<p>^Are you related to Sir Humphrey Appleby?</p>
<p>That would be humorous.</p>
<p>God = love</p>
<p>Science = a better future</p>
<p>We need both of course :)</p>
<p>Why are we still having this discussion? Isn’t it the 21st century?</p>
<p>Science and religion are interlinked to me so both</p>
<p>Science = a better future.</p>
<p>Human Beings = love.</p>
<p>Nature = beauty.</p>
<p>Religion = crusade.</p>
<p>
That sort of thing is exactly why I think this thread should be left to die.</p>
<p>One could argue that the “result” of religion is unfortunate events such as what happened to the twin towers.
However if that was how we viewed things, then the “result” of science would be Hiroshima.</p>
<p>It depends on how both are seen and used. If science here refers to new discoveries, innovations, and a general love for thinking and moving productively forward, then that’s exactly what I’ve seen from it. Religion, though, has irked me, since many are focused on the egocentric idea that humans are the beloved of the universe and thus are automatically better (since the God/gods are in human form and communicate the bulk of their wisdom through humans, of course), that all those who don’t worship a vague being who behaves as if he doesn’t exist is damned to eternal torture, etc…that just sounds pretty sick/horrifying/unreasonable to me. I also dislike ideas about believing out of fear.</p>
<p>But if religion was simply referring to being ‘spiritual’, as in finding internal peace, being happy and in harmony with nature, appreciating all the good the world had to offer, and making use of love, etc., then that’s pretty nice too. I don’t mean worshipping a divine being, though, because I think love and devotion could be better channeled, to helping those around us that we see out of pure appreciation for who and what THEY are, not by the words of some unseen deity.</p>
<p><em>ends uncharacteristically sappy moment</em></p>
<p>Science, this shouldn’t even be a question. Science has often disproved religion, when has religion disproved science?</p>
<p>^I generally try to avoid that sort of discussion based on proof, evidence, and logic, as it tends to result in me being labeled cold, detached, heartless, and loveless lol.</p>
<p>If cold, detached, heartless and loveless come with evidence, logic, and proof then so be it.</p>
<p>I find both to be compatible with the other. Both win.</p>
<p>What exactly do we mean by society? Science is obviously more important for progress, but religion (even in more atheistic societies) is a crucial part of culture, while science has almost nothing to do with it. By definition, a society (I suppose we mean civilization here) needs to have culture. Science is necessary for success of the society but isn’t a necessity for there to be a society. In that way, I suppose religion is more “important,” if it can be called that.
Of course though, that only addresses societies as they have existed. In the future, societies may come to exist primarily without religion, making science more “important,” but as the culture will likely always retain significant artifacts of bast beliefs and as culture is a greater requirement of civilization than technology, perhaps religion always “wins.”</p>
<p>^Hmmm…maybe there, in those paragraphs, ‘religion’ could be better replaced with ‘the arts’?</p>
<p>
So are you implying that religion is no longer necessary to ensure the maintenance of civilization and law-abiding tendencies?</p>
<p>Personally, I think they’re both important. Science for progress. Religion to maintain a moral society. Lame answer but w/e.</p>
<p>^^But I don’t mean the arts. Though the arts are also very important for culture, language and religion, in that order, are generally considered to be the two most important aspects of culture.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, true, Millancad. I remember my mom talking about the components of culture in her opinion…something like language, religion, art, architecture, social structure, music, food, clothing, etc.</p>
<p>I see. :)</p>
<p>Whenever I say science has disproved religion, I end up being called heartless, loveless, an idiot. Science by far is more important, but religion, whether we agree with it or not(As I don’t, but I respect it), is important.</p>
<p>This is a false dichotomy, I think. Science and religion are perfectly capable of coexisting peacefully. People can go wrong putting too much faith in either. I’m a huge science person who also happens to be religious; for me science is a beautiful reflection of something that exists outside of the material world. For me, a paternal, anthropomorphic God is ridiculous. That would completely contradict itself. </p>
<p>Here’s what I think, though I’m definitely not the one who came up with this idea: Truth is fundamentally one thing. There’s no such thing as “scientifically false but religiously true”. If they contradict, one is wrong. Religion is not falsifiable, neither is science. Religion mostly deals with things that are not material, where as science is the language of material things. Honestly, though I have lots of respect for the origins and intentions of most organized religions, I believe a lot of religious rituals are superstitious or no longer beneficial to the participants.
Here’s a quote from a source I take pretty seriously:</p>
<p>"Contradictions between science and traditional religious beliefs are attributed to human fallibility and arrogance. Over the centuries, distortions have gradually infiltrated the doctrines of many religious systems and diluted the pure teachings originally given by the Manifestation who was their Founder. With time these distortions become increasingly difficult to distinguish from the original message. Similarly, unsupported speculations of various schools of scientific thought have at times become more popular and influential than the results of rigorous scientific research, and have further blurred the picture. "</p>
<p>I’ll probably get a lot of crap for this, but in my life, science and religion have always gone hand in hand. It was actually (obviously) much more complicated that this, but my decision to believe in a “God” was hugely influenced by the rule that Energy can’t be created or destroyed.</p>