booted out by science.

That said, I agree religion and science are both sources of gaining knowledge of the world. BUT, I do not agree they are on the same playing field because their methods, paradigms and questions are always different. Christianity turns to hoping and praying that god will give some obscure sign that can eventually be used to treat the person, so there is no active research by the people. On the other hand, science turns to active research and questioning and re-questioning themselves, with the focus purely on humans and animals, not on god.

When radical scientists come along, such as Darwin's famous "Origin of Species" book detailing evolution, it sparked followers who used evolutionary biology to discredit concepts in the bible. I suppose some people want to eradicate religion and have science dominate but this inherently assumes all religions are pure evil, which I disagree with when you examine the non-dominant religions, such as branches of Theistic Satanism. A few churches I think are a bit loopy, such as Joy of Satan because in ways I cant understand they use Satanism to support neo-Nazism, however, the majority of branches and churches are not involved in that at all. They don't advocate for harm, battle, or destruction, instead they advocate being all that you can be or "self-actualization".

Thus, pitting science against religion isn't valid, its only use to me is showing how people fail to understand what science and religion actually are. Other than that, pitting them against each other is useless.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Why are they? Because people are argumentative and like competing. I don't think that's a very interesting question, personally.

True; however, you would normally expect the competing propositions to bear more than superficial similarity. For instance, if people were arguing over the comparative merits of apples and oranges, you can at least see the logic in that both are foodstuffs, specifically fruit, and are eaten for similar beneficial properties. If, on the other hand, people were arguing over the comparative merits of apples and baseballs, it would be hard to draw any conclusion other than that they had lost the plot. Beyond superficial similarity, there is no reasonable connection or reason for comparison. I wouldn't go so far as to say religion vs science advocates had lost the plot, but in terms of the similarities between religion and science there are very little besides both containing forms of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Neither does asserting that religion "is intended to be a guide to how to live life as part of a community" make it so, and I would say that's a much more glaring omission than any I made. Why, other than your own divine authority, is that what religion is 'really about'?

I never said that was solely what it was about, and it would do you more credit in future to not jump to conclusions in such a manner. To answer your question as to where my authority to make such statements come from, I would direct you to passages such as Leviticus in the Bible, the numerous passages concerning treating one's neighbour and such like in the same work (which falls under the concept of being "part of a community"), and similar passages in the Qur'an and countless other religious works. Much as such works take their premise from a more supernatural basis, ultimately they are intended to direct human beings as to how to conduct their daily lives and live in a community based on their shared belief. I do not see how that is such a controversial statement, or why you take exception to that above all others.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

And since it seems my original post wasn't clear enough: any religious justification for a proposition eventually rests on the claim "my god exists," (or perhaps more generally "my religion is true") otherwise it would be a secular justification. Both of those claims conflicts with science because they make empyrical claims that are unsupported by evidence.

The mere fact that the nature of religious belief does not follow the scientific method does not sufficiently explain why the two continue to be portrayed as implacable foes. Were religion actively trying to assume the role of science (by which I mean the whole group of them, not sects like the creationist movement or such like), then I could understand why that would be a problem; however, as religion is not doing that and has not done so for some time (if memory serves me correctly) this does not strike me as explaining the vitriol from both sides. I hasten to add, I take issue with both parties in this one, believers and nonbelievers alike - it just seems to me to be an utterly pointless argument, like the apples vs baseballs example I used above.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Lastly: you didn't answer my question either, and it wasn't even a hard one.

It's normally considered good form to give an answer to a question that is asked, rather than respond with another question and expect that to be answered first. As your post did not appear to answer the question posed, I felt under no obligation to respond as it was not relevant to the topic - it seems more a question about my personal beliefs rather than the religion vs science debate. In light of the further response given above, I am more than happy to do so now provided it does not hijack the thread:

Originally Posted by Xujhan

What is it you feel that religion provides that secular alternatives don't?

The main thing, I suppose, would be an aid to spirituality. I am someone who believes in the existence of a spiritual aspect to life (and I fully recognise that is likely not to be a belief you share, as with belief in God, and I respect that) and so that is the main thing I would say it provides. As such, I find the pitting of science and politics as secular alternatives to religion somewhat spurious, as I believe that the only one which fits that bill properly is philosophy. I trust that addresses your question suitably but if not I am happy to expand further.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

The main thing, I suppose, would be an aid to spirituality. I am someone who believes in the existence of a spiritual aspect to life (and I fully recognise that is likely not to be a belief you share, as with belief in God, and I respect that) and so that is the main thing I would say it provides. As such, I find the pitting of science and politics as secular alternatives to religion somewhat spurious, as I believe that the only one which fits that bill properly is philosophy. I trust that addresses your question suitably but if not I am happy to expand further.

What do you mean by spirituality, then?

Originally Posted by dr2005

I never said that was solely what it was about, and it would do you more credit in future to not jump to conclusions in such a manner. To answer your question as to where my authority to make such statements come from, I would direct you to passages such as Leviticus in the Bible, the numerous passages concerning treating one's neighbour and such like in the same work (which falls under the concept of being "part of a community"), and similar passages in the Qur'an and countless other religious works. Much as such works take their premise from a more supernatural basis, ultimately they are intended to direct human beings as to how to conduct their daily lives and live in a community based on their shared belief. I do not see how that is such a controversial statement, or why you take exception to that above all others.

Because I get the feeling that this idea is at the heart of the vast difference between your understanding and mine. I understand that your religion is as you say - a guide to living decently, as it were - but I don't agree that that is what religion is to all people. If all were as you I would object much less. You make the point nicely yourself by quoting Leviticus; that is also the book that says the homosexuality is a sin and that menstruating women are unclean. A person like yourself is certainly able to choose the good parts from among the bad, but not all people do. Some people view religion as divine mandate to be followed without question, and some view religious literature as the unadulterated truth. Your religion doesn't conflict with science because you read yours with a much more skeptical eye, take the good messages from it and largely leave the rest behind. A more rigid reading though, as many people give it, produces many conflicts with science, morality, even common sense. Hence the conflict.

Again, this is only a feeling, but I gather that you think of religion largely as the kind you follow, and view the rest as a rare if rather vocal minority. From where I sit, whether they're a minority or not, I think they have far too much power to be left alone. Perhaps that would go some way to explaining the differences in our opinion.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

What do you mean by spirituality, then?

I suppose I define spirituality as that which helps me work out the essence of who I am and my place in the wider world, and form a holistic view of that wider world. I'm not saying that's what it is for others necessarily, or that religion alone is the only way to achieve those goals (personally I don't believe that at all) but for me it has been the best way to do so.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Because I get the feeling that this idea is at the heart of the vast difference between your understanding and mine. I understand that your religion is as you say - a guide to living decently, as it were - but I don't agree that that is what religion is to all people. If all were as you I would object much less. You make the point nicely yourself by quoting Leviticus; that is also the book that says the homosexuality is a sin and that menstruating women are unclean. A person like yourself is certainly able to choose the good parts from among the bad, but not all people do. Some people view religion as divine mandate to be followed without question, and some view religious literature as the unadulterated truth. Your religion doesn't conflict with science because you read yours with a much more skeptical eye, take the good messages from it and largely leave the rest behind. A more rigid reading though, as many people give it, produces many conflicts with science, morality, even common sense. Hence the conflict.

Again, this is only a feeling, but I gather that you think of religion largely as the kind you follow, and view the rest as a rare if rather vocal minority. From where I sit, whether they're a minority or not, I think they have far too much power to be left alone. Perhaps that would go some way to explaining the differences in our opinion.

I think you make a very good point there - and I suppose in a way it's what I was alluding to in my first post about people on both sides of the debate. I find religious people who take the rigid reading you describe above to be just as much of a problem, largely because it seems to at a stroke ignore a considerable amount about how their religion has developed in the first place. On top of that, in my experience of religion only a slim minority seem to take those views and yet they seem to be the ones coming up time and again in the debate, which is something I also find quite frustrating. At the same time, I can fully understand your position of seeing these kinds of people day in, day out and reacting accordingly. So yes, I'd say I agree with you on that.