I saw something the other day that answered a question I had regarding science v. religion. It’s really puzzled me that people would choose to turn away from scientific answers in favor of religious explanations that are clearly metaphors, never intended to provide workable answers but rather to set the mind at ease. Of course Genesis was the best explanation available at the time. It’s only a story. That’s all it was meant to be.
So why would people turn their backs on science in favor of literature? I don’t think they’re just stupid, that’s too easy.
And I was watching a science documentary filmed 25 years ago, full of optimism about Mars exploration. Their tag, their justification, their raison d’etre? According to the narrator: By searching for answers in space, we’re seeking an answer to the age-old question “Why are we here?”.
Now, that’s a religious question. Science never was going to answer that one. Perhaps some clarification of purpose could help the two sides co-exist.
I do. “Why are we here?” is at the best a philosophical question. (As an aside, I personally find it to be one of the stupidest questions one could ponder. My reply is always, “Why does there need to be a reason? Do you feel guilty for being here? Do you need justification?”)
Science does not, nor should it, concern itself with intangible, philosophical fluff such as seeking reasons for existance. What we are looking for on Mars is evidence of life, and possible answers to the way life develops and survives harsh conditions. Has the life changed and evolved to adapt to its environment? What can this teach us about our own evolution? These are exciting times for those of a scientific bent. Who knows what we could learn within my lifetime?
I’m annoyed that there might even be a possibility that such a worthless question as to why we exist might take up the time of minds better spent on worthwhile reasearch.
Unfortunately, the people who reject scientific explanations in favor of literalism of various religious documents are an endangered species arond the SDMB. We get the occasional drive-by, tho. For example, Nolies has a thread running in the GD right now regarding evolution. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’ll stick around for long.
I think the two sides co-exist quite well. Problems occur when people on one side of the argument who insist that only their side can be right. Most people who practice some type of religion aren’t the literalist type, they don’t see any problem with science and religion co-existing. Your argument seems to be directed at the literalists, which, as I said before, are rather rare around here.
“I’m annoyed that there might even be a possibility that such a worthless question as to why we exist might take up the time of minds better spent on worthwhile reasearch.”
The thing is, I believe there are functions better served by religion. Conquering fear is the big one, particularly fear of an unknown future. Science really can’t address this.
For example, all those prognosticators who’ve given the exact date when we’d run out of some natural resource, or when the planet would cool (that was big in the '70s), or when some species would finally disappear completely – they’ve seriously undermined the credibility of science so far as uneducated people are concerned. Since the body of scientific knowledge keeps changing, it’s not the immutable force some people need. I don’t think they’re capable of accepting ambiguities.
OTOH, some people of a scientific bent are so dedicated to empiricism that they can’t accept a need for faith. That something doesn’t exist in a measurable physical reality doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Rigorous scientific testing isn’t the only way of knowing, nor always the best one. Two examples that come to mind are making art and raising children (both of which happen to be things I’m doing). Faith and emotion are more important than empiricism in those areas.
What I’m saying here is pretty obvious, not rocket science or anything - and I apologize for the wobbly posts, I’m trying to get at something that I haven’t quite thought out. I just think it’s funny that so many Dopers want to eliminate religion (not the institutions, that I’ll agree with, but the spiritual quest for God). And I think it’s outrageous that evolution is still being argued. We’re much better off with both scientific and religious forms of knowledge. They just need to respect one another’s turf. Is that really so impossible?
I disagree. Religion is a big bully who keeps on trying to get Science to acknowledge it because, it secretly likes Science. Creepy, like with that female bully who had a crush on me, back in grade school, so she always picked on me. Also, Icecream, I mean Science gives us the ability to know that thing happen for a reason. In my mind, that is far better then Religion, which tells us that we might be destroyed by gods wraith in an instant, with no warning. See: relatives of Job.
Bully is as bully does, I reckon. I hope you realize that your own posts — bashing the faithful from forum to forum — are far from conciliatory and gracious.
If you’re really curious about the actual lack of conflict between science and religion, might I suggest “Rocks of Ages” by Stephen J. Gould? I’ve not read it yet, waiting with bated breath, but I expect it to be exactly what seen in his other books. A humanistic, positive, well written and deeply thought paen to the universe and to the human spirit.
Personally, I think there is one truth and all science, math, religion and philosophy will come to the same conclusions when the latest popular theory is cast aside.
There is a lot of fiercely protected myths and traditions in religion that have no foundation in spiritual truth.
Science is constantly developing and one thing it has proven to me is that there is a lot more it doesn’t know than it does know. The same can be said for our spiritual quest.
Both spring from a desire to know and understand which I think is a fine goal, as long as we see our limitations realisticly and can tell the difference between what we “know” and what we “believe at this point based on current information and understanding”
I think there is a way to accept science and religion as two paths on the search for truth instead of competitors but that reconciliation has to be made within the individual
I can’t see why not. I have no religion, and other than being afraid of realistic dangers of modern life, I have no fears. I’m not worried about what will happen to me after I die, or why bad things happen to good people, or even what the future holds for me.
I think the way some people use religion is as a crutch. They deflect their worries and concerns by saying, “Oh, it’s all in God’s hands.” I suppose in an extremely simple sense, it’s comfort, but I wonder if it sometimes keeps people from truly taking ownership of their own troubles and coming to a logical conclusion about what to do about their problems. They sort of coast through, taking what life hands them, rather than taking an active role in shaping their future.
That’s ironic. They’re incapable of accepting ambiguity, but they’re perfectly fine with the explanation for anything they don’t understand that “God did it. We don’t know why, but He did. It’s all part of his plan.” To me, this is the very height of ambiguity-- a very lazy way of explaining things.
I believe both of those examples require science, rather than faith. Artists are schooled to know what colors blend properly, and what the human eye finds pleasant. They are taught perspective, proportion, and the angles which control light and shadow. One cannot intuitively or emotionally place a shadow and hope it makes an aestetically pleasing image-- one must place it according to the correct way a shadow would fall given the light conditions, or it doesn’t look right.
Parenting requires science as well. Sociology and psychology have taught us the steps which a child goes through as he is learning and beins socialized. A parent going solely off of emotion or faith is in a world of trouble. Those are the kids you see screaming their heads off in resturants and making everyone around them feel like they’re in a living hell.
Children need emotion, yes, but they also need socialization. There are millions of parenting books which teach the scientific parts of childrearing-- it’s assumed the parents will supply the emotion part without instruction. My point is that while emotion might stay my hand from disciplining a naughty child, science tells me that the child must be disciplined because it’s an important part of the socialization process which will help turn the child into a successful adult.
Going purely off of faith and emotion could do enormous damage. Not only does emotion tell a parent to hug their child instead of disciplining it, emotion urges us to be overly indulgent, and make sure the child is always “happy.” Faith is even more dangerous-- potentially deadly, especially in circumstances where parents refuse their children medical care in favor of just praying over them when they’re ill.
Science ensures us that if we follow tried-and-true patterns of socialization, teaching techniques and discipline, children will turn out to be well-adjusted, successful adults. Science will keep our children from dying from common, easily cured disease. While emotion is very important, these two are essential.
What I’m saying here is pretty obvious, not rocket science or anything - and I apologize for the wobbly posts, I’m trying to get at something that I haven’t quite thought out. I just think it’s funny that so many Dopers want to eliminate religion (not the institutions, that I’ll agree with, but the spiritual quest for God). And I think it’s outrageous that evolution is still being argued. We’re much better off with both scientific and religious forms of knowledge. They just need to respect one another’s turf. Is that really so impossible?
[/QUOTE]
I can’t see why not. I have no religion, and other than being afraid of realistic dangers of modern life, I have no fears. I’m not worried about what will happen to me after I die, or why bad things happen to good people, or even what the future holds for me.
I think the way some people use religion is as a crutch. They deflect their worries and concerns by saying, “Oh, it’s all in God’s hands.” I suppose in an extremely simple sense, it’s comfort, but I wonder if it sometimes keeps people from truly taking ownership of their own troubles and coming to a logical conclusion about what to do about their problems. They sort of coast through, taking what life hands them, rather than taking an active role in shaping their future.
That’s ironic. They’re incapable of accepting ambiguity, but they’re perfectly fine with the explanation for anything they don’t understand that “God did it. We don’t know why, but He did. It’s all part of his plan.” To me, this is the very height of ambiguity-- a very lazy way of explaining things.
I believe both of those examples require science, rather than faith. Artists are schooled to know what colors blend properly, and what the human eye finds pleasant. They are taught perspective, proportion, and the angles which control light and shadow. One cannot intuitively or emotionally place a shadow and hope it makes an aestetically pleasing image-- one must place it according to the correct way a shadow would fall given the light conditions, or it doesn’t look right.
Parenting requires science as well. Sociology and psychology have taught us the steps which a child goes through as he is learning and beins socialized. A parent going solely off of emotion or faith is in a world of trouble. Those are the kids you see screaming their heads off in resturants and making everyone around them feel like they’re in a living hell.
Children need emotion, yes, but they also need socialization. There are millions of parenting books which teach the scientific parts of childrearing-- it’s assumed the parents will supply the emotion part without instruction. My point is that while emotion might stay my hand from disciplining a naughty child, science tells me that the child must be disciplined because it’s an important part of the socialization process which will help turn the child into a successful adult.
Going purely off of faith and emotion could do enormous damage. Not only does emotion tell a parent to hug their child instead of disciplining it, emotion urges us to be overly indulgent, and make sure the child is always “happy.” Faith is even more dangerous-- potentially deadly, especially in circumstances where parents refuse their children medical care in favor of just praying over them when they’re ill.
Science ensures us that if we follow tried-and-true patterns of socialization, teaching techniques and discipline, children will turn out to be well-adjusted, successful adults. Science will keep our children from dying from common, easily cured disease. While emotion is very important, these two are essential.
In a way, yes. Try to see it from my perspective: I see people mentally enslaved by a superstition which is potentially damaging to themselves, and their children. I believe that teaching people to believe in dieties or spirits sort of softens up the mind and drains it of its natural, protective skepticism. I see that people are more gullible all around because of religion-- that if rather than being taught to believe in what cannot be proven, if people were taught scientific method and hjealthy skepticism, there would be less fraud, misinformation, and hostility to life-saving sciences.
Actually I thought the “dieties” was funnier than the simulpost was annoying.
I agree with you Lissa about not being enslaved by superstition. But I think people are also enslaved and limited by empiricism.
As for a crutch - sure. Absolutely. The more crutches the better. I used to think that anyone who didn’t face life head-on was a coward. But I no longer see it that way. We’re more complex than that, we all use dodges and deceptions and sometimes that’s the best way to get through.
Science in parenting - sure. But my instincts are stronger and I listen to them. That Newsweek article on anxious mothers left me thinking that moms need for faith and less knowledge (at least some of them do). Instead of constantly trying to engineer child development, have faith that they’ll bloom in their own time. It’s a lot less fretful than obsessing over milestones.
A philosophical question, yes. Stupid, no. Much of philosophy is concerned with difficult, possibly unanswerable questions.
The more we learn about HOW we are here, the closer we can get to WHY. It seems we are here due to natural processes as physics, chemistry, and more specifically, mutation and natural selection. There is no need to postulate a supernatural force to explain how things work, at least as far as our knowledge extends now.
There may be no WHY, no overall reason, no guiding, all-seeing, all-knowing hand. Things just happen. For no reason at all except to follow immutable laws. “Nature is not cruel, just mindlessly indifferent.”
And in what sense does religion help?
Religion has never successfully predicted anything!
There’s also the difficulty of knowing whether you are even worshipping the right God and doing whatever it is that He wants.
Scientists have given the exact time of eclipses - check your diary. They have invented the world-wide communication of the Internet, helped us conquer disease and ignorance and go into space.
What about the religious prophets who predict the end of the World?
The body of scientific knowledge keeps improving + growing. Religions just shrink. Who believes the Earth is the centre of the Universe now? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? When will fundamentalists accept evolution?
Is the Bible full of useful instructions on raising children?
If your child is crying, do you go to a doctor or a faith healer?
Do you rely on manna from heaven, or buy food at the market?
It’s true we have no scientific definition of art and how valuable it is. Personally I’m surprised that one UK artist can cut animals in half, preserve them and call it a major exhibition. Or that another sell an unmade bed for £150,000 ($287,000).
We atheists are just puzzled by why anyone believes in religion. Which religion is right? Was Jesus the Son of God? Or is Judaism correct? Why doesn’t anyone believe anymore in Ra, the Sun God?
Evolution is only being argued by religious types. (I assume you mean it’s outrageous that the evidence is not accepted.)
When you say we’re ‘better off with religious knowledge’, which set do you mean?
Should Sunday be the holy day? Or Saturday?
Is the Pope speaking for God? Is contraception sinful?
Should you mix dairy + meat products at meals?
Is homosexuality a ticket to Hell?
Are blood transfusions against God’s will?
Should you cover your head to respect God?
Should you pray to God several times a day?
Can a divorced person marry in Church?
Are cows sacred animals?
Should you avoid treading on insects?
Can you have several wives?
Should women cover themselves? Can they drive cars?
Should widows be burnt alive on the same pyre as their husband?
Were the Crusades holy to God?
Was the Spanish inquistion justified?
