Science- Religion or Not?

[The Hierophant]

All proofs ultimately rest on prepositions that have no proof. We know things because we want to believe in them.
What exactly IS science? What exactly IS religion. Take care to clearly define what your own thoughts and opinions are before indulging in heated argument. Be aware that all definitions ultimately rest upon the fickle technology of homo sapiens language. Are 'religion' and 'science' really separate? Do they really exist as enitites in and of themselves? Is it all simply personalized philosophical interpretation?

I have no idea whatsoever. But I am eager to hear more opinion.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]Yorik a little off topic here: The USA health system is not in chaos, it's the finest in the world. Most of the medical advances in modern medicine have been made in the USA. It's paying to get health care that is the hard part, not the health care itself. But then nothing in life is free that comes from man.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Yorik a little off topic here: The USA health system is not in chaos, it's the finest in the world. Most of the medical advances in modern medicine have been made in the USA. It's paying to get health care that is the hard part, not the health care itself. But then nothing in life is free that comes from man.

Well paying for it is what I'm talking about. The finest in the world? Health coverage is ridiculously expensive in the USA. Far more than in any other nation. Families can either go practically broke with the premiums, or broke from uninsured medical expenses. It's frightening.

Doctors get paid more than in any other nation, but have their own insurance premiums that are through the roof.

Why? The culture of litigation prevalent in the United "it's always somebody elses fault" States.

I've been told that less individuals are taking up medicine, and that if not addressed, a doctor shortage will exist in the near future.

As far as medical advances, Australia is also a leader John. Yet we have universally subsidised health care.

It amazes me that there are people here who oppose the rich subsidising the poors health care at all, let alone an increase in line with other western nations.

[Yorick]

Always a pleasure talking to you BTW John. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Yorick, I think you are confusing science and technology here. The only goal that true scientists pursue is the understanding of the universe, for the sole sake of knowledge. Technologies based on new scientific knowledge come as a side effect. Scientists did NOT discover the nuclear bomb - scientists wanted to know what's inside atoms, and "applied researchers" used the scientist discoveries to suit their patron's agendas.

New scientific discoveries have brought new and deadlier ways to kill - they also provided new and awesome ways to heal ...

Morals don't need to apply to the scientific quest of How ? and Why ? It would be very wrong, IMO, if scientists refrained to pursue a trail to knowledge because of whatever morals.
Morals must apply to the USE we intend to do of technologies issued from scientific discoveries. Is it wrong to learn how a cell works ? No ! Is it wrong to use that knowledge to create cloned human beings ? Morally, yes. See ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Seems that science and religion are two ways aiming at the same goal : answering the question "WHY ?" ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 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?

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.[/QUOTE]Come on Yorick, you know that religion has easily been the basis for as many wars and the killings of people as politics over the long history of man. You also have to say, if you begrudge SETI and Other scientific endevors the dollars spent, you would also have to include all the billions collected by televangelists and other organized religions, and lets include money spent on comic books, computers, sporting equipment and on and on. You could argue that any money spent on anything but feeding the hungry and clothing the poor was a colosal iresponsible waste of time and money.

If you look at things in a certain way, all life is a waste of time and we should all just die so we can be with the creator now, rather than waste all this energy and time. I just don't understand the point of view you have on this subject....ahh well it isnt the first time [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh and an incredibly bad move and mean too to put those other leaders in the same catagory as Stalin and Hitler. If you really see no difference there there is a large discussion in and of itself.

[ 06-17-2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: 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).

We are in agreement possibly for the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The space program has been one of the more rewarding government endeavors. I think the tech funding for NASA is way too low. I suppose if man actually ever manages to transplant a population off the earth that would cause some problems for those who follow the Apocrypha and the book of revelations.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Is Science a religion?

Well, I've certainly seen enough members here argue against Religion because there is NO PROOF that God, Jesus, Noah, or the Garden of Eden ever existed. I've seen several members state that they only beleive in those things that CAN be proven by physical evidence and empirical data.

Therefore, it is reasonable to state that their beleif system is intrinsically connected to Science. So - science COULD be considered as their "religion".

Hunter of Jahanna stated that he does not care for the representatives or message of religion. This is a common argument. Non-beleivers often criticise the message of Hell's existence and use it as a reason to reject the Christianity.

Fair enough. Let's look at it from a scientific view. The laws of science have proven that you will recieve a painful burn if you stick your hand into an open flame. Is this the fault of Science? Does anybody "reject" Science because of this unpleasant result? No. But they do it all the time when discussing religion. Christians didn't "invent" Hell, and we also have NO control of who goes and who doesn't. But it is considered "our fault" when we tell people about this belief. And is used as the most common reason to reject Christianity out-of-hand.

Magik, I don't know what the SETI program is, but I'm sure that it is "funded" by our tax dollars. I believe this is Yorick's primary contention with it. ALL of the other examples you listed are voluntary expenditures. The individual chooses to spend his/her money on that particular cause. But we have NO control over how the gov't spends our tax dollars. That's an important difference.

Finally, Hunter gave examples of "unsavory" representatives of Christianity. True enough. As Yorick pointed out, you can find good and bad examples of leaders in BOTH religion and science. But if you're looking for a better Christian role model, I have one to offer.

He was born over 2000 years ago. During his short time on Earth (33 years), NOT ONCE did he ever harm another human being. He criticized the religious leaders of His time, even though He was considered the greatest religious figure of His time (and still is considered the greatest figure of ALL time by many people).

He went through the land preaching a message to love your neighbor and your enemy as you love yourself. Because of his criticism of the established religous leaders, he was persecuted and wrongfully sentenced to die. On the day of his death, he was beaten unmercifully. He was scourged with a whip, his beard was ripped out of his face by the roots, and his face was so brutalized that he was barely recognizable. A circlet of thorns was shoved down onto his head so forcibly that they dug into the flesh of his scalp, causing blood to run unchecked down his face.

He was then forced to carry the instrument of his death, a rough-hewn wooden cross, up the hill to the site of his execution. Once they arrived at the top of the hill, he was laid onto this cross and nine-inch nails were pounded through his wrists and feet, pinning him to the cross.

As he hung on the cross, dying from pain and thirst, the soldiers there mocked him. They spat upon him and gambled for his belongings. In the midst of this incredible torture, did Jesus lash out at his tormentors? Did he call on God to rain fire and brimstone on thier heads? No. Instead, He pleaded with God to FORGIVE them for thier actions.

You want a more "palatable" representative of Christianity? Look to the source - Jesus Christ.

All others (myself included) are just pale imitations by comparison.

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by norompanlasolas: 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).

We are in agreement possibly for the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The space program has been one of the more rewarding government endeavors. I think the tech funding for NASA is way too low. I suppose if man actually ever manages to transplant a population off the earth that would cause some problems for those who follow the Apocrypha and the book of revelations.[/QUOTE]yes indeed. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

and yes, when and if men ever manage to conquer space, and travel and live in other planets lots of religions will have a hard time adapting their faith (lets not even mention it if life outside earth is discovered... we are the chosen ones!). i guess version 2.0 of lots of holy books will start cropping up all over the place. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Arnabas]

It seems that this discussion is slowly leaning towards "which is better-- science or religion". Silly. We need both. As for the original question, I believe that science is religion. Belief makes reality, after all. Science is simply a religion that is so widely accepted, that is is viewed as fact by (almost) all. Think back several centuries and imagine someone who is dying of a certain disease. Perhaps a shaman or witch-doctor, or mage, or whatever, tells the man that he must drink a tea made from the bark of a certain tree. He explains that the spirit of the tree will go into the man and destroy the evil spirit making him ill. A more scientifically minded person would say that a chemical in the tree bark fights the infection, or disease. Your point of view determines which is "true". Regardless, the man is cured. The scientist and mage will disagree on why, but the end result is the same. A person today might be given a placebo and recover from his illness. His belief is what helps his immune system recover. Again, there are different points of view on why this is. Science, to me, is another way-- a more widely accepted way-- of explaining magic. People traditionally fear what they don't understand and science gave the masses a way to quantify and understand the unknown.
I'm probably going to get grief for my statements... I use a silly argument, I know, but I firmly accept that reality is based on our perception. We have a consensual reality based upon a scientific paradigm, but that does not erase the truth behind magic, religion, etc. Science is simply another way of explaining the same things, and as such is a religion.