I've been wanting to make this topic for some time, because I feel it is very important to both this discussion board and the future of humanity.

We've had several topics debating religion, spirituality, and other "intangibles", and they always come down to said intangibles vs. science. Inevitably someone says that if we only could live by science, then all of our problems would be solved.

I've been really thinking about this, and I think it is simply untrue, for a variety of reasons.

1) Science can give us new information and new discoveries, but what to do with these discoveries and how to utilize them inevitably becomes a question that humans have to answer. Scientific inquiry is just that--a series of questions with answers--but what these answers mean has long been a problem for humanity.

2) Science has done an enormous amount of good, but it has also led to a lot of horrors for the human race. Often the most advanced and elegant creations of engineers are weapons. The Maxim machine gun is one of the most practical and perfect devices ever created, and it killed over 500,000 people in WWI. In the 1940's several of the world's most brilliant men came together to create something, and it was not a cure to cancer, but nuclear fission and the atomic bomb. Once again, science can create wonders, but these wonders often hold terror for their human owners.

3) What is the utmost goal of science? If we can consider science as its own entity, it's goal would probably be total effiency. This is excellent for things such as energy usage, growth of food, etc., but what about humanity? What if a computer model tells us that the most efficient way for humans to live is akin to a prison cell? What if science reccomends we kill the elderly and the weak to maximize effiency of living? Where does mercy and love play into the realm of science?

4) The utmost human goal of science is to increase human happiness and quality of life. Again, what happens if this conclusion reaches extremity? If I am unhappy, do I pump myself full of chemicals until optimum happiness is reached? Do we use genetic engineering to make our children exactly what we want, and leave chance completely out of the equation?

I am not belittling science or its contributions, but I am only questioning the assertion that it is the be all and end all of human achievement. Is science really the answer?

Wait.... are you Dave?

I swear I just had this conversation 2 weeks ago in my living room with my friend dave.

Knowledge and progress for the sake of ?????

No, science is not the answer. Wisdom is the answer.

Intangible, but necessary.

I think the quote goes:

"Wisdom is knowledge tempered by love"

I'd have to disagree with you on this. Basically, what humans should strive for is the truth. A huge aspect of the truth is scientific discovery, which unlocks the mysteries to the universe's truths. Yes, what we do with it is very important, but I think more important is that we know what the truths are.

You can't just say that science = bad because of weapons. It is important to note that it isn't the science of the weapons that is bad, it is the way in which humans wish to use them in order to cause suffering.

Religion is definately not the answer, and is in fact the problem. It gives us incompatible claims as to how we should live our lives. If we are of different faiths, then we have incompatible claims as to what the universe is, and how we should live our lives. Also, religion/faith is built upon false claims and untruths. Science paves the way for true understanding of the universe, and can ultimately show us the way to improving the human condition.

So ultimately, it is the TRUTH that will show us the answer, not blind faith in the supernatural. Science unlocks the truths, and from it we can better humanity.

Notice that I did not say science is bad; I said it is essentially neutral, and has the potential for both wonderful and terrible things. I agree that science is able to reveal facts and evidence, but would you call these truth? What truth does science reveal without a human context and interpretation?

You claim that religion is built upon false claims and truths. What are these, and how do you know them to be false?

They are unprovable claims, therefore should be considered moot (i.e. divine birth, coming back from the dead, Mohamed flying to heaven on a winged horse, etc). The burden of proof should be on the believers to show evidence, not those who do not believe. It is all a fantasy world in which the believers will most likely cause incalculable human suffering. This will start a whole new debate now problably...

I mean the bigger things, not the anectdotes. What meaningful aspects of religion are unrpoved?

Have you been reading Sam Harris? I have too and I agree with this. It seems that (rightfully so, mind you) that science has to show proof for everything it states, but religion can make any claim it wants and try to dictate on everyone just by saying "cuz god or the bible says so". If science worked like this, the human race would be extinct.

I'm having a hard time following your question, do you mind rewording it. Thanks Orpheus.

I read Sam Harris's book last year, and it really had a profound influence on me. I am reading a lot of RIchard Dawkins' books now, which are somewhat similar, but more scientific. Great works by great men.

It really is absurd how people follow fairy tales.

On the question of religion and science, unprovable does not equate to false. Sometimes unprovable conjectures are true, and sometimes they are false.

Not when they break the laws of biology, physics, and chemistry. Then they become false.

Is everybody really high except for me?

No one looks to science for moral guidance. No one (should) look to religion for empirical truths. Science and religion should serve two completely different purposes to the human race, and it's sad that everyone here has to put them at odds with each other.

Both are capable of completely destroying humanity as we know it. Yet many positives can be found in both. The two just shouldn't be confused with one another.

If they are really laws (that is, they are proven), then a religious tenet that actually breaks those laws becomes disproved. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the majority of religious tenets that don't break proven physical laws.

Too tired to respond tonight, but rest assured that everyone is misunderstanding what I mean, once again. Except for Sun Devil, he seems to get it.

Wow, this is a great post. Very succint, very well put.

I think about Orpheus' question alot. In the scheme of things, how much should humanity collectively defer to science to solve problems or find answers? I think that we've ushered in an era that we can call the information age because humanity stands at a point in history where we can view thousands of years of civilization with post-modern sensibilities.

We've analyzed ourselves through an almost innumberable variety of avenues (whether they be art, literature, religion, or music) and we've reached a point where we are almost entirely self-conscious of human nature, almost to the point where it's ingrained in us from birth. Hell, even in the last 500 years we've gone from our art being rigid, fearful interpretations of God to works celebrating humanity, to works that transcend or outright reject who we are. We don't play by the rules anymore, and really haven't for over a century, judging from movements like Dada or the works of Joyce, Dali, or Picasso. Thus, to me at least, it seems that the culmination of the artistic and culutural movements that have occurred over the last 2000 have resulted in a knowledge base that expedities science and exploration. We know ourselves, and now it's time to evolve, it's time to utilize our human faculties to further the now indisputable universal truths that we've all spent the last couple thousand years learning.

But at the same time, no matter what we know in the realm of science, no one equation or theory can explain the most important, the most idiosyncratic and nuanced facet of existence: human nature. And when you have something like that, one can reasonably infer that the rigid truths of science and the nature of man are two mutually exclusive entities. Thus, although we've reached a point where we are entirely cognizant of our history, I think it's extremely important that we not let science act as a vehicle to disconnect us from who we really are. That's why Shakespeare is still actively studied hundreds of years after he published his works, perhaps no one has been able to capture human nature as well as him through his characters. That's why when I saw Michaelangelo's Pieta in person that I nearly broke down in tears (and I'm not that religious), it is an indescribably beautiful manifestation of some of the most wonderfully unique facets of human nature, grief and loss. As much as science does, art pulls us back in and reaffirms our common humanity, something I think we need a lot more of nowadays, especially with the prevalence of science in our globalized, interconnected information age.

So is science the answer? To many things, yes. But definitely not to all of them.

I think, for the most part, many people debunk the positives of science because they are afraid of science. To most, it is seen as a complicated, obscure, and esoteric form of understanding. Therefore, they just hold onto blind faith since it is "easier" to comprehend - not because it is right. The social/emotional/spiritual questions we are striving to find answers to, such as what it means to be empathetic, moral, conscious, etc. can (and will) be explained by science. This is because all of these issues have an underlying scientific (biological) basis... we are just now figuring them out (i.e. fMRI nueroscience research).

All in all, I don't think people need to be afraid of science.

I enjoy the research being done in functional brain imaging, also. This is actually what i do for a living (nuclear medicine) although i mostly deal in other areas then the brain.

It's fascinating to see the role that brain chemistry plays in human conception. Books like Why God Won't Go Away and Synaptic Self are fascinating looks at how our brains have devoloped our sense of self and our relevance to the universe.

But this research is really "chicken or the egg" in a lot of ways. It is obvious that we use specific parts of our brain for concepts such as empathy, divinity, conscience, etc...But are these things just products of synaptic development or are these parts of our brain necessary so we can UNDERSTAND these concepts?

Some people would say that a part of our brain has developed which gives us the impression of and desire for a higher power. Other people (neuroscientists included) believe that this part of our mind actually serves as a rudimentary "antennna" so that we are able to be in contact with this very real phenomenon.

It's all quite fascinating really. I highly recommend those two books to anyone interested in this area.

I have no idea if this is what you mean or not, so I'll just tell you what I think and you can respond if you like.

Science doesn't start from the assumption that all religious belief is incorrect. Science ignores religion because science looks to UNDERSTAND the world around us. Most often through trial and error, and then a series of hypothetical summations based on results specific to each group of experiements. Science always leaves the door open.
Religion seeks to EXPLAIN the world around us, through a series of assumptions about 'how things are' based on teachings handed down through oral retelling, printed stories from said tellings, and a set of ideal rules that these stories seek to teach humanity.
Religion essentially closes the door on argument that doesn't coincide with traditional tellings of stories, and the associated group of beliefs of each religion.
The bible says (as example) God created heaven and earth. That's that.
Science says : how? and then sets out to determine how by experiment, observation, and drawn conclusions from those observations, with the possibility of further study later on as technology and experimental habits develop.
Science leaves God (or gods) out of it because science has no emperical information about the existence of a god, or a purpose in mind from said god.
Religion works on the basic assumptions that A)there is a God (or gods) B) God has a purpose for creating this mess we call reality, and C) God wants us to behave in a specific manner according to our religious beliefs.
Right and wrong don't enter into the discussion where science is concerned.
Right and wrong are the foundation of religion.
The problem we run into is that EVERYONE is going to have their own ideas about what can be considered "right" and what can be considered "wrong".
And I'm not looking to argue about this - it's my opinion, not fact, not an absolute.
To me, personally, religion is exclusionary. Religion says : you be like THIS or you go to hell (again, just my interpretation), religion says, I'm better than you because of what I believe God's will to be and therefore, you will never attain the level of "grace" that I have until you submit to my way of thinking.
Science TRIES to say, here's some stuff we can agree on, because of the experiments we've carried out, and the observations we've made. However, we could be wrong and are willing to change our minds as we evolve, as long as there's always continued experimentation and debate about the experiments.

Grace and morals don't enter into the debate with science.

I agree with everything you said Malice except this...


I can only speak from the Christian standpoint. This goes against what that religion "says". What you've described is Pride. The most destructive of the seven deadly sins. The sin that leads to all others.

Putting yourself in a postion to judge others and assume a postion of moral superiority is not taught. I'm not saying it isn't prevalant. But it is wrong and goes against what the religion actually teaches.

This really doesn't have anything to do with this thread and i'm not sure why I posted it.