Can religion tell us more than science?

[ll_billym]

What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.... The last paragraph from the link below.

A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.

Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.

I'm interested in your thoughts...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

[beso]

There are degrees of imperfection. Placing science and religion on a par in this regard is quite ridiculous.

Indeed describing religion as imperfect is a gross understatement.

The only perfection in religion is that it is perfect bullsh1t.

[Clanad]

A world view or philosophy serves the added purpose of explaining why... whereas science, in all its manifold examples, explains the how... and, as in either, one may do with it as one wishes. Nothing in any science provides an answer to "why"... which is an equally valid question as "how"... in my opinion...

[LazyGun]

Steven J Gould, an eminent biologist, used to talk about NOMA -Non Overlapping Magisteria- when talking about Religion and Science - that science was the magisteria of the empirical -the fact and theory of what the universe is made of , whereas questions over the meaning of life, moral values etc was the magisteria of religion - and there was no overlap - according to Gould, science could not offer anything meaningful to the debate about morality, or ethics, or the way we live our lives. Nor could the
magisteria of religion contribute anything meaningful to scientific discussion.

It found a lot of favour amongst those who have some sort of religious belief, but it is of course,utter tosh.

The quoted article seems arrive a similar conclusion - but it is a conclusion that is false. So is his assertion that our brains are insufficiently evolved to fully appreciate the majesty and mystery of the universe- Utter rubbish, and pretty insulting too.The whole article smacks of those of faith trying to find a role for "belief in the absence of evidence", and failing miserably to do so.

Science, evidence and the scientific method has lots to contribute to how we live our lives, what constitutes morality etc. Religion on the other hand has nothing at all to offer to science, and is indeed simply a repository of myth, superstition and wishful thinking; a sinkhole of racism, mysogeny and homophobia; an ever- renewing font of mistrust, xenophobia and violence - a massive, stultifying anchor on humanities development.

[jomifl]

There is no 'why' because there was no 'creator'.

[keyplus90]

Science can only tell you about the material things and life that human being face is not all material. Then science usually make U turn and religions do not.

[keyplus90]

Sorry, hit the enter by mistake,

Having said that I have no problem in believing in proven scientific facts as none of them collide with my religious belief however I do not believe in theories as they are prone to U turns.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //Then science usually make U turn and religions do not. //

In other words, science progresses - religions remain in the dark ages.

[sandyRoe]

Leaving aside the question of whether there's a god or not, if religion helps people through the grief and disappointment that life can bring, is it entirely a bad thing?

[beso]

Science does explain "why". Things happened simply because they could. Biology is a consequence of chemistry and the opportunities provided by the unimaginable vastness of the Universe.

The presumption of religion as an authority over morality is probably the most rediculous claim of all.

As Keyplus says religion goes boldly on into subjects where they haven't a clue. If anything in science conflicts with their dogma they simply claim it is just a theory and has no proof. The fact that thereis zero proof for any religious claim doesn't seem to bother them.

[beso]

Religion is a driving force behind the grief and disappointment of many.

[sandyRoe]

Religion can show us how to meet our end with equanimity. That's something science can't do, as far as I know.

[beso]

Mother Teressa died feeling as though she hadn't done enough. Fat lot of good religion did for her.

[emmie]

religion doesn't make u turns, tell that to the Pope. Patent nonsense that any could believe in an almight being, with all the wars, and misery brought about by religious differences, and as to turning to religion when the end comes, sorry not my idea of rational thought.

[jomifl]

Sandy I am an atheist and I can assure you from personal experience that atheists can come to terms with facing imminent death as well as believers. You are being hoodwinked by the church if they have told you otherwise.

[naomi24]

Beso, //If anything in science conflicts with their dogma they simply claim it is just a theory and has no proof.//

......unless you're a Muslim scholar - or blogger - who spends his time massaging the words of the book in an effort to make them appear to fit the science.

Sandy, //Religion can show us how to meet our end with equanimity.//

...or with unimaginable terror!

[mibn2cweus]

////Sandy, //Religion can show us how to meet our end with equanimity.//

...or with unimaginable terror!////

How true Naomi. Nothing like the prospect of eternal damnation and torment festering in one's imagination, if it should turn out that one had been praying to the wrong 'god' all along, to make the act of dying itself seem like a picnic.

[chakka35]

Clanad - It's an old mantra that "Science explains the How? while religion explains the Why?"

The trouble is that although science has kept to its side of the bargain a million times over, religion hasn't even started yet. Its first step should be to explain why there should be a Why? in the first place. When it has done that, then it must explain what that Why? is.

So far, religion has explained nothing. When is it going to start?

[Clanad]

Glad to chakka... but could you list for me the evidence you would accept for "Why" from me or any other believer in the following space, please?

[]

Thanks!

[ll_billym]

The concept of 'why' is purely a human one, we seek reasons for things. Science explains many 'why's' but for each explanation there is another recursive 'why', this will always be so as every answer throws up a new question. There is no need for an ultimate 'why'.

Religion, for all it's bold claims, faces the same problem, the answer 'God did it' gives no hint as to why God did it, let alone why there is a God. Put to religious people, who don't like this sort of thing, the ultimate 'argument winner' is 'God doesn't want us to know', which is an admission that they don't have the answers as to 'why' either, but then we knew that anyway.