Science- Religion or Not?

[DiabloRex]

I dont understand why you would even think of make that connection.

Historically speaking Science and Religion have always been at the opposent end of the perimeter. Antonyms if you like.

The idea that God isnt the creator of all things, disturbed the religionist fanatics. The scientist on the other hand found it naive that they anyone thought that God was the creator of all things. Then they had proven with their theoris and test that they too could create some of the things God had created.

So in short, no, I dont think of Science as a religion.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Actually, what you just said is how Science has always been at the opposite end of the scale to Christianity, not religion.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Science is science and religeon is religeon. The difference isnt in the proof but in the people. On the side of science you have people like Stephen Hawkings and Carl Sagan. They say the earth does this and numbers do that and and it is all based on probability and theory.If you can prove otherwise and break scientific rules then do it. On the other side is religeon, there you have Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden , and Aeriel Sharon who say the earth is this way because god made it that way. If you dont believe it then you will suffer and burn for eternity. Notice the difference?

[ 06-16-2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

My religion and Science get along quite well thank you. God created the universe and implemented an order to things which gives rise to science [img]smile.gif[/img] They do not have to be mutually exclusive.....IMHO

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Science is science and religeon is religeon. The difference isnt in the proof but in the people. On the side of science you have people like Stephen Hawkings and Carl Sagan. They say the earth does this and numbers do that and and it is all based on probability and theory.If you can prove otherwise and break scientific rules then do it. On the other side is religeon, there you have Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden , and Aeriel Sharon who say the earth is this way because god made it that way. If you dont believe it then you will suffer and burn for eternity. Notice the difference?

Or, on one hand you have C.S.Lewis, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa and Bono, and on the other hand you have Oppenheimer, Einstein and the gang who invented the nuclear bomb.

Way to go science. Blow the place up.

But nevermind. I'm sure all the billions of dollars spent on SETI programs to prove we are not alone (when all one has to do is pray.... ) wouldn't have been needed for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor or healing the sick at all. Would it?

Also, a person is defined by more than just their religion. In bringing up Osama and Ariel, we have an example of a spoilt son of an Oil Tycoon, and a Politicial leader.

So we could say that spoilt children of oil tycoons and Politicial leaders cause wars couldn't we? Certainly Oil was the reason that Iraq invaded Kuwait. And politicial leaders?

Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Thatcher, Bush II, Breshnev, Julius Caeser, Alexander, Hussein, Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet.....

Need I go on?

The myth is that Science and Religion are polar opposites.

Religion uses science, and science could use more religion.

Religion uses science?

From Mirriam Webster:

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED Date: 14th century 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study {the science of theology} b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge {have it down to a science} 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws {culinary science} 5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

Theology itself IS a science! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Science could use religion? Religions provide moral codes. Science without morals?
Unconsciousable Nazi experimentation
Cloning humans for body parts
Nuclear testing destroying the earth

Science without morals places the pursuit of knowledge itself as a religion rather than care for the race.

[ 06-16-2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Yorick: But nevermind. I'm sure all the billions of dollars spent on SETI programs to prove we are not alone (when all one has to do is pray.... ) wouldn't have been needed for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor or healing the sick at all. Would it?

just to point out something. there is NO WAY that the american and other govs (through nasa) have spent billions of dollars in SETI programs. as a matter of fact, it has had problems raising money to function properly (and it isnt so much in scale). potentially, what could be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race deserves much more than its being given, as the hole space program, that is severely underfunded (compare what nasa gets to what other govt institutions get and its sort of a joke).

[Yorick]

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: But nevermind. I'm sure all the billions of dollars spent on SETI programs to prove we are not alone (when all one has to do is pray.... ) wouldn't have been needed for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor or healing the sick at all. Would it?

just to point out something. there is NO WAY that the american and other govs (through nasa) have spent billions of dollars in SETI programs. as a matter of fact, it has had problems raising money to function properly (and it isnt so much in scale). potentially, what could be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race deserves much more than its being given, as the hole space program, that is severely underfunded (compare what nasa gets to what other govt institutions get and its sort of a joke).[/QUOTE]No I'd say that the fact that SETI exists at all, while your health system is in chaos is a joke. Where are the priorities? What do the children of scientists do if they are ill?

The biggest discovery for the human race would be eternal health would it not?. Immortality? Never dying?

Oh, but that's the domain of religions isn't it.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Science could use religion? Religions provide moral codes. Science without morals? Unconsciousable Nazi experimentation Cloning humans for body parts Nuclear testing destroying the earth Science without morals places the pursuit of knowledge itself as a religion rather than care for the race.

I think you misunderstood my post a bit Yorick.I wasnt trying to say one was more valid or true than the other. Just that one is somewhat more pallitable than the other because of its representatives. I havent heard of anybody going to war or killing people because of gravity or the theory of relativity.

Now for the quoted stuff. I fully believe that religeous moral dogma has NO place in scientific discovery.Science should be the pursuit of knowledge for no other reason than simply to know and see if things can be done.It should be based on factual and rational obsevation , NOT subjective feelings and predjudices. History has shown that religeon stands in the way of science. In the dark ages when everyone thought that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth the scientists who claimed otherwise like copernicus and gallileo, were put to death for heresy by the church. Nazi experiments , while they were terrible had to have yielded some new discoverys. I dont have any numbers or names ,but thousands of human experiments couldnt have been a total waste. Cloneing will be the treatment of the future as long as the religeious fanatics keep out of it. If you can clone a sheep , why not a human?? Why are people diffrent from sheep?Personaly if I needed a heart transplant , I would preffer one that was cloned from my own cells instead of one out of a dead person.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I think you misunderstood my post a bit Yorick.I wasnt trying to say one was more valid or true than the other. Just that one is somewhat more pallitable than the other because of its representatives. I havent heard of anybody going to war or killing people because of gravity or the theory of relativity. Now for the quoted stuff. I fully believe that religeous moral dogma has NO place in scientific discovery.Science should be the pursuit of knowledge for no other reason than simply to know and see if things can be done.It should be based on factual and rational obsevation , NOT subjective feelings and predjudices. History has shown that religeon stands in the way of science. In the dark ages when everyone thought that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth the scientists who claimed otherwise like copernicus and gallileo, were put to death for heresy by the church. Nazi experiments , while they were terrible had to have yielded some new discoverys. I dont have any numbers or names ,but thousands of human experiments couldnt have been a total waste. Cloneing will be the treatment of the future as long as the religeious fanatics keep out of it. If you can clone a sheep , why not a human?? Why are people diffrent from sheep?Personaly if I needed a heart transplant , I would preffer one that was cloned from my own cells instead of one out of a dead person.

I understood your post Hunter. Religion is never the cause of War. Human greed, fear, politics, racial hatred and conflicting needs are the cause of wars, not religions. All major world religions teach peace. There is one exception, but followers of this faith insist that those who goes to war in the name of Islam (meaning "way of peace") are misinterpreting the Qur'an.

Why do people misinterpret a Holy book? Well sometimes it's easier to bend what one perceives to be Gods will to justify a human agenda, instead of honestly asking God what his will is, or seeking wisdom from the said Holy book with an open mind, not looking for justifications.

I would argue that people HAVE gone to war over scientific discoveries, and that scientific discoveries have made war worse. Ala gunpowder, nuclear weapons, landmines, chemical weapons, etc etc.

Do we then say that Science causes war or that people MISUSE science?

Geography and geology are sciences. Discoveries of oil and gold have spurred war. Similarly various nations discoveries of new continents have sparked war between peoples.

Is the knowledge to blame or are people misusing it? Are religions of peace to blame or are people misusing it?

Secondly, knowing God for me has meant discovery and pursuit of knowledge is a MEANS TO AN END, rather than being an end in itself. Thus it is not an obsession, but something that I pursue because of both the enjoyment of it, and that it brings me closer to my creator.

We can never know everything.

[ 06-16-2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Scholarcs]

Originally posted by Sir Goulum: This is a discussion guys. No flaming or stuff like that. I think it isn't a religion. A religion has a god or a creator of some sort. Science has nothing but facts or theories.

You are saying that science is nothing but fact or theries, when religion itself is based upon theroies of existance of a God, or higher deity of some sort.