Science And Religion: Are They The Same?

[WinePusher]

Whats the relationship between science and religion?

1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.

2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.

3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).

4) WinePusher has presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.

[Slopeshoulder]

Science "explains" "reality." Anyone, religionist or scientist, who defends or defames religion on this criterion doesn't understand religion. Religion doesn't belong here.

Religion finds "meaning" in "experience." Anyone, religionist or scientist, who defends or defames science on this criterion doesn't understand science. Science doesn't belong here.

They don't need each other.

But I need both.

And I recommend both.

So to me the same/separate argument is silly and based on misunderstandings.

[Slopeshoulder]

WinePusher

The only thing they share is that each tries to explain reality.


They are two completely separate and fundamentally different methods of viewing reality.

Religion doesn't explain reality. This is a misreading of religion common among fundamentalist and conservative religionists, as well as among anti-religionists and some scientists.

I don't criticize religion for failing to describe natural phenomena as well as science does, but rather I criticize any POV that thinks it ever did. Religion has a different job: meaning, interpretation, myth, etc, which IMO is equally important and sets up science and religion as mutually beneficial paradigms.

I'd accuse of you of arguing against a straw man, except that many less educated or small minded religionists themselves make the same mistake. I will say that you are right to criticize this false take on religion, but you do so in the context of not understanding real religion. And many religionists help you to think that way. How very odd.

[WinePusher]

Religion is in no way about anything in the natural world. And the natural world has only one aspect. Religions are by definition about a supposed supernatural world, one that there is no evidence to support.

Religions generally begin with the assumption that the natural world is not all there is, but it's goal is to explain our existence and understand the world. Religion and Science are the same in this aspect.

ALL Creationists ignore scientific evidence that falsifies the claims made, Fundies don't even bother with evidence, they already know without thinking.

How do ALL creationists ignore scientific evidence that falsifies their claims? To the contrary, many of our claims run in synch with the already presented evidence.

Why not, you asked about the difference between science and religion. Religion, for most of recorded history, was the only explanation, science is only a few hundred years old and has replaced religion as an explation of natural events.

Cause you're basically comparing the best of science to the worst of religion. Like I said, switch it around and compare the worst of science to the best of religion, ex: Steady State with Creation Ex Nihilo.

When you say science it is only modern science that you can be talking about(philsophical science ala Plato does not qualify as science, too much guesswork and sophistry, not enough investigation, no testing).

True, but this modern science is only made possible because of technology and equipment. This category of science isn't very relevant to the discussion.

Science, in the same way, engaged in this same type of ignorance long ago. Aristotle thought our mental work was done in our heart, and Empedocles thought all matter was made up of four elements. They were both horribly wrong.

As I pointed out, philosophical science can not be called science as we now understand the term. Aristotle, Empedocles, Plato were philosophers, not scientists.

I see no difference between the two. Aristotle used what tools and evidence he had at his disposal to come to that conclusion, and while today we have more advanced tools it is still the same process. Aristotle and Empedocles and Plato did engage in science, and much of that science has been falsified.

However, a deeper and more meaningfuly question is what happens after death.

Six feet deep, you rot and return your substance to the Earth. There is no credible evidence of any kind of continuation of the id. In fact, brain trauma studies show conclusively that what we experience as conciousness is directly affected by damage to the physical brain(IE it depends upon that brain for it to exist). Do enough damage and conciousness ceases to exist even though the body continues to live(Terry Schiavo was a vegetable, not a concious person).

Seems that many people who undergo this "trauma" and come back to life have fully functional brains. Well documented by Deepak Chopra and Dinesh D' Souza.

Now you may believe that there is something after death, but you cannot show any reason to think that is true.

I'm simply saying that this area of inquiry is beyond science, this is where science fails.

You have shown no reason to think the question is valid, until you can generate evidence, testing methods, etc.

Regardless of evidence and testing methods, the question is very much valid. Why wouldn't it be? It's an unknown.

it is a waste of time asking them and of no importance in the real world. It is not science's lack but your inability to provide evidence that is the problem. Religion cannot answer these questions with anything other than baseless speculation and wishful thinking.

In general, religion comes to it's conclusions on the supernatural based on mysticisms and revelation. While these are not valid evidences and proofs, they offer insight into areas science can never answer.

But in the realm of religious inquiry, questions such as these are able to be answered or attempted to be answered. So I would say that science and religion do overlap at points when science has reached its limit and religion can take over.

Hogwash! Absolute non-sense! The limits of science are the limits of what we can know about reality(and no evidence exists that indicates there is anything more than reality)

And you are suggesting that reality is limited to only what we can physically experience? Sorry, but we can't experience many things at the quantum level nor can we experience things in far off galaxies, it would be foolish to suggest that these things are not part of reality.

The question of what was there before we were born and what is there after we die are valid questions that have much bearing on reality, on science fails to answer such questions.

[Grumpy]

Slopeshoulder

I don't criticize religion for failing to describe natural phenomena as well as science does, but rather I criticize any POV that thinks it ever did. Religion has a different job: meaning, interpretation, myth, etc, which IMO is equally important and sets up science and religion as mutually beneficial paradigms.

Explain EXACTLY what religion has to offer to benefit science or withdraw this ridiculous claim. And what you claim religion is good for is also covered by science(sociology, psychiatry, etc.).

you do so in the context of not understanding real religion.

I can only go by the face religion shows to the world. So what is "real religion"? Again, I do not have any problem with what you BELIEVE to be true, not everyone is of a scientific frame of mind and everyone has a touch of spirituality(I look in awe at the Universe), but dogma, myths and fables are not a substitute for reality and claims that religion is the equal of science in explaining ANYTHING in the real world. Even claims that religion is the source for moral behavior are patently false, morals are observable in many animals(especially mammals), the rules by which societies function are a direct result of our evolution as social animals. So exactly what is it that religions do that science cannot, what beliefs do you think reflect some sort of reality or necessary function?

Grumpy

[Slopeshoulder]

Slopeshoulder

I don't criticize religion for failing to describe natural phenomena as well as science does, but rather I criticize any POV that thinks it ever did. Religion has a different job: meaning, interpretation, myth, etc, which IMO is equally important and sets up science and religion as mutually beneficial paradigms.

Explain EXACTLY what religion has to offer to benefit science or withdraw this ridiculous claim. And what you claim religion is good for is also covered by science(sociology, psychiatry, etc.).

OK, settle down. I meant that they are both benificial to humanity, as opposed to "mutually beneficial. I don't think religion may benefit science per se, only scientists insofar as they are human.

you do so in the context of not understanding real religion.

I can only go by the face religion shows to the world.

That's reasonable. I think I acknowledged that religionists create tghis situation.

So what is "real religion"?

I mean this to refer to mature, edicated, sophisticated religion that knows it in not in the reality business, only the meaning business. I consider this the opening to the best of religion: no metaphysical, ontological, or magical claims about reality without evidence.

Again, I do not have any problem with what you BELIEVE to be true, not everyone is of a scientific frame of mind and everyone has a touch of spirituality(I look in awe at the Universe), but dogma, myths and fables are not a substitute for reality and claims that religion is the equal of science in explaining ANYTHING in the real world.

I agree.
Dogma, myths, and fables have other roles and are misapplied and misread if applied to the real (meaning observable, physcal) world. I never said otherwise.

So exactly what is it that religions do that science cannot, what beliefs do you think reflect some sort of reality or necessary function?

I think that there are countless things that the arts and humanities contribute that science does not, and I count religion, disabused of any tendency toward spurious psuedo-science, among them. To enumerate what they contribute seems unnecessary.

[carramrod]

Thank you slopeshoulder for putting into words something that I have been trying to formulate myself while reading and participating in these types of discussions.

Religion deals with real people having real experiences. There is no proof of these experiences, but there has to be an explanation for them. Religion gets a bad reputation from scientists because it does not deal with hard evidence. It deals with stories, emotions, compulsions and most importantly, people. It provides closure for those who need an explanation for what they feel and why they feel it. This is something that science cannot do, simply because there is no hard evidence.

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
C. S. Lewis

[Slopeshoulder]

Thank you slopeshoulder for putting into words something that I have been trying to formulate myself while reading and participating in these types of discussions.

Religion deals with real people having real experiences. There is no proof of these experiences, but there has to be an explanation for them. Religion gets a bad reputation from scientists because it does not deal with hard evidence. It deals with stories, emotions, compulsions and most importantly, people. It provides closure for those who need an explanation for what they feel and why they feel it. This is something that science cannot do, simply because there is no hard evidence.

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
C. S. Lewis

Thanks. At your service.

I think religion is specifically an imaginative and creative act, per your quote. At the high end (and NOT at the low end) it is the discipline where hard thinking meets imagination par excellance. In this way, at the frontier, religion can be a boon to science, because science is also about hard thinking (in this case hard evidence) and imaginative interpretation, if about a different topic: objective reality vs. subjective and collective meaning.

And while science is certainly about hard evidence, the work of Thomas Kuhn and others, especially post-analytic philosophers, shows the degree to which science has its own self-defeating myths and "beliefs." These don't undermine its role or its successes, merely its pretentions and its will to power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Mostly, the postmodern turn has NOT undermined science, but it has de-centered it and in so doing it has undone any claim to be the standard or filter for all human meaning, awareness and truth claims. It is, like religion, but one discourse among others, and the best at what it seeks to do.

So a sociologist might read Schopenhauer, a psychologist might read Rumi, a cognitive scientists might read the Pali scriptures, a biologist might read Ecclesaistes, etc., profitably. I find the dismissal of redneck religion wise and well, but I find the the fear and loathing of high end religion, in toto, rather than the reappropriation of it, to be tragicomic. Which must explain why I moan and laugh whenever I enter the science and religion forum.

[Atheologist]

Whats the relationship between science and religion?

1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.

2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.

3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).

4) WinePusher has presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.

How can anyone compare religion and science as having any similarities at all? The huge contrasting difference is that science is constantly seeking the truth, science tries to EXPLAIN the unexplainable. They seek ANSWERS. Religion's main purpose is not to explain the unexplainable (although they try to). Science has theories, and as we all know theories have the capability to be proven as fact. Religion on the other hand cannot and will not ever be proven as fact.

Can religion and science co-exist? To a point yes, but not entirely. It also greatly depends on what religion we're talking about and how you interpret it. If you are a Christian and you take every story in the bible literally can you accept Evolution and also believe that man was created about 6,000 years ago and that we were formed from clay? Our human ancestors (homo sapiens) came from one man and one woman? Science would say no.

I am a firm believer in science, although I am not an atheist, I am against religion and religious dogma. I will always favor science over religion.

[Slopeshoulder]

I will always favor science over religion.

Cool.
But maybe you could work to find a type or branch of religion that better suits you than the literalist religion you refer to?
And what of circumstances where science has little to say?
Do you favor Spock over Kirk in all circumstances?
And what of religions that are wise enough not to make fact claims?
Or interpretations of religious content that sees them as never intended to be factual but rather meaningful?
And what of times when facts are scant but life is rich?
Do you also always favor science over art?
Science is great, but have you familiarized yourself with criticism of scientism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Atheologist]

I will always favor science over religion.

Cool.
But maybe you could work to find a type or branch of religion that better suits you than the literalist religion you refer to?
And what of circumstances where science has little to say?
Do you favor Spock over Kirk in all circumstances?
And what of religions that are wise enough not to make fact claims?
Or interpretations of religious content that sees them as never intended to be factual but rather meaningful?
And what of times when facts are scant but life is rich?
Do you also always favor science over art?
Science is great, but have you familiarized yourself with criticism of scientism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

My whole discrepancy is with religion in and of itself. Religion is futile. Religion is pointless. You asked, "Do you also always favor science over art?" Why would I favor science over art? That's like asking if I favor BMW's over McDonald's Big Mac's. The two (art vs science) have no direct relation to each other. With science you learn that humans have been around longer than 6,000 years. If you truly think humans lived that long on this earth then someone needs to study some science and find out the facts.

Religion is the world's ignorance. Anyone who believes in religion is essentially a slave. They are a slave to their gods, goddesses or God. They are a slave to their ridiculous moral codes which are bringing this country (U.S.A.) as well as many other countries to a standstill. Religion is holding societies back from progression. People need to free themselves from the confines of religion. I know what it was like to be extremely religious. I grew up Catholic, then I became a Protestant at 19. I started studying other religions, and then I started questioning things. When the answers weren't logical I went to physics and science and saw what they had to say about things.

Maybe you've noticed the huge epidemic of Quran burning the past week or so. Quran burning has literally gone "viral" and the thing that's really disgusting is how everyone is making such a significant deal over the issue. When you think about it it's STUPID. It is a book. I laugh every time I watch the reactions of people when a bible or Quran is being burned. They are complete fools. If a man burns a book on science or Darwinism, do you think Evolutionists and scientists are going to get involved in such hatred with these people? No...why? Maybe because scientists have more brains and know that these pathetic morons burning a book have an IQ in the double digits. What is the point in burning a book? All you're doing is wasting paper. It...is...pointless.