Big Think

HerbieP on August 18, 2008, 12:19 PM

Interesting that she says religion tries to give meaning to people's lives. I wouldn't have thought that religion tries to do anything. It either is a truth or a delusion. It just is or is not, it is not for anything. On the other hand scientific investigation does have a purpose and has been developed and refined to satisfy that purpose.

Religion can only be said to have a purpose if it is an invention of man. I suppose that certain religious activities have been developed for various purposes but not religious belief itself.

HerbieP on August 18, 2008, 4:19 PM

Interesting that she says religion tries to give meaning to people’s lives. I wouldn’t have thought that religion tries to do anything. It either is a truth or a delusion. It just is or is not, it is not for anything. On the other hand scientific investigation does have a purpose and has been developed and refined to satisfy that purpose.

Religion can only be said to have a purpose if it is an invention of man. I suppose that certain religious activities have been developed for various purposes but not religious belief itself.

Musycks on August 18, 2008, 7:57 PM

science has, in providing breathtaking images from Hubble or detailed microscopic ones of the hidden micro natural world, given us more context and hence meaning in a real sense than any poorly written borderline illiterate set of holy books could ever hope to do.

Heidi proves that even good information will struggle when processed by a brain culturally programmed to accept superstitious and supernatural assumptions.

Musycks on August 18, 2008, 11:57 PM

science has, in providing breathtaking images from Hubble or detailed microscopic ones of the hidden micro natural world, given us more context and hence meaning in a real sense than any poorly written borderline illiterate set of holy books could ever hope to do.

Heidi proves that even good information will struggle when processed by a brain culturally programmed to accept superstitious and supernatural assumptions.

sciencesaves on August 20, 2008, 5:02 AM

This reeks of a politically "correct" stance on the issue. The problem with these "experts", is that very few are willing to speak their true minds, for fear of backlash. This woman clearly struggles with the religious concepts, and has not yet given up on the childish fantasies, in spite of the intelligence gained in her career field. Pascals wager also applies.

sciencesaves on August 20, 2008, 9:02 AM

This reeks of a politically “correct” stance on the issue. The problem with these “experts”, is that very few are willing to speak their true minds, for fear of backlash. This woman clearly struggles with the religious concepts, and has not yet given up on the childish fantasies, in spite of the intelligence gained in her career field. Pascals wager also applies.

Jeff Delano on August 20, 2008, 4:12 PM

Buddhism co-exists with science pretty well. When you say "Religion and science can't mix!" please don't say Religion, just say Christianity.

Musycks on August 20, 2008, 4:15 PM

which bits of Buddhism are science friendly Jeff?

Jeff Delano on August 20, 2008, 4:38 PM

I suggest doing some personal research and you will discover for yourself.

Jeff Delano on August 20, 2008, 8:12 PM

Buddhism co-exists with science pretty well. When you say “Religion and science can’t mix!” please don’t say Religion, just say Christianity.

Musycks on August 20, 2008, 8:15 PM

which bits of Buddhism are science friendly Jeff?

Jeff Delano on August 20, 2008, 8:38 PM

I suggest doing some personal research and you will discover for yourself.

Musycks on August 20, 2008, 11:18 PM

well, the Buddhists don't have a god as such Jeff, so they're not technically a religion, just an ethical system of living… and karma or enlightenment would be difficult to prove scientifically… apart from that I don't see your point?

HerbieP on August 21, 2008, 12:48 AM

The only bits of any religion that are science friendly (for friendly read 'not in direct conflict') are those that make no testable claims.

Musycks on August 21, 2008, 3:18 AM

well, the Buddhists don’t have a god as such Jeff, so they’re not technically a religion, just an ethical system of living… and karma or enlightenment would be difficult to prove scientifically… apart from that I don’t see your point?

HerbieP on August 21, 2008, 4:48 AM

The only bits of any religion that are science friendly (for friendly read ‘not in direct conflict’) are those that make no testable claims.

dennis ilic on August 24, 2008, 11:30 AM

There's nothing left on this expert's bones.

Next!

dennis ilic on August 24, 2008, 3:30 PM

There’s nothing left on this expert’s bones.

Next!

Brandon Boosz on March 23, 2009, 10:39 AM

I think that science over the years has become a more important influence to the beliefs of many people around the world. People nowadays are looking for physical proof of all the world’s religions based upon what they find in science. I do somewhat agree with the idea that science and religion work on two different levels in the lives of people, but when it comes to proving a religion, I think science can only go so far. Sure, you can find artifacts that show where and when certain people lived or when certain events happened, but there is always going to be the aspect of any religion that is unproven by science. That is why there are so many different religions. If one specific religion can be wholly proven by science it would be monopolistic. A person’s faith should not be based on the scientific elements to prove it. Religion goes much further than that.

Dayton Van Houten on June 17, 2009, 7:29 PM

Never mind Buddhism, it’s not even fair to say Christianity is science-unfriendly. There’s a very small, very vocal cabal of fringe religious who expend astonishing resources to shoehorn their agenda of biblical literalism into public discourse, and they’ve somehow managed to get celebrities like Ben Stein to shill for them. Please don’t think that the Intelligent Design wackos and their ilk speak for all Christians, or even a significant minority. They are not the Christian mainstream, their agenda has more to do with far-right conservative politics than religion, and they are an embarrassment to moderate and liberal Christians, of which there are plenty in America and abroad.

Dan Moody on July 27, 2009, 6:27 AM

I fully agree that Science CAN coexist with Religion; the problem is that aspects of religion and aspects of science don’t.

Islamic and Christian creationists do not get on with evolutionary biology

Catholicism does not get on with human embryology

Baptism, Catholicism, Islam and others do not get on with science when it makes claims regarding the innate qualities of homosexuality.

The question should not be one of can religion and science work together; it should be whether of science or religion should be given the final say when they conflict in the public sphere.

Various religions and religious groups have promoted keeping sexual acts between consenting adults illegal, hindered sexual health, education and contraception, promoted creationist lies in the classroom, hindered US stems cell research, and generally tried to stifle reason and observation wherever it conflicts with dogma. I have to argue that science, backed by peer review and factual evidence has to come first.