Will science ultimately assimiliate religion?

[Southtown]

It's a comment, stemming from opinion, that explains why I voted for #2. Disagree if you want. Explain why you disagree if you want. :thumbs_do

[Pyrotex]

After lurking for a week, and pondering, I finally voted #2, NO.

Science is a specific activity, focused on understanding the natural world. It (and I mean the endeavor itself) has no intention or motives toward ruling, dominating, issuing fiats, or setting itself in judgement over, say, your private sex life. I cannot see any way in which "Science" (either the endeavor or the individuals that DO it) could assimilate religion.

 

If Science became the arbiter of morals and the afterlife, it wouldn't BE Science anymore. It would just BE religion.

[hallenrm]

I cannot see any way in which "Science" (either the endeavor or the individuals that DO it) could assimilate religion.

 

If Science became the arbiter of morals and the afterlife, it wouldn't BE Science anymore. It would just BE religion

 

Let me offer you a helping hand dear Pyro! ;)

 

How is any belief in science substantiated? By experiment of course and then by logic that helps us introduce new concepts that can help us to explain phenomena that our existing framework of knowledge is incapable of handling.

 

Now, what are morals? Morals are tenets of social behavior that are believed to help the society together and healthy. So far, there have been hardly any scientific studies, that have gathered evidence, about the benefits or risks of a particular moral to the social fabric. That is primarily because, science as we discern it today, is largely limited to physics (including cosmology), chemistry (including biochemistry and molecular biology), Geology and Biology Including physiology and medicine). It has as yet to me remarkable contribution in the realm of social sciences, that is psychology and sociology, largely because, we are yet to understand the the interplay between the human brain and conduct.

 

I am very optimist that the scientific methods would ultimately help us to unravel many mysteries and gain new knowledge in these realms.

[Southtown]

Science says 'some believe truth and others believe their preachers.'

Religion says 'some believe truth and others believe their teachers.'

[Pyrotex]

...How is any belief in science substantiated? By experiment of course and then by logic...Morals are tenets of social behavior that are believed to help the society together and healthy. So far, there have been hardly any scientific studies, that have gathered evidence, about the benefits or risks of a particular moral to the social fabric. ...

 

Dang it, Hallenrm! Dang it! Dang it!

You KNOW how much it upsets me when I have to agree that I was wrong and someone else is right! :cup: "I dance the dance of righteous indignation!"

 

Okay. You appear to be right. The effectiveness of a given moral in benefitting individuals and/or society has not been rigorously pursued by Science. And it could be. And perhaps it should be.

 

Okay, it SHOULD be, period. Good point.

 

That would make Science the arbiter of which morals were the most effective (in a given society, among the greater set of all morals accepted by that society). But would that necessarily make Science the "authority" of which morals a society must accept?

[IDMclean]

Well Science, and Statistics have brought to the world "Quality standards". I don't see why it could not, along with socio-economics and politics, bring the same thing to the masses.

 

You don't have to do anything science says. You can walk out infront of a car. However, how that will affect your health is well known, and many times over justified.

 

Science, like Law, does not dictate what you can and can not do. It dictates what you should and should not do. New thread on The Language of Possibility, Probability, and Outcomes.

 

So, no, it would not be necessary to make science the authority of the morals a society must accept, but the morals that a society should accept, to avoid the negative outcomes that can occure due to negative actions.

 

Science only suggests what is possible, and what is desirable for given purposes. If society wishes to blow itself to pieces, then science can tell society how to do that. If society wishes to provide for itself, then science can tell society how to do that.

 

I derive my morals from the purpose that I am to be a constructive, creative individual. It is then statistically in my best interests to cultivate that both in myself and others. When others are constructive, then we can work synergistically. Constructive interferance, one might call it. When others are destructive, then we cancel out. Deconstructive interferance, one might call it.

 

Science can not only find out what morals are the most constructive to the society, it can find out what morals are deconstructive. It could describe the statics and dynamics of these moral systems. Imagine that.

 

There is a branch of statistics which is somewhat concerned with that topic, it's called game theory. It is the economics of decisions.

 

Just my two cents, and another reason why I think Science will be what remains.

[Pyrotex]

Well Science, and Statistics have brought to the world "Quality standards". I don't see why it could not, along with socio-economics and politics, bring the same thing to the masses.....

hmmmmm...

good points here.