Religion vs Science

Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y’all think. Even Rodin.
In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about.
Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can’t be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can’t agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That’s why it’s unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us.
It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.

Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y'all think. Even Rodin. In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about. Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can't be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can't agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That's why it's unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us. It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.
That's true, but it's had hardly any competition. One day, common sense and compassion for our fellow humans might take over. That might end wars, too.

Maybe to some people I sound like a broken record saying again, for the umpteenth time, that “religion” is too broad a term in this context. Sometimes it doesn’t matter so much but here it does.
There are many aspects of religion, including community, ethics and belief in certain fact claims. Lausten, the first part of your post refers to ideas and their discussion. So for that part of it, let’s at least narrow the issue to theology or theism versus science. That way, we confine it to what I think you’re getting at.
To the extent that someone says “this is my experience, and I know it’s only my experience” and leaves it at that, fine. But I don’t know many theists who do that, especially if they take the time to tell someone about it. Usually, they’re making a fact claim. Often they’ll try to soften it or walk it back a bit but in my experience, that’s generally what they are doing. To the extent they are making fact claims that extend beyond their personal experience, personal experience is not a valid justification. “For me, God created the universe is six days” doesn’t cut it. It’s not beyond the pale to call bullshit on that, because that’s what it is.
The second part of your post gets into community. Science may encourage more open dialogue but it does not address the arts, social interaction, family, community and other matters the way religion (not only theistic religion) does. So science may invite fewer of a certain kind of conflict but an argument that it is better for community building than religion is, will not fit with most people’s experience, and here’s where subjective experience is a valid test for what works.
If we don’t separate the parts, we won’t be clear because we’ll be discussing different things, thinking we are discussing the same thing. Being clear could eliminate much of the arguing we do.

Maybe to some people I sound like a broken record saying again, for the umpteenth time, that "religion" is too broad a term in this context. Sometimes it doesn't matter so much but here it does. There are many aspects of religion, including community, ethics and belief in certain fact claims. Lausten, the first part of your post refers to ideas and their discussion. So for that part of it, let's at least narrow the issue to theology or theism versus science. That way, we confine it to what I think you're getting at. To the extent that someone says "this is my experience, and I know it's only my experience" and leaves it at that, fine. But I don't know many theists who do that, especially if they take the time to tell someone about it. Usually, they're making a fact claim. Often they'll try to soften it or walk it back a bit but in my experience, that's generally what they are doing. To the extent they are making fact claims that extend beyond their personal experience, personal experience is not a valid justification. "For me, God created the universe is six days" doesn't cut it. It's not beyond the pale to call bullshit on that, because that's what it is. The second part of your post gets into community. Science may encourage more open dialogue but it does not address the arts, social interaction, family, community and other matters the way religion (not only theistic religion) does. So science may invite fewer of a certain kind of conflict but an argument that it is better for community building than religion is, will not fit with most people's experience, and here's where subjective experience is a valid test for what works. If we don't separate the parts, we won't be clear because we'll be discussing different things, thinking we are discussing the same thing. Being clear could eliminate much of the arguing we do.
Which is exactly why I try to be clear on the meanings of words. Lois
The second part of your post gets into community. Science may encourage more open dialogue but it does not address the arts, social interaction, family, community and other matters the way religion (not only theistic religion) does. So science may invite fewer of a certain kind of conflict but an argument that it is better for community building than religion is, will not fit with most people's experience, and here's where subjective experience is a valid test for what works.
I don't know how religion addresses the arts, other than it used to be where you went to get the big bucks for doing a sculpture, so I'll leave that one. The other stuff is addressed by religion, but does it do a good job? Certainly not the Bible with all it's weird marriage arrangements and mistreatment of women. Women rarely do well in religion, not since well before monotheism. I could go on, but the point is, religion has claimed that high ground based on tradition, not on merit. Compare that to what we've done since creating governments that separate religion. More women are getting educated and this has been shown to lead to lower birth rates and healthier communities. And which religion came up with the idea that your ethnicity and culture does not make you superior? If you're going to say "the way religion does", then I'll need to know more about what you mean by that.

I don’t get it. Why are so many people in humanist groups so thoroughly myopic about religion, and why is the obvious distinction between religion and theism so seemingly inaccessible?
Lausten, religious congregations sing together. That’s art. At New York Ethical Culture, they invite chamber groups to play. We’ve had programs on the arts. Ethical Culture is not alone in this. Religion concerns human values, which art addresses. In fact, religion can well be seen as the pulling together of all our central concerns, including our values.
I know of several religions that promote and practice ethnic and cultural equality, and church-state separation. Again, the Humanist religion Ethical Culture does that beautifully. You’ll also see quite a bit of that in Unitarian-Universalism, some of the more liberal Christian denominations, in some of the Eastern religions and others.
I get so frustrated reading posts that overlook the obvious reality that religion need not be about a supreme being. Just because hard-line fundamentalist religions are so visible and do so much damage does not mean that they have completely taken over religion. People crave a sense of orientation. We can’t re-invent the wheel every day. Religion can help provide a framework for living productively and with dignity. Our challenge as Humanists is to push religion in that direction. Treating it like a disease that must be eradicated is unnecessary and unwise.

Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y'all think. Even Rodin. In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about. Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can't be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can't agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That's why it's unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us. It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.
Are we talking about which is more satisfying? Which is more useful? Science is the only way to investigate nature, but religion is simply more attractive than science. (To most people.) That won't change.
Are we talking about which is more satisfying? Which is more useful? Science is the only way to investigate nature, but religion is simply more attractive than science. (To most people.) That won't change.
Did not see that coming. I realize it is more fun to get together on a Sunday morning and sing, but you could do that without the dogma. However, if you are a woman, you couldn't walk outside without a hijab if it were not for advances of the secular society, led by scientific discovery. I don't really separate useful vs satisfying in cases like that. I'm not talking about which of the two things an already free and healthy person chooses to do. I'm talking about which of the two builds community in a way that leads to a healthy society that encourages freedom. I think you also need to ask why religion is more attractive. My cynical answer is that it is much easier to say "god did it" than it is to grapple with the questions and live with not knowing. Maybe you have different thoughts on that.
I get so frustrated reading posts that overlook the obvious reality that religion need not be about a supreme being. Just because hard-line fundamentalist religions are so visible and do so much damage does not mean that they have completely taken over religion. People crave a sense of orientation. We can't re-invent the wheel every day. Religion can help provide a framework for living productively and with dignity. Our challenge as Humanists is to push religion in that direction. Treating it like a disease that must be eradicated is unnecessary and unwise.
I know religion does that stuff, but art is used to bring together protesters of the status quo and communicate a lot of non-religious ideas, so I see that as religion using art, not religion “addressing" the arts. I also realize hard-line fundamentalists have not “taken over religion." But you seem to be missing that there was a time, starting around the 4th century, that there wasn’t a small minority of fundamentalist Christians, that WAS Christianity, and the others were declared anathema. Islam has a similar history. This did not get better with Protestantism. It only got better when governments made laws limiting the power of religions. That happened because scientific discoveries showed how wrong religion was. If religion can do the things you say, then I wish it would get on with it already. Don’t blame me because I haven’t seen any results. And don’t just point to the names of organizations as if that is a result (interesting you point to two mostly secular orgs). I’m looking at the structural problems, how they build community around creeds and spend so much on administration and fanfare. How it has poor mechanisms for self-evaluation and change. I’m not treating it like a disease, I’m treating it like something that doesn’t work.

But much of it does work, Lausten. The main problem I have with what passes for religion today is that often, but not always, it includes theistic belief. In addition to the dreadful effects this can have on education and scientific literacy, some of the theistic religious groups and their members maintain that God wants them to do some dreadful things, which manifests itself mainly in social policies. On the other hand, some of the liberal theistic groups are as humanistic in their practices as we are. And they do a better job, on the whole, fundraising and helping out with good causes. Unfortunately, the hard-line religious groups tend to raise more money than the more reasonable ones. All things being equal, raising money is good, but not when it’s being done to oppose gender equality, for example. Of course, there are also organizational problems, which can lead to corruption, but that is true of any group that has an organization and operates financially.
I don’t know why you would write that I’m overlooking the history. I know the history but we’re not in the 4th century now. I’m mainly interested in moving toward a more humane society with a planetary ethic, as per CFI’s mission statement. As part of that, I would like to see the old myths lose their hold on people and on culture. But if 300 million people in the USA joined an Ethical Culture Society, and maintained that organization’s commitment to universal worth and dignity, free from theistic dogma, their calling themselves religious wouldn’t bother me one bit. If 300 million Americans stopped worrying about what God (a supreme being) wants them to do and saw religion as being about how we treat each other and act for good in the world, thereby effectively taking the idea of a supreme being out of religion, I would be ecstatic. Wouldn’t you?

I don't get it. Why are so many people in humanist groups so thoroughly myopic about religion, and why is the obvious distinction between religion and theism so seemingly inaccessible? Lausten, religious congregations sing together. That's art. At New York Ethical Culture, they invite chamber groups to play. We've had programs on the arts. Ethical Culture is not alone in this. Religion concerns human values, which art addresses. In fact, religion can well be seen as the pulling together of all our central concerns, including our values. I know of several religions that promote and practice ethnic and cultural equality, and church-state separation. Again, the Humanist religion Ethical Culture does that beautifully. You'll also see quite a bit of that in Unitarian-Universalism, some of the more liberal Christian denominations, in some of the Eastern religions and others. I get so frustrated reading posts that overlook the obvious reality that religion need not be about a supreme being. Just because hard-line fundamentalist religions are so visible and do so much damage does not mean that they have completely taken over religion. People crave a sense of orientation. We can't re-invent the wheel every day. Religion can help provide a framework for living productively and with dignity. Our challenge as Humanists is to push religion in that direction. Treating it like a disease that must be eradicated is unnecessary and unwise.
Although you are correct to distinguish between religion and theism, the majority of people do not make that distinction, so you are left to explain it every time someone uses the wrong definition for religion. It isn't going to end anytime soon. You are wrong about Humanists, though most understand very well the difference, some even calling Humanism a religion. Humanists are not anti-religion. We are anti-theism on rational grounds and anti destructive religion on compassionate grounds, even those that are not theistic. But anyone who says he is anti-theism will be accused of being anti-religion by a majority of people. Most cannot help but conflate the two terms, which is why I try not to use the word religion in a loose, undefined manner. Lois
I don't know why you would write that I'm overlooking the history. I know the history but we're not in the 4th century now. I'm mainly interested in moving toward a more humane society with a planetary ethic, as per CFI's mission statement. As part of that, I would like to see the old myths lose their hold on people and on culture.
I made the point about the 4th century because that’s when church became state in a Western empire. That brand of religion is what the word “religion" in the West has come to mean. You seem to agree on this as a problem, but you are not very clear on the solution. You’re throwing around this idea of removing theism and myths from religion as if that is something that is being seriously discussed in the mainstream. To the mainstream, “worrying about what god wants" IS religion. I think you are a bit too optimistic about these liberal theistic groups. I’ve talked to many of them. They still think you can have a personal relationship with Jesus. They still make you recite a greed to join. They still say slavery in the Bible was more like indentured servitude. They may have some members who want to modernize the rules, but it is a long slow painful process, usually ending in splintering. I would need more than your word that they “do a better job of fundraising and helping". Just the idea of a mission trip is such a waste. You spend so much time and effort, organizing, training, getting there, getting to know the people you’re helping, then you spend a few hours doing a skill you’ve never done before. It makes much more sense to send a few experienced people for an extended stay.
Although you are correct to distinguish between religion and theism, the majority of people do not make that distinction, so you are left to explain it every time someone uses the wrong definition for religion. It isn't going to end anytime soon.
So what? "Theism refers to belief in a god or gods. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god. A theist is person who does." I welcome the opportunity to draw that distinction. Sloppy thinking is precisely the problem we face, and bemoan on this forum constantly. So we should not engage in sloppy thinking ourselves, or cater to it with sloppy language. Most people don't make the distinction, even though there is one, as you acknowledge. Right, and that's why we should make the distinction, point it out, repeat it until we are heard. We can't expect to change any minds if we dumb down our end of the dialogue, accept the errors our adversaries are making and never offer anything that invites people to look at the matter differently. If we hope to change minds, we must invite people to think about things differently.
Humanists are not anti-religion. We are anti-theism on rational grounds and anti destructive religion on compassionate grounds, even those that are not theistic.
Right, so let's say that. We're "not anti-religion," but anyone reading this and other pages on this forum would think that we are. That's precisely why am so insistent that we should STOP saying "religion" when we mean "theism." You go ballistic every time someone uses the word "belief," arguing that it's an unclear term. Yet here you are advocating for the use of the more ambiguous term, when we have a better and more precise one, by your own admission. Your logic has more twists than a pretzel.
But anyone who says he is anti-theism will be accused of being anti-religion by a majoity of people. Most cannot help but conflate the two terms, which is why I try not to use the word religion in a loose, undefined manner.
So you expect that we're going to change minds without engaging on our differences, clearly? That makes no sense. We must speak with integrity, else we won't persuade anyone. People can help conflating terms, and some of them - the ones who are willing to change their minds - will do so if we speak as one, drawing our distinctions clearly. That's why I'm so strongly opposed to your approach, Lois. It undermines us at every turn. You seem to want to use the word "religion" only to criticize it but when pressed, you acknowledge that you don't really mean religion, you mean theism. But you refuse to say that on a regular basis, consistently. No fair-minded person will give you any credibility if you do that. See also my comments to Lausten.
That brand of religion is what the word “religion" in the West has come to mean. You seem to agree on this as a problem, but you are not very clear on the solution. You’re throwing around this idea of removing theism and myths from religion as if that is something that is being seriously discussed in the mainstream. To the mainstream, “worrying about what god wants" IS religion.
We can't guarantee that our actions will solve a social and cultural problem that has existed for centuries. All we can do is speak with integrity, with as unified a voice as possible. Saying "theism" when that is what we mean is one small part of that. It may not be the word that most people use but it is easily understood and more nearly reflects what we mean. The fact that most people do not use the word is precisely why we should: we cannot change minds unless we give people another way of looking at things. It's true, many people conflate religion with theism. Our challenge is to undo the mess, just as we face the challenge to undo the mess the common person has made of "science" and "theory." We have our world view, and that is what we should present. The background issue is that we have to make our own case and stop reacting to the theists. We've let them get into our heads and change our game. Any good strategist will tell you never to do that.
Saying "theism" when that is what we mean is one small part of that. It may not be the word that most people use but it is easily understood and more nearly reflects what we mean.
But I'm clearly talking about religion, the organized kind. The kind where people go to a service and if you ask them if they believe in the apocalyptic message of their founder, they say, "I don't care about that, I just go for the community." The kind that has meetings of a few leaders who ask, "how do we get more members who will give us more money." and the answer is, "let's go clean up a park and try to get people notice us." That's what is going on and has gone on for centuries. Science minded people say, let's do something that the planet needs. It will be more affective if we involve others, so let's be honest with others about why we are doing what we do and hopefully they will agree with us. We might even find people who have a better idea and then we'll do that. Taking theology out of religion, as I described it above, might make an incremental difference. Adding theology or religion into a scientifically minded community would just be wrong.
But I'm clearly talking about religion, the organized kind. The kind where people go to a service and if you ask them if they believe in the apocalyptic message of their founder, they say, "I don't care about that, I just go for the community."
That is not at all clear to me. Your opening post says, in part: "Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience." That statement caught my eye immediately because there are religions of which that is not true. In fact, a person practicing a true spirituality necessarily reaches out beyond herself, and cannot merely fall back on personal experience when challenged. Your statement is true of theistic and other supernaturalistic religious beliefs, and has very little if anything to do with organizations. The very use of the phrase "religion, when challenged" is sloppy at best.
Adding theology or religion into a scientifically minded community would just be wrong.
Why? Theology has no place in science per se but theology is not synonymous with religion, and a community of scientists is not the same thing as a scientifically-minded community. So what are you talking about? And why use the disjunctive "theology or religion" if you're not going to draw the distinction consistently?
Although you are correct to distinguish between religion and theism, the majority of people do not make that distinction, so you are left to explain it every time someone uses the wrong definition for religion. It isn't going to end anytime soon.
So what? "Theism refers to belief in a god or gods. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god. A theist is person who does." I welcome the opportunity to draw that distinction. Sloppy thinking is precisely the problem we face, and bemoan on this forum constantly. So we should not engage in sloppy thinking ourselves, or cater to it with sloppy language. Most people don't make the distinction, even though there is one, as you acknowledge. Right, and that's why we should make the distinction, point it out, repeat it until we are heard. We can't expect to change any minds if we dumb down our end of the dialogue, accept the errors our adversaries are making and never offer anything that invites people to look at the matter differently. If we hope to change minds, we must invite people to think about things differently.
Humanists are not anti-religion. We are anti-theism on rational grounds and anti destructive religion on compassionate grounds, even those that are not theistic.
Right, so let's say that. We're "not anti-religion," but anyone reading this and other pages on this forum would think that we are. That's precisely why am so insistent that we should STOP saying "religion" when we mean "theism." You go ballistic every time someone uses the word "belief," arguing that it's an unclear term. Yet here you are advocating for the use of the more ambiguous term, when we have a better and more precise one, by your own admission. Your logic has more twists than a pretzel.
But anyone who says he is anti-theism will be accused of being anti-religion by a majoity of people. Most cannot help but conflate the two terms, which is why I try not to use the word religion in a loose, undefined manner.
So you expect that we're going to change minds without engaging on our differences, clearly? That makes no sense. We must speak with integrity, else we won't persuade anyone. People can help conflating terms, and some of them - the ones who are willing to change their minds - will do so if we speak as one, drawing our distinctions clearly. That's why I'm so strongly opposed to your approach, Lois. It undermines us at every turn. You seem to want to use the word "religion" only to criticize it but when pressed, you acknowledge that you don't really mean religion, you mean theism. But you refuse to say that on a regular basis, consistently. No fair-minded person will give you any credibility if you do that. See also my comments to Lausten. When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it? I try not too, but sometimes I forget when others are referring to religion. I feel the same way about trying not to use the word religion as I do about belief, but it's often hard to fight several battles at the same time. I do the best I can. Some of us are all too human, unlike you, who apparently never makes a mistake when it comes to word use. Should I lapse I am sure you will waste no time pointing it out.
When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it?
It's not just a lapse, Lois. You do it routinely. I opened one other topic to see if I could find an example, and sure enough, in "What is the non-believers story," yours is the first response, in which you refer to religion in a negative sense. Please don't tell us after all you've written that you have a favorable view of religion.
When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it?
It's not just a lapse, Lois. You do it routinely. I opened one other topic to see if I could find an example, and sure enough, in "What is the non-believers story," yours is the first response, in which you refer to religion in a negative sense. Please don't tell us after all you've written that you have a favorable view of religion. You are equally inconsistent Paul. You criticize many particular practices of religious individuals as well as organized religion, then you point vaguely to groups with "religion" in their names that do it better and people who are spiritual in the correct way but you never describe the specifics of what is right or better. You just assert it.
But I'm clearly talking about religion, the organized kind. The kind where people go to a service and if you ask them if they believe in the apocalyptic message of their founder, they say, "I don't care about that, I just go for the community."
That is not at all clear to me. Your opening post says, in part: "Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience." That statement caught my eye immediately because there are religions of which that is not true. In fact, a person practicing a true spirituality necessarily reaches out beyond herself, and cannot merely fall back on personal experience when challenged. Your statement is true of theistic and other supernaturalistic religious beliefs, and has very little if anything to do with organizations. The very use of the phrase "religion, when challenged" is sloppy at best. I realize it is not clear to you, but it should be. You have some other point to make but you’re not doing a very good job of it and I’m not going to follow your thread instead of mine. I’ll expand my “sloppy" statement if you’d like; No matter the theology, even a if it’s a spiritual experience unrelated to cultural icons, the one thing that can’t be challenged is the personal experience. If someone feels that god is love, that is their feeling, not much else can be said. Claims of miracles, healings, apocalyptic predictions, historical details, all that can be challenged, and when used for political gains as it often is, should be challenged. The problem with a religious organization is it exploits that personal experience, claims that it points to their god, then builds their community on that false claim. It’s like starting a marriage based on a lie, it eventually fails.
Adding theology or religion into a scientifically minded community would just be wrong.
Why? Theology has no place in science per se but theology is not synonymous with religion, and a community of scientists is not the same thing as a scientifically-minded community. So what are you talking about? And why use the disjunctive "theology or religion" if you're not going to draw the distinction consistently?
I didn’t use that disjunctive. Religion without theology is a very animal that I am not discussing. I realize I could have defined my terms better. There is the “community of scientists" and then there are communities that form around issues that are evidence based. For example environmentalists who organize around an issue like the shortage of water. They rely on science and it’s methods although all members aren’t necessarily “scientists". I don’t know if there is a term for that.