Round 2. Wyrdeone V Junglejake: Science and Religion

The topic for this debate is "Science and Religion can co-exist, but are not combinable"

Wyrdeone will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Junglejake will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 13 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (7) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Nygdan]

Thanks Nygdan.

I'd like to start with a quote if I may.

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

Those words were written by James Madison in 1785. He was one of the greatest American thinkers of all time, and his words are no less true today.

It is my assertion that religion and science cannot be combined because to do so would violate the integrity and stability of one or the other, or both. So, in order for both to survive and function properly, they must remain apart.

Religion, in order to function, must retain its faith.

Science, in order to function, must retain its facts.

The two function properly as is, trying to combine them would send the whole system into chaos. They both serve their own set of functions (religion concerns itself with the afterlife, science concerns itself with physical reality), and fill their own roles (science is fueled by our need to know while religion, on the other hand, is fueled by our need to believe). To do away with one or the other would cause enormous problems in human society. To do away with both would make a monkey of man.

We rose to our current dominance through observation, interpretation, and manipulation of our environment. We created tools (including institutions like science and religion, large, complex tools, but tools nonetheless) to help us survive. It would be a giant leap backwards to ruin the major, twin accomplishments of faith and reason in an attempt to 'improve' upon one or the other.

Thank you, Nygdan, and you may, WyrdeOne.

Not only are religion and science combinable, but Christianity has played a vital role in nurturing the progress of modern science. P.E. Hodgson stated that:

Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century.

[1]

Loren Eisley went further in saying the beginnings of science, and our very methods used today such as the Scientific Method, were based on faith that the universe is orderly and could be "interpreted by rational minds" [1]. Indeed, we enter into the scientific arena with the expectation that, if we gather all the data, we will be able to come to a conclusion as to how it works. The very core of all science, physics, not only believes this, but completely relies on it. If the universe is an orderly place, then laws of physics can be applied. If, however, it is completely chaotic, physics has no place, because an equation that works for the exact same situation in one place may not be applicable in another. For instance, heat rises on Earth, but in a chaotic universe, that may not be the case on Mars.

So how did we come to this conclusion that the universe is orderly? Through religion and the belief in an ultimate creator of everything man began to see the universe in an orderly way.

The Greeks approached science in a different manner than we do today. They did not believe in science through experimentation and observation, but through reasoning and philosophy. Sir Francis Bacon in the 15th century developed the scientific method as a basis to change science from a generally philosophical enterprise into one of experimentation and observation. He believed the Greeks' premise was wrong because the Greeks failed to recognize nature as created and orderly. "Empirical science follows directly from belief in a created and therefore contingent nature."

Religion not only works with science, but the belief in a creator caused modern science to develop into what it is today. Religion and science are combinable. If they were not, our methods of observation and experimentation would never have been developed. Scientists started with the premise that the universe was created, and was orderly, and flourished from there. Taking concepts described in religious works and applying them to modern science in an experimental and observational means could only help to further science more, as long as politics are kept out of it. After all, it [I]is[/I] possible that one of the world's religions are correct. Science hasn't developed the tools to test that yet, so any assumption is made on faith alone.

Sources:
1. www.leaderu.com...

[edit on 7/11/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

..but Christianity has played a vital role in nurturing the progress of modern science. P.E. Hodgson stated that:

If by nurture you mean burn, torture, silence, marginalize and intimidate. Sorry, had to get that out of the way. We're ALL aware of the role religion has played in keeping people in the dark regarding matters of science that conflicted with church dogma. I would be remiss if I didn't mention it, but I really don't want to focus on that (rather unpleasant) reality. In my mind, it's not the fault of religion, it's simply the NATURE of religion that compels it to act in the manner it does.

Religion does NOT collaborate, it dictates because it claims to come from a higher source than man. Now that that's out of the way...

Now it's quite obvious that religion and science came from the same place, you've got no argument there. One can easily imagine the first man to see a lightning strike immediately start praying, and the second man to start THINKING. Both behaviors result from our exposure to the unknown.

However, the difference between the GOALS and METHODS of the two institututions make them incompatible, despite their shared origin in the mind of man. It wouldn't be the first time siblings didn't mix.

The goal of religion is of course to explain the world based on dogma, the goal of science is to explain the world using experimentation and reason. Dogmatic thinkers are by their very nature NOT REASONABLE, because understanding is not a pre-requisite of obedience. When reason and religion contradict each other (as they often do i.e. "Jesus was made of crackers?") one must make a choice.

The methods of religion are infamous and I'm not going to go there unless it's absolutely necessary. To put it succinctly, the two institutions, historically, have entirely different brands of persuasion.

Despite the fact that the two institutions stem from the same place, they are very different in composition and behavior. Religion has never been successfully associated with the scientific method of learning and understanding, mainly because religion has a vested interest in NOT proving itself wrong. Science has never conducted an inquisition to eliminate dissenting scientific view points. There was no Torquemeda of Geology. Do you follow my logic here?

Science has no need of coercion. No scientist would blow himself up on a crowded street to drive home his point about algal photosynthesis. No Astronomer has ever used torture devices to spread faith in sun-at-the-center solar system. Scientists have no need of control over the population, whereas church officials thrive on that control.

How would one reconcile this fundamental difference in attitude when combining the two?

So how did we come to this conclusion that the universe is orderly? Through religion and the belief in an ultimate creator of everything man began to see the universe in an orderly way.

Both Religion and Science share a common ancestor in Observation, so let's give credit where credit is due.

Observation played a huge role, a central role, a role that dwarfs Religion's contribution to the growth of Science. You see cycles everywhere you look, circles and spirals and pairs, etc.. There is order everywhere you look, even in chaos. To notice summer's slide into autumn does not require faith in God.

As I said before, there is no doubt in my mind that these institutions of ours come from the same place, but that has no bearing on the question. My pet turtle and my stereo system both come from Korea, does that mean they are easily combinable? (This was honestly not an attempt at the Chewbacca defense, if your head exploded as a result of reading that last sentence, I sincerely apologize.)

In my previous post I demonstrated how religion, Christianity specifically, is responsible for the creation and development of modern science. It was not the institution of religion, but the actual religion its self that has contributed. Politics has no place in science, and a religious body exerting control is a political entity. The Catholic church, which was a detriment to science in the middle ages, was a political body, not a religious one. Politics, even when coming from religious leaders, should not dictate scientific discovery.

Man's attempt to put rules and regulations into their religion for the purpose of control is not on trial here, science and religious belief's compatibility is. One example of a group misconstruing the message of their belief into a grab for power does not make it the norm. We call those the extremists, and often they do not think rationally at any level, much less a scientific one.

If I can turn the discussion back to the topic at hand instead of the sociological effects of religion in man, I would like to address religion at its core. I am sure WyrdeOne will agree with a definition of religion as something wholeheartedly believed without scientific evidence to back it up.

WyrdeOne has entered into the debate using the pretense that religion is false and man made. This, in its self, is a religion.

Time and time again, science has labeled people as liars, charlatans, or psychotics because their observations don't fit with current concepts. Examples lie in the Koala bear, Kimodo dragon, peacock, and Big Foot. General science, as an institution, dismisses such claims because they don't fit within the mold of current scientific thought, just as the geocentric model didn't fit with scientific thought at the time. The koala bear, kimodo dragon, and peacock are all example of the institution of science fighting against the discovery of new species because they did not fit with the current model.

If we are going to put politics on trial here, both religion and science lose. Politics cares not for reality, it cares for what controls people the best, and both science and religion have been used in this respect. This debate is about science and religion being compatible without politics. If we are to shift this debate to be can politics and science co-mingle, You, WyrdeOne, and I, are on the same side. However, this is not what the debate is about. Religion complements science, as my last post pointed out. To remove religion from science and say it was mearly a developmental stage of science is a religion unto its self. As I stated in my last post, and was not refuted by WyrdeOne, religious beliefs cannot be tested by science. To assume no religion exists and only science does is a religion unto its self -- it cannot be tested, it is an assumption. To base science on Athiesim is to base science on religion, is to make my arguement for me.

It was not the institution of religion, but the actual religion its self that has contributed. Politics has no place in science..

Religion is DEFINED by the presence of institutionalized, political interaction between persons of faith, Religion is simply regimented Faith. Take the Politics out of Religion, and you're left with Faith, another matter entirely. It's impossible to remove Politics from Religion and have anything resembling Religion remaining.

Man's attempt to put rules and regulations into their religion for the purpose of control is not on trial here, science and religious belief's compatibility is.

I think the important thing to remember that without rules and regulations, Religion 'regresses' into Faith, which is also not on trial. The Modus Operandi of Religion is orderly Faith or, Faith according to the rules of men, which amounts to little more than spiritually inclined Politics. So I agree, we should keep Politics out of Science, for the sake of Science. Unfortunately, that means Religion isn't allowed to the party, for the sake of all involved.

Faith, on the other hand, is MORE THAN WELCOME in the scientific community. It has always been there, and it will remain there as long as it remains in us. But if I may steal a page from your play book, FAITH isn't on trial here, religion is.

Let's talk for just a second about the word Religion. It's widely agreed to come from the Latin "religio." [1]

The very broad definition of that word includes: Anxiety, or worried care, conduct befitting a man bound to the gods, scruples, taboo, sometimes used as evidence of demon worship or a word to convey the anxiety displayed by those entered into contracts with demons..

What, exactly, does science have to gain from such an association? Credibility?

Maybe it comes from "re ligare?" This idea is analagous with a return to bondage, or back to the yoke with the oxen, this mentality was popular with early Christians as well as modern ones (ostebsibly), most were avid sufferers.

This idea of subservience and bondage is anathema to what science offers us! We drove away the darkness with science, we improved our survivability by an incalculable factor, all stemming from that initial moment of fearlessness - one man picking up the flaming branch. The story of Prometheus is close to my heart, and I would reccomend it to anyone. [2&3]

If I can turn the discussion back to the topic at hand instead of the sociological effects of religion in man.

That is the topic, in a sense. Watching the progression of various corruptions in one medium gives clues to how the corruption will progress in others. It's clear that when men associate themselves with God and direct the behaviors of other men using God's approval as a rubber stamp, bad things happen. Greed and the hunger for power overwhelm common sense and reason, and people get hurt, civilizations burn. This happens in science as well, mistakes are made, but the fervor with which Religion makes mistakes and the reluctance of Religion to admit mistakes (Galileo pardoned in '92..1992 that is) could drive Science into a very dark place if the two were ever combined.

It's happened before, it's happening now, the only thing preventing it from happening again is due dilligence on the part of the community.

Science is hope for for a respite from this deja vu state of affairs. Both science and religion can take us off this rock, can make life better, can even grant eternal life and constant bliss. Either one is a vessel for those in the mood for travelling. Neither is "right" or "wrong" in and of itself. But combine the two..and you have a car wreck...

Time and time again, science has labeled people as liars, charlatans, or psychotics because their observations don't fit with current concepts. Examples lie in the Koala bear, Kimodo dragon, peacock, and Big Foot.

This brings me to my next point, fallibility. Whereas Science is built on the notion that to be proven wrong is an advancement, that change is necessary for growth, each religion proclaims itself infallible to the exclusion of the others. The religions of the world can't even merge with each other, nevermind with science.

As I stated in my last post, and was not refuted by WyrdeOne, religious beliefs cannot be tested by science.

I didn't refute it because it's true. As I said, they concern themselves with different realities, different spheres. This is one of the key roadblocks on the path to combining them.

As to your conjecture that my beliefs are a religion unto themselves, I'd caution you against slander, now that you know what religion, or "religio" means...

-Sincerely yours,
Advocatus Diaboli

[1]
Very Basic Online Etymology Resource

[2]
James Baldwin Tells the Story of Prometheus

[3] Bullfinch's Prometheus

My opponent has chosen to change the debate into a linguistic analysis of the word religion and use his podium as an opportunity to slam religion, not debate if religion and science are compatible. I will take a few minutes to address this, and then get back to the point.

Religion, at its core, is belief in a God or way of life, and it establishes a moral code by which to live by. Webster's defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". [1] Science, at its core, is the attempt to understand the world around us through observation and experimentation. Neither is political at its core, but both can and have been politicized by politicians who want to either use people's core values or insult their intelligence for the purpose of gaining power. If my opponent's statement that religion cannot exist without politics is true, then it is also true that science cannot exist without politics. Neither statement is true; at their heart both concepts are noble and unpoliticized.

Neither is this debate about religious beliefs holding up to scientific scrutiny. True, religion does not contain fallibility as scientific theories do, but we're not talking about abandoning science for religion. We're questioning if they are compatible. Can science work with a religious idea? Absolutely it can! To say otherwise would be to ignore history.

As to religion, faith, if you will, being compatible with science, we simply need to look at the medical field (Hat tip to Mahree ). Science in the world of medicine has not only accepted a compatibility with faith, spirituality and religion (all synonyms), but has encouraged it.

If it were not for religion, the medical field would never have come up with the body/mind treatment principle, where all of the patient is treated, not only the affected organs. This came to fruition because doctors, especially those working with cancer patients, noticed that patients who practiced a religion, would pray for healing and believed in something other than themselves had a far lower mortality rate than those who did not. Because science decided to be compatible with religion, science came to realize that a lot of the battle against sickness takes place in a patient's mind.

Isaac Newton is a great example of how religion and science can work together, as is Einstein. Both were very devout in their beliefs, and both made discoveries that turned the world upside down. The majority of Newton's work was of a theological nature. Newton, upon "discovering" gravity, said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." [2] The man who is often credited with the scientific revolution was nearly as passionate about science as he was the Bible. Though there is belief he may have been a Unitarian that, too is a religion.

Religion drives science to discover things unheard of. Religion also drives many of our greatest scientists to discover more about this universe their God, whom they adore, created. I know for me, every piece of science, every little bit of this crazy universe I come to understand reinforces my faith through its incredible order, among other things. There is no evidence that God does not exist, and to remove any possible starting block in science because a religion says it's so is simply creating a blind spot in the observation and understanding of our universe. Until we can prove otherwise, we should enter the scientific arena believing there is a possibility it was created by a greater power. With this possibility, it gives us ideas where to search and for what. I demonstrated that in my opening statement - modern science, as we know it today was developed because Christians believed God created the heavens and the Earth, and He did so in an orderly fashion.


Sources:
1. webster.com...
2. en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent has chosen to change the debate into a linguistic analysis of the word religion and use his podium as an opportunity to slam religion, not debate if religion and science are compatible.

Nice ad hominem. Now that we’re through the fat, and into the meat, I think you should know something. I’m neither a believer in cut-and-dried science nor am I an adherent to Religion, I'm not the one with an agenda here my friend.

Religion, at its core, is belief in a God or way of life, and it establishes a moral code by which to live by.

So the developmental stages of the major world religions weren’t political movements? Because I could have sworn they all were, every one…

And for the record, belief in a way of life is a creed. The life of a Gypsy, for example, is a creed rather than a religion.

Organized religion is a conglomeration of people for mutual survival benefit (this comes in many forms), that’s politics, government, organization; hierarchical control schemata follow in short order because of the logistical ramifications of organizing large numbers of people. To ignore that facet of religion is to be blind to its true nature. As much as faith is personal by necessity, religion is monolithic for the same reason.

That’s why I made such a big deal about the difference between religion and faith. Faith is present and accounted for in Science, but Religion is a whole different matter. The science presented under the auspices of religion is invariably geared towards buttressing the position of religion, rather than objectively reviewing evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Science is not a PR tool, it’s an open-ended inquiry for the sake of knowledge alone.

We're questioning if they are compatible. Can science work with a religious idea? Absolutely it can! To say otherwise would be to ignore history.

Pseudo-science steeped in religion and politics was responsible for the insane brutality of the witch trials, continues to balloon AIDS rates in Africa, once justified the murder of millions of ‘inferior’ people in the death camps, and the list goes on, as far back as you want to go through history, to Babylon and beyond. Religious fantasy wearing the mantle of scientific legitimacy has a decidedly unsuccessful history. [1,2,3]

Science is by its nature more of a loose collective of individual minds, not a centrally controlled, agenda driven, monolithic institution. Science retains its integrity by the same mechanism as the internet. That’s why both have the ability to offer aid to all mankind. This ability is significantly reduced by the inclusion of religion or politics, for reasons that should be obvious.

If my opponent's statement that religion cannot exist without politics is true, then it is also true that science cannot exist without politics. Neither statement is true; at their heart both concepts are noble...

Concepts and institutions are not the same. Communism was a fabulous idea, it looked flawless on paper, everybody works, everybody eats, sounds fine. The institution on the other hand was a complete disaster, full of flaws, not the least of which was the utter failure to account for simple human greed. Various religious entities suffer from the exact same symptoms. The best laid plans fail when subjected to the twin stresses of human error and human weakness, history is a filing cabinet stuffed full of precedent speaking to this reality.

If it were not for religion, the medical field would never have come up with the body/mind treatment principle, where all of the patient is treated, not only the affected organs. This came to fruition because doctors, especially those working with cancer patients, noticed that patients who practiced a religion, would pray for healing and believed in something other than themselves had a far lower mortality rate than those who did not. Because science decided to be compatible with religion, science came to realize that a lot of the battle against sickness takes place in a patient's mind.

Western medicine was late to that party. The Jesuits got their cue from Chinese healers in the seventeenth century. The Chinese healers were perfecting their art between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D., roughly the time of publication of the Huangdi neijing.

The concept of prayer and the concept of placebo are identical, indistinguishable from one another in terms of efficacy. Science and Religion discovered the principles independently of one another, you really ought not to give credit where credit isn’t due.

[1] Witches

[2] AIDS

[3] Fascism

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." [1]

Albert Einstein said that, and he was absolutely correct. If someone practices a religion and does not believe in science, they are blind to this amazing world around them. At the same time, science, if it discounts and ignores religion offhandedly because it cannot prove it, cripples its self. For my next example, I would like to use an individual, Albert Einstein.

Einstein revolutionized physics in his early years with the theory of relativity. He never got caught inside of the box, he always thought outside of it. He was also driven to discover physics because, "I want to know how God created this world."[1] Einstein's philosophy in approaching physics was that "God always takes the simplest way"[1] and "Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler."[1]

Einstein was responsible for quantum physics, as we know it today, relativity, the calculation of the speed of light, and many, many more ideas that have revolutionized physics and many other branches of science. All through his scientific endeavors, he related his scientific discovery to his religion and his religion to his scientific discovery. The more he came to understand the workings of the universe, the more he was "convinced God does not play dice."[1] Like Sir Francis Bacon before him, Einstein believed God created the universe in an orderly fashion. Sir Francis Bacon spawned modern science because of this belief, while Einstein was driven to understand the order because of this belief.

A scientist not believing in a creator cripples himself because he loses any reason to believe the universe is completely orderly. There would be no reason to believe that an experiment performed here on earth would yield the same results in the exact same conditions on a planet just like earth 17 parsecs away. Yet, with the belief in a creator and an orderly universe, we can expect that it would be the same because of that order.

It has also been stated that religion is political and there's no way to avoid it. However, if we look at the books that drive those religions, we discover something different. I've spoken about Christianity, now I will address Islam and the Qur'an (Hat Tip: bodrul)
The Qur'an has many references to increasing your understanding of the world around you. This is exactly what science attempts to do.

"[29:20] Say: Travel through the earth and see how Allah originated creation; so will Allah produce the second creation (of the Afterlife): for Allah has power over all things." [2]

"[39:9] ...Say: Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that remember (Allah's Message)."[2]

At its core, the Qur'an states that understanding the world around you will help you understand God's message. WyrdeOne has attempted to show that religion fundamentally discourages understanding of the world around us, aka science. Yet the Qur'an expressly states that this is not the case. Islam is a religion, and it encourages scientific discovery. Anyone saying otherwise directly contradicts the holiest book in the Islamic faith, and is therefore a hypocrite, not a practitioner of that religion.

Recently a systemic study on the effects of distant healing, through prayer, Therapeutic Touch, mental healing, or spiritual healing, displayed a 57% effectiveness in this form of treatment.

The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.[3]

This study, by its very nature, would never have been conducted if the scientists involved believed science and religion were not combinable. They took a religious concept and tested it in a laboratory, only to discover it warranted more study. A new field of scientific medicine may open up because the scientists involved in the study decided to combine religion and science. Were science never to venture into religious concepts, we would still be stuck in this false comparison of a prayer being a different form of a placebo.

Sources
1. en.thinkexist.com...
2. www.usc.edu...
3. www.annals.org...

I’m not at all surprised Einstein was brought into the discussion. He’s been repeatedly claimed as the de facto poster-boy for Atheists, Pantheists, and Christians alike. Well, he's in the ring alright, but he's on my side. In fact, he’s going to close the debate for me, using excerpts from his letters and my favorite book of his [1]. Why's he doing this? Probably because we agree with each other down the line on this issue.

"The purpose of science is to develop, without prejudice, a knowledge of the facts and the laws of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the conscience, the ideals and the aspirations of mankind."

Einstein explicitly disapproved of the intermingling of the institutions of Science and Religion, on the grounds that they were concerned with different realms and served different roles. Sound familiar?

"..one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion."

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."

"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."

The efficacy of placebo is between high 30 and high 60 percent depending on where you get your numbers. (Beecher [2] or Roberts, A. H., D. G. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell [3] ). According to everything Science knows, prayer is placebo because it functions in the same fashion and puts up the same percentages.

Not surprisingly, the high quality and quantity of data available on this subject has failed to produce any revelations in the religious community over the last 70+ years, which speaks again to the inability of that sector of society to connect the dots in cases where the picture formed disagrees with pre-conceived, pre-packaged notions.

Religion has never been able to help Science carry Prometheus's torch, and never will, because the religious fear Zeus more than they desire knowledge.

That does it for me. Thanks everybody.

[1] Albert Einstein. The World as I see it. (1934)

[2] H.K. Beecher. The powerful placebo. (1955)

[3] A.H. Roberts, D. G. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. The power of nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments. (1997)

WyrdeOne has pointed out examples he claims are evidence that religion and science are incompatible, such as the Spanish Inquisition (science?), suicide bombers (science?), witch trials (science?), concentration camps (science), fascism (science? religion?) and communism (religion?). He has also helped us to define what religion is based on the root terms from older languages, like religio, and has based much of his argument around this definition for religion he created. He also pointed out with his quotes from Einstein that Einstein was generally a Buddhist (a religion) and did not believe in a judgemental God or the institutions of science and religion mingling.

I have demonstrated how Sir Francis Bacon's belief in creation and an orderly universe birthed the scientific method, the cornerstone of modern science. I have shown how science has begun to investigate remote healing because religious beliefs spurred an investigation that yielded promising results. I have also demonstrated how religious belief has caused scientists to be driven to discover more and to generate imaginative ideas based off of religious ones. I chose to define religion based on Webster's dictionary, which is often used in discovering the current definitions of words in the English language instead of creating my own.

Most importantly, I have quoted directly from the Qur'an, the Islamic Holy Book, statements that directly contradict WyrdeOne's stance that religion attempts to silence science. As I said earlier, any Islamic cleric who tries to silence it violates the teachings of their own religion and is a hypocrite.

By WyrdeOne's own personal definition of what religion is, or rather religio, he is correct; some religious institutions have prevented scientific development. So, too, have some scientific institutions (scienito?) prevented scientific development. Newton himself was notorious for this, protecting his theories by ruining any scientist who would challenge his laws of motion after he'd gone to Cambridge. If we are to take the exceptions to the rule and make that apply to all the groups, then not only does religio not belong in science, but neither does science. Yes, the Catholic church silenced and arrested Galileo for his science. The Catholic church also developed the concept of the university, and most of the major universities in the US were begun as theological schools.

Religion has already contributed a lot to modern science. It has spurred discoveries, created systems by which scientific theories can be proven, and is in the process of driving other scientific ideas. If we now say they are no longer compatible and remove any religious ideas from the scientific arena, what future discoveries will we lose?

Phase One: Completed
Phase Two: In Progress

They've spoken, and the winner of this debate is WyrdeOne with 7-5 for him. Good luck in Round 3!

This was an absolutely excellent debate, mainly because a very important distinction was made nearly from the start - the distinction between religion and faith. I think both debaters would agree that faith is an incredible asset to science and both discussed the point well. However, WyrdeOne's definition of religion as a political institution was the key to deciding the winner of the debate. Religion, as implied in this debate, I believe, is a political institution. WyrdeOne proved very strongly that historically and theoreticaly religion as a political institution is incompatible with science. While my vote goes to WyrdeOne, I would like to commend junglejake on an extremely well-structured, defended and organized debate.

I got to the end of this one and I just thought, "it's a dead heat". Tough to pick a winner it was, but in the end I feel Junglejake's lines of reasoning were just that little bit stronger and won the debate for him. I'll be very interested to see the results for this debate. Well done to both participants.

I believe junglejake is the victor, he in my opinion has kept more accurately on topic and debated with a higher level of skill.

Wow! Very good debate. Both participants tackled difficult positions and handled them with panache. The struggle over the question of politics in religion was classic, well-articulated and unsurprisingly central to the argument. It was a tough call. Both sides did exceptionally well, but I felt WyrdeOne made the stronger case.