Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Science is better, because it gave us the Internet, etc.

Religion is better, because it gave us values (and Salvation), etc.

religion did not give us values, we had values before we had religion, and as for salvation, you are getting ahead of yourself. religion is a cultural thing whereas science is a universal thing. therefore science is better Marowit

I would go so far as to say that neither one of these two is "better" than the other. While these two things certainly collide on a number of issues, they are largely unrelated concepts.
Religion exists (this is my perspective, not cited fact!!) to impart value, morality, meaning, guidance, direction, etc. to the lives of its followers. Edit: for many people, Religion is the only thing standing between themselves and debilitating feelings of dispair, uncertainty, uselessness, or the one thing that offers them the mental fortitute to resist vice, addiction, or crime. As such, its importance must certainly not be understated.
Science, in it's most common definition, is not associated with such things. Rather, science's purpose is to help us as humans to learn more about the world in which we live, and benefit from that improved understanding by using it to improve the quality of our lives. (whether or not science and progress actually make our lives happier is another debate topic altogether) - Simple 13:27 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007
I agree with you, I don't think you can declare one better than the other. In my mind, I think both should compliment each other. I think the pursuit of some scientists to somehow disprove religion is foolish, and I feel the same about people of faith stating science must be wrong because it's not written in the Bible. It seems to me that both should seek to find common ground. I think science is a tool for better understanding the world we live in (ie the mechanisms of God). I see too often the debate of Creation vs. Evolution, and I always think to myself, doesn't this miss the point? How the earth came into being seems a lot less important to me than the overall messages of love and salvation. And on the same note, shouldn't science be more concerned with answering questions than attempting to disprove other peoples value systems? --Colest 13:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
The positive aspects of religion you have identified (if they are real - I have doubts about this) I would attribute to spirituality rather than religion. Religion is basically telling other people what to think, often for personal gain. Science, on the other hand, is the name given to our collective efforts to understand the world around us, and is clearly far more important. I say this because it actually develops and allows things to be achieved, while religion has changed little for many years. However, there is definitely no need to choose between the two, so I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Colest, I really can't think of an example of science trying to 'disprove' other people's value systems - maybe in rare cases this is a side effect of answering questions?EmanresU 16:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
I suppose I should have phrased that differently. I do not fault science in trying to disprove religion, I do not believe that is what it’s intent is. I am commenting on the fact that people will take a scientific theory (evolution) and attempt to extrapolate from that that 1) God does not exist, and 2) therefore it negates your entire belief system. --Colest 17:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Religion is better. Or atleast should be better for all Christians. The very first comandment is never to put any God before me. Which means do not idolize anything besides God.

Colest touches on an arguement i can say "amen" to, while this last comment is one reason why scientists are constantly at odds with theologians. Science and Religion are mutually, and beautifully, compatable. Scientists should recgonize that science consists of theories- not fact, but theories that have varying levels of proof. Thus, the scientists need to allow for other possibilities and not be so dogmatic. Theologians, or all religious individuals, should recgonize that science is nothing more than an effort to characterize God's world in a systematic manner, without using faith (or the bible) as a source of information. God created scientists, liberals, and everyone you disagree with; possibly to engender the advances in medicine and technology that we all enjoy. It is important that science and religion coexist together. Each of the two provides meaning and clarity to those who ascribe to their philosophies. Scientists need to recgonize and respect that some people have faith that they lack. People of faith have to recgonize, and accept- as I truly believe God does- individuals who choose to not believe in God. --Jsusman 22:31, 18 August 2007 (EDT)