Science beats religion if...:

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop you there: When has mankind NOT been "at the edge of extinction", and what evidence do you have that science has in any way exacerbated that situation?

K, have to ask, how is science any more responsible for those things than religion?

Science has given us family planning, religion has told us it's evil and that we shouldn't use it. So it's science's fault the world is too over-populated to sustain itself, right? Science invents power sources and processes of synthesis that produce nominal harmful waste, but is it Science's fault if some **** decides to dump it in a natural spring upriver from a load of Indian villages?

Do we think that a religious person would never do such a thing, because they are religious? Do you have past form that I'm unaware of that would indicate that our religious institutions would not create situations that required conscientiousness and careful handling, and then just do whatever they felt like with them?

This is why I've mentioned over-population. We're fighting over land because our religions hold true to long-out-dated doctrines designed to keep the population up.

I'd agree that a religion, or at least a system of morals with more impetus behind it than "wouldn't it be nice if we all did x y z?", ought to work hand in hand with science to ensure that it doesn't get "carried away", so to speak. But I don't see any existing religion being up to the job. Their hands are too dirty and they're too afraid of outright admitting that they got stuff wrong.

What I meant, and what I thought I said, had the emphasis very much on the "if". I want the Science crowd to explain what harm religion does, whether organised or otherwise. I am NOT, categorically NOT, saying it doesn't do any harm. I am simply canvassing for opinions.

I don't think it does do anyone any good to believe in fairy stories that we as much as know aren't true; society has shown that it can cherrypick the important bits out without it being sugar-coated and sanitised for them. I am simply asking what harm people think it does us. There are plenty of things we do that are harmful in ways that only directly affect us - drinking, smoking, eating salty foods, etc. - so I'm asking why a religious belief should be seen as inherently any more harmful.

I want to clear that up, as I think you're misreading me. I am not defending religion so much as asking for attacks religion to be based on more than received wisdom.

Why is religion any more valid as a resource for that usher than, say, a set of rules we come up with collectively, that isn't shrouded in mysticism for the sake of it? Could we not, for example, take the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins, throw out the ones we don't like, and make a kind of Golden Age Constitution? Why does God need to be involved?

And once again, show me this evidence that mankind has been "brought to the edge of extinction" by science, or at all for that matter.

Re: this, don't make the mistake of thinking that fanatics of religion OR science OR political ideology can do anything like the harm that they do on their own. They do it with the passive complicity of millions.

 

I guess I have to ask; what evidence do you have that before the atomic bomb, mankind was on the edge of extinction? I just don't see it.

As for "what evidence do you have that science has in any way exacerbated that situation", I have to ask have you looked around lately? For one, let's just take the above mentioned scientific invention, the atomic bomb, without science, no bomb and no button to push to extinguish mankind instantly. Instant extinction seems to me to be a exacerbation of the problem. And that's not even talking about science's hand in pollution and global warming.

 

Most of this comment, it seems to me comes from either a failure to read or understand what I wrote. If it is the latter I will will try to reword it if you wish.

 

Remember I said:

So once again I would ask where is this Golden Age Constitution? Also where did the Ten Commandments come from? By using the Ten Commandments you are already involving God. As for leaving God out isn’t how we got into this mess in the first place?

 

Thanx, but I don't. In fact that my whole point.

 

I don't see the evidence that we're on the edge of extinction now. There are more humans on the planet than there've ever been. The size of our population, combined with our scientific ingenuity and ability to preserve our own lives (which I'm sure you'll argue with, but humour me) pretty much forbids the possibility that, barring a major, as in planet-destroying event, which would almost certainly be totally beyond our control, mankind will not go extinct.

Well, aside from the rather tedious "Science doesn't drop the bomb, it only builds it" angle, I'd ask how long it's been since someone actually used an atomic bomb (rather than "tested" it).

You've cited an example of science "gone awry" in which, ironically, science has taught us total restraint. We used the bomb, instantly regretted it, and didn't use it again. Obviously it's too early to tell how permanent that will be, but I fail to see how this is in any way evidence that science is ushering in our extinction.

Blaming human actions on some grand "Science" entity is pretty absurd, as absurd as doing the same with "Religion", and I think we can both agree on that. But even taking that into account, I don't see the atom bomb as a great example of science running amok or needing religion to tell it what to do and not to do.

In general, I think we are saying the same thing - that science is good or bad depending on how it's applied by people. If people use the knowledge that we as a people have gained through science in an irresponsible manner, is it the science's fault? Should we restrict people from access to information, in cause they misuse it? That would seem to be the suggestion, unless you think there's another way to reign people in that doesn't depend on them using their judgement.

I'm pretty sure the same can be said of religion, philosophy, ideology, whatever. Give one guy a theory or a maxim, and it's him that will decide whether to read it with interest, or apply it to destructive purpose. Information is just information, it isn't good or bad.

 

I will probably get attacked for this , and i dont call myself a Christian by any means , but i consider myself religious in my own way....but , the way I look at it is...God , or the supreme being , whatever you want to call it , gave the scientist's the knowledge to do all the things they are doing.
So...I trust in my religious beliefs more than I do science.

 

First if I’m misreading you, It won’t be the first time I’m misread someone and probably won’t be the last but if I am, I apologize.

The main reason I replied to this thread is things it implies. Let’s take a look:

Which implies that Science is good, beneficial and true while Religion is bad, harmful and false.

Even in your some what half hearted defense of religion you mention nothing good about religion only how it has been misused to harm mankind.

Which brings us to your question; Can we believe whatever we want if we were never going to be scientists either way? Which is really asking; can we believe whatever we want, even if it is bad, harmful and false, if we were never going to be scientists, who believe in whatever is good, beneficial and true, either way?

You now state, that you are asking for “attacks religion to be based on more than received wisdom”, well that’s what I have been doing, merely pointing out that the “received wisdom” that all science is “good, beneficial and true”, “Tain’t necessarily so”.

 

I don't understand the question. You're the one who brought up some possible Golden Age and placed it in the future. So why would a "Golden Age Constitution" exist if we're not in said Golden Age?

In answer to what I think you're trying to ask here, scientists do, for the most part, operate under codes of ethics during their research. I don't know what more you want from them. Do you believe, for example, that the man who discovered that an atom bomb could be invented should be charged with the deaths of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima? Would anything be served by that?

What mess?

Sorry, but no, you'd be totally wrong. Enough non-Christians have said substantially the same things as the Ten Commandments that it's absurd to attribute them to one religion or another. And I'd argue that, if the Bible wasn't substantially agreeing with the morality people followed already, Christianity would never have become a popular religion, just as a religion that tells people to kill themselves is never going to attain as wide a popularity as one that tells them not to.

So no, I do not buy this at all. The absence of a particular god from the equation is not a problem. All God represents in these rules is negative consequences of doing them. It's actually a very forward thinking idea, to use the fear of punishment as a self-perpetuating impetus not to commit the crime.

Christian societies should not have any legal system really; if we are judged by God after death, what need is there to uphold God's law over a society during this life? Few Christian societies do this; people are punished in one way or another for noncompliance with God's will. This should, of course, be seen as "overkill"; why punish someone for a crime, if you truly believe that they will be punished for it for all eternity when they die?

I'm not entirely sure of the answer, but it does suggest that people want order and want to follow rules, and want to see those who do not follow those rules punished. So the will is there to have rules without instilling them with the fear of God.

I do understand what you are saying, but I do not agree, at all, that the absence of God is getting us into "this mess" that you think we're in.

 

Nope, No attack. But I will say that, I don't believe God gave the knowledge to the Scientists. I believe he created the universe and us as well and gave us the ability to discover the facts and science of the universe as well as the way to mature to use those facts in a beneficial way. I just feel mankind has pursued science and has not bothered to mature at the same time thus the harmful effect of what should be of benefit us

 

No, it doesn't. I wished to outline clearly that I understood the arguments made against religion before I asked the question, but the question was this:

"If a person is not going to contribute any more to the world as a result of giving up their irrational beliefs than they would if they didn't, does Science actually have a counter-argument?
In more simple terms: can we believe whatever we want if we were never going to be scientists either way?"

My defense of religion is "half-hearted" purely because I am not especially a religious person. I believe that there is not much good that religion has done that couldn't be done without it, and that religion very often gets the credit (as well as the blame) for human endeavour where religion is purely incidental.

I'd cite as an example the war over whether Einstein believed in God or not, as if it has anything to do with why they are fighting over Einstein (i.e. the fact that he was a smart guy who came up with an important theory). Einstein's religion is irrelevant to why he is considered a great man, so his religious beliefs shouldn't lend any more weight to either "side" of a Science vs. Religion debate than anyone else's.

Wandered off topic a bit there, but I would argue that there's no reason to believe an achievement can be "claimed" by Religion purely because a religious man achieved it; unless we know whether he would have done it had he been atheist, it's no evidence that religion is good. Ditto science, in some respect: would the guy who dropped the atom bomb have been a wonderful person if he'd only had a slightly smaller bomb, or a club with a nail in it?

Sorry, how is that what I'm "really asking"? I honestly don't see how you can get from my words to that implication without a shitload of pre-existing prejudices, which is precisely what I'm trying to cut through with this thread: the idea that religion and science are diametrically opposed Just Because.

What I actually asked, and what I thought I'd made abundantly clear, as whether the anti-religious crowd can offer an objection to religious beliefs that aren't harmful, even if they are definitely totally inaccurate.

Hence my citing the flat earth. We know the Earth is round. It being flat, and us yet living as we do, would conflict with every law of physics we know of. So someone believing the Earth to be flat would be believing something that is definitely untrue. But if that person isn't going to orbit the Earth, or be involved in aviation, or whatever, does it really matter if they believe something absolutely wrong, purely because it is wrong?

That's all I was asking, so you've seriously misread me if you think I'm even buying into the binary "Science vs Religion" argument.

To be honest, "science has brought mankind to the edge of extinction" doesn't sound any less "received". You do understand that received wisdom is simply popular opinion that people have never bothered to support, right? That doesn't imply that an individual received wisdom is wrong purely because it is received, only that it has not been supported - yet. I ask for attacks on religion to be based on more than received wisdom because I think that there could be evidence to base them on, not because I am pro-religion and want some anti-science received wisdom to balance things out!

 

Shouldn't you trust them the same amount? If scientists are given their knowledge by God, they're as reliable as any of the prophets in the Bible; they receive information from God, and hopefully they will use it as God intended.

 

I both read and understood what you wrote. Maybe you didn't say what you meant. Or maybe we just disagree. Stranger things have happened!

You've offered no evidence that science is flawed or bad, just that bad things can be done with knowledge gained through the scientific process. This I would see as equivalent, maybe, to the abuse of people's faith in God, ghosts or whatever else to manipulate them. It is not their faith that is bad, it is the person manipulating them.

Sort of like blaming a gun for murdering someone, isn't it?

 

I guess I could use as evidence the fact that you said:

Which seems to indicate that at least a little while ago you seemed to believe that mankind has always been on the brink of extinction and only wanted to know how science had made it worse.

 

No..men are prone to ego boosting and can make mistakes , and use their knowledge , twisting it to THEIR ideas and how they think things should be.
The Great spirit makes no mistakes , but he allows men the right to make their own...thus...I wouldnt put all my trust in man.

 

Then perhaps you just over looked this statement:

 

Ah, I see the confusion. I was speaking rhetorically, in the same manner that one might also say "When has society not been 'going to the dogs'?" People have been claiming that the end is near, that doom is coming, that society will collapse, that we will go extinct etc. for centuries, and they get away with it because no-one gets angry when they discover that, no, actually society's alright.

So my point is that Man is as close to the edge of extinction now as he was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or at pretty much any time since we recovered from the Black Death. We're a successful species in terms of survival and - importantly - considering and insuring future survival. We're also adaptive. You cite global warming as if it's going to wipe us out; why do you think that will be the case? Life on Earth has survived countless disasters. I'm not denying that global warming is happening or that it's probably at least partly our fault, but why do you think it's evidence that we're "on the edge of extinction"?

EDIT: I'm pretty sure, also, that it's fallacious to use a question I've asked in response to a point as evidence to support that point. If it's not, it really should be.

 

I didn't. I just don't really see what it has to do with the point you're making. Maybe you should explain what science and religion are "meant for", and by whom they are "meant"? Because you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in innate purpose, who believes in evolution, and thus believes that even the extinction of a species is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Mankind exists because thousands of species don't.

EDIT: and Science doesn't look for "whys". It looks for a situation in which the universe as it is now was inevitable. We don't have gravity because it's useful; we have it because, at some point in the distant past, circumstances existed which meant that gravity would have to happen. This doesn't conflict with God, because there will always be the question of why those circumstances existed. Science will be able to tell you the circumstances that led to them, and so on, without the luxury of declaring that it's probably just "turtles all the way down", but it doesn't seek to tell you why.

 

Then perhaps you just over looked this statement:

Okay let’s take a look.

Now read carefully, do you notice that you say I have “no evidence that science is flawed or bad” and yet I never said that it was. What I did say was “the problem is not with religion just as the problem is not with science”.

You say; “just that bad things can be done with knowledge gained through the scientific process. This I would see as equivalent, maybe, to the abuse of people's faith in God” but again I already said that when I said; “the problem is not with religion just as the problem is not with science” and “Both science and religion are being used for purposes they were never intended to be used for”.

Then you finish up with the ills. of: Sort of like blaming a gun for murdering someone, isn't it? When I had already used an ills. to show almost the same thing earlier.

Don’t know but seems like you missed it to me.

 

Isn't the argument that there's nothing wrong with science kind of inconsistent when you've also claimed that science has "brought us to the edge of extinction" and then list numerous examples? Hard to read that any other way.


EDIT: And your analogy re: the sledgehammer and the watch isn't the same really, I think. It implies that we are using the wrong tool for the task, not that we are using the right tool for a task and then blaming that tool for the consequences of doing it. A gun isn't the wrong tool for killing people with, is it?