Science Vs Religion

[Hungry Joe.]

Religion and spiritualism are different things though. The Pagans were not followers of organised religion but believed in a natural spiritualism that has many similarities with Buddhism. Many of the things they believe(d) have a root in natural science. Neither of these can be accussed of crimes of religion or be fully explained by rationalism. Things that have been proved by science were once only believed in as faith. Science gives us the tools and explanations to explain the previously unexplainable. To reduce the argument to black & white and get on the 'relgion is the root of all evil' thing is too simplistic.

 

[Sorrel]

To reduce the argument to black & white and get on the 'relgion is the root of all evil' thing is too simplistic.

But sometimes worth it, just for the humour it brings.

 

[Brovion]

Definitely both, I certainly don't see them as exclusive. Science is great at explaining the mechanics of the universe, religion (well, Christianity anyway), gives it meaning.

Not a popular view I fear!

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Eh Buddhists can be accused of crimes of religion. Zen buddhism provided the philosohical foundation of the Samurai ethos which underpinned the atrocites of the Japanese in the second world war.

 

[larus]

The 2 things are not really linked.

One is an belief, the other is thought, investiagation & discovery.

If either is used badly, it is very bad. However, if used constructively, they both offer great benefits.

For example, more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason, yet science has been the main factor in making this easier.

On the other hand, religion can be a great way to harness people to achieve great things, either individually or combined, and science has been responsible for improving the quailty of lives for a great number of people on the planet.

As with most things in life, it's the manner in which the power is used that is good/evil.

Personally, I thank god I'm an atheist.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Eh Buddhists can be accused of crimes of religion. Zen buddhism provided the philosohical foundation of the Samurai ethos which underpinned the atrocites of the Japanese in the second world war.

That's stretching it a bit. Christianity provided the basis for many of Hitlers beliefs but you can't blame the Hollocaust on Christianity.

 

[Hannibal smith]

Science all the way. God didn't make the earth, matter did.

I believe we think we are more important than we are, we can't accept that the feeling of death is probably very similar to the one before we are born (i.e nothing), for things we cant explain we invent a higher being. This conveniently ignores the fact that if God invented us, who invented God? There is a scientific explanation for all these things, if there isn't I bet there will be some day.

If religion is your thing though, fine. I respect your values. Just don't ever;
(a) Knock on my door to try and tell me I should be following God. I don't knock on people's door asking them to support the Albion. I don't expect to be disturbed during Sky sports news by some God botherer and then get the hump when I tell them to go away.
(b) Impose your values on me with comments such as 'You shouldn't be drinking' (Muslims, one guy at work once that spent more time in the mosque than he did at his PC) 'That's not very Christian' (Christians who often display some of the most un-Christian values) or anything else that implies I should be living my life according to a 2000 year old book with less accuracy than your average copy of the Daily Star.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

Ok then, how do you explain how a bee can fly?

Conventional aerodynamic calculations are relatively simple, being based on large fixed wings and steady state or quasi-steady state flow.

Insect wings are small, flat, rough surfaced, and flexible. During flight they flex and twist in all kinds of horribly complicated ways. Also they are so small that important dimensional fluid analysis numbers like the Reynold's Number are very different, resulting in significantly different fluid characteristics when compared to the bigger wings of birds and airplanes (even a sparrow wing is huge compared to most insect wings). In addition, the small size and high speed of most insect wings makes it very difficult to study insect flight (imagine trying to attach a pressure sensor to an insect wing). Finally, the pressures and flow characteristics of the air around the wings are very unsteady, constantly changing as the wind flaps, bends, and twists, unlike aircraft wings which are stiff with relatively simple constant flow patterns and pressures.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

That's stretching it a bit. Christianity provided the basis for many of Hitlers beliefs but you can't blame the Hollocaust on Christianity.

Well without Christianity would anti-semitism have been so prevalent in Europe? It's interesting that in Moorish Spain the Jews were able to live in peace, but they weren't quite so lucky once the Catholics gained control.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Well without Christianity would anti-semitism have been so prevalent in Europe? It's interesting that in Moorish Spain the Jews were able to live in peace, but they weren't quite so lucky once the Catholics gained control.

That is true but what I meant is that you can't blame a belief structure for poeple abusing that belief later on to carry out their own agenda, which is nearly always political not religious.

 

[dougdeep]

Science exists, religion is man-made.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Science is boring. A bit of faith makes things more interesting.

 

[Cian]

Science. The only Faith I have is True Faith, 1987's best single...

 

[Yorkie]

Science exists, religion is man-made.

I agree entirely.

Vast amount of difference between religion and faith. It depends what you put your faith in.

Belief in God and science definitely balance each other out. I know a lot of highly qualified scientists who are practising Christians.

 

[¡Cereal Killer!]

Science is proven
Religious mumbo jumbo is not ever going to proven

my re teacher (is shit) starts going on about some shit which no one could possibly ever actually possibly prove to be true because it is like... (a few quotes from my RE book)

'In the kingdom of God, sin is a prision for the soul' WHAT?

'When God enters the heart, the kingodom of God is established' BOLLOCKS!

'A person must be ready to sacrifice other things for the sake of the kingdom' HUH?

FFS! WHY DO WE GET FORCED TO DO RE!

 

[Pevenseagull]

I have more letters after my name than in it to attest to my academic pursuit of matters scientific. That said, modern 'Science' disgusts me.

True science is an empirically based discipline. Empirical truth from anaysis is the goal - science fails. It is always pleasing to see the academic pursuit of Maths traditionally awarded as a BA.

There is little true empiricism in current scientific discipline, we are as blinkered as the 'flat-earth' generation in our acceptance of modern paradigms.

Much 'science' is now arrogantly accepted as 'proof' when in fact it is merely a reflection of our lazy acceptance of convenient models which fit our limited understanding of the true nature of 'stuff and things'.

Our percieved scientific proofs exists purely as a result of our acceptance of a degree of statistical tolerance in the veracity of our models. Nothing more. The statistical proofs come from the discipline of Math. Maths accepts its failings as a science.

Ergo, Science is bunk (in it's proposition to be 'truth' at least).

The spiritual/ religious is best left to The Flaming Lips:

'Now listen, I don't know the dimensions of outer space, but if our ability to feel love turns out to be just some cosmic accident, I'd like to think this means the universe is on our side'

here endith the lesson

 

[Pevenseagull]

did anyone mention football?

 

[Rangdo]

'A person must be ready to sacrifice other things for the sake of the kingdom' HUH?

Was this an extremist RE class?

 

[Sorrel]

Our percieved scientific proofs exists purely as a result of our acceptance of a degree of statistical tolerance in the veracity of our models. Nothing more.

This may be true, but science has lead to our modern cities, medicine, transport systems, and the computers we are all using. It has also made some headway in understanding how this planet came to be here, and what has caused things to be as they are. That's not bad for something that can't be proved to be absolutely "true".

It works, which is more than can be said for religion (however honest and well-meaning those who espouse it are).

 

[Pevenseagull]

This may be true, but science has lead to our modern cities, medicine, transport systems, and the computers we are all using. It has also made some headway in understanding how this planet came to be here, and what has caused things to be as they are. That's not bad for something that can't be proved to be absolutely "true".

It works, which is more than can be said for religion (however honest and well-meaning those who espouse it are).

True, but at the end of the day, in the late 80s I lived nearer the Wheatsheaf than you did, so I'm more likely to be right.