Domine- A Reasonable Look At Religion And Science.

Tophat's picture

I think that religion should be discouraged in the scientific community. And thank God, it is.

How in God's name could you POSSIBLY mix the two? These quacks who claim that religion and science can mix are idiots! Science, by nature, is based on fact, and religion, by nature, is based on faith. In order for something to be accepted in the scientific community, it must make sense, logically, mathematically, or in some other secular (in the worldly definition of the word) department.

Faith, however, is not meant to make sense. Because once faith makes sense, it is no longer faith. In order to have faith, you must first have uncertainty. The stupidity of mixing faith and science is more illogical than faith itself.

I shall forever hold the Christian scientists to be a highly suspect group. They do not belong. Nor do scientists of any faith.

I am not saying that scientists are unable to be good scientists. No, many of the world's greatest minds were religious. However, those who attempt to mix religion and science may as well be practicing Phrenology. Or perhaps changing lead into gold. The idea of mixing religion and science ought to be considered a pseudo-scientific piece of intellectual bullshit. It is the equivalent of attempting to mix oil and water. It shall never do any good.

My point being, we should disregard the so-called scientists who claim that science proves God. Better yet, we should burn them at the stake for heresy.

Despite my rather emotional word choice, my arguments are rational, hence the title.

Comments

Tophat's picture

No offense meant to religious people.

This is an objective argument from a subjective man. Sorry.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

swimmerguy's picture

I hear you...

I'm not a religious guy, and I don't like it when people bug me with religion. It ties in with me being gay. I'm gay, you're not. Suck it up, buttercup. Same with that. You're religious, I'm not. Deal with it.

If you're going through hell, keep going. ~Winston Churchill

Uncertain's picture

That's why we are supposed

That's why we are supposed to have a secular government, or at least any country with a decent government should.

But I have to disagree and say while religion is based on faith, it can still make sense - at least to the individual. They probably believe in it because it does make the most sense to them. I think what you mean is religion shouldn't be proven, or it shouldn't be deduced from empirical evidence. Either way, I wouldn't denounce religion completely. While science can explain phenomena, to what extent we apply that knowledge is a matter of principle. Not everyone is capable of the sort of independent thought required to synthesise "morality" on empircal grounds. Such people sometimes need religion to provide them with some sort of guiding principle to their behaviour. While you might argue blind faith is bad, surely some of the egalitarian principles and 'altruism' due to religion certainly, has been good. (Two examples would be World Vision or Catholic Church funding education/schools worldwide).

Tophat's picture

Good arguments,

But I believe that the OVERALL effect of religion is negative. While they do good works, the overall effect is extremely negative, outweighing the positive aspects.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

jeff's picture

Eh...

I think doing good things to make God happy is creepy.

Altruism is part of evolution, not religion.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Tophat's picture

Correct.

I remember when I was on the opposite side of this fence.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

Uncertain's picture

I know altruism is part of

I know altruism is part of evolution. But people might also be more inclined to do more 'altruistic' things for others because of their religion - even if they're doing it for God. Hence the quotation marks around 'altruism' in the original post because I recognise it's not true altruism.

Creepy or not, those actions still made someone else's life better, in that case.

Tophat's picture

However...

A person's life is less important than the damages done to the overall human experience.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

Uncertain's picture

You are missing some causal links

That one statement in itself has very little grounding besides some metaphysical speculation. First of all, it wouldn't just be a person's life, it would've been many.

But even if such outcomes weren't utilitarian, it is also a issue of practicality. While you are idealistic about the world being a better place without religion, religion or at least faith is a permanent fixation in our 'human experience'. It is impractical to imagine a world without religion, as I have explained previously that not everyone has the capacity to deduce morality logically, especially independently. If it is not done so independently, then there must be the aspect of faith involved - And if it wasn't religion, it would've been faith in an authority, in a government, in an instituton, or regime - ie. USSR and Communist China or even belief in the Nazi doctrine, which all denounced religion. (So in fact, the world can be worse). While again this is all blind faith which I agree is bad, it just shows it is impractical to censor faith because it persists in other forms, and it is inconsequential to scapegoat religion as the cause of this evil. People don't have the ability (and simply don't want to) to work things out on their own, and religion and 'faith' in moderation may be the optimal outcome to act as their guiding pricinples provided these constraints.

It wouldn't be religion that did a disservice to man, but simply our basic human instinct to follow something. I think banning or censoring religion is targetting a confounded effect, and not the cause.

Tophat's picture

I have no desire to ban or censor religion...

Except for in a scientific setting, where religion has no place. A person's personal beliefs are acceptable, but these beliefs should not be tied into science or politics. I was not arguing for abolishment of religion in this article.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

jeff's picture

And...

Either keep churches out of politics or remove their tax-exempt status.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Tophat's picture

Right.

That, too. If a church becomes involved, it is no longer exempt.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

Uncertain's picture

Maybe not in research and

Maybe not in research and politics, but for the cases when science has to be applied then I think the individual has the right to exercise whatever religious belief they have.

jeff's picture

Depends...

Mother Teresa was heralded for all her humanitarian work, but most of the money donated specifically to her was sent back to the church and wasn't used to help the people around her. In his book rebuking Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens showed that she believed there was nobility in suffering, and little was done to really improve their lives, just involve the church in their poverty and servitude.

Here's an article he wrote on the subject: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Uncertain's picture

Shame on her.

Shame on her.

oldfoxbob's picture

Church?

What or who do they worship? The almighty Dollar is who...
Brother Billy Bob here...The lord said to me Brother Billy Bob do you want that Cement pond in your back yard? Yes lord I do...He said: Brother Billy Bob do you want that rotating driveway in your front yard...Yes lord I do...So he told to say: People reach deep....DEEP I SAY...DEEP in that pocket and give it to me!!!!!
OFB

Genius is not a sign of intelligence, but rather
that of common sense. Humor is the best pain pill.

Tophat's picture

Nice.

I like that.

---------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan

l.enigma_ambulante's picture

That sounds like something

That sounds like something my cousin would say.

Except he's a bible-thumpin' Baptist, so he actually means it... -.-

[[Love means you can never be apart... <3]]

Lol-taire's picture

I Disagree

Religion is not antithetical to rationality. Also, 'science' is to an extent still constructed. There are laws of nature that obviously exist independent of human cognition, and science is our interpretation of our observation of them. How we express and make sense of what we observe (and what we see in the first place), is to an extent culturally determined.

This doesn't mean science is 'wrong'- or that various forms of psuedoscience are 'right'- but it does mean our understanding of happens in natural processes is influenced by our expectations of the way the world (including the natural world) works or should work.

But that's an interesting (and complicated and controversial) area.

The scholastics reconciled classical learning with Christian theology, through use of the dialectic. You ever tried reading St Aquinas' Summa Theologica? (no you haven't, because it's bloody boring). But it's relentlessly logical.

Because put simply, in a world where God exists; it's rational to believe in God.

And of course 200 years ago (less), almost every scientist would have professed faith. From Newton to Pascal, deep and profoundly felt religious faith was complimentary to scientific endeavour. There was no contradiction.

And many contemporary mathmaticians and physicists are religious, simply because you reach a level where you are so dazzled by both the complexity and unexpected order in the universe you need a God to stop yourself going mad. There is nothing naive about this.

If I ever convert, it will be because I finally understand really difficult maths.

But in a sense I agree- now we live in a world where God doesn't need to exist, it's not necessary to reconcile scripture with nature.

But if religious scientists apply religious intepretation to the natural world, we also see fields of science emerge to suit secular idealogies- the reactionary shit that passes as evolutionary psychology is just one example. Not to mention the fact that all scientific research has to be funded, and that the funding bodies- be they state or private sector- have their own agenda for comissioning research which can be as insideous as a religious one.

Tophat's picture

I see your point,

And I accept your reasoning. I was incorrect in my condemnation. Thanks for showing me that.

--------------------------------------------------
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan