The Roles of Religion and Science

[Vladimir Lenin]

" '[B]elieving that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.'

Running for a bus is a focused empirical act and the steps you take are instrumental to its end. The positions one assumes in ballet have no such end; they are after something else, and that something doesn’t yield to the usual forms of measurement....

And, conversely, the fact that religion and theology cannot provide a technology for explaining how the material world works should not be held against them, either, for that is not what they do. When Christopher Hitchens declares that given the emergence of “the telescope and the microscope” religion “no longer offers an explanation of anything important,” Eagleton replies, “But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.”

Stanley Fish, "God Talk" A review of Terry Eagleton's Book "Reason, Faith, and Revolution"

I think this is something that most atheists struggle with. My faith, is not meant to explain how the earth was made, or any kind of how. My faith, is to explain the "why". Why was the earth made?

It provides me a moral framework. How should I live my life? (In questions of morality my religion does provide a how).

It is incorrect to take religion and measure it by science. Both have their roles.

In conclusion, "To use science to address religious concerns perverts it. Likewise, to use religion to address scientific concerns is a debacle. We need to stop choosing between the two, and instead recognize the purpose and limitations of both." http://yaholo.net/

[MaximiIian]

I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould that Religion and Science cover different areas of thought.

[Nietzsche]

I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould that Religion and Science cover different areas of thought.

And he would be a liar.

[GuineaPig]

The problem is that religion and science are polar opposites. Religion is based purely on faith; belief in mythology often plucked from midair, with no basis in the natural world. Science is the regimented and careful observation of natural systems that is constantly seeking to better itself.

It's natural that the proponents of either would dismiss the other.

And yes, Stephen Jay Gould is indeed wrong if he thinks science and religion cover different areas of thought, as it is not exactly a difficult proposition to name a religion without a creation story, or claims about the natural world.

[Vladimir Lenin]

The problem is that religion and science are polar opposites. Religion is based purely on faith; belief in mythology often plucked from midair, with no basis in the natural world. Science is the regimented and careful observation of natural systems that is constantly seeking to better itself.

It's natural that the proponents of either would dismiss the other.

And yes, Stephen Jay Gould is indeed wrong if he thinks science and religion cover different areas of thought, as it is not exactly a difficult proposition to name a religion without a creation story, or claims about the natural world.

I adressed that if you read my post. Religion and Science are both different. Science tells us how, what, and when. But it does not tell us why. That is the realm of religion.

[Hippolord]

I adressed that if you read my post. Religion and Science are both different. Science tells us how, what, and when. But it does not tell us why. That is the realm of religion.

I like that one!

Science in my opinon will tell you everything, except for the most important question of all: Why?

[nopasties]

I adressed that if you read my post. Religion and Science are both different. Science tells us how, what, and when. But it does not tell us why. That is the realm of religion.

Anything that can be called science should maintain mechanistic objectivity. Religion is good for those things in life that need unquestioned subjective valuation. Simply believing in something like a soul can have a transcendent appeal to those things in life that we are emotionally attached to. Religion does not have to be stupid and ignorant. Sophistication can be be applied towards some sort of dichotomous split. There are plenty of religious scientists out there. Religion may be more primitive in a sense than science but the brain still has those more primitive regions of the brain that yearn for god and spirituality. I am not a religious person but I do have a loose agnostic spirituality at times. I accept not everything can be rationalized for the shear sake of expediency and delegate certain issues to this more primitive mode of thinking.

[Tankbuster]

Both are different ways of thinking, that only barely overlap. But I think that one side is completely obsolete.

I adressed that if you read my post. Religion and Science are both different. Science tells us how, what, and when. But it does not tell us why. That is the realm of religion.

No, actually that's not true. Science tends to make the why obsolete.
Why does gravity want to pull things down?
Why does the Earth want to rotate around the sun?
Why, oh why, will the sun run out of fuel in 5 billion years
These questions become meaningless when you understand the physics. There is no deeper why.

[MaximiIian]

The problem is that religion and science are polar opposites. Religion is based purely on faith; belief in mythology often plucked from midair, with no basis in the natural world.

Not...really. Religion is the attempt to explain the natural world with the terms and concepts of the time a given religious system developed in. Judaism attempted to explain the world using Bronze Age knowledge. Greek polytheism tried to explain the world using Hellenistic science and philosophy. Et cetera.

Merely because some religious precepts are based on faith and assumptions does not mean religion in its entirety is. Nor does it mean they pluck it out of nowhere. It heavily depends on the religion in question and how stringently the holy texts of it are interpreted.

[Phier]

Religion will always be there for those without the inner strength to accept the true place of man or grasp the universe for all its beauty without dreaming up an artist.

[Ummon]

Religion will always be there for those without the inner strength to accept the true place of man or grasp the universe for all its beauty without dreaming up an artist.

I always feel that those who speak of inner strength are trying to reassure themselves that their bitterness is force.

All human beings are cowardly, most of all when they are courageous: being courageous is being intelligently a coward.

[Bovril]

Religion certainly does explain the world (I only omit the word natural because it is, contemporaneously at least, fairly meaningless). Religion expresses the existential condition of man in the world, or, if you prefer, the relationship of experience and being (existenz, to use a rather apposite German term) with the essential.

It may well be that there are many people whose spiritual understanding is so perverted that they have made a god of empiricism (what an absurdity!), but for those of us who remain aware of our humanity, and all that implies, religion plays a vital explanitory role.

[chriscase]

It may well be that there are many people whose spiritual understanding is so perverted that they have made a god of empiricism (what an absurdity!), but for those of us who remain aware of our humanity, and all that implies, religion plays a vital explanitory role.

At the risk of exposing myself to a cheap shot, I will admit I fail to see how religion is vital to humanity. To me, all spiritual observations can be easily reformulated as psychological observations.

[Nietzsche]

At the risk of exposing myself to a cheap shot, I will admit I fail to see how religion is vital to humanity. To me, all spiritual observations can be easily reformulated as psychological observations.

I'm not going to cheap shot this. On the contrary, I want a more thorough explanation.

*waits impatiently*

[Bovril]

At the risk of exposing myself to a cheap shot, I will admit I fail to see how religion is vital to humanity. To me, all spiritual observations can be easily reformulated as psychological observations.

I'm afraid I strongly disagree, simply because, perhaps ironically, I take a strongly "evidential" aproach to psycholology. If Freud and Jung are psychologists (and I would contend that, in the modern sense, they are not) then yes, I agree with you. But I think that if that is the case then Religion in many, many forms, has primacy over this wierd sort of psuedo-sicence.

The same, of course, goes for philosophy, though the thinkers who have tried to unite philosophy and psychology are far more insightfull, in my opinion that those who have analysed religion qua religion (this is a most important 'bit in italics') in terms of psychology. People like Witgenstien, Heidegger and Satre, who psychologised philosophy are great thinkers. I cannot think of any great minds who have psychologised religion. That may be my failing, however. Here I should stress that I am talking about religion in itself, not external explanations that do not account for the explanations and inteletual content of religions.

But I've only talked about why religion cannot usefully be reduced to psychology. Why religion is vital is another topic and rather a broad and contentious one. I'd simply refer interested readers to the idea that religion is the element of depth in human understanding that represents our ground, our ideal and our ultimate concern. If this is true then religion has more primacy than psychology ever could (simply in terms of levels of cognitive processing apart from anything else) about certain vital questions, and more than that, is intensely involved in the praxis of existence for every human being who is not stuck down but cripling malaise.

[Ummon]

I cannot think of any great minds who have psychologised religion.

There remains to be seen what objective considerations we can make about being a great mind, compared to whom.

[IrishHitman]

"My faith, is to explain the "why". Why was the earth made?"

Aren't you assuming there is a reason?

Furthermore, if your faith only explains the "Why", care to explain all the other trappings of religion?
You know, all the stuff that religion dominates that requires the "How" to justify?

[Chaigidel]

religion functions as a social organism, I think this is proven quite clearly by Islam.---- it is part of the human society and always will be.

the face may change but God remains the same.

[Phier]

religion functions as a social organism, I think this is proven quite clearly by Islam.---- it is part of the human society and always will be.

the face may change but God remains the same.

So do fans of sports teams.

Embrace the face of god.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Chaigidel]

yes but the fans of sports teams are not willing to kill and be killed for the sake of the greater organism.