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

by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  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.

  To be as clear and precise as absolutely possible within the confines of expression through language I'll answer you.

  Teaching people to "love your neighbor" as a command is senseless. A command removes personal responsibility from the person being taught. It removes the cause and effect purpose of arriving at the conclusion from existence itself. You do it because AN AUTHORITY said so. That is the nature of religion. You don't have to think, analyze, investigate and decide; you just obey and trust authority to be right.

  Coming to the same conclusion as a process of experience for yourself and OUT OF your existence itself carries far more moral weight because it is a PRACTICAL MATTER and not merely obedience.

  See the difference??

  Child-rearing that meets bad behavior by creating a CONSEQUENCE makes proper behavior a natural cause and effect principle of learning. Bad child-rearing is using force to cause a child to conform and detaching the force from the lesson. Force becomes punishment. The lesson? Do what I SAY YOU MUST DO or else I'll use force. The correct lesson should be DO WHAT IS RIGHT because all wrong behavior has a BAD CONSEQUENCE. A better life is lived when you avoid bad consequences.

  Science detaches mere pronouncement from authority from the process. (Not that other factions don't use Science as a totem and bludgeon, but; that is a separate issue and discussion.) The cause and the effect are measured and demonstrated. You don't rely on it being correct just because so and so says it is correct. The chain of reasoning and proof is at every step demonstrable and repeatable. Not so with religious rules and morality. It is a take it or leave it trust, faith and credulity implicit in the bargain.

  Now, for the second part. Anybody who does not accept responsiblity for proving the correctness of their data before using it as fact is irresponsible and vulnerable to manipulation.

  To accept Global Warming, as an example, as a man-made threat to survival BECAUSE certain scientists SAY IT IS SO----without getting all the facts from the entire peer review community of science is JUST AS NEGLIGENT as being a drone in a religious organization who spouts "truth" because it is printed in their beloved Watchtower.

  Each of us are responsible for killing the Buddah on the road and taking ownership of our facts, morality and purpose in life.
• 

  Terry

  Terry perhaps all we need is a bridge between the two and maybe a love and appreciation for nature could be that bridge.

  Science and Religion are entirely and utterly incompatible with rational thinking and logic. Consequently there can never be an honest bridge without sacrificing either rational thinking or logic. The price is too high.

  Do you want there to really be a Santa Claus? What do you have to do to the truth of reality in order for it to be so?

  You have to tell (little white) lies to yourself and your kids. This is pretense at polite deception for the "good of the child". It is a lie, of course, made out to be just a jolly good time for all. But, the truth is sacrificed and trust is violated.

  See what I mean?

  You can feel good about an untruth by treating it as okay to remove fact from daily life and create a lovely effect. The cost is high. Go ahead and have Christmas, I say. But, tell your kids the truth about Santa. They will have just as much fun as the deceived child and be grateful you had enough respect for their right to the truth not to deceive them with a myth.
• 

  Terry

  If the flat roof on the church leaks we can sit in the damp and pray for help, donations or divine intervention.

  Trevor, I applaud your sanity!! Thank you.
• 

  Terry

  Math, medicine, physics, physiology, chemistry come from science and science has been successful--not because of ambiguity. It is because of PRECISION.

  What distinguishes Religion from Science is MEASUREMENT!

  The measurement, the precision, the charting of each step, the demonstration of cause leading to effect and the predictability of what comes next put Science in an entirely different sphere of thought from Religion.

  Not seeing this is done on purpose.

  In your case, I think you are nostalgic for certainty in a way that creates the inner happiness of the guarantee at the end of the rainbow.

  I miss that too. But, I have to live with it.
• 

  onacruse

  What distinguishes Religion from Science is MEASUREMENT!

  Lorentz, Michelson and Morley would also disagree with you. "Measurement" can only be done within the constraints of predetermined parameters, as the results of these scientists' experiments proved.

  The only difference between science and religion is the "scale" that's used...one is physical (or so we like to think), and the other is ethereal (thus, the "Ether").
• 

  onacruse

  Terry, perhaps, in the context of this thread, it would be of some value if I shared a bit of what got me from "here to there."

  I saw mathematics and physics as the ultimate explanation of the universe, tantamount to the Bible itself, with a non-spiritual aspect. Therefore, as a True Believer, I saw no conflict between these two.

  Subsequent, and in some cases, almost incremental, revelations made me increasingly doubt that dichotomy. It was when I was in college, perusing the library, that I happened upon a couple of books that outlined the "behind the scenes" intellectual struggle associated with what I had hitherto considered to be the 'sacrosanctity' of mathematics and physics. That set the stage.

  Further studies about Dirac, and revisiting Euler, and examining the 'meaning' of vector mechanics and tensor theory (upon which, of course, Einstein's theories are based), led me to see that these are all just ways in which we try to measure an immeasurable universe.

  That led me to project: "Why would these emminently intelligent scientists bother themselves with exploring the universe with tools that they themselves knew were deficient?" My solution was: "Because those were the only tools they had." And the fact that their religious and spiritual perspectives played such a large role in their opinions, and how they interpreted their data, led me to think that maybe the "two worlds" aren't so far apart as I once thought they were.

  This led to epistemology; perhaps another topic.

  So, please take my statements as simply that I see the world as very grey.
• 

  Handsome Dan

  All religions have roots of human ignorance and have been supported on that ignorance as history has shown

  Spiritualistic beliefs have always been a proponent of fear of the unknown and have been a controlling and obtaining factor for men to empower themselves, so if ignorance is empowering

  to maintain that power religions have to try and place blinders on men and have their sites set directly at the religiuos leaders. I liken this to in a way placing a box on the heads of the

  believers.If power was achieved then power has to be absolutely maintained. Religions have never been a proponement to free thinking, analysis and discovery because of this very fact.

  ( You can use the WTS. as an example of this ) Kingdoms had to built and were built. But there is a catch to this thinking, for some people religion offers a sense of guildance and direction

  and a way of life that they think is beneficial to them. This emotional sense of security is something science can never provide and can unintentionally dilute it.

  I personally wonder if a religion could ever be built and developed on the principles of democracy by the construting believers all in tune with both in mind.?

  Now thats the kind of religion I'd like to belong to., unrealistic dreamer that I am
• 

  fifi40

  "No island is a man"

  We learn for ourselves and from one another. I am not debating your method for folk to learn. I am all for the lesson DO WHAT IS RIGHT because all wrong behaviour has a BAD CONSEQUENCE. I am totally against force, fear or bribery for trying to teach, educate people or rear children.

  If you want the religious theme taken away call it CONTEMPLATIVE SCIENCE. I understand if you remove the Bhuddist word as a religious concept and look at what can be learnt from the philosophy of Buddhism it would benefit mankind.

  To quote Sam Harris author of the End of Faith

  "What the world needs most at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to DEVELOP an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural predjudice as the discourse as science is.

  So Terry I ask you what 'means' would you use?
• 

  Handsome Dan

  Maybe we should start a religion and call it humanism !
• 

  fifi40

  Terry I have to ask you this

  If you particpated in Christmas as a child (from what I understand you were not raised as a JW) did you honestly feel deceived as a child because you were led to believe in Santa?

  Has it had a lasting impact on your ability to trust?

  I cant answer these questions myself because I was raised as a JW and as such never experienced Santa.

  I have talked with my husband about this subject and he describes Christmas and the white lie that Santa was coming or had been as a wonderful time and experience. He doesnt believe in Santa now and has a fantastic relationship with his dad, and also had with his mother when she was alive. It hasnt impacted on his ability to be reasoning and logical and he does not have an underlying distrust of things.

  Fi