Religion in the way of science?

[ahmet]

Religion is in the way of science IF people choose to seek all answers to everything in the universe from a religious text.

Religion should be a moral guide for people to live a good life.

Jesus said good will toward your fellow man. He didn't say the sun revolves around the earth.

Buddah said killing is a sin. He didn't say evolution does not exist.

Science is great at explaining how things work, but it's not that good at providing a moral guide on how to treat our fellow man with dignity and respect.

I agree everything except that the idea of seeking all answers to everything from a religious text. Don't you think it would be limiting and dogmatic?

[gunnut]

I agree everything except that the idea of seeking all answers to everything from a religious text. Don't you think it would be limiting and dogmatic?

Exactly. That's why I said religion is in the way of science IF someone did that.

[FibrillatorD]

If anyone is still reading this thread, I would encourage them to check out the videos on BeyondBelief2006.org

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are particularly devout Scientists. Dawkins strikes me as every bit evangelical as Pat Robertson or Jack Van Impe.

But Science, and by extension, agnosticism (or aggressive positivist atheism, in the case of Dawkins and Harris), is irrefutable on a rational, objective level of reasoning.

These videos are quite good at presenting different perspectives on Science and its relationship to religion. Also, at one point, a presenter (I think it might be Degrasse) talks about Newton (mentioned on pg. 1) and how his brilliance ended only when faith entered his vocabulary. -Very interesting stuff about an otherwise brilliant contributor to mathematics and Science.

[HistoricalDavid]

Some of you say religion provides a moral guide. What mechanisms does it uniquely have for specifically promulgating good ideas? Why should faith result in better behaviour than a rational sort of morality?

Exactly. That's why I said religion is in the way of science IF someone did that.

Well, the Bible in its very first verse describes, not prescribes, the history of the Earth, and thus so do Biblical literalists.

[FibrillatorD]

Some of you say religion provides a moral guide. What mechanisms does it uniquely have for specifically promulgating good ideas? Why should faith result in better behaviour than a rational sort of morality?



Well, the Bible in its very first verse describes, not prescribes, the history of the Earth, and thus so do Biblical literalists.

Every book in the Bible was passed on orally for generations (almost like some kind of sick cancer or something... ) before it was ever transcribed. So there's one mechanism for promulgation.

The Bible, I think, derives a good deal of authority by virtue of this fact. Not all religious spreading needs to involve violence. That "Genesis" survived for generations without ever being transcribed is testimony to the merit of the truths it preaches. As such, I for one find a great deal of hope in the normative statements contained within it, physical mechanisms aside.

[chankya]

Also, why is it that all the prophets and holy men and sons of God came to the earth thousands of years ago in an age of superstition and mythology and devoid of rational thought? Why is it that no new religion based on any "God" has emerged in the past 1000 years?

Well that's because if someone went around today saying that he was God or his messenger or a relative of His, I have a feeling we'd label him a nut and he'd appear on the "On a lighter note" section of the evening news.

Further if he asked people to love one another and turn the other cheek if hit, he'd be labeled a "cheese eating surrender monkey" and we at WAB would ridicule him and laughed at him.

If he further asked people to disobey the current government and follow where his God/He himself directs then the government of the day would very likely lock him up for sedition. (Think Waco Siege here)

[Parihaka]

SAN DIEGO -- A new religion is taking root in San Diego. Its members say there is no such thing as sin, and they worship a former drug addict who claims he is "God on earth," NBC 7/39 reported.

The church is called "Growing in Grace," and it began in Miami. It has since spread across Latin America and into Europe, with members tattooing themselves with the numbers 666, according to church members.

The leader's name is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. De Jesus Miranda has said he is "God on Earth" and believes he's the "anti-Christ," who will destroy all other religions.

De Jesus Miranda has made Catholicism his target, NBC 7/39 reported. According to de Jesus Miranda, the religion promotes a "doctrine of devils," and often belittles the Catholic Church in his sermons.

Father Ron Pachence is a Catholic priest and professor of religious studies at UCSD. He told NBC 7/39 the attacks by de Jesus Miranda are hateful rhetoric, not fit for any religious leader.

Pachence compared de Jesus Miranda to the Rev. Jim Jones, leader of the Peoples' Temple, which committed mass suicide by drinking fruit punch spiked with poison.

Member Angel Martinez told NBC 7/39 he gives generously to Growing in Grace, and members are expected to contribute. That money has built a Florida worship hall and a network of Web sites, including a television network.

"He's the most important thing. He's my rent. He's my everything," Martinez said. "It doesn't matter if I can't pay everything else. Why? Because he's going to give me for that. I know he won't let me down. I'm rich."

Pachence said he believes Growing in Grace has the markings of a cult, with an "us against them" mentality and its focus on one earthly leader.

"Trying to convince people that the way being preached is the only way there is and you can have nothing to do with any other way. So, those are two characteristics that I see, both of which are extremely dangerous," Pachence said.

At least three Latin American countries, including El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, have banned de Jesus Miranda from crossing their borders.

[FibrillatorD]

California has a long and colorful history of satanism and anti-christianity.

Ever hear the 1976 Eagles' song "Hotel California?"

It just seems to be another one of those weird Cali things.

I spoke to a homeless man last winter who claims to have fled San Francisco because satanist cults there were taking out the homeless in droves. Over 160 killed in two years, he claimed. Apparenlty it was a big thing for a while. I would have been more sceptical had it not been for the fact that he was indeed present in Minnesota, homeless, in the dead of winter, as opposed to California

[gunnut]

Also, why is it that all the prophets and holy men and sons of God came to the earth thousands of years ago in an age of superstition and mythology and devoid of rational thought? Why is it that no new religion based on any "God" has emerged in the past 1000 years?

Ever heard of Scientology? Started by a really bad sci-fi writer in the 1960s.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Better known as Mormonism. Branch of Christianity. Started in the 1800s.

[gunnut]

California has a long and colorful history of satanism and anti-christianity.

Ever hear the 1976 Eagles' song "Hotel California?"

It just seems to be another one of those weird Cali things.

I spoke to a homeless man last winter who claims to have fled San Francisco because satanist cults there were taking out the homeless in droves. Over 160 killed in two years, he claimed. Apparenlty it was a big thing for a while. I would have been more sceptical had it not been for the fact that he was indeed present in Minnesota, homeless, in the dead of winter, as opposed to California

That's interesting. I did not hear about that here in California.

San Francisco has always been very friendly to the homeless. For a while the city was handing out $50 or $100 or some other amount in stipend to the homeless. Anyone who registered (or not, who knows) as homeless can just walk up to a government agency window on the 1st and the 15th of the month and ask for money. The intent was to help them get back on their feet. The result was more homeless arrived from other cities for the money and the liquor stores did booming business on the 1st and 15th of each month.

[leib10]

What, was it not obvious that religion is the opium of the masses?

TV and video games are the modern opiates of the masses. MTV is particularly to blame among the younger crowd.

[HistoricalDavid]

Every book in the Bible was passed on orally for generations (almost like some kind of sick cancer or something... ) before it was ever transcribed. So there's one mechanism for promulgation.

I was referring specifically to good ideas. Why will religion produce GOOD ideas better than rational morality will?

The Bible, I think, derives a good deal of authority by virtue of this fact. Not all religious spreading needs to involve violence. That "Genesis" survived for generations without ever being transcribed is testimony to the merit of the truths it preaches. As such, I for one find a great deal of hope in the normative statements contained within it, physical mechanisms aside.

What good normative statements are there in Genesis?

[FibrillatorD]

I was referring specifically to good ideas. Why will religion produce GOOD ideas better than rational morality will?

My understanding is that religion proceeds in much the same way as the rational, objective, Scientific approach. Both take certain truths to be self-evident -with Science, its "laws," inertia, for example, acquired through a process of hypothesis and experiment, verified by the observable world.

With religion, specifically, Christianity -the Bible, and still more specific, the first creation account in Genesis... one finds the declaration of one of these self-evident principles: the normative statements spoken by God about his creations. ("And so it happened, the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seeds and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with seeds in it. God saw how good it was," etc). Personally, I accept this truth, that life, creation, is good, as self-evident because it accords with the results I've achieved through testing conducted in my world, my experiences. I've found as much corroboration for this truth as science has for inertia, only from a subjective approach. One has to think the grandfathers and tribal leaders did so too, passing on for generations the 1st "Genesis" account of creation story. ~30 centuries later, I think its safe to say that its an idea that's been selected for.

So when one bases his morality on faith in such Biblical truths, it is with a similar kind of faith that one bases behavior on a rational -by extension, Scientific, morality.

Its not that religion is always better than Science, or vice versa. Because, where religious principles are relatively static, enshrined in scripture, Science is inherently dynamic, building upon itself all the time, and occassionally arriving at the same truths which a given religion has expounded for centuries.

[HistoricalDavid]

My understanding is that religion proceeds in much the same way as the rational, objective, Scientific approach. Both take certain truths to be self-evident -with Science, its "laws," inertia, for example, acquired through a process of hypothesis and experiment, verified by the observable world.

Contradicted yerself there. Those laws are not taken as self-evident at all - Newtonian mechanics, to extend your example, has been experimentally tested again and again from back then to the present day. And they are not acquired by hypothesis - they are theorised specifically in response to observed phenomena, and then rigorously experimented upon.

They are called 'laws' not because they are necessarily axiomatic to physics but because they are so well supported and so fundamentally influential to a lot of the discipline that it is useful to cast them as such.

A lot in the Age of Reason thought Newton discovered it all - consider the following by Augustan poet Alexander Pope: "Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night, God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light." And consider another, where Napoleon asks an adviser, "Will there be another Newton?" to which the reply came, "No, for there is only one universe to discover."

However, come Einstein and the Newtonian view of the world is overthrown when reaching c. Come quantum mechanics, and the cold rational beauty of Newton is overthrown by the violence evident at the smallest scales in the universe. Consider the history of cosmology as well and you quickly realise that science is in constant revolution. There are no self-evident truths in science - everything is constantly challenged, refined, or discarded, including experimental data, which is constantly challenged for accuracy and bias. Maybe there is a first, immutable principle in science - that there are none!

Science is inductive, religion is deductive.

With religion, specifically, Christianity -the Bible, and still more specific, the first creation account in Genesis... one finds the declaration of one of these self-evident principles: the normative statements spoken by God about his creations. ("And so it happened, the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seeds and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with seeds in it. God saw how good it was," etc). Personally, I accept this truth, that life, creation, is good, as self-evident because it accords with the results I've achieved through testing conducted in my world, my experiences.

That is not testing in the scientific sense, at all. Scientific experimentation requires endless rigour, repeated results, the elimination of bias, etc. Your personal experiences, a sample size of one, are perhaps satisfactory for your own personal needs - but if you believe that your biblical story applies to the whole universe in which we live, and you post it on a public forum, then it's hardly unreasonable for me to ask public evidence in return.

I've found as much corroboration for this truth as science has for inertia, only from a subjective approach.

That word 'only' is the understatement of the century.

One has to think the grandfathers and tribal leaders did so too, passing on for generations the 1st "Genesis" account of creation story. ~30 centuries later, I think its safe to say that its an idea that's been selected for.

Rephrase that? I didn't understand.

If you're thinking that age=respectability then obviously I only have to throw back at you slavery as an example of an institution which has survived for a very long time and is still nevertheless is a Bad Thing. In addition, I also throw at you Hinduism, which is about 90 centuries old.

So when one bases his morality on faith in such Biblical truths, it is with a similar kind of faith that one bases behavior on a rational -by extension, Scientific, morality.

Science is not rationalist - it is a combination of empirical and rational, with emphasis on the former.

Besides, science does not claim to say anything on morality, since it is a strictly descriptive, not prescriptive, discipline.

Its not that religion is always better than Science, or vice versa. Because, where religious principles are relatively static, enshrined in scripture, Science is inherently dynamic, building upon itself all the time, and occassionally arriving at the same truths which a given religion has expounded for centuries.

a) you still haven't provided the mechanism for why religion will promulgate BETTER values.

b) what truths has religion got to ahead of science?

[ArmchairGeneral]

But Science, and by extension, agnosticism (or aggressive positivist atheism, in the case of Dawkins and Harris), is irrefutable on a rational, objective level of reasoning.

On the contrary, the whole of science is based on a fundamentally illogical method- induction, also known as common sense. Science requires a faith that the world is orderly and non-chaotic. Apples fall down and always have; we take it on faith that they always will. Is it sensible? Yes. Is it logical? No.

In what way is agnosticism or atheism an extension of science? As for their irrefutability, I beg to differ; if God (or the gods) announced their presence to the world tomorrow, both positions would be soundly refuted.