Discussions
How different are science and religion when it comes to explaining natural phenomena?
Posted by jollybee • 7/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: science religion creationism intelligent design
I thought about this question when I watched this video on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjtLbbM5yPI
I really think they're very similar, more so than people would expect. Both are ways of understanding the world. Both, in order to be taken very seriously and be held up as the highest and most credible authorities in explaining nature, require one to take a leap of faith because both have their flaws.
What does everyone think?
User Comments
-
Science explains natural phenomena, religion doesn't. Some religions might tell a metaphorical story to satisfy our curiosity, but that's not an explanation. 'Nuff said.
Religion vs. science is a bit of a dead horse, especially around here. There are people who claim that purely naturalistic science can be inclusive of purely supernatural religious claims, but fail to explain how without resorting to an argument from ignorance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Having the same discussions with different people loses its appeal after a while.-
An A|N member implied a request to refer the future participants of this particular discussion to here:
atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/science-and-religion-a-truce?xgs=1
-
-
"I really think they're very similar, more so than people would expect."
This is really frustrating-
Yeah, they're complete opposites.
"Science adjusts its views
Based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation
So that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s -
oh yeah.. Storm is one of the classics of our generation
-
Yay! Tim Minchin is just what I needed to cheer me up today!
-
-
It also made me confuse when I studied that men came from monkeys. But I still believe that humans are created by God and not from the animals.-
Good call, Dsriharsha.
-
Can we sit everyone down once and for all and actually explain evolution to them...I think it would save us a lot of time.
-
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is a good place to start.
-
Dawkins is coming out with a definitive(atleast in tone, if not accuracy) book on Evolution and against Creationism this September.
Its called "The Greatest Show on Earth".. Eagerly awaiting -
Yeah, I've been looking forward to that too!
-
Who cares? Evolution vs Creation is yet again a false dyad.
It is conceivable to have creation AND evolution. -
But you can't have Creationism and Evolution. You can't believe in the literal truth of Genesis and also believe that species evolved over millions of years.
-
Seems to me the Bible is a vast poetic and symbolic fresco; I hardly think one can (or should) take it literaly.
Further, Evolution is not limited to Darwinism (which excludes the possibility of Creation).
Hence the opposition should not be between Creation and Evolution, but between Evolution and Fixism, and between Darwinism and Creation.
In particular, after rereading an article on this topic, Augustine's work's has a premise of an Evolutionnist viewpoint of Creation. -
We're not talking about creation, we're talking about creationism. Creationists believe in the Bible literally. What you think of the bible is irrelevant.
-
Nice way to skirt the real issue.
Creationists and Evolutionists are two sides of the same dogmatic coin. -
If I wanted to discuss 'the real issue' with you I would have. I don't, so I'm not. I was pointing out that you were talking about the wrong thing.
-
Indeed, I wasn't expecting to discuss anything real with dogmatists.
-
It's not the subject I object to, it's the company.
-
Pray tell, who engaged this conversation?
Argumentum ad hominem is the basest sort of argument, I was expecting no less... -
I don't enjoy talking to you, so I'm not going to have this discussion with you. Call it ad hominem or whatever you like, I don't like you and I don't want to converse with you.
-
@harveyavatar.. if you do not take the Bible literally and do not believe in the Bible creation Myth, then we have no problem with your stance.. at least I don't and I don't think voodoo or siuil have a problem with that stance either..
on the other hand, we do have a problem with those who believe in the Bible creation myth literally.. so don't go about telling us evolutionists should drop that debate with them..
Evolution doesn't deal with how the initial life form arose from the primordial soup.. it deals with the process after the emergence of life -
Epicharis, you said 'But you can't have Creationism and Evolution. You can't believe in the literal truth of Genesis and also believe that species evolved over millions of years.'
But who says Creationism is about the literal truth of Genesis? If you take the Bible too 'literally', you're probably not really opening yourself up to the 'truth' anyway.
At least, that's what I think. Hope this is just an intellectual discussion and doesn't become a source of conflict in any way:) -
[But who says Creationism is about the literal truth of Genesis?]
That's what creationism IS. Definitional conflicts need not apply.
[If you take the Bible too 'literally', you're probably not really opening yourself up to the 'truth' anyway.]
I agree, but only if by "too 'literally'" you mean "at all without skepticism."
-
Simple. Science is base on TRUTH. Religion is base on FAITH.-
Science only anshers the HOW, never the WHY. Enter philosophy.
-
-
Those scientific instruments (microscopes, weather sensors, etc)... all a hoax to get your money! *sarcasm* -
-
Yet Goethe, who loved science and was anything but religious said: "Microscopes and telescopes obscure clear sight."
Also, the language of science is more abstract than that of religion-at least than that of the Bible. If you read the Psalms for example there are constant references to phenomena, to real things rather than the constant use of terminologies. In this sense the language of religion can be said to be more sensuous, more in touch with the natural world than that of science.
Of course the question is about "explaining" natural phenomena. So your answer might depend on what kind of proof you believe best explains nature. In my case I agree with Goethe, that ordinary sense perception is the clearest explanation of natural phenomena.-
Interesting thoughts NP.
Science is the realm of quantity. René Guénon, who was quite influential in the last century, and had a few lightning streaks, even if he did not get the whole picture, perfectly understood that the modern world is that of quantity, in particular in his book "The Reign of quantity or the sign of the times" - which is quasi prophetic.
What resists best to the invasion of Barbarians if not quality?! In today's world, everything flows and is forgotten almost immediately for the simple reason that we are speaking of quantity: a quantity grows and supplants another! We are a civilization of quantity and not at all of quality. Consequently, we are in the death throes, since only quality remains.
-
-
Religion says THIS is true! Believe it or not! Science say INTERESTING. And seeks to find out.-
hear hear..
-
-
The difference is life and death. That should be obvious by now. -
the main concern of science is to study things by using reason while religion's main concern is about saving our soul,,, its too general by the way -
From the Youtube video: "Science can't explain these structures, therefore we went by default (God did it)".
Being a scientist, I fully understand where the argument in the video is coming from. In a scientific manner, science is not religion - and will probably never be. In contrast, I believe that religion is a part of science - the unexplained part, that is.
However, in terms of searching for a meaning in life and the universe, I would wholly agree that science and religion are very much alike. Both are stemmed from the strive to find a source of creation and origin for the greater understanding of mankind.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
