Science: Keep out?

[Tsuyoiko]

Stephen Jay Gould claimed to believe that the realms of science and religion should be kept separate, and that neither should encroach on the other's territory. Exploration of and exposition on the physical universe is the realm of science, and religion shouldn't speculate on matters of fact and theory. Likewise, questions of morality and ultimate meaning are religion's business, and science should keep its nose out.


Although I'm a great fan of the late Professor Gould, I have to disagree with him on this point. I think it's science's business to question everything and shove its nose into everyone's business. Think creatively enough, and you can phrase any question as a scientific hypothesis. Consider Richard Dawkins' claim in The God Delusion:

Originally Posted by Wiki

According to Dawkins, "the God Hypothesis," that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us," is a scientific hypothesis, and is therefore not exempt from scientific examination.

Quoted from Here

As for questions of morality, while science might not be able to offer absolute answers to ethical questions, I think it's entirely appropriate for scientists to investigate those questions, in the hope of providing some insight. For example, we (in the UK at least) allow abortion up to a certain stage of pregnancy because of a scientific understanding of foetal development. Without that insight, how would we make a decision?

What's your opinion? Should science stick its nose in where it might not be welcome? Conversely, should religious leaders speculate about scientific facts?

[scorpion da black]

i believe that science can be a mean to strengthen one's faith...
science that is proved , and is known as absulute fact would some time proove what has been said in the religeous texts.
for example when scientists proved that iron coud have never been created on earth...it needs a climate other that the core of the earth to create it....i as a muslim was amazed since our textes say " we created man from the elements of earth, except for iron we dropped it from the skys "
another example is when professor dawood musa kroske ( a convert to islam ) heard scientists from NASA and from britian debating about the moon, and said that it has a deep fault cutting the moon in half and circuling it as a diameter....musa then converted to islam out of amazment ..because he knows that we muslims believe that the mmon was shatered in have when prophet Muhammed was born.

and there is many many examples i could provide on how science actually proves some points in religion....

if you are interrested search for " Quran/Koran 's scientific approach "

[Revenant]

I think the wisdom of the old saints and religious leaders is positively astounding at times, and quite inhumane and brutal at others.

When it comes to morality, I see more hope in science than religion.

Science, albeit through a lot of trial and error, is coming closer to the factors that influence a person's sense of morality, and how those factors can be manipulated.

So far, and before I say this, I am not Buddhist, but some of the Buddhist meditations have been studied by neuroscience and psychology, and some of the factors that make a person like The Dalai Lama the likable, ethical, and happy person that he is have been sorted out from other factors.

'Flow' could improve a person's happiness. Happier people are more likely to be kinder people, since selfish people are usually simply so focused on finding the happiness that is missing from their lives that they have little attention left to think on other people's wellbing and happiness.

Empathy might due to the neurosplasticity of the brain be trainable so to more strongly empathize with people, and to empathize with not just those one feels some affiliation with. That would be helpful since ethics is based on empathy.

Those factors that don't objectively contribute to happiness, and certain factors have been factored out, like being rich, intelligent, good-looking, then don't need to take up so much of people's attention.

Religion has for the most part laid out some good traits one should take on, but it is science that is indicating which points are valid and some effective techniques for taking these traits on.

I'd like to add that most relgious people are religious cause they see some links between reality (what science studies) and their religion. Religious people are however resistant to any contradicting science. One could say that religion can be logically explained, but then that is what science is, the application of logic to reality.

[Goldiegirl]

Religion and science are completely different. One is based on "faith" and the other is based on facts. I don't think the two can be mixed. I don't believe in creation, we evolved just as any other plant and animal did. I am not saying that people shouldn't believe in a higher power, I just don't think that any of the holy books are actual, truthful accounts of the history of the universe. They are stories with a moral point to them, meant to teach people in large groups to behave to maintain social order.

[Derfel]

Science should concentrate on things it can prove, not on things it can't deny, but tries just for the hell of it.
In its own field both faith and science is absolute and unquestionable, there are things you must answer with only one of them.
For example, some religions not only find blood transfusion gross, and heresy, but they forcefully stop their children from being saved by it. Such stupidity should be purged, same for brutal, cold animal experiments. Both kinda people should be shot and left in a dark alley.

[Kinsao]

I think that science and religion are both essentially part of the same thing - searching for truths about how the world works, and perhaps more importantly, asking the question 'why?' as well as the question 'how?'

I don't think religion and science are incompatible, as it's still possible to believe in the existence of a deity/deities (or some similar concept) while confronted face to face with scientific facts... I don't see how these things disprove each other. I think that people often think science and religion are incompatible because of religious people who try and claim as 'fact' things which have been proven otherwise by science. But I think both stem from the drive to investigate phenomena which are as yet unexplained.

[Tsuyoiko]

Originally Posted by scorpion da black

and there is many many examples i could provide on how science actually proves some points in religion....

I bet I could provide at least as many examples of where science disproves some points in religion
But that would be getting a bit offtopic!

Originally Posted by Kinsao

I don't think religion and science are incompatible, as it's still possible to believe in the existence of a deity/deities (or some similar concept) while confronted face to face with scientific facts... I don't see how these things disprove each other.

But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.

[Mars Man]

It would probably take a little time for me to develop my argument in any quick fashion, yet for starters (if, in fact, the discussion lends itself towards that direction) I would suggest that background be laid out more. Also, as usual, I'd strongly urge a greater clarity on terms--for example, I'd stick the definition 'religiosity' on the word as used in the OP, and 'belief-system' on what people usually loosely call religion. (the reason for that will probably come up soon enough if the discussion were to go that far)

Along the lines of what Kinsao had put forth, we must admit that the roots are the same. To that extent, science and most of the various belief-systems came from the same emotional, overbearing awe the homo sapien had had for the visible, knowable (at that time historically, and now even) universe around them. This is related to the 'god spot' in the brain, or the 'god gene,' as they say, and is the source of 'religiosity.

In a very general sense, we could postulate that the line of 'science' that led to what it is today broke off from the religious belief-systems when the question 'why is that so?' was refused further audience by those systems' leaders. The knowledge of the several belief-systems stopped, while science moved on.

Thus I agree with the stance that every thing that is testable, should be and has the full and natural right to be tested. In this case, it would primarily be the data bases of the religious belief-systems which are open to testing. The results of which would be (ought to be) provided in a full education program earthwide...regardless of culture or belief-system influence.

In short, for now, therefore, I argue that it is most prudent and beneficial in the longer term, to assure that pure science (as opposed to Scientism) reprimand the religious belief-systems on their places, assertions, and tenets that have been, are being, and will be tested and shown to be incorrect, inaccurate, or simply plain ole false.

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko

But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.

It is not science part to disprove God. The people who state God exists have to prove its existance. All science does is anaylise the data presented and puts it under scrutiny. So far the "proofs" of god do not stand up to any form of scientific examination, that is why the theists always fall back on faith. You don't have to prove faith.
All theories undergo to see if they can be dis-proved. The theory of gravity is tested to see if it can be disproved. So far all evidence shows that it is true, although there are still people who disbelieve in it. The same goes for Evolution. The theory is there to be disproved. So far the evidence is in its favour.
There is a phrase that crops up on the AN forum whenever we have to odd theist shop up "You cannot prove a negative". In other words I'm not the one to disprove, you are the one to prove.
As for sceince keeping out of religion, young earth creationists and those that follow intelligent design use very dodgy science to show that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that humans where intelligently designed by a higher being. Look up Kent Hovind and some of his theories on the flood. If science didn't keep out of religion we would have even more half-wits like Kent running around the world trying to keep the masses ignorant.

[Tsuyoiko]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

All theories undergo to see if they can be dis-proved. The theory of gravity is tested to see if it can be disproved. So far all evidence shows that it is true, although there are still people who disbelieve in it. The same goes for Evolution. The theory is there to be disproved. So far the evidence is in its favour.

I think that's Dawkins' point. Think of the 'God Hypothesis' in the same way as the 'Gravity Hypothesis' or the 'Evolution Hypothesis'. Science has to say that gravity and evolution have overwhelming evidence in their favour so we promote those hypotheses to the status of 'theory', i.e. considered satisfactorily proven by science. Since there's no reliable evidence in favour of the God Hypothesis it remains a hypothesis - at best it gets the Scottish verdict .

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko

But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.

Is it okay? I think so. Will science ever disprove the existence of God? Probably not. For me I tend the believe on the lines of the philosophical aspects of HUP on the issue.

-Doc

[Chi65]

In the original "cult" some found out, that by concentrating, tuning into a goal, it was more often to be reached than without (hunting for example, the cave paintings, thus the first role of arts also etc.). They needed no science to find this out, just observings, but any good psychologist can easily confirm this too now. The subconsciousness worked and still works via selective consciousness, once you know, what you want, and much faster than any calculations, although those would also lead to good tricks and results. In the best case, both together(!) was/is best after all. Which does not exclude that both sides critisize each other at times, and sometimes one side is a better path than the other one. None has the only key and will never have.
It is a constant dance of both sides, also of the brain, and we got two sides for a reason, to use them both, not for constant shizophrenia.
Thats my answer.
Yes, I also have a lot to do with psychology and neurology around me and at present with special new developments and tests. Within the science fractions are also those who very well and happily sign this point and say it openly, right beside the critics, even highly honoured by them. . .something is turning around at the moment, in favour of the intuition, imagination, because it has been left out for too long.
And there are remarkable many asians amongst them, ready to show this also (!)scientifically and by experiments, and it works. Amongst them Ramachandran, more powerfull than ever. Go figure, listen till the end of this talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k
Have fun and ask yourself where and why you laugh!
Which he recently repeated in London, we (our synnie-group) got an extra invitation, but a bit too late to actually make it over (it was in november). (But our "chief" already cooperates with him, and Cytovic, and lots of artists all over etc.)

[Mars Man]

I enjoyed that film there, Chi65 san ! Thanks for the link ! Of course, for those of us who have been, and are keeping up with studies and progress made in that field, it presented nothing really new, other than one case study of the agmadela not getting signals for the other processing points in a certain map.

It does appear that your usage of the word 'science' should be identified a little better.

Originally Posted by Chi65

In the original "cult" some found out, that by concentrating, tuning into a goal, it was more often to be reached than without (hunting for example, the cave paintings, thus the first role of arts also etc.). They needed no science to find this out, just observings, but any good psychologist can easily confirm this too now.

(bold mine)

In that context, there are two very things that pure science is all about, 1) observing, and 2) by trial and error, knowledge is formulated then concretized. (it might also be pointed out, just in case, that psychology is a science too)

Originally Posted by Chi65

It is a constant dance of both sides, also of the brain, and we got two sides for a reason, to use them both, not for constant shizophrenia.
Thats my answer.

I'd like to make sure I understand the point you are trying to make here. Using the dual-sidedness of the human body in metaphor, you are arguing that science and religious belief-systems both work towards the same results?

For example, you are arguing that as Christianity worked toward the conclusion that any person who does not accept Jesus as their personal savior, and declare that privately and publically is fully condemned and without hope, science is, or can, collaborate to reach that same conclusion? Would this be a good description of the argument?

[Chi65]

Originally Posted by Mars Man

I enjoyed that film there, Chi65 san ! Thanks for the link ! Of course, for those of us who have been, and are keeping up with studies and progress made in that field, it presented nothing really new, other than one case study of the agmadela not getting signals for the other processing points in a certain map.
It does appear that your usage of the word 'science' should be identified a little better.

Sure I hope, some keep up, yet the connections have to be made again and again (this also goes to me), but for many its new. Even Rama has to make it clear (it was not the first time, that he stated the role of the syn-senses and artists, but maybe in an open lecture, in his books he is pretty clear in his direction), as you could hear.

In that context, there are two very things that pure science is all about, 1) observing, and 2) by trial and error, knowledge is formulated then concretized. (it might also be pointed out, just in case, that psychology is a science too)

Yes, but at the beginning, it was not necessarily separated, but then it was not so complex or rather too complex to know, where to start to divide it.
All they found out, was, that something worked better this way, and so they did it over and over again, best way they could. Its simply a kind of manipulation of their own inside(!), while they thought, its about an outside force they could not understand yet. A good example is the Zen-archery, for advanced understandings, by the way. Which is, why so much eastern wisdom caught the interest of western psychologists.
Sure psychology is a science, although there are many diversions in the discussions now, even, IF it is one, because it so often touches untouchables like "spirits, ghosts"-matters

I'd like to make sure I understand the point you are trying to make here. Using the dual-sidedness of the human body in metaphor, you are arguing that science and religious belief-systems both work towards the same results?

Originally yes, it definitely has the same roots, which does not mean, that their ways, weapons are uptodate. There is a lot of work to be done for sure.
Which is, why it might be good to go to the roots again, to be able to see and accept this.
Even the separation of worldly power and church showed the growing shizophrenia about their divided paths, for which especially our german history has many examples. In the end its all about powers and ruling over people's minds in the name of a stronger overfather (yes, mostly males).

For example, you are arguing that as Christianity worked toward the conclusion that any person who does not accept Jesus as their personal savior, and declare that privately and publically is fully condemned and without hope, science is, or can, collaborate to reach that same conclusion? Would this be a good description of the argument?

Hm, yes, in a way, it does show similarities in my observation, I was often laughing at even similar behaviours in the RD- and particularly the Randi-forum, but of course they hardly liked that argument, even if I was not alone with it. Any projection, that, without their (whichever side) views and experiences you are lost in a way, is to be found on both sides, also not new.
I personally think, its rubbish and much more a matter of translations, for which a solution could be found with a bit of good will.
You are doing a fine job for this, by the way.
Digging and educating about former names, words, descriptions can be very enlightening, I do this myself a lot and keep on finding it interesting.
But reading between the lines often is as important, and in this, asians are more trained, since their appearing images are still rooted in the visuals (!), when reading their own signs, that can have so many adaptable meanings.
Best example, the multiple meanings of Chi or Ki, but around western science often seen as just one out of date formulation and as such very likely (and openly!)to be condemned. It is laughable, because even Chinese and Japanese know very well, that it is as multiple and changable as can be.
A japanese friend once sent me several pages (!) simply Ki-connected translations, and I warned the RD forum, that all they would get is roaring laughter or polite silence at best from the east, but for sure no giving up of it, any which way.
Nor would they give up their according kanjis or so. The gap between this different understanding and way of handling it is very high and lies in a far more associative and complex way of dealing with it in the east in contrary to the small boxes offered by the west.
As such it also could give an idea, how western religion tried to keep doors open, but was pinned down into boxes. Fundies are a good example, and there are fundies in religion as well as in science. And thats the major problem and dangerous. While fundies say, those with open windows are dangerous, like witches, artists etc., clearly because they just jump over the walls in minds and better be silenced, hehe. But its too late now.
Einstein himself had many good laughs about this narrowmindedness, being friends with his dreams. . .
Thats why we artists like people like Rama and his curiosity and humour and open door for artists and syn, and ongoing, not hitting around. There are these and those, on all sides, yes.
As far as I can see at least.

[scorpion da black]

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;537208]I bet I could provide at least as many examples of where science disproves some points in religion
But that would be getting a bit offtopic!
[QUOTE]

sure you can....but not all science is true...some are theories, and some are ideas, and some are proved and taken as fact and after a moment of time it is disproved and it seems wrong..........

some times the people who link religeous texts and science make mistakes in interpretations.......

you can tell for sure...
but nothing of what you can provide can prove you right over me..or prove me right over you...

guess if there is a God , then we will get to know on judgment day...if there is such a day...
i choose to beleieve in religion and in science as well...i even make my faith stronger when reading both together...
well if i happen to meet God at least i believe in him...
but if you meet hi then sux to be you (just kidding)

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Religions problem with science is that what sciences proves often conflicts with what is said in religion, and sciences problem with religion is that religions blind faith concept often fustrates it and puts barriers in the way of its ultimate causes.


You can never keep the two apart though. I think religion is an important aspect of our societies and can do many positive things, but on the other hand i think it can often make itself into an obsticle in the face of progress.


People say the Bible is the word of god and all of that, but the way i see it, it is basically a book of morals and the beliefs of people that tried to explain the world around them. I truley think if people were aware of the actual age of teh earth, or the concept of evolution, or of gravity, or the existance of viruses and bacteria etc etc, that a lot of the bible would have problem been written a lot differently back then if people had been aware of stuff like this.
People back then in the days of Jesus thought that if you got sick you must have done something wrong or some sort of demon had posessed you, people thought that children who weren't baptised could not enter heaven or hell and just spent the rest of eternity in pugatory or whatever they call it etc- even in the medievil times christians were burning and drowning innocent women alive on suspicion of being witches, and all sorts of wicked cruel forms of torture were devised for those convicted of being gay etc.



I don't think religions like Christianity are the whole and final truth, if there was a God, i don't think he'd agree with everything said in the Bible- you have to take into consideration that the Bible is one of the most edited books in the history of man, and so much of the original writings have been lost and so much new material has been added, so much stuff has been lost in translation etc.
Christians were even completely oblivious to the existance of a book of Mary, or a book of Judus or of Joseph etc until the dead sea scrolls were discovered!



So basically, i cannot completely believe in the bible when you take these things into consideration- don't get me wrong, i really do think that the bible has a lot of good things to teach, but at the end of the day i am more willing to lend my ear to the words of science than to that of the Bible (although at the end of the day i listen to both sometimes, since religion does sometimes raise important moral and ethical questions sometimes over what we are doing in science etc).
IMHO, you could say that science has done and given us so many more positive things than what religion has done in recent times- without science, we wouldn't have electricty, vacines and cure's for diseases, anesthetic/pain killers, an understanding of our world like gravity, the atmosphere, the age of the earther etc etc etc....



What do you do though with problems like the teaching of creationism and evolution in schools though? Teachers are supposed to have an unbaised views on such things, but should we really be teaching a concept of creationism that is proven to be wrong?

"The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning.

Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.

This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says";


Full story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm



Hmmm....

[Mars Man]

In order to help keep this thread, then, on topic (and I may start one to deal more specifically with the issues themselves ①) I will simply state my opinion--again.

The general realm of science--what I will call pure science, and which is in opposition to Scientism (a bit more fundamentalisic in outlook)--should test the tenets of each and every human endeavor related to the universe we live in. This will of course include the religious belief-systems that are out there.

The element of religiosity which the homo sapien mind has built in, apparently, has been the 'emotional' element which has driven science (see definition above) and the old religious belief-systems. Therefore, it is not 'science against religion,' but rather 'science against religious belief-systems' that I am arguing for and trying to promote.



①The OP here is asking basically for members' opinions without actually opening the door for discussion of the issues.

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Hi Mars Man,

During my youth in Indonesia, there was a lot of superstition besides that being a good Muslim was also very important. I am talking about the years before WWII.

But when I stayed one month in Indonesia ( Sumatra and Java), in 1996, I noticed that outside the big towns people are still superstitious.
The wayang, shadow play with puppets, is still important.

I have often asked myself if superstion is also a sort of in-born religion?
In Holland my parents generation didn't want to pass under a ladder, because that could bring on lots of bad luck. Black cats too bring on bad luck, a.s.o. I still see people avoiding walking under a ladder.

In the beginning of the Japanese occupation in Indonesia ( 1942) we all of a sudden had quite some snakes getting in the house. My mothers cook, Rasmina, told me that this meant that we ( my whole family) had to leave the house by force. Snakes in the house are a very bad sign.
I don't like snakes, I believed her. And she was right.

Is superstion a primitive religion? Is it also, what you, Mars Man, call a belief-system?
Or is it simply an instinct to protect ourselves and those we love, against bad luck and worse?

[Mars Man]

Just a quicky here, to keep it on topic. I would say that the source of that emotion is religiosity, while the statements, once wielded into a format (as rules of thumb) become the a belief system. Nice to see you joining in Elizabeth van Kampen san !!

[karlyboo]

Should Science keep interfering and should religion keep philosophising?

I'd argue for both. Although both camps are coming from different angles they are attacking the same problem. Humans are innately curious (George?) creatures and we want explanations.

What I feel Science has over religion is that one observes, forms a hypothesis that fits the explanation and then attempts to either disprove or prove the hypothesis.

Religion seems to have attacked the problem from the other direction and form the hypothesis first and then find a reason to explain away anything pointing to the contrary.

Both need the capacity to update themselves to reflect new findings, and whilst imperfect the scientific disciplines seem to achieve this reasonably well for the most part (although a certain religious fervour does seem to prevent some scientists from accepting new ideas). Science's capacity for self-correction is very powerful IMO.

Ideally both would meet in the middle somewhere and counterbalance one another. Heart forming compromise with head.

Although I can understand a certain hostility to Science from the religious camp... it's not easy having established and (in theory) ultimate truths, handed down by an Ultimate Being, disproven (the Earth not being the centre of the Universe, the Earth being slightly older than 6000 years etc.) and having to ret-con these findings into your belief system.

[Tsuyoiko]

Originally Posted by scorpion da black

but not all science is true...some are theories, and some are ideas, and some are proved and taken as fact and after a moment of time it is disproved and it seems wrong

Depends what you mean by 'true' and by 'fact'. Science develops explanations for observed phenomena. I guess when we talk about scientific fact we mean an observation. For example, that we share 90-odd% of our genes in common with chimps is a fact. The explanation of why this is so is a hypothesis or a theory, depending on how much evidence there is to support it.

The philosopher Karl Popper requires of a scientific statement that it is falsifiable. In other words, that it can be disproved is what makes it scientific. When the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a hypothesis, such that predictions can be made on the basis of the hypothesis that are subsequently shown to be correct, the hypothesis is 'promoted' to the status of 'Theory'. Note that in scientific language, a theory is considered as proven. In layman's terms the word 'theory' seems to imply some doubt - but not in the scientific sense.

Don't you think that it's getting less likely that current scientific knowledge will be completely overthrown?

Originally Posted by karlyboo

What I feel Science has over religion is that one observes, forms a hypothesis that fits the explanation and then attempts to either disprove or prove the hypothesis.
Religion seems to have attacked the problem from the other direction and form the hypothesis first and then find a reason to explain away anything pointing to the contrary.

Yes: generally speaking, Science is bottom-up whereas Religion is top-down. Science observes everything and formulates an explanation taking account of all those observations. If anything is observed that contradicts that explanation the hypothesis must be reformulated. For example:

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Since Religion starts with the conclusion, only evidence that supports that conclusion is accepted - as you say, anything to the contrary is explained away - perhaps even simply ignored. For example:

Originally Posted by John Whitmore, Creation 'Scientist'

Here’s what the Bible says. Now let’s go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.

[centrajapan]

Is superston a primitive religion? Is it also, what you, Mars Man, call a belief-system?

Superstition does not have to be primitive and religion complex.I think religion and superstition are both phycological defense mechanisms for uncertanties.

[Revenant]

Religion is as I see it a defense against psychic entropy. Religion provides meaning to life, a purpose, some goals, and prescribes ethical behavior all in one package that is supposed to fit all the general needs for life. The religions are probably some of the most ambitious attempts to create order in consciousness. For their time, they often did a pretty incredible job of creating that order in consciousness. I mean, for example, a Christian man a hundred years ago would do all he could, and then simply say 'It's in God's hands now', and worry no more about a particular concern, completely confident that God would do what was best. That kind of faith is harder to find these days.

But after studying the history of religions, the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaisnm and Christianity, after reading about the pretty radical changes that a religion like Christianity has gone through since it's inception, and the fact that Christianity just doesn't agree with all points of science (and science has probably done the most to bring us to where we are now. I mean, for example, a person with some kind of phobia wouldn't be able to overcome that phobia were it not for a soft science like psychology).

In short, I think that minus the hope that believing in a fundamental set of beliefs brings, science offers so much more these days for those that look to deal with pychic entropy, find meaning to life, and an ethical philosophy to go through life with.

[Chi65]

...but not to forget, science did similar "witchhunts" and serious silencings as religion, where it did not (yet) understand, but does more and more now.
Many bad things were projected with the written amens from "scientists", as much as it was with amens of the church, even in similar cases. I am always wondering, why nevertheless science is hardly ever criticised for that.
People like me(synaesthetes, artists) were having a real bad time, were it not for the official papers from our artschools, that gave us some fool's freedom, which for example even a van Gogh did not have.
Some lucky ones were called genius about the very same things, that brought others into closed hospitalisations.
And in religion this was not much different, who served the interests and goals of the church (I am not saying, god), ran free, who refused to believe everything, did burn.
Its powergames in the end, and free and clear thinkers were chased on both sides.

I always like the way, the buddhists kind of included shinto in Japan for example (not always peacefully, but with a certain acceptance) and how for example during certain festivities there still seems to be a kind of respect amongst them.
Unthinkable in our regions for long.

And referring to the openness of Buddhism to some science (Dalai Lama states, that when something is proven to be wrong, it has to be changed, like a pair of worn out trousers, so his example), there should be some hope for cooperations.

We need wider views and more discussions amongst religion and science for sure, be it to find out, where and what can be changed. To me, both sides have some valid points and only need some "other" explanations.

[Tsuyoiko]

Originally Posted by Chi65

...but not to forget, science did similar "witchhunts" and serious silencings as religion, where it did not (yet) understand, but does more and more now.

Not sure I would go so far as to say 'witchhunts' - could you give an example? But sure, Science isn't perfect. There are times when Scientists refuse to accept new discoveries, clinging dogmatically to old theories. But that's scientists, not Science