It depends on what the question is. Science is useful for answering specific questions about the natural world using empirically gathered and verifiable data. Its logic is primarily inductive, and while it isn't a system without flaws, it is a system with what might be considered the least amount of flaws. While it is true that virtually any belief one holds takes a degree of faith to believe in, science allows one to believe in certain propositions with less faith than they would need otherwise, or rather, science gives direction to one's faith and allows one to believe in certain propositions with a greater amount of reason or legitimacy than they would have otherwise.
This also depends on what you mean by "better." Better for what purposes, precisely? While I don't believe that religion is necessary for one to have a system of morals, I don't believe that science is capable of devising a system of morals, hence why I believe that being devoutly scientific isn't all that great either. While one might find that information gathered through empirical research might allow one to make more informed judgments on certain moral issues, I don't believe that science can actually tell one what the value of a moral action is. This isn't what science was made for, being that science merely gathers and explains data about the world, but doesn't really tell one how they are to act with this data, or what the ethical dimensions of this data are. Again, though, I don't think religion is necessary for one to behave in a moral fashion, or even possess a valid moral framework of some sort.
-an irreligious IIN user (inb4 complaints of "WELL UR JUST A RELIGITARD, IF U READ MORE STEVEN PINKER AND SAM HARRIS, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALITY IS!!! RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM!!!")
Is it better to be devoutly religious or devoutly scientific?
← View full post
It depends on what the question is. Science is useful for answering specific questions about the natural world using empirically gathered and verifiable data. Its logic is primarily inductive, and while it isn't a system without flaws, it is a system with what might be considered the least amount of flaws. While it is true that virtually any belief one holds takes a degree of faith to believe in, science allows one to believe in certain propositions with less faith than they would need otherwise, or rather, science gives direction to one's faith and allows one to believe in certain propositions with a greater amount of reason or legitimacy than they would have otherwise.
This also depends on what you mean by "better." Better for what purposes, precisely? While I don't believe that religion is necessary for one to have a system of morals, I don't believe that science is capable of devising a system of morals, hence why I believe that being devoutly scientific isn't all that great either. While one might find that information gathered through empirical research might allow one to make more informed judgments on certain moral issues, I don't believe that science can actually tell one what the value of a moral action is. This isn't what science was made for, being that science merely gathers and explains data about the world, but doesn't really tell one how they are to act with this data, or what the ethical dimensions of this data are. Again, though, I don't think religion is necessary for one to behave in a moral fashion, or even possess a valid moral framework of some sort.
-an irreligious IIN user (inb4 complaints of "WELL UR JUST A RELIGITARD, IF U READ MORE STEVEN PINKER AND SAM HARRIS, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALITY IS!!! RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM!!!")