Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Religion Vs Science

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, there will be a debate going on in my sixth form discussing the ideas of religion vs science. Has anybody got any pros and cons for religion and science that could help me in the debate. Thanks a bunch 🤗🤗🤗🤗
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmirahxRashid)
    Hi, there will be a debate going on in my sixth form discussing the ideas of religion vs science. Has anybody got any pros and cons for religion and science that could help me in the debate. Thanks a bunch 🤗🤗🤗🤗
    I think the most important point to make is that there is no necessary reason why the two must compete- science explores the world from a perspective of observation and experimentation while religion, at its base, generally tries to apply ethical and moral teachings to that same world. The conflicts arise when religious ideas are interpreted in ways that contradict the understanding of the world we have only gained through scientific endeavours.

    But yeah that's probably a bit more of a convoluted answer than they're expecting, so a few bits about why science is good:

    *It's built on principles of falsifiability and repeatability. No ideas in science are simply accepted without supporting research and evidence, there is a general structure or process that scientists use when attempting to prove their hypotheses that is known as The Scientific Method. This makes it as easy as possible to make discoveries and prove ideas in a consistent, trustworthy way, but ensures that the ideas can be inspected and repeated to minimise the risk of fraud.
    *It adapts to change. Science is less dogmatic and inflexible than the scriptures that form the bedrock of most surviving religions. If discoveries are made that throw into question our understanding of scientific ideas, then not only is this accepted but is often celebrated- there's nothing scientists like more than discoveries that blow open new fields of research. Religions made adjust their interpretation of certain ideas, but most are less welcoming to significant changes to our understanding of the world if it seems to diminish their own credibility. You will no doubt have "evolution vs creation" brought up by somebody in the debate, and this is a great example of religious institutions vehemently resisting an idea that challenges their legitimacy (in this case the 7 day creation event outlined in Genesis).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmirahxRashid)
    Hi, there will be a debate going on in my sixth form discussing the ideas of religion vs science. Has anybody got any pros and cons for religion and science that could help me in the debate. Thanks a bunch 🤗🤗🤗🤗
    It's a myth that the two are in conflict. So long as religion doesn't make material claims about the physical world (I won't say none do, but Catholicism certainly doesn't, for instance) then the two are talking about completely different things.

    Religion seeks to discover the best way to live, and how to make life purposeful, as well as explaining the transcendent aka. supernatural.

    Remember the crucial part there is the super in supernatural,i.e. above (not in) the realm of the natural, so not in the realm of science. Thus, no need for conflict.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    I think the most important point to make is that there is no necessary reason why the two must compete- science explores the world from a perspective of observation and experimentation while religion, at its base, generally tries to apply ethical and moral teachings to that same world. The conflicts arise when religious ideas are interpreted in ways that contradict the understanding of the world we have only gained through scientific endeavours.

    But yeah that's probably a bit more of a convoluted answer than they're expecting, so a few bits about why science is good:

    *It's built on principles of falsifiability and repeatability. No ideas in science are simply accepted without supporting research and evidence, there is a general structure or process that scientists use when attempting to prove their hypotheses that is known as The Scientific Method. This makes it as easy as possible to make discoveries and prove ideas in a consistent, trustworthy way, but ensures that the ideas can be inspected and repeated to minimise the risk of fraud.
    *It adapts to change. Science is less dogmatic and inflexible than the scriptures that form the bedrock of most surviving religions. If discoveries are made that throw into question our understanding of scientific ideas, then not only is this accepted but is often celebrated- there's nothing scientists like more than discoveries that blow open new fields of research. Religions made adjust their interpretation of certain ideas, but most are less welcoming to significant changes to our understanding of the world if it seems to diminish their own credibility. You will no doubt have "evolution vs creation" brought up by somebody in the debate, and this is a great example of religious institutions vehemently resisting an idea that challenges their legitimacy (in this case the 7 day creation event outlined in Genesis).
    Thank you this really helped. It was just that the majority voted for a debate betwwen science and religion as our last debate was Donald Trump Vs Hillary Clinton. But thank you.😆😆😆😆😆
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It's a myth that the two are in conflict. So long as religion doesn't make material claims about the physical world (I won't say none do, but Catholicism certainly doesn't, for instance) then the two are talking about completely different things.

    Religion seeks to discover the best way to live, and how to make life purposeful, as well as explaining the transcendent aka. supernatural.

    Remember the crucial part there is the super in supernatural,i.e. above (not in) the realm of the natural, so not in the realm of science. Thus, no need for conflict.
    Its not that i beleive there is conflict its just that the majoritybof pupils in the club voted for this tyoe of debate. I guess there is some sort of conflict like the idea of evolution and the big bang theory. But thanks anyway 😆😆😆😆
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmirahxRashid)
    Thank you this really helped. It was just that the majority voted for a debate betwwen science and religion as our last debate was Donald Trump Vs Hillary Clinton. But thank you.😆😆😆😆😆
    No worries

    Out of interest, was there any consensus on who "won" between Trump and Clinton? I'm interested to hear what conclusion sixth formers would come to
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    No worries

    Out of interest, was there any consensus on who "won" between Trump and Clinton? I'm interested to hear what conclusion sixth formers would come to
    Erm the discussion came at a tie as usual. But as a spectator many would want clinton in power due to her educated background and the fact that her husband was also president so she would have more experience. She supports gay people and doesnt embarras herself in tv. She basocally thinks in a logical way. That is what i deduced from the discussion. However most people told us about her cons and trumps pros. What do u think???
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmirahxRashid)
    Erm the discussion came at a tie as usual. But as a spectator many would want clinton in power due to her educated background and the fact that her husband was also president so she would have more experience. She supports gay people and doesnt embarras herself in tv. She basocally thinks in a logical way. That is what i deduced from the discussion. However most people told us about her cons and trumps pros. What do u think???
    I'm very much in the camp that a Trump presidency would be the worst outcome for this election.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    I'm very much in the camp that a Trump presidency would be the worst outcome for this election.
    I totally agree with you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The important point to make is that science completely shifts the burden. Religious explanations, far from relieving the unbearable ignorance we have of extremely consequential questions, become completely superfluous.

    So when you ask why am i here, and science tells you that 'you' are here due to the natural selection pressures that exist in the world, which have forged your body and psychology passively, without consciousness. You can say 'yes but it was part of a divine plan because i am loved by the almighty', but such statements haven't the slightest compulsion.

    Philosophy should be intolerant to that sort of emotional succour, which after science is all that is left
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P&T16)
    The important point to make is that science completely shifts the burden. Religious explanations, far from relieving the unbearable ignorance we have of extremely consequential questions, become completely superfluous.

    So when you ask why am i here, and science tells you that 'you' are here due to the natural selection pressures that exist in the world, which have forged your body and psychology passively, without consciousness. You can say 'yes but it was part of a divine plan because i am loved by the almighty', but such statements haven't the slightest compulsion.

    Philosophy should be intolerant to that sort of emotional succour, which after science is all that is left
    Not sure how what naturalism offers is somehow an improvement. Religion tends to accept scientific conclusions, yet still allows one to believe in an ultimate purpose and meaning to their existence. Removing this, and limiting us to scientific conclusion only, is in no way a better, or happier, or more knowledgable state of affairs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I find your liberal use of the word 'knowledge' quite irritating. And what on earth do you mean naturalism is a no better or happier state of affairs.
    1. The happiness you get from a belief is epistemically irrelavent and if you have to anaesthetise yourself with mythologies to be happy then that really is a shame
    2. I think you'll find that forging a moral and existential philosophy out of naturalism is one of the most fascinating and rewarding enterprises one can ever embark upon. It can entertain oneself for a lifetime and better yet doest require the prostitution of the mind
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P&T16)
    better yet doest require the prostitution of the mind
    That is very debatable!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    That is very debatable!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What, that Theism does or Atheism doesn't?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P&T16)
    What, that Theism does or Atheism doesn't?
    That naturalism doesn't

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    That naturalism doesn't

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, naturalism, unlike Theism, is not necessarily built on a questionable base (the existence of an incorporeal consciousness lets say)

    If by naturalism you mean the claim 'there is nothing but the physical, there is nothing supernatural in the universe', then perhaps that may be.

    The claim 'there is nothing supernatural' is, as a previous comment suggested, out of nature and thus outside our experience. Equally is the reverse of the claim: 'there exist supernatural entities'.

    Therefore naturalism simply says 'ill deal with supernatural entities when i have reason to believe in them, but as i don't, ill construct an explaination of the universe without them'

    The religious do something rather more spectacular, they say: 'i'll found all of my worldview, be it moral, epistemic, existential etc... on a premise which i have no valid reason for believing (ie. one which is fact as opposed to the extrapolation of value).

    Naturalism vs Theism isn't 50/50 as one doesn't necessarily posit the existence or non-existence of something
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It's a myth that the two are in conflict. So long as religion doesn't make material claims about the physical world (I won't say none do, but Catholicism certainly doesn't, for instance)
    You forget that Catholicism states that the bread and wine used in a Mass is physically turned into the blood and body of Jesus. That is a material statement about the physical world that cannot be substantiated and that is quite obviously nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You forget that Catholicism states that the bread and wine used in a Mass is physically turned into the blood and body of Jesus. That is a material statement about the physical world that cannot be substantiated and that is quite obviously nonsense.
    Catholics are all cannibals confirmed
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Catholics are all cannibals confirmed
    hehe. I hadn't thought of that aspect, and I bet not many of them have. That just illustrates the tortuous logic that holding superstitious beliefs can lead you to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    hehe. I hadn't thought of that aspect, and I bet not many of them have. That just illustrates the tortuous logic that holding superstitious beliefs can lead you to.
    Not to mention their embrace of human sacrifice
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.