The debate "Religion and science would be better if they work together. Religion morals and science logic" was started by
January 23, 2015, 11:45 am.
42 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Intellect posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, sonaybitch posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Intellect, wmd, true_debate_life, DavidStuff777, strawberryfieldsforever, Mriduljain, Seraph, theguy, Sidharth, akshay58165, I_Voyager, invincible_01, Wantonjon, ansumanshah, ameliajane, llthslvtr, BabyT14, joshuachaz, sabrina and 23 visitors agree.
Ornes, PsychDave, Sosocratese, Razzakel, mansi, sickboyblonde, liamjosephcash, Bailz, shinywhale, pagenewberry, sonaybitch, Haelaeif, Preploukus, Mr_Anonymous and 11 visitors disagree.
do u wanna start a war
This is the difficulty I encounter when trying to debate with atheists is most of their arguments do apply towards my religion (which is LDS). The faith system my religion has similarities in the scientific method and they thoroughly encourage education. If you look at the church leaders you have Henry B. Eyring who has a PHD in nuclear physics just to name one. On your question about disagreements my religion, although there is no official stance on evolution, you have several instances (some way back in the 1800s) of leaders saying they see no problem in evolution. In fact Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting short story on how the forbidden fruit was a catalyst for human evolution. And on your last question that's what modern day prophets are for.
The main reason why I disagree is that classic religious morality often claims we need to suffer our personal weaknesses in order to triumph against the trials god has set out for us, but certain sciences could potentially modify human nature so those psychological flaws no longer exist. If religion made the claim we could not genetically modify ourselves in the same way some religions prohibit vaccinations or other medical remedies, then I would have to actively rebel against such laws. I am a transhumanist atheists and your religious morality shall not dictate what I do to myself or my children.
Religion is a dying concept. As out understanding of the universe becomes more and more in depth, the space in our lives that religion occupies continues to get smaller and smaller. Eventually the religious of today will join those of yesterday in the history books. We need to figure out a moral code for the modern age that is pliable as our knowledge and technology advances. Archaic texts can't do that, only we can.
The problem is the outlook is very different. Religion is based on what they believe to be true. Science seeks to discover what is true. Throughout history scientists have been punished, sometimes killed, for saying things like "The Earth revolves around the Sun". Religious rules (morals) are based on what was needed when the rules were written. These rules are often obsolete, which is why no one gets stoned to death for wearing a cotton-polyester blend. The basic rules (don't kill, don't steal, etc) are almost universal, and are good, but before saying we should turn to religion for moral guidance, you must say which one. Also, what happens when religion and science disagree (evolution)? Should religion get ignored? What about when gets into moral grey areas? Should we ignore the moral implications because religion doesn't mention cloning, stem cells or drone warfare?