Is Science without Religion really Lame

-digit

I don`t agree with your thesis. Its always the philosophical thought first that has triggered and initiated any scientific investigation and not the other way around. What you are proposing is absurd - its like an engineer doing calsulations and making drawings after he had already made the bridge.

Science does not need Religion --

it is able to self- regulate itself aplenty with secular well defined standards of Ethics.....

in fact Religion in the past and the present -- thanks to the Evangelicals and their Presidents -- has provided nothing but unnecessaryp, ignorant, illinformed stupid stumbling blocks in the persuit of 21st biological science --

it took us a century to separate the damning religion from politics -- it will take us another century to separate -- by cold intellectual electrophoresis -- the impurity of God from the purity of human medicine....

``..So we see that science and religion do not live in the same space....``

Thanks Mr. Gill. You deserve real recommendation from all of us!! We need to get more guys like you back to this sub-continent. The mullahs still consider scientific knowledge as one of the biggest threats to their type of discourse.

Mr. Gill seems to suffer from that disease prevalent among academics of believeing that having an impressive list of References is enough to make a good article.

Though much of religion is doodoo, it seems that we have simply switched from IDOL worship to IDLE worship.

The same CRITCAL THINKING and QUESTIONING (Descartes-Hume) displayed during the birth of WESTERN science is mostly lost as we can see by Most of teh responses which will no doubt hit this thread.

The MASSES are still blindly following, yet they have forsaken one ideology for another.

1. Science has you believe BLINDLY in concepts you have no way of seeing, measuring or even conceptualizing (whats that remind u of?). The ``number`` ZERO for one.

2. It encourages mass acceptance in ideas which have not been proven (MACRO) evolution. Wats that remind u of?

3. It is a LEFT BRAINED system. It creates its own unique forum for the establishment of fact. In the forum of direct observation and measurement of a cause and effect, science has found itz unquestionable GOD. This system of verifying fact. It without explanation dismisses most right brained methods of verification.

THE END

[Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame’ is one of the most popular sayings of Einstein on religion and science. ]

Serious response later but a thoughtful choice between being lame and being blind is lame. I would rather be lame than blind if forced to make a choice - no question about it.

Therefore science is preferred over religion to me.

Modern science (rightly) moved the investigation of the natural world into it`s own proper discipline and outside the realm of metaphysics and philosophy, which it was once subordinate to (from what I understand). The end results of this new paradigm speak for themselves, and are of great utility as demonstrated by the role of Science in technological achievements. This even though the metaphysical and philosophical issues remain - often only reconcilable by choice of conviction rather than irrefutable proof.

Now, the results of science may guide philosophy however we don`t expect the reverse to be true. That`s simply to be taken for granted. Science has the job of validating claims, while philosophy/theology is in the business of making them. With theology in particular most claims are sufficiently ambiguous as to disallow any meaningful Scientific inquiry.

So no, science without religion is not lame in the functional sense. Nor is accounting for that matter. However, science’s emotional appeal without a good degree of metaphysical reflection is somewhat limited. When Scientists proclaim the supremacy of their discipline over any other intellectual enterprise, it`s often done by indulging in a metaphysical rhetoric, in spite of the mundane nature of most scientific work and theories when taken ``as-is``.

“Why would the ``merciful``,loving Lord`` create carnivorous animals, including humans, most of them to be born only to be eaten by other predators or to kill and feed on others?” (Paracha)
Mr. Paracha I don’t know where you got this fact that most humans are eaten by predators or killed and eaten by others. Perhaps you would like to explain, huh?

“As during religious conflicts in Bosnia Kosovo, East Timor and Israel today, why would ``He`` have allowed the Christian Crusaders to slaughter millions of natives during their African/Middle East conquest?” (Paracha)
Mr. Paracha I remind you not to forget Moors entry into Spain in 711. Do you think they entered Spain peacefully? I’ll let you answer this. Perhaps this article would help http://www.africawithin.com/black_history/overview_chapter18.html

“Why would he have allowed mass murder by the ``Christian`` conquistadors in South and Central America, in his name? Why would he have allowed the Jewish Holocaust? The Armenian Holocaust ? The muslim Holocaust? 9/11?” (Paracha)
Mr. Paracha what was the Muslim holocaust? Was it Saddam’s mass-murder of his own people, gassing of the Kurds, or Muslims deaths in Bosnia …?

“Is it Christian morality when the most faithful are often the most racist? Was it not Christians who brought Africans over and sold them as slaves?” (Paracha)
Mr. Paracha as Americans we accept our fault and attempted to rectify this grievous sin a long long time ago with ‘emancipation proclamation.’ I understand no matter how we cut it, whenever Americans would look back, the sin of slavery would forever taunt us in some way of or form. But it is something that we know we will have to live with and we accept it. As far a Christians being racist is concerned. Please don’t generalize and put all Christians in one box. I am sure you are referring to only a handful of those so-called poison spillers, who believe their religion is the only great religion out there. I am sure Osama’s name would be at the top of the list regarding Islam.

“Is it muslim morality when the most faithful are the most myopic and narrowminded?” (Paracha)
Yes there are a significant number of Muslim leaders who are spreading hate of others among fellow Muslims. We either have to reform them, put them at a place where they can no longer spread their hate and hurt us, perhaps incarcerate them, or as a last resort get rid of them.

“Is it Hindu morality that the most faithful are the most full of hate and so xenophobic?” (Paracha)
Mr. Paracha I again remind you that not all most faithful are full of hate. There are exceptions of mother Teresa as you mentioned. Martin Luther king was a church minister and followed Gandhi’s teachings of non-violence, instead of hate and xenophobia. So please be careful when you make statements that put all people in one category and a single box. Becasue reality is anything but that.

Gill,

The fundamental difference between science and religion, I think is that science is open to question. Religion is not. Hence, science as a method will continue to question and discover. Religion however for most people is not a method or means but an end in itself.
No theory in science is exact and accurate rather a very good approximation, while religion proclaims to be absolute. Most of the religions will remain antithesis to science`s scepticism and the spirit of enquiry. No wonder scientists in Renaissance had to flee persecution from people of religion. Atleast in the west, science as a method has largely subdued religion.

I don`t think one should even think of science being lame without religion. Quite the contrary, as exemlified by Einstein`s pre-conceived religious/cultural mindset inducing confusion over a refined theory, science will breathe better without any influence of religion.

Adios

Ref: ``Science without relegion is lame``
No. It`s not. Because at least one of the main reasons behind the rise (if not exactly creation) of modern science was to replace thought and action based on relegious doctraines and ``blind faith`` in the unseen and the unproved. Science is the outcome of a revolutionary belief in the human faculty to obseve, ratinalize and conclude through reason and logic. Add relegion to this equation and you`ll end up puting far more energy and effort in trying to ``prove`` that certain holy books (Koran, Bible, etc.), had adready reached modern scientific conclusions anout man and his surroundings hundereds of years ago. Many Pakistani and Arabic TV channels proudly run such ``documenteries`` (usually funded and commisioned by Saudi financers). But Dr. Pervez Hoodbouy in his book ``Islam & Rationality`` accurately highlights such a happening`s social fall-outs. It can either and actually start seeming like propagated ways to ultimately discourage young minds to negatively react against ``agnostic Western science``, or leave some powerful personalites waste millions of dollers, like Gen. Zia did back in 1984, to gather ``Islamic scientists`` to prove idiotcies like the measuring the speed of heaven and ways to aquire energy from jinns!
On the other hand when most agnostic scientists and agnostics interested in science (such as I), do include relegion in this respect, they can`t help but ask such questions:

Modern science often takes years of research and cooperation between scientists across many national borders before a theory or an idea becomes recognized fact. In contrast, ancient religious teachings and scriptures are without exception based on legends, superstition, fear of the unknown, wishful thinking, and what was recorded hundreds or thousands of years ago. It all happened without any or little scientific knowledge.
Aids is blamed by one such TV evangelist on the ``evil`` homosexual lifestyle, while they overlook one of the greatest killers on the planet: CANCER.... We always had and will have temporarily incurable diseases. Aids started in Africa where most victims still live and die today, innocent natives who have nothing to do with ``evil`` homosexuality.
Why would any god have chosen planet Earth for humankind? After all, we do have scientific evidence that Earth is nothing more than an insignificant speck orbiting an equally insignificant, middle aged and average star. Our sun is part of a vast galaxy of 200 to 400 billion stars. Planet earth and any neighboring planet is by no means perfect now, never has been and never will be.
How do Islamic, Jewish & Christian creationists explain remains of prehistoric creatures that roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago and that can be found on every continent? How do they explain the presence of billions of gallons of oil deep below the earth`s surface? It took hundreds of millions of years for countless tiny life forms to decompose to that stage.
Why would the ``merciful``,loving Lord`` create carnivorous animals, including humans, most of them to be born only to be eaten by other predators or to kill and feed on others?
As during religious conflicts in Bosnia Kosovo, East Timor and Israel today, why would ``He`` have allowed the Christian Crusaders to slaughter millions of natives during their African/Middle East conquest? Why would he have allowed mass murder by the ``Christian`` conquistadors in South and Central America, in his name? Why would he have allowed the Jewish Holocaust? The Armenian Holocaust ? The muslim Holocaust? 9/11?
Is it Christian morality when the most faithful are often the most racist? Was it not Christians who brought Africans over and sold them as slaves? In that context, is it not ironic that African Americans today are the most faithful Christians? Is it muslim morality when the most faithful are the most myopic and narrowminded? Is it hindu morality that the most faithful are the most full of hate and so xenophobic?

_ Nadeem F. Paracha