Monotheism -v- Polytheism ?

[GayComputerDude]

agreed Shadow

but science continues

and yes .. lots of WRONG thoughts

but lots of right ones too

[Shadow]

This is true GayComputerDude ... neither science NOR religion gets it right all the time mile:.

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[cainlawrence]

I think it's just that there is so much that science CAN'T explain, so yeah - at least in terms of its limitations, it and religion do have certain parallels mile:.

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

Parallels, such as? The only parallels I see is that there are individuals in both religious and scientific institutions who push forward their own bigoted agenda. In science (as is in its current state), this agenda will sometimes be questioned and a lot of the times, eventually be called pseudoscience or dismissed within the immediate scientific community. Some people say that both religion and science strive to provide answers to life's questions. But science strives to provide theories to the natural order of things, using an objective method (although not always) that is fallible. That theory is put to countless tests to find evidence for or against it. But religion dictates, it strives to provide non-fallible answers to questions that are really not testable at current time and it does not even strive to provide a working test to support their theories. Science admits its limitations, whereas, organized religion hardly comes close to it many of the times. Science cannot explain everything, but they do not assert that everything is answerable. Certain religions (and philosophies) may say that they ask important questions, but nay, science asks answerable questions. Alas, I don't believe in the Science/Religion dichotomy. They are two separate entities, and although they butt heads a lot, they are as far away from each other as Chemistry and Theology.

As for monotheism vs. polytheism, I don't take sides in that debate. However, I find Hinduism to be particularly interesting in this regard--because although they seem to be polytheistic in that there are many "gods" of worship, there is only Supreme Spirit. Perhaps, as with many issues, it is always safe to take the center and not the extremes.

[Shadow]

Parallels between science and religion ?

Many people follow one or the other dogmatically, and will not listen to the arguments or perspectives of the other;

Many people believe in one or the other as being absolutely true;

Both seek to explain the inexplicable in as many ways as possible (although I concede that they go about it in differently-structured ways);

Both have a massive following;

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I believe there is a dichotomy between the two, and that this is promoted by some of the mouthier proponents of each school of thought ... look at carbon dating for example - it has dispelled many myths about the dates and times of events that have been attributed religious significance - like the Turin Shroud, for example.

There will always be a dichotomy between science and religion as one cannot help but encroach on the territory of the other ... even now, what was there in the news yesterday ? A little girl born in some area in ... India ? I think ?? Maybe ??? Conjoined-twin who's twin was born without a head, and so she underwent a ... I think 27-hour operation to remove the additional limbs ? But die-hard religious zealots are saying that she was an omen, and that she could have been the avatar of the Indian Goddess of Wealth ... if my memory serves.

Science -v- Religion babe ... it's one of the oldest battles we know ... in my opinion at any rate mile:.

- I can see it is going to be a challenge debating with you mon ami - I do so enjoy a challenge .

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[cainlawrence]

But the fact that people follow one or the other dogmatically is not a reflection on either science or religion--it's a reflection on the people who follow them. Just as Islamic terrorists are not a reflection on Islam, but a reflection on the human conditions of political terrorism. Thus, that in itself is not a parallel of science and religion, it's a parallel of how people react to either of those subjects.

I don't think that's true at all. Many people believe in science--they believe in it when they go to the hospital, or accept Evolution, or accept that medicine works better than prayer. But at the same time, many of these people (excluding atheists) are also open to the idea of God and religion. I've been to and still go to church--all of the people there are liberal in their ideas of science and trust science--but that doesn't negate their religious beliefs. So at least, in liberal communities and many mainstream cities, people don't take a linear for-and-against stance on religion and science.

If it was inexplicable, then science would not answer it. Science asks questions about Natural, religion asks questions about the Supernatural. Science asks questions about what can be seen--physical phenomenon, spacial phenomenon, etc. Paranormal researchers are seen as pseudoscientific within the field of science (even though the public loves them), because 1) they have not provided good research on the things they claim, and 2) the reason why they haven't is because they're researching supernatural occurrences.

Yes--I've heard of that. The little girl born with four arms and four legs. I thought it was absolutely fascinating... such mutations within the human race. I don't know about whether she would have suffered any life-threatening medical issues because of it, but I would have been all for keeping her limbs intact. India's a majority Hindu region--and because Lakshmi (their Goddess) has multiple limbs, it'd be expected that they draw the correlation.

I think that ultimately, it's not a science vs. religion debate. In the end, all it becomes is a debate on ideologies, dogmas, and beliefs. The nature of science does not, in itself, come into conflict with religion--unless you add the people-factor in it. Eh, that's just all my opinion. I too enjoy debates. mile:

[Shadow]

See, again we disagree mile:.

I would say that fundamentalist Islam IS a reflection on Islam itself - just not a thoroughly appropriate one, just as the IRA is a reflection on Ireland, or the "War on Terror" is a reflection on America - they are just poor, inappropriate and incomplete reflections. Examples of how people adopt what they perceive as the "true" set of ideals of their lives and teachings, and use them to ultimately perverse and oftentimes purely evil ends.

Many people believe in science--they believe in it when they go to the hospital, or accept Evolution, or accept that medicine works better than prayer. But at the same time, many of these people (excluding atheists) are also open to the idea of God and religion. I've been to and still go to church--all of the people there are liberal in their ideas of science and trust science--but that doesn't negate their religious beliefs.

But don't you see how people's faith in religion can be shaken when science treads on its toes and attempts to disprove certain things that they had previously taken for granted as being true and certain ? At the very least they must feel as though their noses have been put out of joint, surely.

So at least, in liberal communities and many mainstream cities, people don't take a linear for-and-against stance on religion and science.

I agree with you on that - I'm not saying that people can't incorporate elements of both into their lives - merely that the two cannot always exist in harmony, as science progressively disproves religion, hence the dichotomy.

If it was inexplicable, then science would not answer it. Science asks questions about Natural, religion asks questions about the Supernatural.

I kinda agree, but then again I would counter by saying that science attempts to normalise the supernatural - it attempts to bring myth and other inexplicable phenomena within the reach of that which science can explain ... basically in a bid to try and better understand it.

I am not suggesting that the two are mutually opposed on all levels - far from it - however I am saying that where the two meet, Science will almost uniformly attempt to explain away the mystique of religion, opting for what it deems to be cold, hard facts.

As I've also previously said, in my view science doesn't explain what happens 100% - it explains what happens in terms we can better relate to. What's to say science is right ? What's to say magic doesn't exist ? Just because people communicate in a common language, what's to say there's something fundamental that we haven't missed ? If science IS absolutely right, then how come there is still so much we cannot explain and cannot achieve ?

The debate rages on ... .

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!