VersusVS

Religion uses metaphysics as a reason for their ethics (God will punish you if you murder) to improve the person so that he/she may not only have strong morality, but also so that he/she could better cope with the world. Science changes the world to fit the person.

What I'm trying to prove here is that, even if God doesn't exist, and religion is completely false, religion still offered us a good way to cope with the world. Without religion, humanity would only have the Golden Rule - Treat others as you would have them treat yourself (something like that) - which isn't enough reason to, say, not rob a store if you're bankrupt. When a person who believes in karma is put in the same situation, he/she wouldn't do it, since "What goes around comes around."

However, this is only true in an ideal world. I understand that some authorities have pushed religious dogma too far, and that without science, we would still be huddling in our caves around the dim campfire. Science has improved the world we live in. Also, humanity tends to seek knowledge, which explains why we're wasting so much money on theoretical science. We crave answers to many of our puzzling questions.

Despite sciences many contributions to human wellfare and human nature, in the end, I believe that ultimately, religion has the greater reward in coping with our world, although it takes a strong sense of willpower to follow. While science works to improve this temporary world (since one cannot deny the inevitability of death, unless of course, you believe in reincarnation), religion gives us hope in the afterlife. In conclusion, religion kicks buttocks.

Christopher Lord

Your conclusion does not follow.

Your argument relies on the assumption that religion is the sole source of 'moral ideals'

It is not.

Thus, religion has not been proven to 'kick butt'

It is definately a way of coping with the world, but certainly not the only one.

VersusVS

I agree that religion is certainly not the only way to cope with the world. I pointed out that science helps us to better cope with this world by changing the whole world (for better or for worse) to "fit the person". However my whole point was that most of our "moral ideals" comes from the fear of "What goes around comes around", a concept very widely enforced by most religions, and without this concept, it's my opinion that the world would be chaotic. This is, I admit, the point in which my inductive argument becomes weaker, since it isn't proven. Good point.

Christopher Lord

I do tend to agree on some level though. Us poor apes are incapable of operating without an alpha male serving up hot justice. Religion in part serves this purpose for a great number of people.

Perhaps wishing we could rise above it is somewhat idealistic, but its nice to dream, isn't it?

Vorkosigan

Chinese folk religion, to which the vast majority of Chinese subscribe, is not very moralistic. Chinese get their morals from elsewhere. So the coping function of religion is minimal, if at all. Animals seem to do just fine without any religion at all.

Michael

Ms. Siv

Morality is evolutionary. It existed long before humans existed.
Primate and other mammal societies have a very well-ordered societies with a definitive code of ethics.

As a provider of emotional solace religion has some value, agreed (although IMO this value is grossly over-rated). And maybe in the formation of a social fabric (festivals, gatherings etc). But thats about all.

Once we provide secular alternatives for both, religion might not be needed anymore.
However, the weaning process has to be gradual.

- Sivakami.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

Jamie_L

VersusVS:

You've made some erroneous assumptions, I believe.

You assume science and religion are intended to serve the same function. While they have some overlap, they are not intended to do the same thing. Religion spans a whole spectrum of things - from explaining the universe to providing rules for people to live by. Science has only one function: to explain how the world works. It was never intended to do any of the other things you say it does not do. Science is not intended to be a guide for life. Criticizing science because it doesn't provide moral guidance is like criticizing a car because it doesn't protect you from tooth decay. That's not it's function.

Furthermore, science is also not about changing the world to fit people, or changing the world at all. Science explains how the world works. Applying science (i.e. technology) can change the world. But that is separate from the pursuit of science itself. The purpose of science is not to change the world. If science helps us cope, it does so by explaining why things happen and allowing us to understand the world around us.

Jamie

JerryM

I agree with Sivakami that what we call "morality" is basically a pattern of behaviors which have been selected by evolution for their survival value to our species. We are social primates; our success depends, at least in part, on a societal structure. And a society cannot function if its members consistently kill, injure, or steal from each other. Morality does not derive from religion--it is an instinctive, quasi-biological phenomenon. Religion came later as an attempt to reinforce morality and social bonds. I think there is a real debate on how well it has succeeded (and I'm talking here about organized religion, or relgion applied to a large population.) Religious faith has certainly led to some noble, altruistic deeds, and some excellent charitable institutions, schools, and hospitals. I would add that much wonderful art and music has been religiously inspired or commissioned. But history is full of tragic human conflict--war, executions, imprisonment, torture, exile, tyranny, and persecution, all done in the name of religion. Maybe religion does kick butt--but too often it's the butts of non-believers.

MortalWombat

How do you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know that this is the only non-religious guideline that people can come up with? How about "Treat others as you would have them treat yourself AND don't harm others because you wouldn't want others to harm you."

VersusVS

Ok. My argument was disorganized. It went from "Religion, though may be false, helps us cope, so God bless Religion" to "Religion VS Science". That wasn't well thought out. Religion VS Science wasn't my first intention. I was never really good in keeping a one-track mind.

But the show must go on, and it looks like I have to give my argument for Religion VS Science. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

First of all, please understand that I'm not criticizing science at all, or accusing it of not giving the right ethics. (By the way, I believe that philosophy, including metaphysical and humanistic, is a non-practical science that deals with ethics.)

With that aside, I think everyone can agree that, in an ideal world, both Religion and Science seek for the truth - but use different methods. Reason VS Faith. In the pursuit of truth, both have influenced people to lead certain ways of life, even though that may not be science's first intention.

As far as morality and coping with the world, religion's "blind faith" seems to be the best. I was really trying to refrain from saying this, but I'm really tired and I'll say it anyway: Although humanity has a natural thirst for knowledge, what good is knowledge after death? I know that will get a lot of atheists mad. But I'm tired. Later.

Send your hate mail here: VersusVS@aol.com . I don't mind.