X-Message-Number: 17740
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ruthanna R Gordon <>
Subject: Re: SCIENCE V/S RELIGION

On 11 Oct 2001, Gurvinder Bagga wrote:

> In the current debate about religion I would like to share with you
> some points I made about science v/s religion. I would love to see some
> additions to these points.

You know, I continually find it remarkable how acceptable it is for
atheists to generalize about "religious people."  There are several
billion of them on the planet, and they have as much variation as humanity
itself.  Crimes are committed in its name because some people will use
whatever reasons are available to commit atrocity, and more often than not
religion is the one is available.  If we "evolved beyond religion" then
the same crimes would be committed in the name of something else.  There
are religious systems that encourage atrocity, and there are religious
systems that encourage altruism, just as with any other sort of belief
system.

For example, many people complain that religion encourages the belittling
and stereotyping of other groups.  Below we see that one can make blanket
stereotypes about several billion people in the name of science.

Before I address the points, let me say where I'm coming from.  I consider
myself a scientist--specifically I'm a graduate student in cognitive
psychology.  I have friends in psychology and physics, and others for
whom science is their main belief system even though they are not
themselves researchers.  I also consider myself deeply religious.  I was
raised a Reform Jew, and now practice my own strange combination of
Judaism and Neopaganism.  I attend religious services for both
religions.  I also have friends of several different religions plus a
sprinkling of atheists and agnostics.  I therefore have experience both
with science and religion, and feel at least as qualified as Gurvinder to 
make comments on both.

> DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
> 
> 1. A scientist will give up his life for the betterment of humanity. A
> religious fanatic will sacrifice humanity for his ideals.

Most people of any stripe have very few things they will give up their
lives for.  But there are people whose religious belief allows them to
sacrifice their life to save a stranger, or spend their entire life
working to better humanity.  And there were people conducting scientific
experiments in Nazi Germany.  Whose lives they were sacrificing for what I
leave as an exercise for the student.

I find it interesting that you are here comparing "a scientist" to "a
religious *fanatic*."  If you were making the proper scientific
comparison, you would be comparing a scientific fanatic to a religious
fanatic, and using average members of each group as controls.  (Of course,
the experiment is further complicated by the considerable overlap between
the groups).

> 2. A scientist will or can never imopse his ideas on others unless he
> can prove himself . A religious priest forces his thoughts on others and
> threatens punishment if others don't follow.

The definition of proof varies.  And a scientific heretic will find it
very difficult to get a job, or to publish their heresy any place where
the scientifically correct can read it.  On a smaller scale, many students
have found their lives made much more difficult if they disagree with
someone on their dissertation committee.

Conversely, not all religious priests "force" their thoughts on others,
and not all religions have a system of punishment set up for those who
disobey.  Neopaganism, for example, doesn't have any universally
recognised authorities, nor much in the way of universally accepted
thoughts.  

> 3. A scientist cannot issue a fatwa or commandment to prove a point. A
> religious priest can issue a fatwa or commandment over a point he
> himself might not like to follow.

Again, not all religions have a system set up for doing this.

> 4. Science does not force children who cannot speak into communities or
> cults. Religion forces children who cannot speak into believing ideas
> the child might disagree when he really can speak!

You *can't* communicate an idea to a child who doesn't understand language
yet!  And in spite of this "forcing a child to believe" I know an awful
lot of people who don't believe as their parents did.

As for science, try being in fourth grade and firmly disagreeing with the
outdated cannon in your biology text.  You won't be passing that class, I
bet.

> 5. Science encourages freedom. Scientist dress the way they want
> to. The work is not related to the dress a scientist wears. Religion
> forces a dress code. People are made to look alike. Freedom of dress is
> banned.

Up until recently science, and academia in general, had *very* regimented
systems of dress.  Even now, go to a formal conference and see how many
people aren't wearing suits or business dresses.  (I did count one woman
last Psychonomics with a bare midriff and a pierced navel, but she was
from Australia. :)  )

At Reform synagogue, you certainly won't see dress more regimented than at
a scientific conference.  I won't even go into what's permissable at a
Neopagan ritual, but it includes just about everything except a business
suit.

> 6. Science does not discriminate against females. A scientist can be of
> either sex and be respected for his or her work. Religion mostly
> discriminates against females. They are not allowed to express
> themselves and even entrance inside a religious insitituion is often not
> allowed. Head priests of almost all religions of the world are MALES.

Up until recently, it was impossible or all-but-impossible for a woman to
study physics, or biology...science was traditionally a male bastion, and
even now the gender percentages in most fields are hopelessly
unbalanced.  Many women still report discrimination of one sort or
another.

Around the same time that they started letting women study science, the
more liberal sects of the major religions also started letting women
become rabbis and priests.  In most churches and synagogues I may express
myself as much as a man may.  I could become a Reform, Reconstructionist,
or Renewal rabbi if I wanted to.

> 7. More people have been killed in the name of religion than for or
> against any scientific discipline. Infact science has in the last two
> hundered years saved millions of lives.

Mind you, religion has been around for a few thousand years longer
than science has.  In spite of its youth, many people have died in the
name of science.  To name a few of science's more sordid moments:  Nazi
Germany (again), the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, lobotomies on
housewives, not to mention the creation of all sorts of unpleasant and
deadly weapons.

And religion has saved lives as well as cost them.  Many religions (all
that I know of) include injunctions to charity and to volunteer
work.  For example one of the major concepts in Judaism is Tikkun Alum,
the repair of the world.  My partner, an EMT, tells me that around here
the Catholic hospitals are better run, and healthier, than the secular
ones, because the people in them are motivated by a spiritual calling to
save lives rather than by money.

> 8. Science evolves and learns from it's mistakes. Religion does not
> evolve and NEVER learns from it's mistakes.

All religions have sects which *have* evolved and changed from their old
cannons, and even the 'orthodox' movements change but don't admit
it.  Reform Judaism is based explicitly on the idea that religion should
evolve.  Even the Pope admitted that the Earth goes around the sun.  *No
one* is following the exact religious practices that their ancestors
followed a thousand years ago.

> 9. Scientists are required for the day to day running of the
> world. Religious priests are not required for the day to day running of
> the world.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "required."  Although there are
people for whom religion leads to insanity, there are others for whom
religion helps them deal sanely and ethically with an imperfect
world.  That's *why* atheists are always telling us that religion is a
crutch.  :)

These two jobs fill different functions.  For many people, both are
neccessary, yet there are people in history who have managed without one
or the other.

> 10. A scientist might invent weapons of mass destruction but he is
> responsible and knows the consequences of his actions. A religious
> fanatic cannot make weapons of mass destruction but STEALS form
> scientists these weapons and kills thousands not knowing the
> consequences of his actions.

Wait...science is better because it originally put weapons of mass
destruction into the world?  I don't follow the logic.

Isn't one of the consequences that your theoretical science is aware of,
that eventually his weapon will get into the hands of religious
fanatics?  How does knowing the consequences of creating a weapon, and
going ahead an doing it anyway, make one a good person?  In a court of
law, they consider it *worse* if you know what you're doing.

> 11. Science does not reject GOD and is infact trying to find the
> ultimate meaning of life. This is done thorugh hard work which might
> take maybe thousands of years. But scientists have tremendous patience
> and are mostly fascinated by the journey rather than the goal. Religious
> priests KNOW GOD exists! They have not offered any proof nor are
> interested in doing so. They get extremely irritated if asked for
> proof. They are very impatient and want to go to heaven without doing
> any real hard work in this world.

Some scientists do reject god, although science does not.  Likewise, while
some priests reject science, religion does not (otherwise there wouldn't
be religious scientists).

I will admit that religion is not, and never has been, about
proof.  However, saying that religion encourages not doing hard work in
this world is grossly ignorant.  Saying that priests are inherently lazy
indicates that you have not met many priests.  

> 12. Scientist admit the world exists and can be manipulated for our
> benifit. They also use the fruits of their discovery. Religion does not
> give importance to this world and almost always talks of heaven or
> hell. But deeply religious people USE the fruits of discovery of
> science.

Different religions place differing importance on this world and the
afterlife.  The Judaism with which I was raised, for example, is agnostic
about the afterlife (the Old Testament says nothing about it) and focuses
exclusively on this world.  

I'm not sure what objection you have to religious people using the fruits
of science.  Science is meant to be used--should we only give vaccines to
the children of atheists?  If it makes you feel better, many scientists in
fact "use" the fruits of religion in their personal lives.

> 13. MONEY which is the most important tool invented by man the
> scientist is the ONLY thing accepted by any RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
> ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!! BLESSINGS CANNOT BE EXCHANGED FOR BLESSINGS.

Money predates science by several thousand years.  

> 14. Science discovers truths which are applicable all over the
> universe. A hydrogen atom is the same everywhere. So is a oxygen
> atom. Similarly gravity works in the same way all over the universe. And
> light in it's current form travels at the same speed. Common sense tells
> us that a GOD should be same all over OUR universe.(IT might be
> different in another universe) But religion on earth does not
> agree. Already we have GODS of all colours and shapes found all over the
> world. And no GOD is compatible with another. GODS as we know them on
> this planet are nonfungible! They also follow political boundaries
> created in the last three hundred years! For example a GOD in INDIA is
> not a GOD when you cross a political boundary and go to PAKISTAN!!

Light is a particle.  Light is a wave.  Just because we perceive a
paradox, doesn't mean we are not perceiving reality.

Actually, your analogy suggests that science in useless because we may be
arguing about several conflicting theories at the same time.  Now it could
be that one of the theories about god is right (I include in this the
atheist theory), or it could be that god is like light--multiple seemingly
conflicting natures coexistant.  Or some combination.  


As scientists, we cannot have the luxury of stereotypes and
prejudices.  In fact, one of our main responsibilities is to admit when
variation exists that we haven't fully measured, to admit when we don't
know.  

I appologize for the length of this post.  This subject is one I see much
of here and feel strongly about--the fewer prejudices and 20th century
preconceptions we take with us into the future, the better that future
will be.  Understand that if someone had posted a list of reasons that
religion was better than science, I would have lept in to defend science,
as I have done in forums where the "cold-hearted scientist" stereotype is
more prevalent.  The only belief I am against here is the fanatic
certainty that one's own way of thinking is the right way, and all the
ills of the world can be blamed on someone thinking differently

Long Life,
Ruthanna

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17740