Raising scientific literacy

[Phoenix Wright]

I recently read this topic on Reddit, about convincing a creationist that science is made as a tool for understanding "how" god created the world, not "why." He pretended that he was a believer in the Christian God, and with that being assumed, was able to convince others that knowledge about science is extremely important in becoming a better Christian and a better person.

So, is it acceptable to pretend that you believe in God to attempt to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science?

Edited January 14, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Zanarkin]

So, is it acceptable to pretend that you believe in God to attempt to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science?

While attempting to to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science is a good thing, I do not think it should be done in such a way that it leads people to believe that it is about "how" god created the world. I think that would just lead to ridiculous ideas about science. Science is not a tool to become better in any religion, and i do not think people should be fooled into such a belief.

[Celice]

So, is it acceptable to pretend that you believe in God to attempt to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science?

I don't think it's acceptable to ever pretend to do something so that you trick someone into becoming "better." I feel that's robbing them of their ability to be something of their own (placing aside all influence which already shapes us, of course). I'd rather all converse be clear, open, and honest, in which all parties can communicate and understand without phantasmal boundaries inbetween which somehow alter the communication from what it actually is into what it is perceived to be (in this case, pretending to be a Christian in order to argue a specific point--trying to manipulate, in other words). If one is not able to come to things on their own terms through complete honesty (taking the guise was a dishonest method), then I don't think it's acceptable. I don't.

I also have a thing against you using 'necessity'

[Ring Wraith]

Looking at former great theist scientists, they always had that perspective that science was God's way of putting order to the world, and they sought to discover what God had created. No problem there. The result is the same, the perspective is different. I'm not sure why people would have a problem with it. Science and religion do not need to be exclusive.

[Espinosa]

If somebody gives science no credit, I don't see the benefits of making such people "aware" of science, because with that initial attitude they won't be making any contributions to its development anytime soon. And really, how more "aware" of it can we possibly get when urban life is surrounded with latest inventions and you can't exactly go without them if you want to properly function in today's society. Some people see television, the internet and iPhones and whatnot as a lesser evil rather than something that makes you proud of human progress, and I don't see why deceitful techniques would be needed to convince people of the opposite. What would that achieve anyway? Encourage donations? Give Apple more customers? Just establish peace between the secular and the traditional values? I honestly don't see the point of that manoeuvring when all you get is dubious bragging rights about how you "ahahaha convinced a silly Creationist" of something by being dialectically dishonest in a questionable community like reddit's.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Espinosa

[Phoenix Wright]

Excuse me, my word choice in my topic title was not the best fit for what I'm trying to say. I've edited it to say "scientific literacy."

That doesn't change any responses, but I thought I should clear that up.

While attempting to to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science is a good thing, I do not think it should be done in such a way that it leads people to believe that it is about "how" god created the world. I think that would just lead to ridiculous ideas about science. Science is not a tool to become better in any religion, and i do not think people should be fooled into such a belief.

As Ring Wraith said, for a theist, that is usually how they will view the scientific method and the use of science--a method to understand the world that god created. I don't think this will lead to ridiculous ideas about science--I think being unaware of how the scientific method works leads to whacky ideas about science.

I don't think it's acceptable to ever pretend to do something so that you trick someone into becoming "better." I feel that's robbing them of their ability to be something of their own (placing aside all influence which already shapes us, of course). I'd rather all converse be clear, open, and honest, in which all parties can communicate and understand without phantasmal boundaries inbetween which somehow alter the communication from what it actually is into what it is perceived to be (in this case, pretending to be a Christian in order to argue a specific point--trying to manipulate, in other words). If one is not able to come to things on their own terms through complete honesty (taking the guise was a dishonest method), then I don't think it's acceptable. I don't.

I also have a thing against you using 'necessity'

Indeed, but what if someone blindly rejects the other honest person's points, based upon that person's religious preference (or lack thereof)? Like the example from the creator of the reddit topic--the man may not have listened to a single word the creator of the topic said if he admitted he was an atheist. But, because of his guise, he was able to get the other man to listen, instead of revert to blind rage. What if this was the only way that a conversation sparks?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I'm just curious to know your opinion on my questions above.

By all means, expand on what you mean. Science is one of the only ways society progresses, and leaving scientific knowledge in the hands of the few is dangerous, therefore I think scientific knowledge should be spread widely.

I honestly don't see the point of that manoeuvring when all you get is dubious bragging rights about how you "ahahaha convinced a silly Creationist" of something by being dialectically dishonest in a questionable community like reddit's.

The point is not to convince, the point is to enlighten--or at least attempt to. And, obviously the term "enlighten" is subjective.

I wouldn't want my children having faith in evolution, I would want them to understand the basics of it and observe the evidence. Similarly, I do not want people to be "convinced" because I'm articulate, I want people to understand that science, or for example, evolution, is not as weird and far-fetched as it may seem on the surface.

What do mean when you say Reddit is a "questionable" community?

Edited January 14, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Celice]

Indeed, but what if someone blindly rejects the other honest person's points, based upon that person's religious preference (or lack thereof)? Like the example from the creator of the reddit topic--the man may not have listened to a single word the creator of the topic said if he admitted he was an atheist. But, because of his guise, he was able to get the other man to listen, instead of revert to blind rage. What if this was the only way that a conversation sparks?

There's not really a response fit for this, because there's nothing to respond to :o These "Ifs" don't really lead anywhere, other than a They Do.They Don't scenario. There is no real difference in either case, other than in one there was listening, and in one, there was not.

[Phoenix Wright]

There's not really a response fit for this, because there's nothing to respond to :o These "Ifs" don't really lead anywhere, other than a They Do.They Don't scenario. There is no real difference in either case, other than in one there was listening, and in one, there was not.

I'll give you a realistic example, then.

A friend of mine thinks that evolution is false because he thinks that it does not make sense; he asserts that we did not evolve from monkeys, and that God has no need for evolution, et cetera. I attempted to tell him that scientists also do not think that, and told him the basics of evolution (or at least what I know hahahaha). He refused to listen to me. So, how can I have a honest conversation with this person? My opinions are controversial to his opinions, and so he rejects much of what I say.

In these instances, how would you personally get someone to listen to you in order to start and honest and thoughtful conversation?

Edited January 14, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Celice]

I think you just did have an honest conversation. Refusal to listen isn't really a dishonest communication, nor is rejection. In fact, a willingness to reject something because of personal beliefs seems rather honest to me.

Now if you're asking how I would get someone to listen to me, first, I would listen to them, and understand their point of views. If, after hearing as much as they want to tell, I can see some points which they aren't sure of or are aware of being a bit sketch, I'll introduce other possibilities, and see what they think of it. I try as little as possible to stamp my foot into the doors of others--rather, I prefer they open the door to me on their own terms. It's one of the better ways of allowing each person their right to experience and accept things within their own realm of boundaries.

[Esau of Isaac]

I think you just did have an honest conversation. Refusal to listen isn't really a dishonest communication, nor is rejection. In fact, a willingness to reject something because of personal beliefs seems rather honest to me.

Now if you're asking how I would get someone to listen to me, first, I would listen to them, and understand their point of views. If, after hearing as much as they want to tell, I can see some points which they aren't sure of or are aware of being a bit sketch, I'll introduce other possibilities, and see what they think of it. I try as little as possible to stamp my foot into the doors of others--rather, I prefer they open the door to me on their own terms. It's one of the better ways of allowing each person their right to experience and accept things within their own realm of boundaries.

He's presenting a situation in which they will purposely refuse to open their doors. It's acceptable and admirable to attempt open communication without lying and pretending, but it's an ultimately futile goal, given the general scope of communication as a whole.

There is no realistic difference between pretending to be something you are not and simply telling the truth while preying on an individual's preferences and behavioral characteristics, something all of us do in everyday conversation. One is just more manipulative.

[Rehab]

An interesting book on areas of conflict, separation, dialogue and agreement between science and religion. It similarly posits that science is humankind's process of trying to understanding how the world exists, and that religion is the process of trying to understand why.

To be sure, I think it's possible to take both to heart.

[Shuuda]

Absolutely no surprise that the person who wrote that book is a Templeton Prize winner. From the sounds it the book basically gives the "science and religion are other ways of knowing", to which I say "that's nonsense". It's of my opinion that religion has not provided any useful or proven fact about the workings or nature of our existence.

Trying to put god into a scientific idea is like taking a well made chocolate cake and shoving a very spicy chilli into it; you really shouldn't do it and you owe one big explanation for it. It's true that science does not disprove the existence of a god, but nor does it necessitate one either. You're basically tampering with a scientific theory just because you don't want to face an inconvenient truth. Following from that, I feel it's wrong to try lead people to think it's okay to pretend to believe in god to convince people of an theory.

I think people get hung up on the idea of trying to "convert" people to a particular idea. You don't have to of fully convinced someone of a viewpoint in order to have made progress; it's enough to make them start thinking about it. The problem is that if those creationists found out that person was lying to them they would attack his character and they would use that as an excuse to ignore any evidence he may have presented.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Shuuda

[Anouleth]

I recently read this topic on Reddit, about convincing a creationist that science is made as a tool for understanding "how" god created the world, not "why." He pretended that he was a believer in the Christian God, and with that being assumed, was able to convince others that knowledge about science is extremely important in becoming a better Christian and a better person.

So, is it acceptable to pretend that you believe in God to attempt to help people realize the usefulness and necessity of science?

If someone is using Reddit and denies that the science that discovered the electricity that powers their computer is "useful", they're pretty much a moron. It would be like a guy in Heaven saying that God doesn't exist.

But perhaps it will encourage these people to seek out and learn more about the world. The real one, that is.

An interesting book on areas of conflict, separation, dialogue and agreement between science and religion. It similarly posits that science is humankind's process of trying to understanding how the world exists, and that religion is the process of trying to understand why.

It's one thing to say that God created the universe, and it's quite another to then go on to claim that God created all life in six days, that the Earth is 6000 years old, that he sent down his Son to die for all our sins, that we shouldn't condone homosexuality and so on and on. That is to say, that religion is not merely about "why", it has a hell of a lot of opinions on what's in the universe too.

[Original Alear]

As Ring Wraith said, for a theist, that is usually how they will view the scientific method and the use of science--a method to understand the world that god created. I don't think this will lead to ridiculous ideas about science--I think being unaware of how the scientific method works leads to whacky ideas about science.

Actually, I really do think that preconceived biases that some theists have regarding how the earth was created, taken from the bible, are what cause arguments in the field of evolution and the big bang theory for example. They didn't come up with criticisms after reviewing an idea that was new to them, they came in with a perspective that something else was the case and attempted to argue against evolution often on the basis of misunderstandings (this is the judgment of someone who remains skeptical of fully non-interventionist evolution).

By all means, expand on what you mean. Science is one of the only ways society progresses, and leaving scientific knowledge in the hands of the few is dangerous, therefore I think scientific knowledge should be spread widely.

We aren't really in danger of scientific regression without a mass extinction event, in which case a few isolated cases of someone who knows a little more about evolution or the big bang (rather non-critical areas) because of deceiving them about one's religion in order to prove a worthless point. I don't think that Christians in the US deny the genome and DNA or astrophysics. And scientific progression sometimes occurs from people criticizing established theories, which means that we want creationists to dig through the theories and try and poke holes in them if they can. And frankly, while I don't want intelligent design to be taught in schools, because there isn't anything established to teach, who really cares?

It's of my opinion that religion has not provided any useful or proven fact about the workings or nature of our existence.

The fact that some people go to church every day should prove to you that their beliefs are useful to them, even if they are deluded. I have seen someone claim, regarding the prayer to the Christian god asking for that god to stand with his believer in the face of numerous foes, that "I need this." It sounds somewhat incredulous to me, personally I have acclimatized myself well to the notion of a god (or gods) that probably hates me or mocks me, but it does make a certain kind of sense that people would want to believe that heaven, nirvana, salvation are in store for them if they live according to a certain path and (usually knowingly uncomprehendingly) worship, perhaps a certain way.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses," I believe Marx said. I'm sure opium is better - I've done religion, maybe I'll try opium soon.

that the Earth is 6000 years old

The Earth isn't even 1 year old. It is eternally new. *sparkles*

Edited January 15, 2012 by Mr. Game and Watch

[Zanarkin]

Also, I don't think science should be mixed with god. All that is going to do give religious intitutions the crazy idea to try and take control of it.

Edited January 15, 2012 by SlayerX

[Original Alear]

Also, I don't think science should be mixed with god. All that is going to allow is for religion to try and take control of it.

You know, since god doesn't seem to be subordinate to scientific laws, I think the real question for religious people is whether religion has control of god, not of science (that is to say, whether any of the beliefs and practices we have regarding the divine can actually be relied upon).

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, I really do think that preconceived biases that some theists have regarding how the earth was created, taken from the bible, are what cause arguments in the field of evolution and the big bang theory for example. They didn't come up with criticisms after reviewing an idea that was new to them, they came in with a perspective that something else was the case and attempted to argue against evolution often on the basis of misunderstandings (this is the judgment of someone who remains skeptical of fully non-interventionist evolution).

Well of course. However, not all Christian scientists behave that way towards science. For example, Georges Lemaître used science to understand what he believed his god created. He understood how science works--the evidence only adds to his spiritual feelings. For people like the astrophysicist in the YouTube video below, I honestly think that while their knowledge is vast and they certainly know their stuff, they are blinded by their faith. I think more of the Christian scientists today should be like Isaac Newton, Lemaître, Pascal, and the like. The goal is to understand, not tackle a problem while believing you already know the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

As long as the goal to understand is the priority, religion is practically irrelevant in the process; it is only important to the individual.

We aren't really in danger of scientific regression without a mass extinction event, in which case a few isolated cases of someone who knows a little more about evolution or the big bang (rather non-critical areas) because of deceiving them about one's religion in order to prove a worthless point. I don't think that Christians in the US deny the genome and DNA or astrophysics. And scientific progression sometimes occurs from people criticizing established theories, which means that we want creationists to dig through the theories and try and poke holes in them if they can. And frankly, while I don't want intelligent design to be taught in schools, because there isn't anything established to teach, who really cares?

A worthless point? Tell me, how is scientific literacy worthless? It matters to me that people oppose evolution for creationism with no evidence--their opposition stunts its growth and the ability for others to know more about the natural world, especially in the American Bible Belt.

Many Americans STILL hold astrology in higher regard than that of astronomy or astrophysics. This stunts the growth of knowledge. It's a problem.

Progression only occurs when theories are challenged. However, useless, non-scientific, and unsupported crazy ideas do nothing to help advance scientific knowledge and critical thinking among the masses.

The fact that some people go to church every day should prove to you that their beliefs are useful to them, even if they are deluded. I have seen someone claim, regarding the prayer to the Christian god asking for that god to stand with his believer in the face of numerous foes, that "I need this." It sounds somewhat incredulous to me, personally I have acclimatized myself well to the notion of a god (or gods) that probably hates me or mocks me, but it does make a certain kind of sense that people would want to believe that heaven, nirvana, salvation are in store for them if they live according to a certain path and (usually knowingly uncomprehendingly) worship, perhaps a certain way.

You misread Shuuda, I think. He said that these ideas have not provided useful or factual data to advance what we know about nature or our existence, and he's right. They haven't. At least, not directly. As Sam Harris would say, religion is merely a failed attempt at science, and we will grow out of it, as we have with most polytheistic religions. It seems to me that many places around the world have gotten pretty far in growing out of religion. It's no longer practical in attempting to understand our world.

If someone is using Reddit and denies that the science that discovered the electricity that powers their computer is "useful", they're pretty much a moron. It would be like a guy in Heaven saying that God doesn't exist.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. This event happened at the man's job. It wasn't a discussion on Reddit.

[Celice]

At least, not directly. As Sam Harris would say, religion is merely a failed attempt at science, and we will grow out of it, as we have with most polytheistic religions.

Religion is a perfect attempt at science; science, is a perfect attempt at religion. They are the same thing. And both worked pretty accurately for the longest times, until people abused the pursuit of "All" and moved towards making them more cultural facets, such as didactic rulership--until the pursuit of understanding became transformed into a method of power and powerless.

It sounds like your Sam is aiming at the body of the hostage, not the thing which took it hostage.

[Original Alear]

A worthless point? Tell me, how is scientific literacy worthless? It matters to me that people oppose evolution for creationism with no evidence--their opposition stunts its growth and the ability for others to know more about the natural world, especially in the American Bible Belt.

As far as I can tell, the only way that the history of evolution would provide practical dividends for us is inspiration for genetic coding for certain characteristics. Mostly, we'd be focusing on studying modern day genotypes and phenotypes for clues as to how to code for advantageous genes - I'm no expert in agricultural sciences, but the few modifications I've read about that they made to crops were inspired from modern genes, though not always of the same species as the plant being modified. If creationists deny genetics like they deny evolution, then that's a practical concern.

If someone feels the urge to pursue knowledge of the history of evolution in the American Bible Belt, then I suspect they wouldn't want to stay there to pursue it anyway. And if they don't, I don't particularly care about inculcating them with that urge.

Many Americans STILL hold astrology in higher regard than that of astronomy or astrophysics. This stunts the growth of knowledge. It's a problem.

How does astrology stunt the growth of knowledge in astronomy or astrophysics? Unless you would argue that they have the time, the capabilities, and the finances to achieve learning in any area and advance that body of knowledge if only they would discard the more erroneous models and assumptions, and that there are enough resources poured into the facilities for study of the stars to handle a larger influx of students, there's no positive utility to be gained from them if they stopped believing in astrology (assuming they really do). And their incorrect beliefs don't interfere with those who want to know the truth from finding it.

You misread Shuuda, I think. He said that these ideas have not provided useful or factual data to advance what we know about nature or our existence, and he's right. They haven't. At least, not directly. As Sam Harris would say, religion is merely a failed attempt at science, and we will grow out of it, as we have with most polytheistic religions. It seems to me that many places around the world have gotten pretty far in growing out of religion. It's no longer practical in attempting to understand our world.

My point is that people seem to find a use in worship and in belief, and also people in power probably find a use in having people believe, so it's rather short-sighted to say that religion has been useless. Maybe in your life, it's been useless. That's not the same thing as saying it's useless.

Judaism (as I remember it) actually spends a fairly small amount of time attempting to explain the how of the universe, so I don't see how it's really (perhaps only) a failed science...and not so much of the why either, it doesn't say anything about why god wanted to create the universe that I remember. It's more like the what, what you should do according to a being that claims superiority. And also what your story is as a member of the Jewish people - fabricated or not. Who the important people are, and when they were around, where they lived. I would say that religion has obviously failed a lot on the grounds of telling people what they should do, but it's also succeeded a lot, and morality isn't really something that science attempts to supply in the place of religion - because it can't. Morality is too subjective.

So I think that whoever said that religion is failed science is making an ignorant generalization, one that hinders knowledge and opposes progress in understanding since you seem to have taken it up. I wonder if I should lie and say I'm an atheist to convince him that he's wrong?

Progression only occurs when theories are challenged.

That's obviously not true. For one thing, if you think evolution has any grounds, you believe that progression existed prior to the formulation of theory. Even within the context of theory, progression occurs by accident, incidental to theory. Progression also occurs in the absence of theory, in the past even sometimes unaware of an existing theory (less so now), a kind of divergent progression (I don't know if this ever occurred in the natural sciences, but it has occurred). It surely occurs when theory is supplemented and further strengthened.

[Rehab]

Absolutely no surprise that the person who wrote that book is a Templeton Prize winner. From the sounds it the book basically gives the "science and religion are other ways of knowing", to which I say "that's nonsense". It's of my opinion that religion has not provided any useful or proven fact about the workings or nature of our existence.

Trying to put god into a scientific idea is like taking a well made chocolate cake and shoving a very spicy chilli into it; you really shouldn't do it and you owe one big explanation for it. It's true that science does not disprove the existence of a god, but nor does it necessitate one either. You're basically tampering with a scientific theory just because you don't want to face an inconvenient truth.

Following from that, I feel it's wrong to try lead people to think it's okay to pretend to believe in god to convince people of an theory.I think people get hung up on the idea of trying to "convert" people to a particular idea. You don't have to of fully convinced someone of a viewpoint in order to have made progress; it's enough to make them start thinking about it. The problem is that if those creationists found out that person was lying to them they would attack his character and they would use that as an excuse to ignore any evidence he may have presented.

You might find the book slightly more to your liking than your first impression if you read it. It's certainly not all about vindicating religion, but about documenting both areas where science and organized religion have been able to sit down and talk about something, along with occasions where religion has been soundly contradicted and forced to decide whether to reconsider, or just thrown up its hands. It's not entirely about just Christianity, either, it also references some ideas in Buddhist/other Eastern thought and some feminist commentary. It also discusses some areas where we have room to wonder, like the reason for the origin of the universe, and potential interpretations of quantum indeterminacy, and a whole lot more I'm failing to cite, haven't sit down to read it in a good while. The author's also got a doctorate in physics and litters the pages with references, so I doubt he's completely talking out his ass.

It's one thing to say that God created the universe, and it's quite another to then go on to claim that God created all life in six days, that the Earth is 6000 years old, that he sent down his Son to die for all our sins, that we shouldn't condone homosexuality and so on and on. That is to say, that religion is not merely about "why", it has a hell of a lot of opinions on what's in the universe too.

Oh, established dogma can certainly be stubbornly contradictory to scientific fact, yes. It can also be generally obtuse, discriminatory and all-around unpleasant, but part of its base feeds a human desire to find meaning in the universe. That desire doesn't need to have a harmful outlet to fulfill itself, though it obviously can.

That desire may not bring anybody material vindication, but I'd think it can affect how one develops the way they think, not necessarily for the worse. One doesn't have to end up adhering to a certain religion if they contemplate spiritual or religious thought, which can be a tool for self-improvement like any other philosophy.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Rehab

[Phoenix Wright]

As far as I can tell, the only way that the history of evolution would provide practical dividends for us is inspiration for genetic coding for certain characteristics. Mostly, we'd be focusing on studying modern day genotypes and phenotypes for clues as to how to code for advantageous genes - I'm no expert in agricultural sciences, but the few modifications I've read about that they made to crops were inspired from modern genes, though not always of the same species as the plant being modified. If creationists deny genetics like they deny evolution, then that's a practical concern.

This is truly the only use you see in understanding evolution?

If someone feels the urge to pursue knowledge of the history of evolution in the American Bible Belt, then I suspect they wouldn't want to stay there to pursue it anyway. And if they don't, I don't particularly care about inculcating them with that urge.

Evolution is merely an example. The point is raising scientific literacy. And, of course, the techniques that we should use to do that.

How does astrology stunt the growth of knowledge in astronomy or astrophysics? Unless you would argue that they have the time, the capabilities, and the finances to achieve learning in any area and advance that body of knowledge if only they would discard the more erroneous models and assumptions, and that there are enough resources poured into the facilities for study of the stars to handle a larger influx of students, there's no positive utility to be gained from them if they stopped believing in astrology (assuming they really do). And their incorrect beliefs don't interfere with those who want to know the truth from finding it.

It doesn't. I said the fact that people hold it in higher regard does. Astrology by itself is not important. An opinion that astrology is valid, however, is harmful to growth in general. Because, you know, people matter.

It also furthers the idea that people are willing to accept things without evidence as long as it makes them feel good.

My point is that people seem to find a use in worship and in belief, and also people in power probably find a use in having people believe, so it's rather short-sighted to say that religion has been useless. Maybe in your life, it's been useless. That's not the same thing as saying it's useless.

Judaism (as I remember it) actually spends a fairly small amount of time attempting to explain the how of the universe, so I don't see how it's really (perhaps only) a failed science...and not so much of the why either, it doesn't say anything about why god wanted to create the universe that I remember. It's more like the what, what you should do according to a being that claims superiority. And also what your story is as a member of the Jewish people - fabricated or not. Who the important people are, and when they were around, where they lived. I would say that religion has obviously failed a lot on the grounds of telling people what they should do, but it's also succeeded a lot, and morality isn't really something that science attempts to supply in the place of religion - because it can't. Morality is too subjective.

So I think that whoever said that religion is failed science is making an ignorant generalization, one that hinders knowledge and opposes progress in understanding since you seem to have taken it up. I wonder if I should lie and say I'm an atheist to convince him that he's wrong?

Your point is valid, but it was not a part of the discussion that was raised. The "spiritual" satisfaction does nothing to advance knowledge. Using religion as a way to control people does the opposite.

Religion is useful in that it was a stepping stone to achieve something better at acquiring knowledge. Something that not only aids in gaining knowledge, but shows us why it's correct. And I'm not ruling out the possibility that science itself may merely be a stepping stone to something better either.

As an example, it is sort of like how philosophy use to be the closest we got to physics. Philosophy is no longer used to obtain knowledge on that subject. Is it useless? In that sense, yes. In every other sense, no. Not at all. Religion is just the same. It has its uses for some people, and I'm fine with that.

The claim that it is a failed science only applies to the technique we use to obtain knowledge. It is not meant to claim that it is better to use as a moral compass, it's more spiritual, et cetera. It is merely better at helping us obtain knowledge.

That's obviously not true. For one thing, if you think evolution has any grounds, you believe that progression existed prior to the formulation of theory. Even within the context of theory, progression occurs by accident, incidental to theory. Progression also occurs in the absence of theory, in the past even sometimes unaware of an existing theory (less so now), a kind of divergent progression (I don't know if this ever occurred in the natural sciences, but it has occurred). It surely occurs when theory is supplemented and further strengthened.

Haha, sorry! Let me explain: in the world of science, to challenge a theory (until we obtain theories that hold up to scrutiny) is the only thing that helps science to progress. In reality, for those outside of the fields of science (like you or I, I assume), progression occurs in a multitude of ways. Sorry about that.

Scientific progression is very new in terms of the history of life, so there's absolutely no logical way I could state that progress only occurs when theories are challenged. Progression has occurred for nearly one hundred thousand years before science existed.

Religion is a perfect attempt at science; science, is a perfect attempt at religion. They are the same thing. And both worked pretty accurately for the longest times, until people abused the pursuit of "All" and moved towards making them more cultural facets, such as didactic rulership--until the pursuit of understanding became transformed into a method of power and powerless.

It sounds like your Sam is aiming at the body of the hostage, not the thing which took it hostage.

They are the same thing in the sense that they both have been used to pursue knowledge. Other than that, they are fundamentally different. That is why religion is seen as the stepping stone.

What route would you like to have seen these take? It seems to me that it was only natural that these methods of understanding became intertwined within our culture enough to used it as means of power.

[Aere]

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof. Because one can't prove if God exists or if he doesn't, a believer doesn't even have to open his doors to listen to the formulas or thought-and-proved equations that science involves. Both science and religion are just means to an end, and the most of the questions starting with "Why?" or "How?" could be determined by one or the other.

[Zanarkin]

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof. Because one can't prove if God exists or if he doesn't, a believer doesn't even have to open his doors to listen to the formulas or thought-and-proved equations that science involves. Both science and religion are just means to an end, and the most of the questions starting with "Why?" or "How?" could be determined by one or the other.

Not necessarily because said why/how questions which are answered by religion sometimes don't make much sense and can easily be proven false.

[Celice]

What route would you like to have seen these take? It seems to me that it was only natural that these methods of understanding became intertwined within our culture enough to used it as means of power.

The route they were taking was pretty dandy. Each worked together to explain what this Existence thing is. And they modified one another as time went on. At some point, people began to weaponize the two, and see them as aiming cannons at the homes of each's own innocents. Sure, there are incompetent faithful--science and religion both have that. As does politics. As does philosophy. People are pretty fucking stupid and gullible a lot of the time about everything. It's just become a bit more accessible to fall under science as a shield as it has more objective purpose. But that still doesn't make it any better, as

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof.

isn't quite true. Science itself takes an ounce of faith for it to hold any real importance. Fairly, we don't have any way to really know what science says it true. We can see it is repeatable, and otherwise confirmable, but this in no way makes it a valid interpretation of existence. As the joke goes, "Induction is impossible." We cooperate with assumptions and temporary solutions. It's pretty much the best we can handle. And that's exactly what religion was and is. I think far too many people attach their definition of religion to the institution of Christianity. These are not the same things.

Religion explained that how stars are helpful for finding your way home, and so has scientific evaluation. And both came to the conclusion pretty much the same way, through rational and critical insight and understanding of the world around them. Religion just had the nice habit of bringing accompanying stories to pass on the knowledge, just as folktales and oral epics had functioned to.

[Aere]

Not necessarily because said why/how questions which are answered by religion sometimes don't make much sense and can easily be proven false.

They don't have to be proven. As I said, it's religion, and covering a hole with a thin sheet of paper is better than leaving it open. That is, until somebody stumbles along into that hole when that sheet of paper proves to be inadequate and misleading.

isn't quite true. Science itself takes an ounce of faith for it to hold any real importance. Fairly, we don't have any way to really know what science says it true. We can see it is repeatable, and otherwise confirmable, but this in no way makes it a valid interpretation of existence. As the joke goes, "Induction is impossible." We cooperate with assumptions and temporary solutions. It's pretty much the best we can handle. And that's exactly what religion was and is. I think far too many people attach their definition of religion to the institution of Christianity. These are not the same things.

Religion explained that how stars are helpful for finding your way home, and so has scientific evaluation. And both came to the conclusion pretty much the same way, through rational and critical insight and understanding of the world around them. Religion just had the nice habit of bringing accompanying stories to pass on the knowledge, just as folktales and oral epics had functioned to.

There are things in life that we, as non-omnipotent humans have to take in as fact. Gravity, maths, etc. because saying such laws (yes, laws) aren't true because there could be some all-powerful God just messing with us is just a fallacy (I want to say strawman, but I'm not sure if it's applicable here...).

Science provides some realistic backup and attempts to find the method behind the madness. With religion, there is no need to find a method. It's an unsatisfying answer to anybody who is truly looking for one. While religion may have seemed perfectly rational and logical at the time, it's pretty clear (for example) the Earth is not some-6000 years old and carbon dating is completely unreliable. As of now, science makes a much better argument, and therefore wins. This may change in the future as more is discovered, but as we know now, it's the best we have. Religion is slightly outdated in comparison.

EDIT:: I know you said Christianity isn't the be-all, end-all of religions, but it's the easiest to argue against because it is spread across the world. But, "seeing is believing" can be used against any religion with a creator-figure. I see a rock drop off a 100m cliff into the water in a handful of seconds, and it happens again and again, it is safe to believe that it will generally happen.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Aere