Science or religion, what's your choice?

In summary, the conversation discusses the ongoing conflict between science and religion and how a believer of both can bring balance between their soul and spirit. Some suggest that science should be used to validate religion, while others argue that science and religion are fundamentally different and cannot be reconciled. The conversation also touches on the idea of focusing on one's inner self and the role of dogma in both science and religion. Ultimately, the conversation concludes that finding a balance between science and religion requires individual interpretation and understanding.

Science or religion, what's your choice?

  • Science and Religion can never absorb one another.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Religion is the spirit of science.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Science is superior than religion as works with logic.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Science can never be the substitute of religion.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • There is no war between science and religion.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • One cant live while having beliefs on both.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This war will never be over.

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Science is actually the logical reasoning of religion.

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
  • #36
Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
Science and religion oppose each other
like materialism opposes idealism.
The relation between these two
philosophical notions about reality,
are that they form dialectical opposites,
and that struggle necessarily happens
between these opposing ideas. This struggle
is a motor for the development of our
thinking itself. It can not be assumed
that this struggle would stop, and that
the opposing thought systems ever would
meet an agreement, but what happens is
that both thought systems influence
each other (dialectical interprenation
of the opposites), and therefore cause
progress in our thinking, causing the
opposing ideas to oppose each other on
a higher plane.
Precisely the troublesome misunderstanding
I meant above.

Science does NOT oppose religion, they are
totally different and disconnected things.
Science is just observation. Religion is
assumed absolutes - beliefs (which are
useful as long as their probable nature
is kept in mind) that are absolute.

Beliefs themselves are any abstract thinking
about the Universe/existence. But, once you
begin thinking that they represent that
dangerous word "truth" - you turn it into
a religion and that's not useful in any way,
because instead of fitting belief(theory) to
observation you fit observation to belief(religion).

Live long and prosper.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Moetasim
Let me ask few more confusions ragging in my mind : What gave man the sense that he became ciivilized with the passage of time. Was it Science or Religion? Were discoveries like wheel, fire etc made man civlized or the spiritual guidance that religion provides? What satisfies human's inner: Is it comforts provided by inventions in science or code of life that religion provides?
Erm... civilisation is hard to quantify. Can we judge the Aztecs for being civilised for their great society, which also practices human sacrifice? The idea of barbarians etc was first created by the Romans - in order to justify their own superiority. I don't think we can say anything about man becoming more "civilised".
 
  • #38
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Precisely the troublesome misunderstanding
I meant above.

Science does NOT oppose religion, they are
totally different and disconnected things.
Science is just observation. Religion is
assumed absolutes - beliefs (which are
useful as long as their probable nature
is kept in mind) that are absolute.

Beliefs themselves are any abstract thinking
about the Universe/existence. But, once you
begin thinking that they represent that
dangerous word "truth" - you turn it into
a religion and that's not useful in any way,
because instead of fitting belief(theory) to
observation you fit observation to belief(religion).

Live long and prosper.

I mentioned the philosophical viewpoints of materialism contra idealism, that are clearly opposing viewpoints on reality, the factual world. Science is based on materialism and religion on idealism.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by FZ+
Erm... civilisation is hard to quantify. Can we judge the Aztecs for being civilised for their great society, which also practices human sacrifice? The idea of barbarians etc was first created by the Romans - in order to justify their own superiority. I don't think we can say anything about man becoming more "civilised".

Is this not a statement about civilization in its own rite? Was it not america which then took this sentiment to the next highest level with the invention of the "races" and the "white man's burden"? Did not all of this obviously evolve out of Aristotle's modern incarnation of fundamentalism, of a black and white vision of the world? What is civilization if not the antithesis of barbarism?

Of course, you are free to split hairs with people over the issue ad infinitum and slowly refine the debate and the definition of the word, but a little personal integrity on the issue can save a great deal of time and effort. :0)
 
  • #40
Greetings heusdens !
Originally posted by heusdens
I mentioned the philosophical viewpoints
of materialism contra idealism, that are
clearly opposing viewpoints on reality,
the factual world. Science is based on
materialism and religion on idealism.
And I said they're not opposing views.
They're just different views.
They were opposing views when materialism
also meant assumptions about the Universe,
like that it must work like a clock and only
this way can reality exist and be explained.
Then they opposed each other because one
assumed there is a conscious "rule" and the
other assumed there is none.

But, that view, I believe, is held by very
few today. It's just that its apparent limmits
of explanation were not recognized or ignored
in the past. I believe materialism today
just means sticking to what is observed
and to the simplest/minimum explanations of
it that require the least amount of assumptions.
There are no ideas in science today that really
deal with a general unverified assumption like
that about everything, like was the case in
"old" materialism. Hence, it is no longer a
view that opposes religion, it's just different,
and very usefull of course.

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Originally posted by drag
Greetings heusdens !

And I said they're not opposing views.
They're just different views.
They were opposing views when materialism
also meant assumptions about the Universe,
like that it must work like a clock and only
this way can reality exist and be explained.
Then they opposed each other because one
assumed there is a conscious "rule" and the
other assumed there is none.

But, that view, I believe, is held by very
few today. It's just that its apparent limmits
of explanation were not recognized or ignored
in the past. I believe materialism today
just means sticking to what is observed
and to the simplest/minimum explanations of
it that require the least amount of assumptions.
There are no ideas in science today that really
deal with a general unverified assumption like
that about everything, like was the case in
"old" materialism. Hence, it is no longer a
view that opposes religion, it's just different,
and very usefull of course.

Live long and prosper.

You assert here that materialism became "compatble" with religion.
I would say the contrary, that religious ideas have been adapted through the centuries and now do not oppose scientific ideas any more.

Still, the ideas are contrasting. Idealism has absolute claims, that can not be verified, while materialism proceeds from the verifyable assumptions, through the development of scientific theories and research methods.
 
  • #42
A bang started the life and another bang will bring its end. Science on the whole way is just a tool to reach the two ends. If science stops time to pass only then it can stop the other bang to occur. Science in such sense is a mean of survival for human, a mean to explore the truth and a mean to escape the truth at the same time...
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
999
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
768
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top