The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  A person has a right to believe in a superior being. A person has a right to have faith or hope. It is up to them if they hope that a cure for cancer is found or if they hope they go somewhere nice when they die.

  I'd put it this way. We find ourselves alive here on Earth born into a world we must learn to cope with. How well we cope is pretty much a function of what we know vs how ignorant we are. In former times, life was far more treacherous. Society has come a long, long way. Yet, dangers remain.

  If we choose to live it then becomes a question of how well we want to do it. How much do we need to create a better life than mere existence? Throughout mankind's history there have been many efforts at discovering the very best way to have a long, happy and self-fulfilling life. Man started with ignorance and imagined how the world worked and we call that SUPERSTITION when it isn't our belief. We call it RELIGION when it is.

  The second stage of development was the application of intelligent observation of effects and their causes applying the intellect and curiously seeking answers. This was the age of PHILOSOPHY and none did it better than the Ancient Greeks. As a matter of fact, the stage was set for all that followed. PLATO gave us one set of criteria and ARISTOTLE gave us the other.

  Just about everything since Plato and Aristotle has fallen into line with one OR the other.

  Plato gave us a Primacy of Consciousness. What is in the mind's eye is more real than what is outside the mind. What we THINK is what is real, according to him. TRUTH is born into us and we must discover it by turning inward. Human senses lie and our perceptions are not to be trusted. Reality is but a distorted mirror of reality.

  Aristotle, on the other hand, paved the way for Science. He organized his thinking by applying the greatest tool mankind has ever discovered: LOGIC.

  LOGIC is the art of non-contradiction in identifying what exists and how it works and how we may use the knowledge.

  Throughout the millennia, either one or the other's thinking held sway. Christianity was built on a solid core of Neo-Platonic philosophy. Science, on the other hand, was founded on the bedrock of Logic and discovery through investigation of natural phenomena.

  Think of it this way.

  ARISTOTLE investigated how the world works by using his senses and developing conceptual categories. He subdivided categories into definitions. He told us that, in effect, for something to actually exist it must have IDENTITY. It must be "something". The something distinguishes it from all else. The greater the number of descriptions (definitions) you have for your concepts the closer you are to true knowledge of the thing itself. (The identification required PROOF that was solid and demonstrable). Geometry was the first science to demonstrate its proof in a rigorous way. THE ELEMENTS is a book of proofs from about the 4th century B.C.E. which was compiled by EUCLID. It is still valid and can be translated into any language and demonstrated to work harmoniously.)

  It is like being a blind person in a world of thorns, thistles and pitfalls who must gradually feel their way carefully around to establish what is there for avoidance (of pain) and benefit (use and comfort.) It can be done, but, it requires intelligent focus and a determination to organize what is known/unknown into useful knowledge.

  Religion made wild guesses that created imaginative stories of gods and angels, demons and invisible worlds. There were no blind forces. Humans were insignificant pawns who were fated to some destiny or other under their power of OTHERS.

  The only escape for humanity (according to RELIGION) was ritual behavior. Almost always, this required having an enlightened master of some description LAY IT ALL OUT FOR YOU what you must DO and what you must AVOID. It was second-hand information from the horse's mouth, so to speak. (The guru, priest, shaman, witch doctor, prophet who miraculous "knew" all the answers usually earned a pretty good living from this mystical talent :)

  Science was discovery the old-fashioned way: experimentation and trial and error.

  By starting this thread I meant to shine a bright spotlight on where BOTH processes have led mankind.

  When you say a "person has a right to have faith or hope", to my ears you are saying "a wrong guess is as good as an accurate discovery"---and I can't accept that.

  I see religious people as being trapped inside very narrow thinking full of fears and taboos who are locked in to rituals and superstitious bargains with invisible friends and foes who control their destiny from afar. I call it INSANITY. You call it a virtue.

  See our problem?
• 

  fifi40

  Actually I never called it a virtue.

  And I agree with what you are you saying....................to a large part.

  But you didnt answer my question. Is teaching people to 'love thy neighbour' or 'do unto others as you would have done yourself' wrong?

  Yes the history of religion and how it has been developed and used to control vunerable people is wrong. But in this thread you have also spoken of how 'experts can be bought' 'the science of the tobacco industry' and how 'money corrupts'. So science and those that follow experts can be vunerable too and subject to being misled.

  I think 'our problem' is one of how we view life going forward from this point in time.

  I see that religion is attractive to millions of people, and as such is a huge resource that could be, if people were honourable, exploited to educate and improve people's lives. You, I think, see it as redundant.
• 

  Terry

  I do not believe that the need for morals in a society grew simply and exclusively out of a practical need to survive. That can't be the ultimate reason because every person has the same right and human nature need to survive. So if I need to kill you to survive or to steal your "slave" asset to survive, I would have the right to do so. Your right to survive is no greater than mine.

  Either way you have the "right" to kill anybody or anything to survive, don't you? You speak as though non-religious people are the only "justified" killers.

  Killing and then self-justifying goes on (and always had) with or without religion; with or without science. It is irrelevent, don't you see?

  Animals, humans and, in some weird instances: plants, are killers. Survival leads them there. And survival by killing has always been with us. This is the nature of NATURE. It is a moot point in this discussion.

  Ask yourself this question: WHY do humans need to survive? Obviously, we are not self-sufficient. We need energy to continue. Energy is OUTSIDE of us and must find its way INSIDE. Plants must die to transfer energy from the sun into our body. Animals die so that we may use their hides and organs and by-products (American Indian's use of the bison.)

  MORALITY becomes an issue only because of this: WHEN HUMANS STARTED KILLING OTHER HUMANS there were repercussion from the family of the victims! The dead person's family became avengers!

  In other words, you couldn't get away with murder!! The realitive would track you down and kill you too!! These sorts of blood feuds have been with mankind from the beginning. One family goes through thousands of years with PAYBACK on the agenda. European and Middle Eastern countries have ancient blood feuds that continue into modern times. The feud between India and Pakistan and the feud between Arabs and Jews and between the Irish and the British are vivid examples.

  THIS IS WHY MORALITY became an issue!! Get it??

  A code of conduct was necessary to prevent BLOOD FEUDS. If you could teach children NOT to kill you would prevent blood feuds and not have to spend valuable time away from planting, harvesting and creating creature comforts of a better existence on building walls, drafting armies and training young men to fight and die.

  Every society developed not only a CODE OF CODUCT to prevent blood feuds, but, a means of enforcement against murderers to demonstrate non-tolerance. Cities of Refuge, prisons and executions were the result.

  As a family developed into a tribe and the tribe became a nation and the nation became a city-state the need for MORALITY (a code of conduct) was ever-increasingly necessary. Why? Because, every human being had the dubious "right" (as you say) to murder somebody whenever they saw fit. Blood feuds and violence INTERFERE with everybody else's right to life, liberty and especially the pursuit of happiness. LAWS come from codes of conduct. Codes of conduct came from avoidance of blood feuds.

  See what I am saying? No god is really necessary to hand down a marble tablet saying "THOU SHALL NOT KILL." It was common sense based on---what? (Anybody? Anybody?) PRACTICALITY. Practical necessity for society to flourish.

  Morality is a practical matter.

  (One final example here.....Tombstone, Arizona. A wild and wooly town in the old west for sure! As the town grew and grew the "anything goes" lifestyle became more and more of a nusiance to prosperity and well-being. The necessity arose to prevent violence and bloodshed. Wyatt Earp and his brothers are the family of semi-legend who "cleaned up the town". Right? How? Why? Because of what the Bible said? NO! Because it was a practical necessity. Think about it.)
• 

  Backed away

  My open mind won't allow either to win for now.

  I am, however, facinated by those who have concluded "victory" on either side. This board is full of intellectual "gunslingers" on either side of the issue which for those of us who yell out, "draw " creates, or is that evolves into, more questions, (pun, intended)

  Maybe I too will one day be able to stop asking, how and why? and claim a victor. I first have to make sure I'm winning this argument not because I'm better at arguing but absolute in that I AM right. Sorry, folks, I'm not even close...
• 

  Terry

  Now that, I think, you must admit, is an over-simplification. The history of science, both as an art and as a purely intellectual exploration, is star-studded with the same contradictions and hypocrisies as religion.

  "Science" has been just as much a whore as has religion...for human nature makes whores of them both.

  I don't know where you are going with this. Most of your most eloquent posts on this forum have been stone-cold defenses of intelligence in science vs superstitious nonsense in religion. But, heck--I'll play along!

  What is the chief tool of Science? LOGIC: the art of non-contradiction in identifying useful information and making predictions. What is the natural course from IGNORANCE to Knowledge? Gradual accumulation of facts & observable phenomena and experimentation to discover the workings of actually existing causes and effects produce DATA.

  The Data is examined for contradictions to known (?) facts. Any contradiction must be eliminated when there is a disharmony between the reality and the theory. This is like sharpening a dull knife into a keen cutting edge. The state of the art of Science is always greater than what immediately proceeded it.

  Now, honestly! Ask yourself what is the "state of the art" for religion????

  Compare what the Apostles and disciples taught to what the church taught to what the religious divisions teach about Christianity TODAY and ask yourself WHERE IS THE CHAIN OF PROGRESS?

  Religion CANNOT BE progressive, can it? By nature it is vested with a lock-step necessity for compliance with the ANCIENT and not with the modern ideas.

  The only claim to power by a religion is the written text or tradition itself! The execrable doctrine of INERRENCY OF SCRIPTURE is the loathesome result of backward thinking practicioners who must INSIST the written world is inviolable or they are dead in the water!

  Religion is set in stone. New branches of Christianity (as one example) spring up only due to arguments over orthodoxy. It is opinion that drives the engine of schism and not data.

  Am I right or am I right......or.....am I right?

  (Your choice :)
• 

  bernadette

  Terry perhaps all we need is a bridge between the two and maybe a love and appreciation for nature could be that bridge. I've read some really stirring comments about the inherent beauty and cooperation in nature from evolutionists that prompted me to look into evolution more than I would have done in the past.

  bernadette
• 

  Terry

  Click on the title in bold for an interesting (and less simplistic and insulting) consideration of The Factors Behind the Decline of Islamic Science.

  And a bit more on Medieval Islamic Sciences.

  Thanks for triggering another interesting discussion and helping me learn more

  Thanks, Merry.

  You DO realise, don't you that the above article is an Apologia?

  The writer strives to put the best possible face on the influence of Theology vis a vis science and the decline of Islam as a rational entity.
• 

  bernadette

  Speaking of Islam isn't 2007 the year of Rumi?
• 

  trevor

  This is a most interesting debate. Over the years I have moved from being religious to mystical to being practical and applying logic. This has done more to help me clear my mind of the debris of the past and move on, than any other endeavour.

  Reading through this debate causes me to mention one of the things about religion that differs from science. At the core of most religion is the belief that we are at our deepest level beings of love who have lost our way. This is why the world has gone astray. If we could all uncover who we really are, then life would be perfect.

  This is denial of the reality of the world we live in and how humans have always acted. The basic motivation of all living creatures is survival. Lions instinct is to kill. If captured as cubs they can be trained to be friendly to humans in return for food and attention. Children are born selfish and demanding. They have to be trained and negotiated with until they grow to see the benefits of give and take. If life teaches them to hit first and harder and take without giving, that is how they will act until they find that there are more rewarding ways to live that offer less risk. Terry illustrates how humans refrain from murder to avoid repercussions.

  The fact that we are capable of love does not mean we are love. The idea that we are something other than how we act or appear denies reality. We as humans will act in whatever way we have to achieve our goals and protect our loved ones.

  People from the most loving and kind families raise their children to believe that God will love them if they support or in some cases take part in, killing anyone who is of a different faith and reward them accordingly. Such religions present the death of people from other faiths as an act of love but belief of this kind is a distorted act of self survival. Disciples of such religions are being tricked in their millions.

  Science examine reality, what actually is and outlines the consequences of cause and effect. It does not claim to be benevolent, good or unselfish. Instead it strives to see our world and ourselves as it really is, not as it should have been if we had shown more faith. It makes mistakes and is sometimes misused but it offers practical solutions to the challenges of everyday living. It teaches self-reliance and responsibility.

  If the flat roof on the church leaks we can sit in the damp and pray for help, donations or divine intervention. We can ask Odin to stop making it rain on our church. Or we can get up a ladder, rip off the old felt and apply an improved scientifically developed weather proofing material. The answers are often in our own hands but we have to use our hands in a practical way. Sitting with them pressed together may provide an illusionary sense of comfort but the roof will still leak!
• 

  onacruse

  I don't know where you are going with this. Most of your most eloquent posts on this forum have been stone-cold defenses of intelligence in science vs superstitious nonsense in religion. But, heck--I'll play along!

  Perhaps that's one of the most self-revealing things about my "eloquent posts on this forum," (certainly a matter of opinion) is that I've come to realize that "stone-cold defenses of intelligence" are, in their essence, nothing more and nothing less than playing the same game with myself as I did as a JW: believing that I had finally found some truly objective truth, some definitive statement about the meaning of life...my life.

  However, I find that it is not so. This is the point to which all the Greek philosophers were forced: there is nothing definitve about life, other than death. What is left is simply to explore the infinite possibilities from the perspective of a finite being, and say: "I gave it my best shot."

  Thus, while I use the phrase infrequently, I still think it describes this whole process as well as anything else that I've heard: "mental masturbation." Enjoyable, nevertheless.

  The state of the art of Science is always greater than what immediately proceeded it.

  Now, honestly! Ask yourself what is the "state of the art" for religion????

  The same. Both present, and represent, aspects of the same human struggle. However, the word "art" contains an ambiguity that defies the nice and neat mapping that "I have here this isotope of Americium, which fits here on the Periodic chart." As we perceive the universe around us, it is only 'natural' that we want to quantify and categorize every phenomenon, as being able to so do increases the probability that our behavior and survival through the next day will be as predictable as possible ("Honey, what's the weather report for today?). However, because of our finite organism, we inevitably find that we must relegate a substantial proportion of our expectations to the "unknown," and thence religion enters the picture. Religion is therefore a necessary construct of our nature, even as is science.

  Compare what the Apostles and disciples taught to what the church taught to what the religious divisions teach about Christianity TODAY and ask yourself WHERE IS THE CHAIN OF PROGRESS?

  The Apostles represented a change, however minute, from what their ancestral upbringing demanded, and catholicism (used deliberately in the lower case) has also gone through similar evolutions.

  Religion CANNOT BE progressive, can it? By nature it is vested with a lock-step necessity for compliance with the ANCIENT and not with the modern ideas.

  I disagree. Religion is no more unprogressive than science is progressive; the two work in tandem.

  The only claim to power by a religion is the written text or tradition itself! The execrable doctrine of INERRENCY OF SCRIPTURE is the loathesome result of backward thinking practicioners who must INSIST the written world is inviolable or they are dead in the water!

  Religion is set in stone. New branches of Christianity (as one example) spring up only due to arguments over orthodoxy. It is opinion that drives the engine of schism and not data.

  Newton, Liebnitz, and Einstein would disagree. Witness their sometimes vehement conflicts about the differential calculus and quantum mechanics, insofar as these represented a conflict with their ideas (essentially religious ideas) regarding universal predetermination.

  Am I right or am I right......or.....am I right?

  Yes, and no.