Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[John Cuthber]

Unless I missed something the "explanation" offered by religion was always "Goddidit".

But, unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

 

It's not so much that it's a rubbish explanation (which would be easily forgiven, since they simply didn't know better)- the problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

[Phi for All]

It's not so much that it's a rubbish explanation (which would be easily forgiven, since they simply didn't know better)- the problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

 

Explanations are supposed to provide clarity and reason, I'll grant you, but even in science explanations have a qualitative aspect. One explanation can be better than another and still be considered an explanation, just not the most accepted.

 

I think religious explanations tend to be more of a justification for belief as opposed to a statement of clarification. Religious reasons typically have very little reason in them.

[MonDie]

[snip]

 

But, unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

 

[/snip]

 

Supporting the explanation requires showing that a god exists, but knowing whence the god came is only one way to know it exists.

Edited July 22, 2014 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

 

Supporting the explanation requires showing that a god exists, but knowing whence the god came is only one way to know it exists.

Indeed, you have pointed out another way in which religion fails.

Also, the question is not "does God exist" but "Why does God exist".

[Fred Champion]

Unless I missed something the "explanation" offered by religion was always "Goddidit".

But, unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

 

It's not so much that it's a rubbish explanation (which would be easily forgiven, since they simply didn't know better)- the problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

Since no one else seems willing, I will take the other side for a bit. I wouldn't want Nicholas to think there is only one side.

 

"unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question."

unless you explain where and how the singularity came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

Indeed, you have pointed out another way in which religion fails.

Also, the question is not "does God exist" but "Why does God exist".

You know perfectly well that the "why" question is out of bounds. We can not know why things are the way they are; we can only hope to discover how things came to be as they are.

 

Why things are this way is because they would be either this way or some other way or not at all.

 

You do realize your question "Why does God exist" includes the premise that God does exist, don't you?

[John Cuthber]

If you don't understand the difference between "why is God" and "why is the singularity" then perhaps you might consider this

Which am I more likely to find in my garden, a grain of sand or an elephant?

 

A singularity is very simple and so is intrinsically more likely than a God.

That's before we get to the bit about making useful predictions (where religion fails).

 

And as far as science is concerned, no question is, as you put it "out of bounds".

so, once again, religion fails.

 

Who do you think you are that you can tell me what's out of bounds?

[Moontanman]

Since no one else seems willing, I will take the other side for a bit. I wouldn't want Nicholas to think there is only one side.

 

"unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question."

unless you explain where and how the singularity came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question.

You know perfectly well that the "why" question is out of bounds. We can not know why things are the way they are; we can only hope to discover how things came to be as they are.

 

Why things are this way is because they would be either this way or some other way or not at all.

 

You do realize your question "Why does God exist" includes the premise that God does exist, don't you?

 

 

I know you are trying to insult me by ignoring me but I will take your questions on. Why god exists is begging the question, why the singularity existed is not. Of course i am taking the Abrahamic version of god which has a non answer to why god exists, if you just want to talk generic god it is still begging the question from several directions. The singularity is not the end of questioning, there are many hypothesis that deal with where and why of what we call the singularity many paths that are being investigated but god always existed is not an answer it is a question.

 

So tell me why which god you ascribe to and i can take it apart or not as the case may be but the mystery of god is a question, the mysteries of the natural are always open to investigation, Brobdingnagian or infinitesimal the mysteries of the natural world are open to question always, there is no "well we're here time to stop looking" in science but that is all religion really is...

This might might make things a bit clearer Fred Champion...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O941fIJsS8c

[harshgoel1975]

The biggest difference between science and Religion.. Science keep on adding the new facts.. acceptance based on experiments are part and parcel of science... but most religion ( not all ) are based on belief ....Science is dynamic religion is not dynamic....Science is needed to live....but people can live without religion... science has one statement ... ..but. different religion has different statement about same thing... strange...and finally.. all scientist can sit together and talk in same lines.. but all religious people cannot sit together..even there GODS don't co-exists.. they can't sit together and talk in same lines... funny..

[PeterJ]

I rather think the jury is out on the survival advantages of modern technological civilisation. It may turn out to be the death of us. Hopefully not, but it is a possible scenario.

 

The comments about religion here seem a bit too broad. Religion can be the search for truth, but it can also be a way to bury our head in the sand. It can be highly organised method for discovering profound knowledge, but it can also be an excuse for never having to learn anything at all. It can be a real benefit to science, but can also be the rejection of the scientific method and even of reason itself. It can be a motivation to turn the other cheek, and it can be a motive for taking an eye for an eye. Religion can be pretty much whatever we want to make of it. It can include the idea that we should take things on faith, and it can be the complete refusal to take anything on faith. It will depend on what sort of person we are, and especially on how rational and scientific our approach is to the teachings and practices. Science, with its surrounding halo of speculative metaphysics and pseudo-science, can be most of these things also.

 

So I always worry about arguing for or against religion. It's a bit like arguing for or against politics.

 

On that last point about progress in science and religion - Where religion teaches a particular philosophical position and soteriological doctrine it will never change. It is supposed to be true and the truth never changes. It would be nice to see some progress in the monotheistic religious sects, wherever faith is given as much credence as realisation and all sorts of fundamentally incoherent ideas circulate, but we cannot expect progress in, say, Taoism, where what Lao Tsu said is still supposed to be true. In these more philosophically sound religions any progress would be more about improving the language, explaining things better, finding better methods and so on, not in changes to the world-description, which will never change.

Edited August 29, 2014 by PeterJ

[Theman777]

I say both existed at the same time. Because did not God create the laws of science?

[John Cuthber]

"I say both existed at the same time. Because did not God create the laws of science?"

Got any evidence?

And, as far as I know, that's not something Thor was ever said to have done.

[Moontanman]

I say both existed at the same time. Because did not God create the laws of science?

Evidence for god please...

[harshgoel1975]

Development /creation of religion is a much complicated process.....I personally believe that initially there was no religion... and as human had limited knowledge.... ( even today we claim we discovered many many things .. which may be true from comparison point of view from past .. but it is very limited only...) ... so mankind tried to formulate and gave shape and postulates to explain the phenomena.. which were very very unscientific...

 

now as we understand many phenomena is much better way..there is a need to update the religious concept.... infarct today now we just don't need religion .. but only science...