The utterly false dichotomy of Religion Vs. Science

[Artimis]

The false choice between Religion and Science is what I'm getting at, as well as the possible motives of those seeking to push this false choice.

I don't have the in depth knowledge of religions that other posters here have. From the outsiders perspective(mine), I see creationism and its proponents pushing really hard to discredit evolution and to push their theory(belief?), they're also challenging the estimated age of the Earth and the Universe. Here in Britain we have Faith-schools opening up, which is proving to be kind of an open door for Creationism. It is important to note that it's not just Creationists that are opening up Faith-schools, other religious organisations are opening Faith-schools in order to teach(or not teach as it turns out) what they deem should be in their curricula. So we're going to wind up with a fragmented standard of education across our population, as well as a significant section of our population being indoctrinated against a theory that has a broad evidence base to support it. I don't know how this is playing out in America, hopefully wise heads are prevailing and Creationism is confined to R.E.(Religious Education), which as far as I'm concerned is fine, R.E. is where various faiths should be taught.

I'm concerned because the majority of the noise seems to be coming from religious groups, are they pushing this false choice because they want people to turn away from science, because they feel that the expanding knowledge base that is accumulating as science seeks to explain more and more is perceived as threatening the validity of their belief system? I honestly cannot see religion dying out anytime soon, so for me any fear that religious groups might have about the encroachment of science into what used to be the realm of the Divine(the motion of celestial bodies, the origin and development of life) is unfounded in my humble opinion.

I want to focus on the interest groups that would benefit from pushing the false choice of siding with Religion or Science only. What do they get out of it? More importantly how do we bring this nonsense to an end?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

The discrepancy comes when you can call a theory "science" without actually following the scientific method.

Without scientific theories how would we conduct science?They are integral to the whole business.

[_sabotage_]

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

[chang50]

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

Interesting theory,how would you test it?

[BoganGod]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

For me the great irony is that it was The Church that initially setup institutions to encourage learning and scholarly investigation into many fields of study. Presumably the motive behind this was that science would prove the existence of God and verify other widely believed geo-centric concepts such as the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Well, they've got some answers and some of them were more than they bargained for.

To say that Religion and Science don't always see eye-to-eye is a gross understatement. The fact is that we're in a bit of a trap here, science can't be used to *prove* the existence of God/Goddess/Other Deity because then faith would no longer be required, because we'd all know beyond reasonable doubt that God/Goddess/Other Deity existed. So should Science continue to attempt to prove the existence of the Divine?

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

I can only speak for Catholicism, but my religion doesn't have a problem with science (in fact, I would say we embrace it).

So who killed Galileo? Yes he died at home from natural causes, whilst under house arrest. House arrest for heresy. Imagine how much better this world would be right now if religion had let him reach his scientific potential. Catholicism before lapsing into/specialising in pederasty used to f*ck grown up scientists. It is only now that the church is lacking in hard power(still has too much soft power, look at its role in promoting the spread of aids. Ethnic cleansing maybe?), that the church exclusively preys on the vulnerable. If they could get away with it the catholic(roman, and this distinction is not made often enough) hierarchy would be burning high school science text books, locking women in home economics class, and promoting literacy as only suitable for the clergy.

[_sabotage_]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

[chang50]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

Nothing you have written has anything to do with science,sorry........

[Artimis]

[aside]
An interesting tangent, _sabotage_, worthy of it's own thread if one of that nature does not already exist. I'm sure someone has already started a thread to debate Human nature, search one up or start a new one, either suits me.
[/aside]

This however, is a bit of a mind f*ck.

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

If true, then effectively science will be incapable of disproving God, because the mere act of investigating the universe and all that it contains is to observe God. Unfortunately it's most likely not provable. A shame, because this would kick a lot of the rhetorical propaganda from some religious groups into touch.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

Quit bastardizing Sartre.

-TG

[Artimis]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

[chang50]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

How about living in a Buddhist country for 6 years,with a Buddhist wife and adopted kids?
In theory you should be correct,yet no Buddhist country has been in the forefront of any branch of science as far as I know.Perhaps belief in reincarnation affects attitudes to innovation,research and the work ethic in general,leading to a fatalism and superstitiousness that doesn't encourage one to try to better this temporary life.And Buddhists are spectacularly superstitious believe me..

[BoganGod]

Interesting commentary on Buddhism.
Buddhism meshes well with philosophy not science. Any muppet that suggest philosophy is science the line to blow me starts here. Whilst philosophy and science have observation in common. What/how they attribute motivation to the events observed is vastly different.

A family member who is a professor describes herself as an existentialist buddhist. Two philosophies that seem to mesh quite nicely.

Rather than discussing science and religion. Maybe we should be discussing the type of people that gravitate towards the two afore mentioned "meaning" systems.

In my more serious moments(very rare and few and far between),I've been a searcher. Grew up in a christian cult, tried most brands of christianity, and a few other world religions. Would love to believe in the divine, don't see clear evidence to support such a belief. Maybe born sceptics and religion are not compatible. Though some would suggest my search is evidence of belief. Me I just think I'm dumb enough to hope against the odds. The religion that I found myself most comfortable in was Islam. Not the most scientific embracing faith on this planet. Can a person like myself ever believe in a God and follow a religion? Without some how suffering a loss of "belief" in science.

[mrswdk]

The natural sciences actually emerged from within the discipline of Philosophy.

[thegreekdog]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... nd_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca ... scientists

[BoganGod]

The natural sciences actually emerged from within the discipline of Philosophy.

I'm unzipping now.

[Artimis]

I'm unzipping now.

Put it away, BG.

Natural Philosophy, that was 'science' before it was called 'science'. Isaac Newton is hailed as the Father of Physics, but he wasn't called a Physicist. In fact he was better known for his contributions to Mathematics than for his work in Natural Philosophy. Natural Philosophy eventually developed into different fields of scientific study that we all recognise today, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Philosophy does not equate to science, but that's where science came from.

An interesting tangent, but lets get back to discussing the conflict between Science and Religion or the lack thereof.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm unzipping now.

Put it away, BG.

Natural Philosophy, that was 'science' before it was called 'science'. Isaac Newton is hailed as the Father of Physics, but he wasn't called a Physicist. In fact he was better known for his contributions to Mathematics than for his work in Natural Philosophy. Natural Philosophy eventually developed into different fields of scientific study that we all recognise today, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Philosophy does not equate to science, but that's where science came from.

An interesting tangent, but lets get back to discussing the conflict between Science and Religion or the lack thereof.

I think it's more accurate to say that philosophy and science (as we understand them today) came from the same school of thinkers, which were neither philosophers or scientists in modern parlance. Philosophy comes from the greek for loving wisdom, and the Ancient Greeks didn't separate out these various fields when it came to obtaining wisdom, at least partially because so little was comparatively known then that you could become an expert in all of these fields in a lifetime, if you were intelligent enough. Don't be fooled by the fact that they were called 'philosophers' into thinking that science is an offshoot of what we now think of as metaphysics.

[crispybits]

I always liked the saying "philosophy is about what questions you ask, science is about getting answers to those questions."

On topic (or OP topic at least) I think the conflict comes from one thing.

If everything between the |s is the sum of all knowledge, and everything between the ()s is the sum of what we know right now:

Science:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|

Religion:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)-----UNKNOWN-------/-----GOD-------|

That's slightly simplified, but religion is attemtping to confidently give answers about things which fall into the unknown section of knowledge. Science doesn't claim to prove that God does or doesn't exist (though it can fairly easily disprove the truth of most of the literal readings of a lot of holy books), but religion claims answers where it cannot possibly have them. Which is fine in the privacy of your own head, but when it attempts to enforce those beliefs upon people who do not agree with them is just downright rude

There would be no conflict if the religious section of society actually respected the rights of everyone else to not believe the same thing they do and just get on with their lives within societally accepted boundaries of morality and ethics however they liked, but instead they try to claim that because their religion is for or against something that everyone should automatically be forced to live by those same rules and beliefs. Science didn't start the fight, unless you count finding out true things about the world that directly contradict the magic books...

[_sabotage_]

Science:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|= dominate each other

God:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|= live and let live

[crispybits]

Live and let live huh Sab? I'm gonna go marry my gay lover now, anyone want to let me live and let live... oh yeah that's right the religious bigots are stopping me...

[_sabotage_]

Exactly, religious bigots who have ignored every word of Jesus to justify their prejudice, while claiming their authority through Him. This is a product of religion, not of God.

Jesus did not say, if you wish to follow me, follow others who have stopped following me.

The Russell brand video posted by 2dimes is a good example, everyone on the stage claims to be religious, but only two forgot the law from which all others come.

[crispybits]

Just as well this is about religion vs science and not God vs science then - you're actually agreeing with me I now see

[AndyDufresne]

Interesting commentary on Buddhism.
Buddhism meshes well with philosophy not science. Any muppet that suggest philosophy is science the line to blow me starts here. Whilst philosophy and science have observation in common. What/how they attribute motivation to the events observed is vastly different.

A family member who is a professor describes herself as an existentialist buddhist. Two philosophies that seem to mesh quite nicely.

Rather than discussing science and religion. Maybe we should be discussing the type of people that gravitate towards the two afore mentioned "meaning" systems.

In my more serious moments(very rare and few and far between),I've been a searcher. Grew up in a christian cult, tried most brands of christianity, and a few other world religions. Would love to believe in the divine, don't see clear evidence to support such a belief. Maybe born sceptics and religion are not compatible. Though some would suggest my search is evidence of belief. Me I just think I'm dumb enough to hope against the odds. The religion that I found myself most comfortable in was Islam. Not the most scientific embracing faith on this planet. Can a person like myself ever believe in a God and follow a religion? Without some how suffering a loss of "belief" in science.

Here is an interesting little article from i09, about the Dalai Lama: http://io9.com/5942616/dalai-lama-tells ... r-adequate

This past Monday [Sep 2012], people who have the Dalai Lama as a Facebook friend found this little gem in their newsfeed.

All the world's major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

The Dalai Lama's advice sounds startling familiar — one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions. The Dalai Lama is no stranger to scientific discourse, and has developed a great fascination with neuroscience in particular. It's very possible, therefore, that his thinking has aligned with Harris.

...

It's important to remember that Tibetan Buddhists, while rejecting belief in God and the soul, still cling to various metaphysical beliefs, including karma, infinite rebirths, and reincarnation. But interestingly, the Dalai Lama once had this to say on the subject:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Other Buddhists, however, such as Stephen Batchelor, argue that Buddhism should be stripped of all its metaphysical baggage and simplified down to its basic philosophical and existential tenets — a suggestion that has given rise to secular Buddhism.

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

If religion is based on God, and our understanding of God based on Jesus, and Jesus tells us the key is to do unto others as you'd have others do onto you, then the essence of what we are discussing is:

Wherein lies the difference between the "scientific" view and the "Christian" view?

According to Jesus, science is a necessity. The study of the world gives us a better understanding of God, because God is the world. Because others distort this understanding, doesn't mean you can feel free to opt out of the words of Jesus in exchange for those spoken by others to justify yourself.

You placed God in the unknown, but God is both known and unknown, and in doing so you have either:

1. chosen a strawman,
2. don't understand the words of Jesus.

Neither are fit in a discussion of religion or science.