The utterly false dichotomy of Religion Vs. Science

[Artimis]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

[chang50]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

How about living in a Buddhist country for 6 years,with a Buddhist wife and adopted kids?
In theory you should be correct,yet no Buddhist country has been in the forefront of any branch of science as far as I know.Perhaps belief in reincarnation affects attitudes to innovation,research and the work ethic in general,leading to a fatalism and superstitiousness that doesn't encourage one to try to better this temporary life.And Buddhists are spectacularly superstitious believe me..

[BoganGod]

Interesting commentary on Buddhism.
Buddhism meshes well with philosophy not science. Any muppet that suggest philosophy is science the line to blow me starts here. Whilst philosophy and science have observation in common. What/how they attribute motivation to the events observed is vastly different.

A family member who is a professor describes herself as an existentialist buddhist. Two philosophies that seem to mesh quite nicely.

Rather than discussing science and religion. Maybe we should be discussing the type of people that gravitate towards the two afore mentioned "meaning" systems.

In my more serious moments(very rare and few and far between),I've been a searcher. Grew up in a christian cult, tried most brands of christianity, and a few other world religions. Would love to believe in the divine, don't see clear evidence to support such a belief. Maybe born sceptics and religion are not compatible. Though some would suggest my search is evidence of belief. Me I just think I'm dumb enough to hope against the odds. The religion that I found myself most comfortable in was Islam. Not the most scientific embracing faith on this planet. Can a person like myself ever believe in a God and follow a religion? Without some how suffering a loss of "belief" in science.

[mrswdk]

The natural sciences actually emerged from within the discipline of Philosophy.

[thegreekdog]

Getting back on track.

From my perspective the Religion that would mesh best with Science is Buddhism(yes I know that the status of Buddhism as a religion is still debated, don't go dragging that in here! Make another thread.)

The scientific method would agree with the Noble Eightfold Path on;

• the Right View
• the Right Speech
• the Right Mindfulness

But in the narrow range of medical and other biological research it tends to run afoul of;

• the Right Action
• the Right Livelihood

That's not the whole story by a long shot, so I'd welcome some input from any Buddhists who want to pass comment. To me, the emphasis on improvement and harmlessness to others lends itself to Science quite well.


As for Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and any other religions of note, how would religious representatives describe relations between their religion and the scientific method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... nd_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca ... scientists

[BoganGod]

The natural sciences actually emerged from within the discipline of Philosophy.

I'm unzipping now.

[Artimis]

I'm unzipping now.

Put it away, BG.

Natural Philosophy, that was 'science' before it was called 'science'. Isaac Newton is hailed as the Father of Physics, but he wasn't called a Physicist. In fact he was better known for his contributions to Mathematics than for his work in Natural Philosophy. Natural Philosophy eventually developed into different fields of scientific study that we all recognise today, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Philosophy does not equate to science, but that's where science came from.

An interesting tangent, but lets get back to discussing the conflict between Science and Religion or the lack thereof.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm unzipping now.

Put it away, BG.

Natural Philosophy, that was 'science' before it was called 'science'. Isaac Newton is hailed as the Father of Physics, but he wasn't called a Physicist. In fact he was better known for his contributions to Mathematics than for his work in Natural Philosophy. Natural Philosophy eventually developed into different fields of scientific study that we all recognise today, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Philosophy does not equate to science, but that's where science came from.

An interesting tangent, but lets get back to discussing the conflict between Science and Religion or the lack thereof.

I think it's more accurate to say that philosophy and science (as we understand them today) came from the same school of thinkers, which were neither philosophers or scientists in modern parlance. Philosophy comes from the greek for loving wisdom, and the Ancient Greeks didn't separate out these various fields when it came to obtaining wisdom, at least partially because so little was comparatively known then that you could become an expert in all of these fields in a lifetime, if you were intelligent enough. Don't be fooled by the fact that they were called 'philosophers' into thinking that science is an offshoot of what we now think of as metaphysics.

[crispybits]

I always liked the saying "philosophy is about what questions you ask, science is about getting answers to those questions."

On topic (or OP topic at least) I think the conflict comes from one thing.

If everything between the |s is the sum of all knowledge, and everything between the ()s is the sum of what we know right now:

Science:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|

Religion:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)-----UNKNOWN-------/-----GOD-------|

That's slightly simplified, but religion is attemtping to confidently give answers about things which fall into the unknown section of knowledge. Science doesn't claim to prove that God does or doesn't exist (though it can fairly easily disprove the truth of most of the literal readings of a lot of holy books), but religion claims answers where it cannot possibly have them. Which is fine in the privacy of your own head, but when it attempts to enforce those beliefs upon people who do not agree with them is just downright rude

There would be no conflict if the religious section of society actually respected the rights of everyone else to not believe the same thing they do and just get on with their lives within societally accepted boundaries of morality and ethics however they liked, but instead they try to claim that because their religion is for or against something that everyone should automatically be forced to live by those same rules and beliefs. Science didn't start the fight, unless you count finding out true things about the world that directly contradict the magic books...

[_sabotage_]

Science:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|= dominate each other

God:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)----------UNKNOWN-------|= live and let live

[crispybits]

Live and let live huh Sab? I'm gonna go marry my gay lover now, anyone want to let me live and let live... oh yeah that's right the religious bigots are stopping me...

[_sabotage_]

Exactly, religious bigots who have ignored every word of Jesus to justify their prejudice, while claiming their authority through Him. This is a product of religion, not of God.

Jesus did not say, if you wish to follow me, follow others who have stopped following me.

The Russell brand video posted by 2dimes is a good example, everyone on the stage claims to be religious, but only two forgot the law from which all others come.

[crispybits]

Just as well this is about religion vs science and not God vs science then - you're actually agreeing with me I now see

[AndyDufresne]

Interesting commentary on Buddhism.
Buddhism meshes well with philosophy not science. Any muppet that suggest philosophy is science the line to blow me starts here. Whilst philosophy and science have observation in common. What/how they attribute motivation to the events observed is vastly different.

A family member who is a professor describes herself as an existentialist buddhist. Two philosophies that seem to mesh quite nicely.

Rather than discussing science and religion. Maybe we should be discussing the type of people that gravitate towards the two afore mentioned "meaning" systems.

In my more serious moments(very rare and few and far between),I've been a searcher. Grew up in a christian cult, tried most brands of christianity, and a few other world religions. Would love to believe in the divine, don't see clear evidence to support such a belief. Maybe born sceptics and religion are not compatible. Though some would suggest my search is evidence of belief. Me I just think I'm dumb enough to hope against the odds. The religion that I found myself most comfortable in was Islam. Not the most scientific embracing faith on this planet. Can a person like myself ever believe in a God and follow a religion? Without some how suffering a loss of "belief" in science.

Here is an interesting little article from i09, about the Dalai Lama: http://io9.com/5942616/dalai-lama-tells ... r-adequate

This past Monday [Sep 2012], people who have the Dalai Lama as a Facebook friend found this little gem in their newsfeed.

All the world's major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

The Dalai Lama's advice sounds startling familiar — one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions. The Dalai Lama is no stranger to scientific discourse, and has developed a great fascination with neuroscience in particular. It's very possible, therefore, that his thinking has aligned with Harris.

...

It's important to remember that Tibetan Buddhists, while rejecting belief in God and the soul, still cling to various metaphysical beliefs, including karma, infinite rebirths, and reincarnation. But interestingly, the Dalai Lama once had this to say on the subject:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Other Buddhists, however, such as Stephen Batchelor, argue that Buddhism should be stripped of all its metaphysical baggage and simplified down to its basic philosophical and existential tenets — a suggestion that has given rise to secular Buddhism.

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

If religion is based on God, and our understanding of God based on Jesus, and Jesus tells us the key is to do unto others as you'd have others do onto you, then the essence of what we are discussing is:

Wherein lies the difference between the "scientific" view and the "Christian" view?

According to Jesus, science is a necessity. The study of the world gives us a better understanding of God, because God is the world. Because others distort this understanding, doesn't mean you can feel free to opt out of the words of Jesus in exchange for those spoken by others to justify yourself.

You placed God in the unknown, but God is both known and unknown, and in doing so you have either:

1. chosen a strawman,
2. don't understand the words of Jesus.

Neither are fit in a discussion of religion or science.

[BigBallinStalin]

Exactly, religious bigots who have ignored every word of Jesus to justify their prejudice, while claiming their authority through Him. This is a product of religion, not of God.

Good example. Religion, unorganized and organized alike, lead to widely different interpretations because religion doesn't require any relatively objective standard for determining the truth of one's interpretations--unlike science.

The latter part of your argument is in the following bolded area:

Religion:
|(-----------KNOWN---------)-----UNKNOWN-------/-----GOD-------|


It also reminds me of the 'no true Scotsman' argument.

Whatever is bad, it's because of religion--not god. "They're no true followers of God."
Whatever is good, it's because of god--not whatever. "Ah, such true followers of God."

[crispybits]

See now Sabotage, I like the golden rule, it's actually the basis of most secular moral codes you'll find out and about, but it predates Jesus by several hundred years and is not by any means definitely originated from religion.

I feel free to "opt out" of anything I find nonsensical, harmful or incorrect. Some of that is stuff Jesus said, some of it is stuff other people have said. The source of the message matters not a bit compared to the content.

But if that's how you work things out then I'm curious, what did Jesus say about whether I should drive to work, causing very slightly increased pollution, and spend the extra time I have available helping a local charity, or cycle to work, costing me a lot of time, and just give the negligible gas money, that won't make nearly as much difference as my volunteer time, to that charity?

[_sabotage_]

The objective standard should be that of Jesus, and it is.

Jesus said, He without sin shall cast the first stone.

If someone who claims to follow Jesus is casting stones, then he is not following Jesus. There are many scientific equivalents. For example, when someone suggested that life had been made in a petri dish in another thread, they weren't following science, they were merely using one experiment that justified their view. The actual experiment didn't produce life, just amino acids; it was done under the wrong controls; and it has not been replicated under appropriate controls and amino acids have never been shown to spontaneously produce life. Yet this is given as "science". This is no different from taking the clear unambiguous sayings of Jesus and misconstruing them and no less a standard.

[_sabotage_]

He said:

Give onto Caesar what is Caesars, give onto God what is God's and give onto me what is mine.

When JP Morgan ceased funding for Tesla's free energy tower, what motivated him? When the US government shut down the successful thorium project what motivated them?

If humans had been motivated by the Golden Rule, then you wouldn't have to drive to work, worry about pollution and there wouldn't be a charity. We have created this world with a set of beliefs, and those sets of beliefs are reflected in the world we have.

So my question to you; should we do onto others as we would have others do onto us if it is survival of the fittest?

[crispybits]

Social darwinism has been thoroughly discredited. Nobody is saying (well, OK, nobody reasonable) that we should model our societies on darwinian survival of the fittest principles. We have evolved as co-operational social animals and the model for competitive survival is different from the model for co-operational survival. We changed the game in some respects.

My question still stands, given a choice between causing 10 evils to do 20 goods, or causing 5 evils to do 10 goods, or causing no evil and doing no good, which is better, the lesser evil or the more good? Please reference a chapter and verse where Jesus tells me which option I should choose in this hypothetical (and very broad) scenario...

[BigBallinStalin]

The objective standard should be that of Jesus, and it is.

Jesus said, He without sin shall cast the first stone.

If someone who claims to follow Jesus is casting stones, then he is not following Jesus. There are many scientific equivalents. For example, when someone suggested that life had been made in a petri dish in another thread, they weren't following science, they were merely using one experiment that justified their view. The actual experiment didn't produce life, just amino acids; it was done under the wrong controls; and it has not been replicated under appropriate controls and amino acids have never been shown to spontaneously produce life. Yet this is given as "science". This is no different from taking the clear unambiguous sayings of Jesus and misconstruing them and no less a standard.

Your 'objective' standard is subject to your subjective standards, so all you're doing is providing additional support for my argument.

[_sabotage_]

Then please reference a specific example.

In the previous example, we do see the effects of social darwinism, even if they aren't saying it. The society which we have developed has based itself on the potential for evil and this is our free will.

If you wish to maintain the first example, I would say:

Plant some fruit trees at the charitable site in your free time to offset the pollution, provide a better environment for the charity and save them some operation costs.

BBS

Your objective standards in science can also be considered subjective, but throwing a stone is throwing a stone. So all you're doing is providing support for my argument.

[AndyDufresne]

Objects? Subjects? What is all of this predicated on?


--Andy

[Lootifer]

man i love the word predicated

[BigBallinStalin]

Then please reference a specific example.

In the previous example, we do see the effects of social darwinism, even if they aren't saying it. The society which we have developed has based itself on the potential for evil and this is our free will.

If you wish to maintain the first example, I would say:

Plant some fruit trees at the charitable site in your free time to offset the pollution, provide a better environment for the charity and save them some operation costs.

BBS

Your objective standards in science can also be considered subjective, but throwing a stone is throwing a stone. So all you're doing is providing support for my argument.

There is a metaphysical issue on the objectivity derived from science, but for the most part that's not troubling, and it still doesn't lead us to conclude that subjective interpretations on this special book but not those special books is the superior way for generating useful knowledge about the universe and humans.

I've already mentioned the role of hypotheses to you, but you neglected that, so I don't see how providing more examples would be helpful.