Why should we choose Religion over Science?

Question for everyone, a simple question.

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

We shouldn't.

Religion's purpose is to answer the outer, non-physical, unmeasurable-by-science questions. Science's purpose is to answer the mechanistic questions pertaining to this particular instance of physical reality. Both play a role in defining existence, both should be treated with proper respect, and neither should be seen as an alternative to the other.

Originally posted by Glass
We shouldn't.

Religion's purpose is to answer the outer, non-physical, unmeasurable-by-science questions. Science's purpose is to answer the mechanistic questions pertaining to this particular instance of physical reality. Both play a role in defining existence, both should be treated with proper respect, and neither should be seen as an alternative to the other.

Both can't coexist though.

Religion and Science don't agree with each other.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by Glass
We shouldn't.

Religion's purpose is to answer the outer, non-physical, unmeasurable-by-science questions. Science's purpose is to answer the mechanistic questions pertaining to this particular instance of physical reality. Both play a role in defining existence, both should be treated with proper respect, and neither should be seen as an alternative to the other.

Both can't coexist though.

Religion and Science don't agree with each other.

Yet they coexist as we speak.

Right and wrong, negative and positive, life and death, yin and yang. None of those agree with each other because they're opposites, yet they coexist in our reality.

Neither should be chosen over the other, they're opposites and each has served its purpose throughout human history, both negatively and positively impacting our existence.

reply to post by danielsil18


If at any point one disagrees with the other, it is because they are trespassing on the other's domain.

There are flaws in both religion and science. Both have become dogmatic institutions. If you believe that the two cannot coexist, you have bought in to the dogma.

reply to post by FidelityMusic

Yet they coexist as we speak.

Right and wrong, negative and positive, life and death, yin and yang. None of those agree with each other because they're opposites, yet they coexist in our reality.

Neither should be chosen over the other, they're opposites and each has served its purpose throughout human history, both negatively and positively impacting our world.

They coexist just like Lions coexist with Hyenas.

Both can't survive because as science progresses and reveals more answers, it pushes away religion.

Using Christianity as an example. You can't believe the Earth being 6,000 years old while accepting that it's 4.6 billion years old. You either choose science or religion.

reply to post by danielsil18


Why do we have to anyways? Theology and Science go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by danielsil18

 

If at any point one disagrees with the other, it is because they are trespassing on the other's domain.

There are flaws in both religion and science. Both have become dogmatic institutions. If you believe that the two cannot coexist, you have bought in to the dogma.

How can they coexist when they don't agree in many things?

Both can't be right. Let's use Christianity as an example. One says our ancestors were Adam and Eve, while Science completely disagrees.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Why do we have to anyways? Theology and Science go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.

They can't.

Religion says one thing, while Science says another thing.

Let's use Christianity as an example. What would happen to Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was wrong?

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by FidelityMusic

 

Yet they coexist as we speak.

Right and wrong, negative and positive, life and death, yin and yang. None of those agree with each other because they're opposites, yet they coexist in our reality.

Neither should be chosen over the other, they're opposites and each has served its purpose throughout human history, both negatively and positively impacting our world.

They coexist just like Lions coexist with Hyenas.

Both can't survive because as science progresses and reveals more answers, it pushes away religion.

Using Christianity as an example. You can't believe the Earth being 6,000 years old while accepting that it's 4.6 billion years old. You either choose science or religion.

You're giving me the impression that you have this perception that religion is just some system comprised of silly stories like Noah building an ark large enough to hold 2 of each living thing on Earth to save them from a flood, and a Snake telling Eve to eat the fruit she was forbidden to eat. You could use science or simply "common sense" in our day and age to disprove that a snake actually talked, or that Noah would've been able to build an ark big enough to house 2 of each living thing on Earth.

Originally posted by danielsil18
They can't.

Religion says one thing, while Science says another thing.

Let's use Christianity as an example. What would happen to Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was wrong?

Here you go with the religion says one thing, science says another again. You're using obviously fictional stories as examples. I'd love to see you get more in depth with religion, cut the little fairy tales and let's start talking about the moral aspects of religions from Buddhism to Christianity. Let's talk about ideas many people derive from their religion, like loving one another and treating others the way you want to be treated, not being able to exist because science says one thing and religion say another.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by danielsil18

 

If at any point one disagrees with the other, it is because they are trespassing on the other's domain.

There are flaws in both religion and science. Both have become dogmatic institutions. If you believe that the two cannot coexist, you have bought in to the dogma.

How can they coexist when they don't agree in many things?

Both can't be right. Let's use Christianity as an example. One says our ancestors were Adam and Eve, while Science completely disagrees.

1. Christianity is not the only religion; the story of Adam and Eve is not the only religious origin story of our species.

2. The story of Adam and Eve is clearly not a literal, factual account of our ancestry, but rather a parable intended to teach certain truths about the human condition. To suggest that it is a factual account is to intrude upon the the domain of science, which deals with thoroughly examining facts.

3. Obviously, there was never really a talking snake, but what does the snake represent? What do the tree of knowledge and tree of life represent? What is implied by the act of eating the fruit of the tree? The real value of the story is hidden in symbols.

4. The fact that we are not actually descended from a man made of clay and a woman made from the man's rib does not completely invalidate the lessons imparted by their tale.

reply to post by danielsil18

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

...Because of a lethal allergy to facts and research?

reply to post by FidelityMusic

You're giving me the impression that you have this perception that religion is just some system comprised of silly stories like Noah building an ark large enough to hold 2 of each living thing on Earth to save them from a flood, and a Snake telling Eve to eat the fruit she was forbidden to eat. You could use science or simply "common sense" in our day and age to disprove that a snake actually talked, or that Noah would've been able to build an ark big enough to house 2 of each living thing on Earth.

It's a part of religion that you can't just leave out. In Christianity the Bible is basically proof that God exists. They use the Bible to explain the world which science and, like you said, common sense disproves. You just can't say religion is not about their Bible, are there more things than just the Bible? of course, but don't take the Bible out of it since you know that the Bible is an important piece in their religion.

But I like where this is going so let's take out the Bible for now and go with your second response.

Here you go with the religion says one thing, science says another again. You're using obviously fictional stories as examples. I'd love to see you get more in depth with religion, cut the little fairy tales and let's start talking about the moral aspects of religions from Buddhism to Christianity. Let's talk about ideas many people derive from their religion, like loving one another and treating others the way you want to be treated, not being able to exist because science says one thing and religion say another.

Then let's talk about moral aspects about religion. Buddhism is the only "religion" that I agree can coexist with science. But I don't see Christianity, Catholism or Islam doing that, so let's talk about them.

What about the moral aspects of Christianity, Catholicism or Islam?

reply to post by danielsil18

Let's use Christianity as an example. What would happen to Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was wrong?

In just the first 3 chapters of Genesis, there are two different accounts of creation and of Adam and Eve already.

reply to post by danielsil18

Buddhism is the only "religion" that I agree can coexist with science.

Hinduism is pretty Okay with science, too.

Hmm...

reply to post by danielsil18


Why does it have to be a choice of "religion" or____?

Where's spirituality in this choice?

reply to post by Glass

1. Christianity is not the only religion; the story of Adam and Eve is not the only religious origin story of our species.

I know that but like I said, I was using Christianity as an example.

2. The story of Adam and Eve is clearly not a literal, factual account of our ancestry, but rather a parable intended to teach certain truths about the human condition. To suggest that it is a factual account is to intrude upon the the domain of science, which deals with thoroughly examining facts.

3. Obviously, there was never really a talking snake, but what does the snake represent? What do the tree of knowledge and tree of life represent? What is implied by the act of eating the fruit of the tree? The real value of the story is hidden in symbols.

4. The fact that we are not actually descended from a man made of clay and a woman made from the man's rib does not completely invalidate the lessons imparted by their tale.

I wanted to put 2, 3, and 4 together to ask you this since you say that the Bible shouldn't be taken literaly because it was created to teach people lessons about humanity.

Should we recommend Christians to also read "The little Engine that Could". Since that book would also teach them something valuable in life, which is hard work and optimism.

My point is that many Christians won't accept science because their religion doesn't agree with science.

Originally posted by danielsil18
Question for everyone, a simple question.

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Science discovers and documents facts, like how every living thing is made of DNA. Religion just guesses that a magician made the DNA.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Religion is the institution of spirituality, likewise science is the institution of knowledge.

One may be spiritual without religion or knowledgeable without science, but these institutions can certainly help to advance these qualities in an individual

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Why does it have to be a choice of "religion" or____?

Where's spirituality in this choice?

There are many choices but I just wanted to talk about science and religion since I think that they can't coexist.