2007-03-26 16:48:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
neither. If i had to pick one definitely science. There is no enlightenment in religion. There is enlightenment in expereince and resulting philosophies. But in my experience, religion could not be farther from enlightenment if it tried (when i say religion, i mean christianity. I haven't sampled the others to make a valid judgement)
2007-03-26 17:05:22 · answer #1 · answered by uz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need both science and religion to be enlightened, just as you need art, music, philosophy, literature, sociology, psychology, math and history to start with. I'm not being smart, I just think a lot of things go into the formation of a personal worldview. Enlightenment means having a broad understanding and appreciation for many things.
If you want to know who's for religion and who's for science, type those two words into the question box, and you will see that this same question has been asked over and over. You could read some of those answers.
Why the war on science all of a sudden? Without it we'd all be back in the dark ages. People in this country need to encourage their kids to love science. We're lagging behind the rest of the world in scientific discovery because of this attitude. So think about it. Some of the best Christians I've ever known have been scientists. We need both.
2007-03-26 17:20:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science
2007-03-26 16:51:00 · answer #3 · answered by Sophist 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal struggled his whole life with a belief at the heart of his being that there was a God and that this God was somehow personally connected with mankind. Yet, he was a logical man who found truth in math and the sciences. The truths he found and the pursuit of these truths sometimes went against the religious leaders of his time. How to reconcile science and religion? He used his logic to develop a wager that basically said: If there is no God, I have lost nothing by not having faith. However, if I am wrong and God exists and I reject him by not having faith, I could miss out on knowing God and gaining heaven by this rejection. His logic told him that he had everything to gain by having faith (He practiced Christianity) and nothing to lose if there really wasn't any god. I have always appreciated his way of looking at things. I am a logical person who is pursuing a career in science, but I seek truth and enlightenment through religious faith.
2007-03-26 17:51:45 · answer #4 · answered by Nicegirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I choose religion because it encourages one to behave based on the heart and the head. Science encourages one to be logical all the time. I don't think that being logical is always the best course, particularly if it's from a selfish perspective. An easy example is the idea that love always hurts so to keep from being hurt you should harden your heart and not care about others. It's logical but not good. Besides, science is always changing. The Bible has remained constant. A foundation that constantly changes is not a good one to build your life on. Science is useful though to enrich your life.
2007-03-26 17:04:29 · answer #5 · answered by fuzz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither. I believe nirvana is achieved from within. It would be a variation on science, as you can only make your decision based on knowledge and experience, but religion also can produce these experiences. I believe everybody is deifferent and needs a different path to achieve nirvana. I think much more logically than believing something just because words are written in a book in a different color. I have achieved my state by understanding, I am me. What people do affects me only if I let it, and if I let it, it needs to be in a positive manner. Religion needs to be weighted by science to keep it from becoming obsessive and blinding. But science needs to be weighted by religion to keep some kind of internal wheels spinning. I don't believe that many people are strong enough to operate without having a cosmic crutch.
2007-03-26 17:03:06 · answer #6 · answered by Casterisk 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both religion and science are very self-motivated concepts that too often claim black-and-white philosophies; there seems to be no middle ground to agree on. I say that one needs to look no further than within him/herself to find the answers he or she needs to achieve "enlightenment." Even then, our perceptions of enlightenment vary greatly from person to person, so there can be no one correct answer.
2007-03-26 16:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by Adhamh 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science. Because anyone can see faults with religion, but science is utterly concrete, and if you don't know the answer, you can be confident that eventually all will be understood, even if it isn't in your lifetime. Versus religion is all this big mystical cloud covering reason with the idea that when you die, you will go to heaven/hell. But no one really knows for sure, do they?
2007-03-26 17:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll keep my reply short.
Enlightenment refers to the preferring of the real space-time universe to speculations about some other universe, its ways practiced on people by religious kings as despots--god-playing dictators...
So, the answer is self-evident. An enlightenment that is moral and real requires a philosophy of self-responsible realistic and honest behavior.
The religionist can have the same sort of experience, but only by giving this world up, entering a monastery and practicing for a "life to come" he believes but cannot prove awaits him,
So one man gains the world--the other gives it up willingly.
nothing more.
My answer is "philosophy".
2007-03-26 17:13:50 · answer #9 · answered by Robert David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion
2007-03-26 16:50:57 · answer #10 · answered by Adelaide V 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋