The Instigator
joe.mullet
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Cooperman88
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,161 times Debate No: 352
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

joe.mullet

Pro

I think that religion science Philosophy art and all other important studies and exploration to point to a real truth that should be enjoyed by everyone. A lot of people say that religion is fine art is fine science is fine but they don't normally agree and you shouldn't mix them and even more extreme people will speculate that what is true for you is not true for me and that truth its self is relative. If this is so then what is to come of us? If we simply create or own truth then why is the world not perfect, for us at least? And if there is not one real truth then there is no right and no wrong, no God and no salvation in any way you may need it. No point no Love peace and no freedom. The world is simply at the mercy of millions of insane creatures that make up the human race.
And in fact by saying that science religion philosophy and so on do not agree all of them being elements in mankind if they all point to different answers then only one can be right, but what about the thoughts and ideas of the ones that are said to be wrong? Aren't they just as credible? Doesn't there need to be a real true answer? Doesn't it all haft to point toward something? And even though it will never happen on this earth, shouldn't we let all of this and more come together to explore that truth, and teach it to other people? Why do we insist on questioning truth instead of looking for it? truth is true, when you are hurt you scream when you are shot you often die when you are loved you feel lite and when you are left you cry when the ground shakes you fall when a child is upset you want to comfort him and when there's pain you feel every inch of it the way it really is whether you like it or not, and when you look at the stars every kid wonders what is beyond the ever looming abyss.
Cooperman88

Con

I would first like to start by saying what I must do to win, and what my opponent must do to win. The resolution has two parts, first and foremost, that Religion, Science, and Philosophy should not be separated. I must prove they should. And secondly, that they all point to a common and real truth. I must prove they don't. My opponent must do the exact opposite.

Now as for my first point.
1. Religion is defined as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
2. Science is defined as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."
3. Philosophy is defined as "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."
When we look at the definitions presented, we see three different things. Not one in the same. If they were one in the same, then they would not be three different things. Three different things cannot be the same if they are different. Just like a red dot cannot also be a blue dot. It is impossible. Since they are three different things, they must stay that way. Now does this mean they should not be separated? Not necessarily. The reason these things should be separated, is because of their vast differences. Let's look at religion first. Religion has not been defined as one specific religion. As we all know, there are many different religions in this world we live in. Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, are just a few of the major religions. Now the question I pose is: Can all of the religions co-exist peacefully together along with science and philosophy? I say no. Not only can they not co-exist peacefully with Philosophy and Science, they cannot co-exist peacefully at all. There are radical groups of muslims whose goal in life is to kill christians. There are radical christians whose goal in life is to kill others. These groups will never co-exist peacefully. Should these groups be separated? Yes. Most definitely. Now, should religion co-exist with Science? In some points yes. It should. But in other points, no. It shouldn't. Paul says in one of his letters, "It is by FAITH you are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast." Since science is purely factual, then you will see that faith and science cannot co-exist. Especially since one calls for believing in the unproven. Religion says that the person who adheres to the guidelines set up in whatever religious book believes that those guidelines are true, whether there is evidence to back them up or not. Science says you must believe the laws because they have been proven true. A scientist cannot say that we must believe cold fusion is possible because he says it is. If there is no evidence to back that claim up, then science says it doesn't have to be true. So that means religion inherently is separated from science. Now as for religion and philosophy. These two are already very similar. And I would argue with your claim that they are separate in the status quo. I would say they are already united. Now for Science and Philosophy. These too are very similar. But there are some differences. Science is what is true, and Philosophy is finding what is true. That means that Philosophy must come before science. One cannot exist without the other. If we never searched for what was true, then we would never know truth. That means that they each have to exist individually. They cannot be combined. The search has to be before it, and it cannot exist simultaneously. How can you be searching for a certain truth while already knowing what is true? It can't happen.

Now for the second part of the resolution. "They all point to a common and real truth." My first question...What truth? You never told me what they point to. All you say is that there is a truth. How can I argue that without knowing what truth it points to? I would also like to point out that there is no such thing as a fake truth. I say that they do not all point to one truth. Let's look at religion first. As I previously stated, there are many differing religions. If one religion says that after I die I will spend eternity in heaven, and another religion says that I will spend eternity in Hell, or still another religion says that I will be reincarnated as an oak tree, then how can they all be pointing to the same truth? They cannot. Now science. Can science and religion point to the same truth? In no way. Religion has to do with a person's soul/karma/whatever. Science doesn't. How can science, which says that after I die my body will rot in the ground and release chemicals to help the soil and plants, point to the same truth that says I will live again as a cat? Science doesn't deal with that part of life. So they cannot point to the same truth. Philosophy doesn't point to anything in particular. It just says that it is the search for truth. Once you find that truth, you enter into the realm of science if it is a proven fact, or religion, if it is something you believe to be true. Therefore Philosophy cannot point to the same truth as science or religion.

Your arguments on the relativity of truth don't have any weight in the round since the resolution doesn't call for an argument in relativism. You do say a "real" truth, and since relativism is well...relative, it can't be real or common. So... You say that everything must have a final answer, a real true answer, and i agree. But not everything can point to that real true answer. Only certain things can. Not all religions can point to that one real true answer. So therefore, Religion can't point to a real true answer. Certain religion(s) can, but not all.
Debate Round No. 1
joe.mullet

Pro

Well that is a lot more then I expected to respond to, but suppose I will haft to rise to the occasion.
First of all I'm not nearly as smart as you so bear with me.
I didn't mean religion in the way you used it I'm afraid. When I said religion I did in no way mean that all religions were true or agreed. I meant religion as in the constant struggle to find the true religion and studie it to find the answers to the big questions in life. If that makes sense, not to say that all religion is one but rather to use the word as another area of study like science and Philosophy. The picture I am trying to paint is this. Science is what is true philosophy is looking for what is true, like you said, but science is also looking for truth. In fact science as of late has crossed the boundary into religion with the theory of evolution. Evolution disagrees with the concept of God and a creator. You see science in its pursuit of finding the origins of life has started stepping on religions feet. And philosophy is also trying to find the answer to it all. Like 3 runners in a race, the problem is that the runners are not running in the same direction and really shouldn't be competing but rather helping each other to make it to there goal. Religion, in this case I'm saying Christianity, thinks they have the answer. But in order to prove it they need science and philosophy. But people seem to insist that if you believe in science that you cant possibly be religious. Almost like there both true. Do you see what I'm getting at? Either the science is wrong or the religion is wrong, people cant go around saying that one dose not apply to the other. In fact they need each other to really make headway. You cant just say that "its science" as if it being somewhat scientific means it must be true and somehow trumps religion. Ill be honest I'm on Gods side here, its just ridicules to me that some people say "I believe in science" and others "I believe in religion" as if because you believe in one the other doesn't apply anymore. When they both need to agree in order to make progress, I'm not saying you should mix evolution and Christianity, I don't believe in evolution for the record. But you cannot say that in science there is no God. Because he's the God of science as well as philosophy or he is not God. And science philosophy and everything points to him. they haft to because god is the source. Why cant science express ideas that are somewhat religious by looking at creation, or philosophical? And why can't religion express ideas that seem scientific?
And really all pursuits of knowledge should be heading toward the sores of all knowledge, which is God. But we all insist on going our own way instead of focusing on what really matters. Just like men I guess.

And when I talked about people thinking of truth as relative I didn't really mean any specific truth at that time. What I meant is that people tend to think of evolution being true for science and religion having its own truth. Which of cores would mean that real truth doesn't exist. "truth" itself not any specific truth. But I think you and I both believe in truth.

Really I don't care about winning any stupid debate. What matter to me is, can you see where I'm coming from?
(PS: lets leave Islam out of this, the last thing we wont to do is piss "Them" off)
Cooperman88

Con

You define religion as the pursuit to find the one true religion. And you define philosophy as the pursuit to find what is true. What's the difference there? There has to be one in order for this to be a legitimate debate. Rather, as I already stated, philosophy precedes both science and religion. It is the search for what is true. You say i misunderstand what you meant for religion. This may be. But even under your definition of the search for the true religion, there are many ends to that. I too am "on God's side." But for those who believe something different from me, they believe that they have found the one true religion. This means that there still are conflicting religions under the banner of religion. Therefore they cannot point to the same truth. You give the analogy of three runners who are going in different ways, but need to be helping each other. The first part of this is a great analogy for what we are talking about. The only problem is that if they are going in different directions, they cannot help each other. Either they are all going towards the same end, which i've proven is impossible, or they aren't. Since they aren't, they cannot point to a common and real truth. You say that science should back up religion. I believe that too. But what each individual item is, is not the same thing. One has to do with a set of beliefs while the other has to do with fact. Since they are dealing with two different things, then how can they point to the same end. They do intersperse a little, but not enough to have the same end. It would be like three runners running towards different goals whose paths cross every once in a while. They may be able to help a little, but still are not going to the same goal.
Debate Round No. 2
joe.mullet

Pro

But they are trying to get to the same goal. There just going about it in different ways, religion by studying and learning from the divine, science bye studying the earth and universe and things that you cant touch and see and philosophy by studying ideas and thought. Why do they need to run alone? If something is really true then science, religion and philosophy should all mach up to prove it, and help sustain each other.
You say that religion is a set of beliefs, and science is fact. But I say my beliefs are fact, if I didn't think it was fact I wouldn't believe it. Also philosophy is based on fact, if it wasn't it wouldn't mater. All these deal in facts and exploring more facts to find the origin of life and morality, and since there can only be one original sores who is God. They should all work together to understand and fallow God.
You also say that philosophy precedes science and religion, I say that without religion there can be no philosophy. They all must have each other. Even though in this world, just like man himself, they will never get along.
Cooperman88

Con

But once again, you are focusing on your religion. There are many different religions. You can't just focus on one and say it works. you have to look at exactly what religion is. And that is every religion. Every religion cannot point to the same truth. it just isn't possible. Since it isn't even possible for one of the three to point to the same truth as itself, how can they all three point to the same truth. You say that you believe your religion is truth. So does someone else who doesn't believe the same thing as you. How can you both be right? it isn't possible.
Debate Round No. 3
joe.mullet

Pro

I'm not saying all religion is true, that's not what I'm trying to prove. I'm saying that "one" is true. Somebody ells mite say that there religion is true and I would say they are wrong. And "one" of us is right and the other is wrong, but there has to be "one" right religion, and science and philosophy should be able to back that religion up. I'm not trying to tell you what religion is right but that "a" religion is right, and that religion is looking for the same God as science and philosophy. And yes they are all looking for "God", there looking for answers and God has those answers. Science should stop insisting on there own religion (evolution) and start holding religions and philosophies up to the scientific light bulb. And philosophy needs to hold science and religion up to the philosophical light bulb to find the true religion, the true philosophy and the true science. The truth will stand and in all of it you need to have faith in the things you know to be real, like your existence, the existence Love and good and evil, right and wrong and the fact that creations need a creator. These things are the laws that we "know" to be true and even faith in God to reveal himself even if your not sure who he is or if he is at the moment. Even if some people say different, that's what I believe and I think it would be an impossible world to live in without them.
But that's not really the issue, the question is "should science philosophy and religion be separated?" I say NO they work together and all come from the same sores which is God!
Do you see what I mean? Its all really fantastic.
Cooperman88

Con

What you are saying about one religion is true. but that isn't what we are debating. The resolution says "Religion" Not one religion. If it did, then this debate would be completely different. Since it says religion, we must debate that religion, science and philosophy should not be seperated. So since religion can't point to the same truth as the others, you can't win.
Debate Round No. 4
joe.mullet

Pro

I m not saying which religion what kind of religion I'm just saying a religion is right. Obviously I didn't mean all religions are right that would be imposable. I'm just saying a religion is correct I'm not even going to argue on which one. Whatever religion you use should fit in with sciences and philosophy or it's probably not a very good religion. The point is regardless of what religion you believe in it shouldn't be separated from sciences and philosophy and vice versa.
"The resolution has two parts, first and foremost, that Religion, Science, and Philosophy should not be separated. I must prove they should."
You have not.
"And secondly, that they all point to a common and real truth. I must prove they don't."
and you have not done ether of those things.

(I rest my case)
Cooperman88

Con

I have proven that religion science and philosophy should be seperated. Since you aren't talking about a single religion, well you are but you shouldn't be, then all religions, which is religion in general, all of science and all of philosophy cannot be united. It is impossible. And I also have proven how they cannot all point to a common and real truth. One religion may be backed up by science and philosophy. that's great. But religion itself, not talking specifics, is not backed up by science and philosophy. Since it isn't, then it can't point to the same truth as the other two. That means that I have proven both sides of the resolution to be false. first that they should be seperate, and that they don't point to a common and real truth. Also, you are supposed to prove that they shouldn't be seperated, which you haven't because you haven't answered my arguments, and you haven't proven how they point to the same truth. Therefore you don't win.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
CONT. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't both er them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says . Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards
Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein
Amen
Posted by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
CONT. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response.
She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Posted by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want archer, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Posted by joe.mullet 9 years ago
joe.mullet
technicalities stupid technicalities
Posted by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
Yes, I am an old high school debater. But not L-D. I was a policy debater back in the day. Now I'm a good ol' fashioned Parlimentary Debater in college. So that's probably where I come across sounding like an LD'er. But thanks for the suggestions.
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
One Book to Suggest:
"Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity" by: Leo Strauss.
Check out essay called- "Progress or Return?"
In which he argues that Religion and Science/Philosophy should be seperate on their own terms.
Or read
Spinoza's "Theologico-Political Treatise" where he argues that Religion and Science should be conjoined (which I disagree with), rather than Philosophy and Religion.

Either way, religion and philosophy/science, I believe, should be viewed on their own distinct grounds. If not, you come across contradiction-
While religion speculates life to have understanding (e.g. Jews fear Yahweh and follow His commandments based on the fact that He says to do so), philosophy remains questionable of any supposed right way of life. And thus, that endless quest to find the answer to the right way of life is the philosophic way of life. In other words, while any other way of life (religion) gives an answer on how to live, the philosophical way of life is the actual searching for that answer. The philosophers of antiquity, like Plato and Seneca, believed that ultimate or fulfilled wisdom was impossible. Only the quest for wisdom, the Greek meaning of philosophy, is determinable. The pre-modern thought of progress relates to the philosophic way of life. To best understand what Strauss argues is to grasp the difference between what the Bible and philosophy teaches: philosophy teaches the eternity of the cosmos (i.e. infinite search for truth), while the Bible teaches creation out of nothing with that creation ultimately ending at some point (i.e. God's decrees).

And we all understand that Modern Science stems from Philosophy in general.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
Cooperman88: I'm going to take a shot in the dark and think that you're a current or former high school debater. Probably in L-D. I am as well, and I've learned that while talking about the "resolution", defining terms and providing burdens for your opponent works in that context, if feels stilted in other contexts where that is not the norm. If I were you, I might just make my arguments and not spend a lot of time on meta issues. But you do a really good job even if, IMO, this is an easy win for you.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Thucydides 9 years ago
Thucydides
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by erick1 9 years ago
erick1
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by joe.mullet 9 years ago
joe.mullet
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tex 9 years ago
tex
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JSV8709 9 years ago
JSV8709
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
joe.mulletCooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03