Religion vs Science

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and

epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

Lets try and compare science and religion.

Science is based on observation and experiment to separate objective fact from subjective opinion and feelings. Objective fact I that which can be demonstrated by anybody, and the fact does not change based on what or how you believe.

Its efficay is clearly demonstrated by the results. Combative peer criticism winnowing out ideas that do nor work.

Over the last 300 years science has gone through multiple rvisions.

Religion produces no tangible results, only subjective feelings and claims. Jesus talks to me. My prayer was answered. The saying philosophy bakes no bread applies to relgion.



It is clear how science derives a truth, such as aerodynaics used to design jets. It works. No faith or philoshy affects how the plane flies.

Religion has no interdependent reviewed process for claims. I can prove aerodynaics works, there is no experiment that proves religious faith. If so it would be scince….

For the theist, how do you derive truth, simply believing the bible as true? Hearing god and Jesus? A feeling that you are right?


We watch Christian politicians who ignore measurable climate chnage and invoke god for guidance.

Does a theist want to argue that reilgion is a way to derive facts about physical reality? That is the real question here.

 

[rousseau]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

 

[Rhea]

From another thread, this same topic comes up. Some additional questions that it prompts in me…

* Science has discovered mind-blowing facts about the early universe just since I've been on earth. Nothing new on the religious front, just the same old *poofery*.

This is really interesting to think about.

What has science discovered since X year, and what has religion discovered.
What has science created since X year, and what has religion created.
What has science improved since X year, and what has religion improved.

Starting with the last 20 years

Then look at the last 100

Then look at the last 1000

Then look at the last 5000

Stick to things you have evidence for. You can’t use, “somebody said science developed the labradoodle,” you have to have evidence that science did it. Same for religion.

 

[Rhea]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

I feel that science and religion MUST be compared, for as long as religionists attempt to use it to override science.

 

[rousseau]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

I feel that science and religion MUST be compared, for as long as religionists attempt to use it to override science.

In my opinion this is one of those 'don't argue with fools' situations. Taking religious arguments seriously just lends credence to them, and convinces religious people that science and religion are categorically alike.

To me a better approach would be to educate religious people about what science actually is, rather than reinforce the notion that it only exists to crush religious ideas. Which isn't true.

 

[Rhea]

I feel that science and religion MUST be compared, for as long as religionists attempt to use it to override science.

In my opinion this is one of those 'don't argue with fools' situations. Taking religious arguments seriously just lends credence to them, and convinces religious people that science and religion are categorically alike.

To me a better approach would be to educate religious people about what science actually is, rather than reinforce the notion that it only exists to crush religious ideas. Which isn't true.

I am forced to argue with the fools who pass laws to oppress me, though. I need to show them why science, and not religion, should be consulted for writing laws.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What floors me is believers who say, "That is just a theory", thinking that the meaning is "That is merely guesswork." Did they miss 8th grade science? Did they attend a school where the scientific method was never explained?

 

[steve_bank]

Based on the deinition from Wiki I am defiantly a Scientismist.


The method is simply staed a s obseve, form hypotheisis, test hypostheisi. WE all do it, as do oter critters in ecosytm.

Squirrels are remarkable problem solvers.

Modern science relies on math but science and the method are not limited to that.

In the ancient world Zog figured out to make fire and that cooking meat was a good thing.

I'd like to hear from theists who use scientism as a pejorative explain why promoting science as the best way to hysical knowledge is wrong or lacking. Is thermodynamics or god's wrath for homosexuality a better explanation for storms and earthquakes.

Other than debunking religious claims, what exactly is wrong with 'scientism'?

A little known fact when in Europe Ben Franklin was known for debunking quackery.

 

[Elixir]

From another thread, this same topic comes up. Some additional questions that it prompts in me…

* Science has discovered mind-blowing facts about the early universe just since I've been on earth. Nothing new on the religious front, just the same old *poofery*.

This is really interesting to think about.

What has science discovered since X year, and what has religion discovered.
What has science created since X year, and what has religion created.
What has science improved since X year, and what has religion improved.

Starting with the last 20 years

Then look at the last 100

Then look at the last 1000

Then look at the last 5000

Stick to things you have evidence for. You can’t use, “somebody said science developed the labradoodle,” you have to have evidence that science did it. Same for religion.

In the last 20 years, Hubble (too many things to mention!), the Cassini mission (Enceladus geysers etc etc), the Rosetta/Philae mission, the New Horizons probe ... and on and on. Any one of those things has brought more knowledge of creation than all the holy texts ever written combined.

But according to an esteemed representative for religions, the bible has better interpretations each day.
Seriously. Better book reviews. 2000 years later you get even more, better book reviews.

 

[Elixir]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

Science forces the issue of morality. Religions can start and maintain wars, but science can destroy the planet. Even the most successful applied sciences, like industrial scale monoculture food production, have unintended consequences that could render the planet inhospitable to human life. Morality would be the development of shared awareness of human impacts on the environment that supports us. Until religions get in on that game instead of recruitment to their Righteous Causes (usually against "the infidels"), I see no relevance for them regarding morality.
I agree that "science" per se has no moral value. It does hold the potential for ultimate morality or immorality, depending on how it is applied. Pandora's box is definitely open. Religions could play a role creating a universal view of environmental responsibility, but they seem disinclined.

 

[rousseau]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

Science forces the issue of morality. Religions can start and maintain wars, but science can destroy the planet. Even the most successful applied sciences, like industrial scale monoculture food production, have unintended consequences that could render the planet inhospitable to human life. Morality would be the development of shared awareness of human impacts on the environment that supports us. Until religions get in on that game instead of recruitment to their Righteous Causes (usually against "the infidels"), I see no relevance for them regarding morality.
I agree that "science" per se has no moral value. It does hold the potential for ultimate morality or immorality, depending on how it is applied. Pandora's box is definitely open. Religions could play a role creating a universal view of environmental responsibility, but they seem disinclined.

In my view the two (religion and science) have a similar goal: reducing anxiety and uncertainty. Before we had the technical means to solve our problems it was easier to dream up benevolent Gods which made us feel better about the suffering we experienced. Then eventually we hit a threshold where our technical ability could solve our problems, making religion less important.

But to me it's important to recognize that science doesn't have an aim, it's just a tool used by self-interested people. So the issue we're running into now is that we have overwhelmingly powerful technical ability under the domain of people who are self-interested, and who can't genuinely co-operate with each other. So the effect of science just kind of .. emerges .. with no central locus of control.

As far as I know we're the first animal species that has grown exponentially, and globally, and now we're seeing an environmental reaction to it. Hopefully we can mitigate some of the problems, but my solution is to just let it go and live my life.

 

[steve_bank]

Science dos not enact, there is no pope or emp[orer of scince.

Morality is based on the actions of people.

Science is about discovery. Religion and philosophy cover morality and ethics.

 

[Lion IRC]

For the theist, how do you derive truth...

The same way as everybody else.
Sensory evidence.

 

[Elixir]

For the theist, how do you derive truth...

The same way as everybody else.
Sensory evidence.

I prefer repeatable observations.

 

[rousseau]

I feel that science and religion MUST be compared, for as long as religionists attempt to use it to override science.

In my opinion this is one of those 'don't argue with fools' situations. Taking religious arguments seriously just lends credence to them, and convinces religious people that science and religion are categorically alike.

To me a better approach would be to educate religious people about what science actually is, rather than reinforce the notion that it only exists to crush religious ideas. Which isn't true.

I am forced to argue with the fools who pass laws to oppress me, though. I need to show them why science, and not religion, should be consulted for writing laws.

That's fair, my perspective is just that this is best done by emphasizing the science, and mostly ignoring the religious element of the argument.

If I speak with someone who is highly religious about all of the amazing things that science has done, and how it works, without framing it as in opposition to their worldview. Then that breeds respect for science, rather than hatred.

 

[Elixir]

When you compare a chainsaw to a hand-axe, the chainsaw obviously works better, but at the end of the day the chainsaw is just another tool that can either build a house or cut off a person's leg.

In my view, religion and science shouldn't be compared. Science isn't an ontology, it's a method that produces results that the religious don't like. Comparing the two reinforces the false notion that science is in opposition to religion, and has a raison d'etre. It also reinforces the false notion that religion is some backward, archaic practice and not an intrinsic part of human culture. Lastly, it elevates science to a moral status that is probably not deserved.

Science forces the issue of morality. Religions can start and maintain wars, but science can destroy the planet. Even the most successful applied sciences, like industrial scale monoculture food production, have unintended consequences that could render the planet inhospitable to human life. Morality would be the development of shared awareness of human impacts on the environment that supports us. Until religions get in on that game instead of recruitment to their Righteous Causes (usually against "the infidels"), I see no relevance for them regarding morality.
I agree that "science" per se has no moral value. It does hold the potential for ultimate morality or immorality, depending on how it is applied. Pandora's box is definitely open. Religions could play a role creating a universal view of environmental responsibility, but they seem disinclined.

In my view the two (religion and science) have a similar goal: reducing anxiety and uncertainty.

So... then the discovery of a vast magma dome under Yellowstone National Park, the finding of thousands of earth-crossing, potentially earth destroying space objects... all those kinds of things are counter to science's goal?

Before we had the technical means to solve our problems it was easier to dream up benevolent Gods which made us feel better about the suffering we experienced. Then eventually we hit a threshold where our technical ability could solve our problems, making religion less important.

In your view, when did that happen? I think there may have been more effective assuaging of anxieties back in the day when there was no division between science and religion, Galileo was safely sequestered at home and Bruno was toasting...

But to me it's important to recognize that science doesn't have an aim, it's just a tool used by self-interested people. So the issue we're running into now is that we have overwhelmingly powerful technical ability under the domain of people who are self-interested, and who can't genuinely co-operate with each other. So the effect of science just kind of .. emerges .. with no central locus of control.

Agreed. Hence my emphasis on a shared view of environmental responsibility. Probably a pipe dream.

As far as I know we're the first animal species that has grown exponentially, and globally, and now we're seeing an environmental reaction to it.

Maybe the first since cyanobacteria started polluting earth's atmosphere with that caustic, reactive oxygen stuff 3½ billion years ago - to the detriment of everything that came before.
Hopefully we can do better, right?

Hopefully we can mitigate some of the problems, but my solution is to just let it go and live my life.

I think that's what most reasonable people end up with. There's not much to be done about it on the individual level. While we're about the business of living life, I do feel obliged to encourage shared views of concern with the "health" of our biosphere.

 

[rousseau]

In my view the two (religion and science) have a similar goal: reducing anxiety and uncertainty.

So... then the discovery of a vast magma dome under Yellowstone National Park, the finding of thousands of earth-crossing, potentially earth destroying space objects... all those kinds of things are counter to science's goal?

To be a little more succinct, one of the central realities of being a living thing is uncertainty about the future. At a very high level science (or technology more generally) is about understanding and controlling the environment so we can better react to problems across time. It's not so much that we're looking to not have anxiety, but to have the technical means to relieve problems.

In that way religion and technology are similar adaptive mechanisms. Religion resolves our psychological discomfort over uncertainty, while technology actually solves uncertainty materially.

 

[steve_bank]

For the theist, how do you derive truth...

The same way as everybody else.
Sensory evidence.

In science it is not personal sensory experience. It is instrumented measurements. Religious experience is not sesory, it is subjectve perceptions.

You do not seem to understand the question. As a theits, if not science and its methods aka scientism, how do you dervive factual knowledge of physical reality?

Your use of scientism as a pejortive is cognitve disonance. Your life is based on the products of 'scientism'.

 

[Politesse]

I dislike scientism, because when you reify science, it ceases to be science.

 

[Elixir]

Religion resolves our psychological discomfort over uncertainty, while technology actually solves uncertainty materially.

Science does resolve some material uncertainties, but for me, religions only aggravate them. There is a point of "spirituality" and wonder that emerges from rigorous scientific study. But the tenets of religions routinely conflict with that rigor, destroying the efficacy of both.

YMMV, and I accept that... reluctantly.