Science (ssss) vs. Religion
what a useless argument…………
consider what each describes and how each is a mental framing tool,
( science ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of the physical environment
( religion ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why
they do not describe the same thing, therefore any argument between the two about which is MORE right-er-er than the other, is a failure to understand the point of the framing tools,
and is a reflection that the ‘right-er-er’ stance stems from a deeper issue, one that is easily identified if the history of both framing devices is viewed in terms of how they have co-existed.
consider, ID, intelligent design, it represents a fusion of science and religion to prove the un-provable, to make religion just as logical as science. has anyone taken a second to consider the theories? man… they stretch for relevancy.
ID is a direct response to the scientific communities taunt, ‘Prove it!”, therefore is not relevant when the core truth is examined as the motivation for its creation was found as a way to argue a point that has no end due to its illogical nature.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
@tine, So if I may explore your thoughts, what do you think is different between religion and science? Consider the most cornerstone of each, the beginning of the universe. Science attributes it to the Big Bang (everything was once one or perfect, then the higgs boson separated from everything, followed by other particles separating and expanding and the rest is history) while religion attributes it to a Creator ( In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth). They say the same thing, but science says it in more words. Religion is so successful because it is simple to understand.
Look at your hand. Do you see the bone and tissues? Do you see the blood? Do you see the molecules, the atoms, the protons, and electrons? Technically, you do see all those things, but its much easier to say you see you hand.
Religion is the simple way to describe reality, while science is the long difficult way to explain reality. God didn’t actually say the words “Let there be light”, but it’s way easier for the majority of people to understand that than to try and comprehend that light is electromagnetic radiation, first formed when electric particles and magnetic particles interacted to create a series of chain reaction reinforcing each other and resulting in visible energy (or something like that haha)
Religions often preach love without knowing what Love is (see Chapters 16 and 25). Many religious fundamentalists interpret their god’s love for them to be inseparable from its hatred for others. The U.S. political movement known as the Christian religious right is one such group (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right). Its primary spokesmen are Robert Grant, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell (deceased 2007).
The scientific paradigm (see Section 2.1) has produced the theory of biological evolution. Since God is unnecessary in this theory, fundamentalist Christians are attempting to impose an antievolutionary doctrine on the educational systems in several States in the U.S. This doctrine takes two forms, creationism and intelligent design. Both doctrines are derived from Biblical stories of a universe created by God, and as such, require a belief in a dualistic God (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism).
Fundamentalists often create enemies on whom to displace their feelings of self-punishment, self-fear, and self-hatred (see Section 11.8). Their (unrecognized) self-punishment can be so unbearable that they try to compensate by believing that they are god’s favored few, and, in the name of this god, endeavor to eliminate a competing religion by trying to convert, demonize, or kill its adherents. Their fear of another religion or teaching can be even greater than their fear of death.
The belief that God has sanctioned violence leads to additional violence, not only among believers, but also among nonbelievers. (The daily news contains ample evidence that this is so.) Scientifically, this has been demonstrated by having a group of 500 students read a passage depicting violence in the Old Testament. Half of the students also read another passage saying that God commanded that the evil-doers be chastened. The half reading the additional passage were more likely to act aggressively in a later exercise, whether they were believers or not (Nature 446, 114-115 (8 March 2007)).
Following are a few examples of violent clashes between competing religious beliefs that resulted in executions, massacres, and wars:
· In less than a century after Mohammed (570-633) died, Muslims, in their missionary zeal to convert the “infidels”, conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, and the South of Spain. In the eighth and ninth centuries they conquered Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India, and in the twelfth century they had already become the absolute masters of all Western Asia, Spain and North Africa, and Sicily.
· Between 1095 and 1270, with the blessing of the popes, and with the intention of protecting the Holy Land and keeping the pilgrim routes open to Jerusalem, Christians launched several crusades, mostly from France, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
· In 1478, Pope Sixtus IV initiated the Spanish Inquisition in order to purify Christian communities of all Jews and Muslims, even those who had converted to Christianity. This quickly became an instrument to expand state power and to fill its treasury with the estates of those found guilty of being less than fully Christian.
· In 1517, Martin Luther (1483-1546) in Wittenberg, Germany, repulsed by papal authority and its practice of buying and selling indulgences (the remission of religious penalties for sinning, including freeing the soul from purgatory) rebelled by posting his “Ninety-five Theses” on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. Simultaneously, he called upon lay people to take responsibility for their own salvation and to renounce Roman authority.
· In Switzerland in 1523-1524, peasants in the Zurich district, using the argument that ruling authority should be based on the Scriptures, revolted against the town council, claiming that they should not be required to pay tithes on their produce because there was no biblical justification for doing so. Townsmen, with their own interpretation of the Bible, rejected the peasants’ demand, noting that the Bible did not forbid such payments, and said that the peasants should make them out of “love”. This so provoked the peasants that the revolt grew to hundreds of thousands in several countries. In 1525, territorial princes and large cities reacted by raising large armies that defeated and destroyed the revolt.
· In 1535, in Münster, Germany, believing that protection of “true” religion demanded harsh measures, Protestants, allied with the Catholic Church, persecuted and executed thousands of Anababtists (a sect that believed only adults should be baptized, founded in 1525 by Konrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier, and others, and from whom the Baptists, Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, and Hutterites of today are descended).
· Between 1550 and 1650, about 100,000 people in Europe, mostly women, were persecuted for alleged witchcraft, and about 60,000 were executed. Under torture, or the threat of torture, many confessions were obtained, but no proof that an accused person ever attended a Devil-worshipping “black” Sabbath was ever produced in any witch trial.
· From 1618 to 1648, the Thirty Years’ War was fought between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire (comprised largely of present-day Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic) with considerable opportunistic meddling by surrounding countries. The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which required that all subjects follow their rulers’ faiths.
· Many Christians willingly joined the Nazis in trying to exterminate the Jews during World War II. Islamic fundamentalists have declared holy war on “infidel” nations, particularly on the powerful ones. Muslims, Jews, and Christians continue to kill each other today.
· On September 11, 2001, perceiving the U.S. to be anti-Islamic because of its support for the presumed anti-Islamic policies of Israel and other countries, Osama Bin Laden, an Islamic extremist headquartered in Afghanistan, directed coordinated suicide attacks by fanatical Muslims on the World Trade Center in New York City and on the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3000 people. These attacks inspired the following exchange on September 13, 2001 between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (see above) on Pat Robertson’s cable television program, “The 700 Club” (as reported by various websites):
Falwell: “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”
Robertson: “Well, Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven’t begun to see what they can do to the major population.”
Falwell: “The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”
Robertson: “I totally concur, and the problem is we’ve adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system.”
Falwell: “Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang ‘God bless America’ and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God.”
· In late August 2005, hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast of the U.S. and caused more than 1300 confirmed deaths. On September 1, 2005, Pat Robertson (see above) proclaimed on “the 700 Club” that “New Orleans asked for this tragedy by advertising itself as a destination for jazz music. As every Christian knows, jazz music is sinful and lures people into eternal damnation. The connection is obvious” (from http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2005/09/18/pat-roberston-corrects-dateline-hollywood-article/). Reverend Franklin Graham (see above), son of Reverend Billy Graham, suggests the city was targeted because of the city’s sinful reputation. At a speech in Virginia, he said, “This is one wicked city, OK? It’s known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It’s known for sex perversion. It’s known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans.” Reverend Graham continued, “There’s been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. They believe God is going to use that storm to bring revival” (from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9600878/).
· As a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator, Shiite Muslims waged civil war against Sunni Muslims in revenge for the atrocities committed by the Sunnis under the leadership of Hussein.
• In Silent No More (2005), Rod Parsley (see above) says, “I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”
· In Jerusalem Countdown (2006), John Hagee (see above) says, “The final battle for Jerusalem is about to begin. Every day in the media you are watching the gathering storm over the State of Israel. The winds of war are once again about to sweep through the sacred city of Jerusalem. The world is about to discover the power of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Keeper of Israel, “who … shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4). His righteous fury will be evident in the defense of Israel.”
“and sociology is a science.”
“My opinion is that the Ideas of religion are pure, man then corrupts the Ideas when he uses them for personal gain, and that the bible (etc.) should be considered metaphorically, the stories a reflection of how the cultures explained reality before the grounding science has brought.”
” … even science’s venture into, “a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why”, Psychology, is limited in its ability to help because it cannot quite grasp human nature, only observe, record, then prescribe.
Religion offers a view on the human mind that, when taken metaphorically ( NOT literally ), helps explain an additional facet beyond the mind, or the body, and helps to formulate a way to see human nature.”
If science’s venture was more successful than religion, it would not contribute to the problem. It is because science cannot factor (well) the illogical human element due to the logic it is based upon.
Until Psychology can represent the concept of the ‘spirit’ (or whatever you want to call, please don’t get hung up on terms), it will never be able to replace religion.
Drugs are the religion of the twenty-first century. Pursuing the religious life today without using psychedelic drugs is like studying astronomy with the naked eye because that’s how they did it in the first century A.D., and besides telescopes are unnatural. I mean, at one point consciousness-altering devices like the microscope and telescope were criminalized for exactly the same reasons that psychedelic plants were banned in later years. They allow us to peer into bits and zones of Chaos.
@tigerturban, You said it right. Before Newton, PEOPLE thought God moved the sun, religion didn’t claim that. But Darwinism is far from explaining the origin or species. All he proved was that species can adapt, not transform into other species. I’m sure someone as informed as you has hear of missing links, the lack of fossil evidence documenting the in-between creatures. Also, if you don’t know what the Cambrian Explosion is you should look it up. All of a sudden, creatures started appearing, and no one knows why. Science just explains what religious people already know.
I will give you the fact that there are some fucking idiots out there who ruin it for everybody, but that can be said about anybody. A few dumb American tourists in Europe make Europeans believe all Americans are like that. A few dumb blonds make everyone think all blonds are dumb. A few crazy Muslims make people think all Muslims are crazy. Yes, humans are designed to generalize, but someone thinking at your level should be able to realize that a few representatives to not describe the whole bunch.
those examples are more a reflection of the personality type taking in the religion, just because there are extreme examples to be seen does not mean that they are the only outcome, this is a very limited view on the religion.
does it do what you say it does, yes, it can, and very easily.
but this is just the idiots misinterpreting it
there is great, great wisdom to be found once the 1 D ‘religion knows nothing’ perspective filter is dropped.
@alltoohuman, I don’t deny the validity of science, but the sum of human knowledge is not limited to science so to limit ourselves to science is a limitation of our knowledge. It is simple really. Why would anything exist if it has no grounds in science? So even the knowledge furthest removed from scientific reason has a pure scientific right in existence. Where do you draw the line of what is real and what is fiction? Especially that any line drawn is known to be fiction in itself.
hrm, well to start, know I consider our perspective as an accumulation of our knowledge and experience, the logic of which limited to the accumulation,
through this perspective we peer at reality
we can layer our perspective with many things, from anxieties to explanation systems to logics to defining mechanisms. the more we layer in a way that builds us, the more reality becomes apparent, the more we layer in a way that destroys us, the more cloudy reality becomes as we create lies to justify our actions, reality must pass through the cloudy filter first which narrows the scope of the data that eventually reaches the mind.
( science ) is a reality layer that allows me to see reality ‘x’ way, allowing for a provable understanding, it is a layer because before you try it on you could not see reality the way you could after. science uses logic to collect its data to display reasoning for our physical reality. logic is required or the explanation is not considered valid. so how does logic approach illogical human behavior? by generally prescribing simply to treat the symptoms, creating an excuse for the behavior that could have otherwise been changed by self realization
but if i layer reality with the metaphoric ( religious ) view, human behavior makes sense, “Ooo, so they are simply responding to the consequences of their actions… ooo, these are the correlated warning points… ”
I view them both as lenses to be worn for the consideration of reality.
I consider them separate because they describe different realities, science describes the physical reality, what we can quantify, see, prove, religion deals with social reality, and though social reality is not real, it is real to the individual seeing it, therefore dictates their response within the physical reality they exist.
science needs to ( accept ) religion for the positives it offers in terms of describing humanity and the benefits its practices can have on an individual’s reality.
the fact that religion has negatives is the eyes of science is vvveeeerrrrrryyyy apparent and should be considered ‘known’
science’s inability to get past the hurt religion has caused them, as a framework and as individuals, keeps religion as a main explanation system,
science is needed to categorize the religion by attributes, not by emotion, so society can accept the reality of what it represents.
@nobodylies, When I said oppressive, I was referring to olden times.. but I didn’t make that clear. Still, modern day Christianity definitely has that element of “Oh, my religion is the only right religion and everyone else is going to hell”. What’s wrong with the separation of church and state? You can still practice your religion in public and private… and plus it makes non-Christians feel more comfortable and less left out during Christmas ;D
Non-religious people are far more oppressive than the Christians could ever be? .. Are you assuming all Christians are morally just and treat everyone fairly?
I agree to a degree, but drugs tend to worsen the problem if used often, as the problem is emotional understanding, something drugs can heighten in terms of awareness, but after frequent use, can repress
religion puts a supernatural explanation to our emotions, and though this is incorrect, does a great job framing the reality of the issue if considered metaphorically.
drugs offer enlightenment, for sure, i know this be true myself, but, drugs are only a temporary answer that can easily become the problem.
also, drugs have been around for millennia, the use is just more commonly known now, and in fact have perpetuated religious thinking in some cultures, sects, therefore the answer is not in the drugs, it is the person using them, and can be found without
All doctrine is a product of the mind, and the esoteric leap beyond the mind leaves all philosophies far behind. Religion should be with the common man in mind. Religion should be life affirming and value honesty, family, democracy, and reasonable nonviolent behavior. Organized religion is useful to elevate the masses to the point where superconsciousness begins. That point is beyond the mind and beyond any organization, scriptures, rules, or teaching.
“People assume because the religion is outdated it has nothing to share, despite it being the forefront to science in terms of explaining reality. In its evolution is has picked up and contextualized the illogical nature of man using metaphor to explain, and explains man’s base problems in a illogical format so it could be understand by the general populace.
If it is taken as any more than a metaphor I believe it has more to do with the individual’s ability to understand than the actual ideas presented
When Psychology realizes it has something to learn from all religion, and starts to quantify the base problems religion reveals, then science will supersede religion in terms of explaining.”
o, for sure, drop the supernatural, keep the human insight, I am here. the question is, are you one who is blinded by the supernatural making the wisdom unsee-able, or can you look past the nonsense and see the wisdom that actually has the potential to be life changing?
and it is not lifechanging because of the supernatural.
“but it then goes ahead and contradicts itself in horrible ways.”
no see, the core ideas never change, they are the same, it is man that contradicts itself in horrible ways… and this is not just limited to religion, but to all aspects of life.
as for creation or after death arguments, I avoid these, after years of having them , viewing it from both angles, I have come to conclude that nobody actually knows what the fuck they are talking about, because nobody was there, therefore we can only speculate… from a perspective that only exists for +-80 years… that is largely formulated from the knowledge of others… others who are human and flawed…. flawed ALSO with a limited understanding
to argue from the position that one side is wrong means that you have an example of one that makes more sense….. of the nonsense…. that no one truly knows….
so i view the argument from a, i don’t know standpoint, and listen to those that ‘do’… and grow tired of the pointless circle.
i think you are failing to follow my arguments sir, there is no trickery in my approach, in fact, I am the one who started this topic, out of the two of us, who is the more likely to be staying on the main point, the one who brought the conversation, or the one trying to understand through their own perspective.
you responses indicate a perception of what I am saying that I am not. If you allow yourself to relax and examine what I have said more closely, you will see that I not only agree with you, but offer a way to beat them at their own game.
but you are being defensive for some reason and I do not know how to explain what I mean any other way
well said, the only truth ‘I know’ 100% is that ‘I do not know’
one must first realize that they do not know before they can begin to understand
and from this truth, i become like water and can view the religion / science debate from outside the circumstances that spawned them, and therefore put religion / science into context, which is they are both ways to explain reality, different realities, using different proofs and story telling methods in their approach, both inaccurate / incomplete in their own ways, therefore neither should be placed as absolute over the other, as,
this is not the point of either. the point is to understand and evolve, not understand then stagnate over ego
@nobodylies, Oh God..even The Pope admits creationism is a load of crap and evolution is what is real.
As for the “Cambrian Explosion” several plausible theories have arisen including Increase in oxygen levels, Increase in the calcium concentration of the Cambrian seawater, Evolution of eyes, Arms races between predators and prey and Increase in size and diversity of planktonic animals….
The older the religion the better it explains man’s core problems, because the further we regress in time, the more the general populace shifts from ( educated ) to ( uneducated ) to ( Barely civilized ) to ( Uncivilized ).
This means that man had very little social structure masking their base instincts.
This means that the intellectuals of the groups who were trying to unite everyone were dealing with man at our instinctive worst.
So the Old Testament tone was a commanding God, “You, savage humans who understand no reason therefore will not change, I will give you a reason, GOD WILL SMITE YOU IF YOU DO NOT OBEY”, this explanation of Love was a forced one, get along or GOD WILL SMITE YOU DEAAAAADD!! BAHAHAHAHA!!!
and though forced, was NECESSARY considering the cultural context of the time,
Then Jesus comes along, the New Testament, with a new tone. Man had evolved socially to the point where they were beginning to understand their impulses ( or at least some correlation ), there was religious oppression abound, the old ways were stagnant, the tone was set for something NEW!
Jesus. ( and Buhdda ), stepped onto this scene with a new way, a new reason, an example.
So the tone became Love and all its sub-categories.
Again, the shift shows a consciousness shift to a new reality filter.
The more ( educated ) the society the less its inhabitants rely on ( supernatural elements ) to explain the reality around them.
So now, we are at the stage where we can begin to understand and we no longer need the supernatural to explain.
It is in the supernatural part of their message your arguments lie.
The Ideas explain human nature to a T