Does religion win out over science because religion provides moral guidance?

Question

We are all faced with problems, even children and have to decide what is the best thing we can do and should we do it. Is it the right thing to do. Science with all it's explanations doesn't help with moral guidance, deciding if you should help that needy neighbour, forgive the person that hurt you, or admitt to braking that expensive irriplacable antique that the shop attendent is getting sacked for doing. You can live happily with out knowing about atoms and evolution but you need some way of figuring out what is really best in difficult sittuations.

Answer 1

No...science and religion are not in a contest. Do not mistake the lack of belief in a God as being a science. There is no basis for that at all.

Though religion supports moral guidelines, society dictates them...not science. In short, its not a contest, science and religion are married to each other.

The Skeptical Christian
Grace and Peace
Peg

Answer 2

I think you'll find that the 'moral guidance' provided by religion tends to be utterly out of whack with the realities of the modern world.

Those who do attempt to follow religion morality will tend to cherry-pick the parts they like, and ignore the others.

And those who *don't* cherry pick, and follow it all to the letter, are known as 'fundamentalists', and are usually despise by all sides, including others of their faith. They're also rather dangerous people, precisely because of their whacko morality.

How, then, can someone pick and choose among the ethical suggestions in the Bible, say? What yardstick would a modern, sane person use to decide to love his neighbour one the one hand, but reject slavery despite the good press the Bible gives it?

We are able to make such choices because we *already* have an ethical code built into us, in the form of a moral instinct that is possessed by all social animals.

No society, human or animal, can survive unless they have a basic, inbuilt drive to treat their fellows with basic trust and fairness, and a degree of care. You can see such behaviour in meerkats, crows, chimps - and us. And we've had this instinct since long before humans learned to speak or invent gods.

In sum, you don't need religion to tell you how to behave ethically. Indeed, 2,000 year-old ethical rules are quite likely to be inappropriate in the modern world, where inventions like contraception, paternity testing, supergroups and abortion completely change the context.

If you need guidance, here's all you need: is it good for humanity, your friends and relations, or yourself? Is it bad for any of these groups? Weigh those up and you should be able to make any moral decision.

CD

Answer 3

I agree with another answer that there is not a "contest" between science and religion. However, I do have an argument that religion necessarily provides a moral lead.

I am sure that religion SHOULD provide the lead but finding respect for 20th/21st century church thinking is difficult.

A). The Church of England condones homosexual priests

B) The Roman Catholic church did nothing and said nothing about the concentration camps and has only just allowed that unbaptised babies who die may go to heaven.

C) The Islam faith does not appear to be doing much about terrorism in its name.

Do these churches provide a moral lead?

Answer 4

Not really. Science explains the physical world. It's not required to provide moral guidance.

Besides I find the fact that some religious people put their morality down to religion quite sad. Essentially its "I'm not going to act like a real nasty person because if I do, getting into heaven is going to be real difficult".

Being agnostic I like to think that people can have their own sense of morality without being told what to believe. But I suppose for people who don't know the difference between right and wrong can look to religion to explain it in easy to understand terms.

Answer 5

Religion has no monopoly on morals, family values etc. These are present whether there is religion practiced or not.

Science has no agenda regarding morals, and is not meant to, however truth and understanding is very humbling, more so than religion, particularly Christianity.

So in balance having a scientific understanding of the world and how it works and having sound morals, far outweighs dubious claims of high morals by religious default, and encompassed in ignorance.

Think before you choose now..!!

Answer 6

Science is a better moral guide than is religion.

I know, we're all supposed to assume without questioning that science doesn't tell us anything about morality while religion does. But I'm not inclined to go with the "PC" flow. In fact it is quite obvious that religion is a fairly shallow guide to morality at best, and often is simply an excuse for immorality.

At the same time, many if not most of the current moral issues we face require scientifically based knowledge.

It's quite apparent that our moral crises are caused largely by a lack of scientific understanding, not by a lack of acceptance of religious teachings.

Answer 7

Why are you putting the two at odds? Determining morality is not the purpose of science and never was. The purpose of science is to figure out how things work. Controlling morality is the purpose of religion.

It's like you're saying literature wins out over math because the morals we learn in stories are beneficial; but math is still valid and a well-rounded person would understand it and know how to use it, even if they aren't a mathematician. '

Math doesn't disprove literature. It simply does not speak to the same topic. Science does not address philosophical questions, although it may inspire philosophical quandries. But that's purely our doing, not science's.

Answer 8

Moral guidance need not come from Religion. People have consciences regardless of faith. The concept of right and wrong can instilled in people from an early age without a religious framework. And perhaps it is better that way, because should people want to do the right things because they are the right things, or should they be motivated by some desire for reward or fear of punishment.

Humans have always had morality. It precedes religion.

Answer 9

Science doesn't give moral guidance?

Lets see... every single social mammalian species has an evolved instinct/predisposition for both empathy and altruism. Taken together, these can be expressed, "Do to others as you wish done to you."

When we look at mammalian species, we find that those who ostricize or discipline those who do not live by this are of superior social cohesion, whereas those who tolerate violations of this tend to be much less closely bound socially.

Science doesn't provide moral guidance?

Science points to the only moral guidance that is common to every culture, religion, and philosophy ever developed.

Answer 10

Science has never really led anyone into battle - science has always been a tool for battle.

More people have died because of religion - so Religion takes the moral low road on that one - Religion is therefore less moral than science

Answer 11

Why is it that christians cannot see how anyone can be moral or ethical without imaginary friends. Also, just because a person does not have such friends, that does not make them a science buff. I have a very limited knowledge of science, but that does not prevent me from knowing that I do not need man made fantasies, to get me through my day.

Get your information straight before you criticize and entire group of people.

I live happily without detailed knowledge of atoms, by I also know that it is good to help ones neighbors. I do not need a dusty, bronze age book of myths and legends to tell me that. How rediculous you are.