ELECTROGOD

A statement from a resource on the NCC site http://www.ncccusa.org titled "Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes" had this small but really quite debatable bit to say:

"Many well informed and well educated people believe that the learnings of science and religion enrich each other.

I would like to throw this out there and see what people think of this idea.
So much of what they are trying to say seems to rely on this particular statement as being true. I don't see how religion can enrich science and I'm not sure that science really does much for ancient myths that have been carried into current times.
If their stance on the Christian religion is that it's not to be taken literally and it's more of a "way of looking at life" then what is that and can it really be considered to be the religion that they are claiming to be a part of?

This thread is not to be about if you happen to like the NCC's particular viewpoints on Christianity compared to other Christians.

anthrosciguy

It's fine if you're not trying a No True Scotsman fallacy. There are many variations between Christian churches and their specific beliefs, just as there are in virtually any religion I've heard of.

EDIT: the above sentence is in response to the statement:
As for religion helping science figure things out, I don't think that's gonna happen, but religious people helping science find things out happens all the time, and has for centuries.

ELECTROGOD

I'm not talking about people who happen to be religious enriching science but religion itself enriching science, as the NCC seems to be saying.

BMSMCMAM

No, I don't believe they can. Science requires the experimenters and observers to be unbiased when researching new concepts. If you go into an experiment with an inerrant preconcieved notion, such as saying that evolution is absolute blasphemy because Dog created all life at the same time, chances are your beliefs are going to influence the results. And even if they somehow don't, it is inevitable that if the outcome conflicts with 'The Divine Truth' (TM), it will have incredible friction being taken as empirical knowledge. I can't think of very many religions which actively change their beliefs to fit the world around them, rather than change the world to fit their beliefs.

David B

I think science can enrich what could meaningfully, if broadly, be called spirituallity.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawk...debate_p1.html

And, as said above, sometimes religious people can enrich science.

But religion enriching science?:huh:

David B

abaddon

So, is the question "Will religion help scientists do their jobs better?" Answer: No.

Can science help religious people figure out how to live more efficiently (and specifically, practice their spirituality more efficiently)? Answer: Yes.

For us non-scientists, there are lots of places to look for answers to our questions about life and the meaning of life. Not all of our questions fall in science's "domain," which is deliberately self-limited to quantifiable topics and those only scratch the surface of the human experience.

Having other resources, like the various religions and religious-philosophies, can enrich the individual's quest for meaning, for putting it all together. Science has some interesting information to help with that, but can't serve as the only source unless you make it into a pseudo-religion called Scientism.

ETA: So, if we're talking about individuals and their relations to science and religion, I say: Yes, they most certainly can enrich each other, depending on what individual persons make of them.

ELECTROGOD

Well, the NCC says it supports the of teaching evolution in the public schools and released a statement describing this http://www.ncccusa.org/news/060330evolution.html. Apparently this is part of their stance on the statment in the OP.

dettus

No.

Oxymoron

I can see nothing that religion can give to science except some interesting cases for medical types to study.

Science can - and has - enriched religion by gradually removing all the nonsense until there is so little left it's hardly worth getting religious about. The god-of-the-gaps must surely wither and die.

WishboneDawn

Religion can give science a breather and new avenues. As much as I know that science is not devoid of ethics and religious moralists can be damn obnoxious there are times when science is prone to race on before society in general has a chance to even review, let alone debate, where science is racing to. Stem cell research is a good example.

Stem cell research is something that most in related sciences would agree is a good thing. I would agree with that. But it was religion that stood up and asked where the stem cells come from and provoked a debate on it. It was that obstacle that forced research into gathering stem cells along different lines so that science has an incentive to find different methods of getting the cells. The arguments against stem cell research aren't particularily good a lot of the time but religion has only had a limited time playing opposition to science's ruling party.

It might be that how they enrich each other is by questioning and challenging each other (Creationism is not a good example of this because it isn't religion questioning science but religion attempting to bully it's way into science). Science continually pushes religions to re-examine their roles in society and the meaning of faith to their adherrants. Religion can push back and cause science to reflect on it's moral obligations and what it offers society at large.

Thought I'd suggest that anyway.