Science vs Belief

[chachadiva]

People, let's try to stay above board on this. This thread is not about the Bible. It's a general discussion of science vs belief. "Belief" would encompass many spiritual paths.

I am sorry if I am off topic, but do you believe that as a non-Christian, I cannot know the source from which all energy flows? Is it either "be a christian and know the answer to this equation" or stumble in the darkness? I am not being confrontational, I just want to know if this is how (you as a) christian sees this.

Your question is outside the scope of this thread. I do not wish to see this thread turn argumentative. No offense is intended by any of the comments. Take it as you will.

Let's stay on topic.

So, basically, yes, it can be argued that science/technology can be just as much a "crutch" as religion or any other belief system.

Padme, I disagree with the use of the term "crutch." I don't think either is a crutch as that implies the meeting of some material weakness in thought, emotions, etc. I like to think about it as different world views. However, since belief and science are not mutually exclusive, the world views actually collide and meld into each other.

[Padme32]

Padme, I disagree with the use of the term "crutch." I don't think either is a crutch as that implies the meeting of some material weakness in thought, emotions, etc. I like to think about it as different world views. However, since belief and science are not mutually exclusive, the world views actually collide and meld into each other.

I meant "crutch" to mean more of a dependency or reliance on, rather than indicating weakness in thought or emotions.

People that have ditched religion or spirituality altogether sometimes like to use the argument that religious belief is based on blind faith (or they may just say faith), as opposed to hard evidence, which they claim scientific findings are a result of.

But I believe that people can and do put the same kind of faith in science, that easily crosses over into an over-reliance. As I said, science hasn't given humans the answers and explanations to all things, so science cannot be totally relied upon.

[SassyB]

But I believe that people can and do put the same kind of faith in science, that easily crosses over into an over-reliance. As I said, science hasn't given humans the answers and explanations to all things, so science cannot be totally relied upon.

But it has given us answers and explanations to a whole of heap of things!
So if science can't be "totally relied upon", what is the other entity that picks up for the slack, so to speak, that science leaves us?


And again, why is there this chasm in the first place?? I am about to rip my hair out because I can not for the life of me understand why it has to be this way!

[Padme32]

But it has given us answers and explanations to a whole of heap of things!
So if science can't be "totally relied upon", what is the other entity that picks up for the slack, so to speak, that science leaves us?

Yes, I did say that science has helped us. But it has also hurt us (atomic bombs, anyone?). It can be used for a lot of good or evil.

Also, I would add why does there have to be anything to pick up the slack? Why do we have to know every blessed detail about everything (not saying that you are thinking or saying this, SassyB, but a general Q)? Our ability to know the answers to things are finite, despite our desire to go beyond. So, like I said, why do we have to go "beyond"? Hope I am making sense, I am keeping an eye on my toddler eating, while I am typing this, lol.

[chachadiva]

But it has given us answers and explanations to a whole of heap of things!
So if science can't be "totally relied upon", what is the other entity that picks up for the slack, so to speak, that science leaves us?


And again, why is there this chasm in the first place?? I am about to rip my hair out because I can not for the life of me understand why it has to be this way!

It's true that science has provided more detailed explanations of certain things.

I think the chasm exists because people needed a reason/defense for their "stance." People who don't believe in faith will say they only believe in what they can prove. Thus implying that science proves everything. For some people, having faith in an unseen deity makes them nervous. They don't want to be "duped." So they tend to rely on what they believe answers their questions, which is science. However, they fail to realize that relying on science is the same as having belief in a deity.

BUT, I believe the chasm began with Darwin. He was originally a person of faith. When he did his research, he struggled with what his "discoveries" would mean to the faithful. As he struggled with that issue, we can see the beginning of the chasm starting to open. People began to take sides.

[SassyB]

Yes, I did say that science has helped us. But it has also hurt us (atomic bombs, anyone?). It can be used for a lot of good or evil.

That's not due to science per se, that's due to humans. Kinda like the "guns don't kill people...people kill people" saying. And of course the very same could be said about religion as well. Plenty of historical figures have attributed their good deeds to a higher power/religion, just as some historical figures have done horrible things in the name of religion. Does this take anything away from religion as a whole? It shouldn't, IMO. Unless a particular religion explicitly requires someone to murder, rape, etc., then a person who does these in the name of religion has clearly misconstrued its teachings. The person is at fault here, not the religion itself.

Also, I would add why does there have to be anything to pick up the slack? Why do we have to know every blessed detail about everything (not saying that you are thinking or saying this, SassyB, but a general Q)? Our ability to know the answers to things are finite, despite our desire to go beyond. So, like I said, why do we have to go "beyond"? Hope I am making sense, I am keeping an eye on my toddler eating, while I am typing this, lol.

Well I'd say that the human mind is constantly processing, analyzing, and trying to make sense of what it takes in. I believe it is purely human nature to want to dig deeper and find answers. If this weren't the case, then we as humans without a doubt would not be experiencing life as we know it today. Advances in technology, education, medicine or whatever come about because someone asks, "Hmm, I wonder what happens if I try to do it this way instead of that way?". No one is gonna say "Well, this is all we should know about -fill in the blank- so we can just stop here".
We probably won't ever know all there is to know, but what not try to figure out as much as we can while we can?!

[SassyB]

It's true that science has provided more detailed explanations of certain things.

I think the chasm exists because people needed a reason/defense for their "stance." People who don't believe in faith will say they only believe in what they can prove. Thus implying that science proves everything. For some people, having faith in an unseen deity makes them nervous. They don't want to be "duped." So they tend to rely on what they believe answers their questions, which is science. However, they fail to realize that relying on science is the same as having belief in a deity.

BUT, I believe the chasm began with Darwin. He was originally a person of faith. When he did his research, he struggled with what his "discoveries" would mean to the faithful. As he struggled with that issue, we can see the beginning of the chasm starting to open. People began to take sides.

Hmm, I think its the bolded is a stretch. That certainly doesn't imply that science proves everything. Science can't "prove" anything anyway. That's not what science is about. Observations are made, hypotheses are tested, and repeated. If the tests hold up over countless replications, then we say that it is a well-supported theory, not that it has proven anything with absolute certainty. Religion seeks to prove things without a shadow of a doubt, not science.
Re the highlighted: how is that so? I tend to hear that a lot...that atheism itself is a religion. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading that? Either way, what's the reasoning behind that?

[Intellexual]

Religion seeks to prove things without a shadow of a doubt, not science.

I'd like for you to elaborate on that thought, in the interim, if you don't mind otherwise.

[Peaches]

This is just my lil' ol' opinion but I don't think this dichotomy actually exists. Isn't this negated by, let's say, a scientist with religious beliefs? No one should refute such a scientist's findings based solely on the fact that he is religious. That is foolishness to me. In this case, why do they have to be mutually-exclusive?

I agree with this. This "either/or" stuff is really not necessary. The bible is written in historical context, metaphors, and using symbolism. So when you read something that says the earth was created in seven days, you have to ask yourself how long a day may have been by their standards. Then going from there, you can use the science to substantiate what it says.

It's the same thing with psychology. I know people who believe that psychologists are evil, mind controlling, and manipulative and the only people you should trust are your preachers. Why can't the both of them work together if it makes sense and helps someone get their life together?

Geesh.

[SassyB]

I'd like for you to elaborate on that thought, in the interim, if you don't mind otherwise.

Alrighty, I'll try...
Generally speaking, don't religious followers believe that their God is the end all be all? And that anything expressed in their holy texts is pretty much final, end of story? They wouldn't require "proof" of anything stated within the holy text from outside sources because their holy text contains all the proof that they need.
I personally think you'd be hard pressed to find a religious follower state that their religion did not prove XYZ without a shadow of a doubt.

Was that clear?