For the past 500 years, science has gradually peeled back superstition to reveal how the world actually seems to operate. We may not have have Truth, but we have a pretty good estimation of it, we think.

As a result of the phenomenal success of science, everyone wants to use it to sell their products. Infomercials show people in lab-coats explaining very glitzy "scientific-looking" graphical animations. Edgar Cayce and various other psychics, mediums, and UFO-chasers have used scientific sounding jargon to make their opinions sound reasonable. I.D. advocates and other creationists use scientific terminology in non-scientific ways to attempt to mislead the unwary.

But with all the hoopla there are at least two roles that religion can actually play in science.

1) religion can serve as inspiration to people to discover God's creation.

2) religion might give people raw ideas that can then be tested. I don't mean this in the sense of testing religious ideas - which, being a strict falsificationist, I consider nonsensical. I mean in the sense of generating new ideas.

However, it's important to understand that science is more than just inspiration and imagination. Both of those things are important, but they aren't defining features of science. There are lots of inspired and imaginative people in the world who are not scientists. There are always have been.

Like it or not, science is a kind of Underwriter. When we say an idea is scientific, we are saying that it has been through a deliberate process of testing and has a certain "fitness for use," if you will.

The value of science to society at large is that the results, while often in error, are nevertheless on average far more dependable than those obtained by other means. People can trust the results of science - not perfectly, but usually more than other kinds of results.

Some religions are able to adapt and accept this subsidiary role in the process, while still maintaining a primary role in areas like ethics. Other religions have to force science (as a human activity) into submission, by claiming it supports their claims, because their faith has to be ultimate in all respects.

The fundamental conflict is that science is an attempt to discover reality, while religion is an attempt to define it. But reality doesn't care about our definitions.

IFF wrote:
"1) religion can serve as inspiration to people to discover God's creation."

And if there aren't any then it is just deception. And a deception that teaches people to not think for themselves and to follow self-annointed leaders like kings, emperors, and dictators.

IFF wrote:
"2) religion might give people raw ideas that can then be tested."

You mean like electricity?
Or antibiotics?
Or the internet?
Or the internal combusion engine?
Or the GPS?
Or ultrasound?
Or ...

So far religion has inspired and/or supported a huge percentage of the wars we've had. It has sanctioned overpopulation. It has blessed pollution of the environment (we were given dominion over the earth).

But inspire science? I'd suggest you ask Galileo how well that worked.

Religion utlimately is about living a good life and preparing for your death. If everyone thought of it in that sense there would be a lot less confusion.

I think you're too anti-religion Morgan, you can critique the bad aspects of it all you want, and I will be right there with you, but refusal to see any good aspects is a little shortsighted.

I'm not aware that Galileo ever stopped being a devout Catholic.

What specifically is wrong with the two roles I listed?

To wit,
1) Religion has served and continues to serve as inspiration for many people to delve into science.

2) Religion could possibly generate ideas. I don't know how that might work, but I do know that creativity is not all that well understood. New ideas can come from many places - dreams for example, or in some cases from the other end of the organism. Of course, as I said, science is more than just new ideas. One must then be able to articulate one's ideas in the form of a general theory that produces testable hypotheses.

What you stated is your opinion, and that's fine, but you haven't given me a reason why there is anything inherent in the definition or practice of science that says that religion can't play a part in the two ways I have enumerated. (It could be there are others, but I can't think of them at the moment.)

Religion can have these roles because any philosophy can fill these roles. Those are not defining factors in science.

TwoSheds wrote:
"Religion utlimately is about living a good life and preparing for your death. If everyone thought of it in that sense there would be a lot less confusion."

Let me share with you my perspective. I think what you wrote is what the laity believe and they have consistently believed that because that is what they are taught to believe.

But if you look at those within the religious body's heirarchy what you see is self-annointed leaders who ask for money, control morality by fiat, threaten people with eternal damnation for disobedience, call any disagreement blasphemy (I'm not ignoring history here), and in many cases abuse the trust of their parishioners. Lets not be too quick to forget the role of religion in promoting racism in the US and other countries. Those in white churches were burning black churches when I was growing up.

But you are wrong to say I am anti-religion. I am anti-ism. I hate communism, fascism, nationalism, alcoholism, and I see it as just another way of the few controlling the many for personal profit.

To entertain religion is like 'dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight'

If that's not an oxymoron.

Sure it seems harmless and fun, at first, but it can suck people in and turn an obstentially nice person into a raving fanatic.

I am talking of the organised, scripture led religions here as they seem to be prevalent at the moment.

I'm anti-ology strictly because of what scientology has done for Tom Cruise's career.

If Cruise could act it would help his career immensely.

Seriously ... he is a nutcase. I think most celebutantes are nutcases.

Let them cut off their ears if they wish.

I dont really think scientology has done anything for or to Tom Cruise's career, i think Tom Cruise did a lot to Tom Cruise's career.