View Full Version : why the science cannot abolish[vacate]the religion?
adi chicago
01-25-2007, 07:48 PM
why the science cannot abolish [vacate]the religion?
rfbdorf
01-26-2007, 01:39 AM
Science is an attempt to explain the "how."
Religion is an attempt to explain the "why."
IMHO they should not overlap.
- Richard
Rbrauer
01-26-2007, 08:44 AM
Who says one has to dominate or eliminate the other?
Why?
Foolish Old
01-26-2007, 08:46 AM
Science is an attempt to explain the "how."
Religion is an attempt to explain the "why."
IMHO they should not overlap.
- Richard
The overlap is inevitable, the competition is regrettable.
Adrian
01-26-2007, 12:46 PM
why the science cannot abolish [vacate]the religion?
Science will never be able to categorically prove that religion is baseless, nor is that its purpose. Religions around the world commonly proclaim that faith, despite a lack of evidence for their particular version of truth, is a commendable quality and if you can sustain belief in the face of contrary evidence then that earns you real kudos with you particular deity.
If belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is something to aspire to then scientific evidence that contradicts the "truth" of a particular religion will never persuade the devotees of that religion.
Science and religion will disagree about mechanisms for things happening but science can not prove their is not a god. However, as Richard Dawkins points out, being unable to prove the non existence of a god does not inevitably mean that the probability of that particular god's existence is 50:50. People can apply scientific knowledge to speculate about the probability of a god but that god is not a testable hypothesis due to the nature of the claims that religions make about their gods. Religion's rasion d'etre seems to be non-testable claims about the purpose of life wheras science is more about testable ideas on the nature of things and as such they are not necessarily competing for the same territory and they should be able to co-exist even if they find each other baffling.
chick
01-26-2007, 01:07 PM
why the science cannot abolish [vacate]the religion?Why even try?
Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Science, despite how much one attempts to keep it objective, is not so sterile and independent of our thoughts, beliefs and understanding. It helps shape, guide and influence our understanding and knowledge, but it is inevitable that some of our beliefs will be injected into scientific processes - examination and/or interpretation.
Why want to abolish beliefs that have inspired music, art, language...and even Science itself? Why want to abolish a People's way of living and Being?
chick
01-26-2007, 01:50 PM
Also...
it is a part of our History, ALL our history. Whether one believes in any god or practice any specific religion, it is a part of human history. Why want to abolish or remove, or even deny, any history?
NoDecafPlz
01-26-2007, 04:38 PM
This seemed like it might apply to this conversation, unfortunetly.
Jesus Camp
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8877708936425212842&q=Jesus+Camp+duration%3Along&hl=en
Many scientists who are believers feel that they seek for god as they travel their lives while pursuing scientific affirmation, hoping maybe to one day stand before him and announce it to a hungry world. Non believing scientists feel that their lives are dedicated to a quest, the goal being the final and ultimate denunciation of god and the glory of nothingness.
These two attitudes are often times replicated by ordinary non-scientific people the world over.
rfbdorf
01-27-2007, 01:55 AM
...Non believing scientists feel that their lives are dedicated to a quest, the goal being the final and ultimate denunciation of god and the glory of nothingness...I disagree with that part of your statement. One cannot denunciate a nonentity. The non-believing scientist is not out to prove that there is no God. His quest is to explain the "how" of it all. He claims that there is not necessarily a "why," unless it is the "why" that can be explained as a consequence of natural laws. The non-believing scientist is as much in awe of the glory and wonder of the universe as is the believer - perhaps more, as he does not believe it to be merely an artifice of another being.
Nevertheless, I also agree with chick.
- Richard