i am not gonna approve or support this post.
Science is far more important than religion for humans. Here you are saying "no one needs either" Haha think again!!
Religion is far more natural, really ?!?!
i have different thought ,sorry for that !!
"science is based on proven facts", are you saying science is worthless ?!
AIM FOR PERFECTION AND QUALITY
NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES TO ACHIEVE IT.
First of all, your remark is partly ad hominem and, even if you did prove your point, you would only prove that some person is acting inconsistently. Suppose Christianity says “You should do x” and at some later time some person claiming to be Christian does not do ‘x’. Does this show that Christianity has changed? No, it only shows that the person who does not do ‘x’ is not following Christianity at that point. Thus, to the degree that your response is ad hominem, you would not have shown that religion (Christian or non-) doesn’t provide an “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed”. All you would have shown is that some Christians don’t always act Christianly.
Second, you claim not just that Christians don’t follow Christianity, but that religion (or Christianity) itself changes. But you haven’t given any evidence that it has. All you’ve done is go ad hominem: Christians today don’t stone people. But that doesn’t show that Christianity has changed. Maybe Christians should stone people today.
However, let’s say that the religion itself changes and not just the religious persons adhering to it. Let’s say the reason Christians don’t stone people today is because Christianity says they shouldn’t (whereas it at one time said they should). Does this disprove the claim that, for instance, Christianity is “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed”? No.
An ethical system can be non-arbitrary and objective and, thereby, provide an “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed” while also accommodating different cir***stances that call for different behavior at different times.
Actually we would expect *some* sort of change in ethical application or ethical principle when a different set of facts apply to a situation. This only shows that the ethics are tied to the facts and are not some ideal imposed upon the facts.
To put it briefly, Christianity teaches that people are no longer bound to the Mosaic law (where the command to stone is given) because it was given to a particular people in a particular time for a particular purpose (Gal. 3:24 etc.). Now that the purpose has been fulfilled (cf. entire book of Hebrews), the Mosaic law doesn’t apply. This doesn’t show Christianity is inconsistent, for reasons that should be obvious. It is not the moral law that has changed, but facts about the world have changed (Christ has come, we are not 700 B.C. Israelites living in a theocracy, etc.) that have made the applications of the moral inapplicable.
Basically, "science" only helps us manipulate mater. In that sense, it's just another tool like a hammer or a gun. But in what sense is that important? It can't tell you how you *should* manipulate mater or how you should live or what is beautiful or if there is such a thing as beauty or right and wrong. It can't tell you what your purpose is or should be and it cannot give you purpose. Religion, however, claims to do all these things. Arguably, all these things (whether there is right or wrong) are far more important than the ability to invent a television or a bomb. Science can't tell you whether you should waste 6 hours a day watching soap operas or use the bomb to save lives or take lives.
Ironically though, in today's Western society, science is sometimes treated as though it were a religion and it takes the place of religion and scientists are treated like the new priests. Whatever a scientist says, even if it's outside of their expertise in the field of science (e.g. politics), some people will treat the scientist's words like the gospel. But even then science isn't more important than religion, its simply treated as a new religion.
Science is independent of the human mind. We learn about things by carrying out objective testing and analysis (sometimes theoretical analysis as well).
We cannot dictate what we want science to be about, because science dictates us.
We can, however, conform religion to be whatever we want it to be.
Shche ne vmerla Ukraina
Science is a set of methods we use to investigate the world. In what sense then is that independent of the mind? Maybe the world is independent of the mind, but the methods we use to investigate the world ("science") are conventions of the mind. If there were no minds, there would be no science. Is there science on mars? I think the answer is clearly no, because there is no one (no mind) to operate in the manner we label "scientific."
But let's grant that science is independent of the mind and that science "dictates us". Does this show that science is more important than religion? I don't see how. Science can't even tell you what's important. You can't look under a microscope or through a telescope and see "importance" anywhere. You can't perform some test in a laboratory that places a quantifiable value on an oxygen molecule or the like. Science doesn't dictate to us importance. It doesn't dictate to us any values at all, including any idea that we should value science or value truth. The value you assign to science is not itself derived from science, rather it comes from a philosophy or a religion. And since it is your philosophy or your religion that gives value to science, you can't turn the scheme upside down and say science is more valuable than that which gives it value.
Maybe the philosophy is false and maybe the religion is false, but that only means the value you assign to science is false too.
Now aside from that (this is just an excursus, so to speak):
I don't think you're correct about your portrayal of science as some objective thing that's out there that dictates facts to us. That's an old Baconian idealist view of science that no one (aside from the laymen and some philosophically naive scientists) holds to anymore. Fact is, science is much more subjective... this should come as no surprise since science is just a set of operations that scientists (subjects) perform. But Thomas Kuhn put it better and with greater illustration than I could when he said:
"...history offers no support for so excessivelyBaconian a method. Boyle's experiments were not conceivable (and if conceivedwould have received another interpretation or none at all) until air wasrecognizes as an elastic fluid to which all the elaborate concepts ofhydrostatics could be applied. Coulomb's success depended upon his constructingspecial apparatus to measure the force between point charges. (Those who hadpreviously measured electrical forces using ordinary pan balances, etc., hadfound no consistent or simple regularity at all.) But that design, in turn,depended upon the previous recognition that every particle of electric fluidacts upon every other at a distance. It was for the force between suchparticles--the only force which might safely be assumed a simple function ofdistance--that coulomb was looking. Joule's experiments could also be used toillustrate how quantitative laws emerge through paradigmarticulation... No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientificdevelopment at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification bydirect comparison with nature… the act of judgment that leads scientists toreject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparisonof that theory with the world... [Counter-instances to a scientifictheory] can at best help to create a crisis or, more accurately, to reinforceone that is already very much in existence. By themselves they cannot and willnot falsify that philosophical theory, for its defenders will dowhat we have already seen scientists doing when confronted by anomaly. Theywill devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory inorder to eliminate any apparent conflict." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
The point being, science isn't just an objective "out-there" process that, as you say, "dictates us." It's not as simple as that. It's not as simple as having a theory and comparing it to the world or allowing the world to dictate to you a theory. When Kuhn first made his case it came as a surprise (at least to those ignorant of the history and philosophy of science), but today it's widely recognized that the basics of Kuhn's argument is matter of fact. As the physicist Paul Davies put it a few years ago in an article from the New York Times: "science has its own faith-based beliefsystem... its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
Anyway, that's all beside the point. As I said, even if I grant your conception of science, I don't think it shows science to be more important than religion (even if it is false).
Last edited by Tyson; 04-10-2012 at 09:30 AM.
Shche ne vmerla Ukraina
I can’t understand why religion is most important thanscience , i think science and religion clash on so many points that a personwould have to be dishonest to not to seethose in compatibilities. Sciecne and religion are not compatible at all.
In general people turn a relatively simple issues into acomplex one.
Here you’re saying science is a tool, how so ? I think itdepends on how others take it. If you take things as a burden then it’s hardfor you to live with.
I think science describes the nature/ natural phenomena waymuch better than the religion . Here is what religion has to say:
Bbook of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars. The earth is also a universal referencepoint in that christ came here to walk among men.
“Earth was flat”
Some early religious scientist may have thought the earthwas flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics haveclaimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers toangles standing at the “four corners” of the earth, not the sun, is doing themoving.
“was there a big bang”
Many think it was directed by GOD. Creationist maintain thatwhat really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and earthappeared- he commanded and the headven stood firm. All the many stars are appeared suddenly andsupernaturally in space.....
....This clearly states that the religion is based upon people’s belief in super natural power which has nothing to do with proven facts.Science explains things on various levels on the other hand religion creates confusion.Religion works on same old beliefs but science keeps on modifying.
Religion florish in societies with low incomes , no welfarestate, poor education and absence of freedom and limited mobility. Because thaydescribes most of human history, religion has persisted , If the world ismoving away from those times , then there is no reason to hope that it willmove away from religion.
I think people take religion as an excuse when they fail toprove things on scientic levels.
Human may have aninnate tendency to invent supernatural explanations for things they don’t yetunderstand.Every time in history where we assumed that god acts in that gap ofour knowledge, we have been wrong , and there was a perfectly naturalexplaination.
Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.
AIM FOR PERFECTION AND QUALITY
NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES TO ACHIEVE IT.