The Instigator
alitar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cello242
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science is more dependable then religion at finding 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 118428
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

alitar

Pro

Science uses testing and methods to determine truth while religion merely says it's the will of god.
cello242

Con

This depends entirely upon how you define truth.

Truth is defined in philosophy as a justified true belief (with the exception of gettier cases)
So in order for a statement to be true you must affirm that
1. It is justified
2. It is true
3. You believe it

You seem in your opening statement to be attacking a straw man.

What you are referring to is the "God of the gaps" which is that if we don"t know something about the physical world we fill that physical explanation gap with God. This hypothesis has been universally rejected by contemporary theologians.

Science is a powerful tool that is extremely limited. Science helps explain the physical world and is locked into a form of reductive physicalism. You can"t use it to prove non-physical beings like God (which is proved by philosophy backed up by scientific evidence) or non physical ideas (ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics). This gives it a very small range of determining truth.

Religion however is not limited in this sense. You can use it to determine purpose to the physical world and how it interacts with non-physical ideas. In fact everything that matters to most people can only be explained by the existence of God. Morality, Meaning of life, Why we exist, And pretty much everything in terms of why can be explained by religion, But not science.
Debate Round No. 1
alitar

Pro

Hello Con,

Yes I am referring to the, "god of the gaps". I am saying that religion doesn't prove anything. If you have no proof then how do you think other people will accept this. How do you prove your religion? I can say that I believe in a giant spaghetti monster that lives in space and that is true because it is my religion? People always ridicule Scientology because of it's crazy beliefs and cult like activities. Your saying that we can just assume their beliefs are correct?

Morality doesn't require god. If you need the threat of eternal hell to make you not murder people you are not a good person. The existence of god and hell shouldn't affect how you treat others. You should do good because you want to help others not because your trying to get your eternal reward.

Life has no meaning. It is called nihilism and it says that life has no meaning. While most people see this as just being edgy the original intent was actually optimistic. If life has no original meaning you give it your meaning. Instead of a god you chose what your life is about.
cello242

Con

Thank you for your rebuttal.

First off

"I am saying that religion doesn't prove anything. If you have no proof then how do you think other people will accept this. How do you prove your religion? "

Who said I had no proof? If you want to get into a debate about Theism vs. Atheism i'll be happy to go there. I would like to ask though, What would you determine as proper evidence for God?

Secondly

"Morality doesn't require God. If you need the threat of eternal hell to make you not murder people you are not a good person. The existence of God and hell shouldn't affect how you treat others. You should do good because you want to help others not because your trying to get your eternal reward. "

"Life has no meaning. It is called nihilism and it says that life has no meaning. While most people see this as just being edgy the original intent was actually optimistic. If life has no original meaning you give it your meaning. Instead of a God you chose what your life is about. "

In response to these two quotes, I would like to start out by saying that you seem to be proving my point, Not disproving it (especially with the second quote). Let me explain.

When I mentioned morality and meaning, I was saying that this is not determined by science, But by religion (I am going to change this terminology to theism because there are atheistic religions too). You seem to be giving your own religion (or irreligion if you prefer) to disprove my views on meaning to life, Which I'll get to in a moment.

First of all, Of course you don't need to believe in God to have morality! I know plenty of good Atheists and Agnostics and work with a few of them myself. My point was that science cannot determine what is good and bad, But theism can. Without God objective moral values do not exist. You don't have to believe in objective moral law or an objective moral law giver for that law to exist. We both believe murder is wrong for example, But on your view, Why is it wrong? What gives you the authority to say that murder is wrong if there is another equally valid human being out there that says that it is not wrong? Why are we obligated to do good and help others?

Science cannot answer any of these questions and that is my point. While I love science and it is an incredibly powerful tool in determining the truth of the physical universe, It is vastly limited. Theism can determine morality, Meaning, And everything that asks in terms of why. Science cannot answer in terms of why, Which is the question we all long to answer.

You answer in the terms of the meaning of life in a philosophical sense. You did not use any science to come to the conclusion. On your religion (or irreligion) you have come to this personal conclusion. You said that you believe that life has no meaning (which you are right is nihilism). I am sure the intent was optimistic, But I don't see the idea that we are just purposeless matter floating around an indifferent universe that is waiting to kill us quite optimistic. You also say that since it has no meaning you give it your own meaning (which is existentialism). However we both know this meaning is entirely subjective and illusory. If I say the meaning of life is to be the greatest armadillo that ever lived first I would be off to a terrible start and second that wouldn't make the meaning of life to be the greatest armadillo that ever lived. Without God there is not objective meaning to life we can both agree on that. However, That was not determined by science! That was determined by whether theism is true!

In your rebuttal there were no arguments that either meaning or morality are determined by science. Do you have any evidence that these can be determined by science?
Debate Round No. 2
alitar

Pro

alitar forfeited this round.
cello242

Con

Since we have heard no answer to my objection, Then we can conclude that all of my objections and arguments still stand. Theism is much better at determining truth than science.

I thank my opponent for participating in this debate
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ladiesman 3 years ago
ladiesman
Scientific methods will not work on metaphysical, Religious and moral truths. Religion does not survive the scientific method; one atheist argued, "I don't believe in God because I do not find him in my test tube". God is not a chemical. Ockham's Razor also has problems: it's powerful but narrow. And scientific ethical theories are influential but flawed. The most influential in modern times are probably utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, Or the Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism is essentially pragmatism, Getting results, But it ignores justice and plays God. And the Categorical Imperative has no substantive content, It's merely a whatever.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, But then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, You can't have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certenty
Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn"t provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, But investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
science can actually prove a lot about the universe. Science actually proves theism. The Atheistic hopes of science to prove their worldview truly became void in 1929 when edwin hubble looked into his telescope and realized that the universe was expanding, Concluding that the hypothesis that the universe came out of nothing a finite time ago. This may have lead to the fall of logical positivism or also known as verificationism but I can't know this for sure.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Science can't prove anything. Religion can. Everything in the Bible has been consistent with all of history. All of the prophesies in it have come true.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Science is not about truth. Science is about knowing. Science is based on intellectual honesty. This is why scientific knowledge is provisional knowledge. The pursuit of truth is a very high-sounding label for what is much more often the pursuit of righteousness. And more specifically, Of self-righteousness.
Is faith-based belief an authentic form of knowledge, Or just irrational superstition?

Science has learned recently that contempt and indignation are addictive mental states. I mean physically and chemically addictive. Literally! People who are self-righteous a lot are apparently doping themselves rhythmically with auto-secreted surges of dopamine, Endorphins and enkephalins. Didn't you ever ask yourself why indignation feels so good?

No the last half. That would be anyone. .
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
Ah thanks
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
No me. .
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
@missmedic

Are you asking me?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Science is not about truth. Science is about knowing. Science is based on intellectual honesty. This is why scientific knowledge is provisional knowledge. The pursuit of truth is a very high-sounding label for what is much more often the pursuit of righteousness. And more specifically, Of self-righteousness.
Is faith-based belief an authentic form of knowledge, Or just irrational superstition?

Science has learned recently that contempt and indignation are addictive mental states. I mean physically and chemically addictive. Literally! People who are self-righteous a lot are apparently doping themselves rhythmically with auto-secreted surges of dopamine, Endorphins and enkephalins. Didn't you ever ask yourself why indignation feels so good?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Religions are what people have imagined and can imagine/dream. Nothing more nothing less.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.