[stuck_in_WA]

My Intro to Sociological Theory posed a very interesting question a week ago thats been mulling over in my head.

Is Science replacing religion?

Everyone in my class agreed that, "Yes." It was so.

My thoughts were that science isn't so much replacing religion as it is blending into religion, and vise versa. Science and religion feel to be two very interrelated, interonnected approaches. Metaphysics is one example of this connection. If religion is replacing religion, why are there still people fighting against the theory of Evolution? If scientists present an inconvienent or unpleasent truth, people refuse to accept it...especially if it goes against what their religion dictates.

Thoughts anyone? I'd love to hear what you all think.

Love,
Tree

[FYIbiatches]

I think one of the big problems with the religion/science debate is trying to separate the two. Even in my Mormon Sunday school classes, as a teenager, we learned about quantum physics (they just had other names for it). I was taught that Jesus was able to turn water into wine because he was in a higher spiritual platform and could communicate/control the spiritual aspect of the water. All matter has 2 parts physical and spiritual. He used the same trick to walk on water etc... Any of us could learn the same tricks...I mean miracles.

Both are means of understanding life. But when they split neither work right. Science wants to explain 'how' everything works but ignores the why. Religion alone tends to go for blind faith, it works-who cares why or how-god is mysterious.

One of Einsteins biggest faults (in my opinion) was that he felt the theory of relativity conflicted with his views on god/religion. So he didn't pursue it as much as he could/should have. It challenged his religious beliefs so he decided it must be wrong.

[Smabeabumjess]

I don't think that there has to be a separation of the two. We should be able to coincide the two.

Margaret Murray (I don't remember which book) said that religion is just science in disguise. She states that when religion was introduced, it was used to explain how the world worked, and was an attempt to give some feeling of control to a people who were powerless in their then wild environment. As religion evolved it was no longer used to explain/control the environment but used to control people. As religions have evolved they went from multi-god explanations for how the world worked, and ritual meant to appease those gods to religions that want the people to live a specific way.

So, can religion and science coexist peacefully. I think so, but we need to open our minds first.

[wmcelesta]

Ancient philosophers in many countries never separated science and religion. Pythagoras (circa 582 BCE - circa 507 BCE) had a spiritual/scientific community were both disciplines were taught as one.

I have never believed that there is a discrepancy between science and religion. I have never insisted that my religion is science and I refuse to accept science as religion. In my world they are two separate disciplines that help human beings develop Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Science is about the physical world and the laws that govern it. Religion is about my inner world and its rules; it is about discovering the Good that abides within and overcoming those qualities that make us inhuman: hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, cruelty, greed, ignorance.

Sadly to say many religious persons (I should probably say "many religions") refuse to recognize the value of scientific discoveries. In the same way that many person -- not necessarily scientists -- influenced by science refuse to recognize the value of anything religious. Both groups are mistaken... science and religion can help in the integral development of humanity.

I am not a scientist. During my years of studies at the university I studied science, philosophy, art, history, and religion and understood that all those disciplines are an integral part of my heritage as a human being. Each of them has something of value to offer me.

Hermano Luis
Moriviví Hermitage

[LeaderBiz]

Well said! And something that should be kept in mind!

[obHQNsY2]

I also don't feel that there is a separation, nor that one is taking the place of the other. In fact, the more science I know, the more that it helps me to understand religion AND spirituality. It is like different windows in a house. They may show different views, but they are all looking out, and the more of them there are, the better that one gets the "whole picture".

[alskdjreyfd]

Ancient philosophers in many countries never separated science and religion. Pythagoras (circa 582 BCE - circa 507 BCE) had a spiritual/scientific community were both disciplines were taught as one.

I have never believed that there is a discrepancy between science and religion. I have never insisted that my religion is science and I refuse to accept science as religion. In my world they are two separate disciplines that help human beings develop Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Science is about the physical world and the laws that govern it. Religion is about my inner world and its rules; it is about discovering the Good that abides within and overcoming those qualities that make us inhuman: hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, cruelty, greed, ignorance.

Sadly to say many religious persons (I should probably say "many religions") refuse to recognize the value of scientific discoveries. In the same way that many person -- not necessarily scientists -- influenced by science refuse to recognize the value of anything religious. Both groups are mistaken... science and religion can help in the integral development of humanity.

I am not a scientist. During my years of studies at the university I studied science, philosophy, art, history, and religion and understood that all those disciplines are an integral part of my heritage as a human being. Each of them has something of value to offer me.

Hermano Luis
Moriviví Hermitage

What an honest and beautifully eloquent response. I also very much agree with this. There was a time, goodness...not even that long ago, maybe only 3-4 years, when I snubbed my nose to science. There seemed to be a lot of hype about it. Scientists are treated like geniuses and recieve a great deal of attention...of you're a scientist, or someone that at least studies one of the hard sciences, you're automatically considered prestigous and admirabled. People of the Social Sciences and Humanities hardly recieve so much credit from the general public. And maybe I was a little predjudice because science has never been an academic strong point for me.

In anycase...sometime last year...at sometime being on campus, I wandered into the science building. What I saw blew my mind away. Pictures of outer space...photographs of plant cells. I wasn't looking at science, I was looking at art, beauty, the Divine's hand in creation. Thats when my mentality about science began to change...and I realized that it was deeply interwoven into the humanities. Now I learn about science with amazement and wonder...and don't see it different from the Great Spirit or art. In fact, it helps me understand and appreciate the world so much, much more.

Tree

[fashikn]

Actually, I think that the problem with science isn't really a problem with "science", per se, but with "scientists". Especially in recent history, like the last half century, scientists have become progressively more political. They have little choice...it is a political machine that cranks out the funding for research grants, and if the scientists want a piece of the pie, then must learn to use politics to get that money. I find it very interesting that if you look at the major contributors for any of the 'front page headlines' type stories in the past decade...global warming, ozone 'hole', or what have you, there is invariably a paper trail, usually leading to Washington DC. So it is only natural that those scientists will use raw data and arrive at conclusions that cannot be drawn from the data, either because there isn't enough data or because a good amount of the data is obviously flawed, just so they can get more funding. Can't blame them, I suppose. If they make some outrageous claim and because of it, they get a great increase in funding, they MIGHT just be able to discover something valid.

So in time past, they said that there was a hole in the ozone. Funding for research was increased a hundredfold. They discovered that there is no hole, and never was, but there was a seasonal thinning of the ozone, primarily over the south pole, which also has one of the greatest ozone concentrations anywhere. THEN they discovered that the culprit wasn't CFC's, like they'd thought (and had already managed to get banned), but sunlight! Sunlight destroys ozone, and that explains the seasonal fluctuation. When it is winter at the south pole, any sunlight is very weak and at angle, so that not much ozone is destroyed. Since ozone is also being created, the layer of ozone would thicken in winter. But during summer, the sun would be shining much more directly on the ozone there, thinning it out. The CFC's, it appears, rarely make it high enough into the atmosphere to affect ozone. (I'm glad for the ban, though. CFC's are also known carcinogens, and if they aren't making it into the high atmosphere, it stands to reason...to me anyway, that it would mean that they stay close to the ground, where animals and people will breathe them. Could have something to do with the increased cancer rate, particularly lung cancer, during the time that the most CFC's were being used.)

Anyway, without the doomsday prediction, the funding wouldn't have been increased, and they would probably still not know what they now know. The same is happening today with the doomsday prediction of Global Warming, though there is no scientific basis that shows that man has anything to do with it. They will of course figure that out, though it may take a few decades, and only after many billions of dollars are poured into the research, which is the whole reason for 'blaming' man in the first place. Then it will be something else that will be grabbing the headlines.

I find it strangest of all that the scientists that don't have their findings plastered all over the news, refuting the findings of those who do, are usually the ones who are not getting the big federal grants. For instance, the scientist who recently said that we were going into a global cooling, and that the fluctuations were coming from the sun, not from man, hasn't had much media coverage, though his findings are very well based on science research, and by weather observation through this past winter. He isn't one of those who gets the big checks from the federal government. (Of course, the more sensational the news, the more news is sold, so it sells more news to say that the world is going to end due to global warming, than to say that isn't so, but we still need to clean up our act, WORLD wide.)

So I really don't think that science is at fault, or goes contrary to religion. If there is a division, I see it as coming from those who are left to interpret the science and to tell the average person what it all means.