There is no dichotomy between religion and science.

You make my point for me, NJ. You have already decided what you will believe, so science would not have any value for you. Science is for people who don't assume the answer before the question is tested. Religion is for people who do assume the answer before the question is asked, much less tested.

My statement is not meant as an attack on the quality of how you think. It is a statement about how religious folk differ in their thinking from science folk.
 
Firstly, there is no one religion. This category "religion" is a badly concocted one. Putting confucianism, buddhism, christianity and islam in the same category is like putting orange and football in the same category because they are both spherical. So, first question, what religion?

Secondly, what science? Proven fact, mathematical model, just a hypothesis, "rational" fantasy of a scientist, all of these are science to some people.

Yes true science and true religion will never disagree with each other. But then defining "truth" is the third issue, which both science and religion are dealing with. So "truth" becomes a circular argument in itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
Devils' Advocate said:
You make my point for me, NJ. You have already decided what you will believe, so science would not have any value for you. Science is for people who don't assume the answer before the question is tested. Religion is for people who do assume the answer before the question is asked, much less tested.

My statement is not meant as an attack on the quality of how you think. It is a statement about how religious folk differ in their thinking from science folk.
Click to expand...
Yet does this not draw certain conclusions based on certain presumptions?...a leap of faith based on certain stereotypes?


Why then are certain scientifically minded persons still religious? My statement is not meant as an attack on the quality of how you think, either. Religious *and* scientific folk can be one and the same. Admittedly not often, but it can and does happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
farhan said:
Firstly, there is no one religion. This category "religion" is a badly concocted one. Putting confucianism, buddhism, christianity and islam in the same category is like putting orange and football in the same category because they are both spherical. So, first question, what religion?

Secondly, what science? Proven fact, mathematical model, just a hypothesis, "rational" fantasy of a scientist, all of these are science to some people.

Yes true science and true religion will never disagree with each other. But then defining "truth" is the third issue, which both science and religion are dealing with. So "truth" becomes a circular argument in itself.
Click to expand...
Indeed! Which is why the whole question is meaningless.
 
To carry the subject further in order to better construct the question...

Science is essentially "just another" religion anyway. I know that draws the ire of many, but I've shown repeatedly over the years the similarity, particularly among the laity, of the thought processes and how very similar the reasoning is...down to and including rushing for pitchforks and kindling in order to torch the heretics. Dawkins points to memes as the fault line in religion while completely ignoring the memes in his own line of reasoning. In that sense, there is no dichotomy between science and religion...both are comprised of zealous believers who think they know but don't have a clue, spoonfed the pablum by the vested interests.

On the other hand, I will say "pure" science (as opposed to "true" science) and "pure" religion (*all* faiths, footballs and oranges included) are composed of deep thinkers who explore ideas, those who seek a more comprehensive understanding and who are not afraid to go where the "evidence" leads rather than simply chanting the mantra of tradition and authority. In that way science and religion is capable of having no dichotomy, but that is an ideal (and we already know humans are terrible at ideal situations of any kind). To travel either road requires a very disciplined person, no average joe can travel this road, so the vast majority of people remain in willful ignorance and are quite content to remain so.

Where there is a vast dichotomy between the two is in the methodology, what Gould called the "non-overlapping Magisteria," in that science as a discipline is formulated to ask questions of how?, and religion is formulated to ask questions of why? Seldom do the two *comfortably* cross paths, and more typically talk past each other...usually by laity who believe they understand but still haven't begun to grasp this underlying fundamental difference between the two disciplines.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Science is essentially "just another" religion anyway.
Click to expand...

No. It really isn't. The fact that it has human traits similar to other disciplines with the same human traits only means that both are disciplines of humans. That does not make them the same. It's like saying baseball is like politics because both have human attributes.

Anyone who understands what the scientific method is should be able to see that science is nothing like religion. I agree there are scientists who also believe in a Divinity; for some reason most of those scientists are Christians (as opposed to a different world religion), which I find to be a curiosity. Their arguments for a belief in God are never based in science though. There is no way they could be.

Science can not prove the existence of a Divinity. Science can not prove a Divinity doesn't exist either. It is not a question that science is capable of answering.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
No. It really isn't. The fact that it has human traits similar to other disciplines with the same human traits only means that both are disciplines of humans. That does not make them the same. It's like saying baseball is like politics because both have human attributes.

Anyone who understands what the scientific method is should be able to see that science is nothing like religion. I agree there are scientists who also believe in a Divinity; for some reason most of those scientists are Christians (as opposed to a different world religion), which I find to be a curiosity. Their arguments for a belief in God are never based in science though. There is no way they could be.

Science can not prove the existence of a Divinity. Science can not prove a Divinity doesn't exist either. It is not a question that science is capable of answering.
Click to expand...
I understand...I get your reaction a lot. An instinctive "no!," and then the realization that what I said actually has merit. Even then, the mind just refuses to believe...

*If* G!d exists, and with the right tools, science theoretically *could* prove G!d, but the nature of logic and the scientific method do not allow for the proof that G!d doesn't exist, if in fact G!d doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative, or that something does not exist. Equally, science can not prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

I can grant the disciplines of science and religion are dissimilar, in fact I stated as much quite clearly, but not so different as baseball and politics, more like baseball and cricket. Sufficiently similar an outside observer can easily see the wide range of similarities, particularly among the laity.

I think there may be some cultural bias in your sample...there are many Hindi and Buddhist scientists as well, not to mention the wide range of Pagan scientists...Paganism, especially the modern reinterpretations of such as Wicca, are hugely popular among those who practice the scientific arts. It is possible they either don't answer such surveys out of privacy concerns, or don't particularly view themselves as religious in the traditional, establishment manner...but they would still qualify as scientists who practice religion or "believe in Divinity." Technically, Buddhists can be scientists that are religious without belief in Divinity, or so I have been told on numerous occasions.

I do agree no current argument for belief in G!d can be based in science, which is why you will never read me as using science to defend G!d in the absolute sense. Individually, we do have our experiences...and many of those experiences transcend science. In many things science is moot and silent. You will also never read me as arguing from a conclusion backward, another laity mistake of both disciplines. I always follow where the evidence leads... ;)
 
Science tells us our visible spectrum and hearing spectrum are limited...we've got this middle area but no edges... we really don't even know the limitations of our machines....

we have no idea what we can't see and can't hear....nor that it is not there...
 
A strange future is here or awaiting us: mind-reading machines, genuine virtual reality, neural implants, customized drugs and many more scientific developments all have implications for our view of ourselves and of our spiritual possibilities. We have entered an era when our very humanness, in genetic terms, is no longer a necessary condition of our existence. The synthesis of human and machine intelligence is here. What will such changes to the conventional boundaries between self and world mean for us? Do the changes have relevance for a spirituality that is rooted in the recognition of the non-duality of consciousness?

Dichotomy? I believe so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top