CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
5
True False
Debate Score:9
Arguments:8
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (3)
 
 False (4)

Debate Creator

atypican(4875) pic



Science and Religion are incompatible

 

Challengers:

JACE as the affirmative, Nebeling as the negative.

The debate will be in a four part format, similar to the General Structure, but with only two rebuttals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

!!! S T O P !!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

YOU ARE VOTERS ONLY:

DO NOT POST DIRECTLY TO THE DEBATE, ONLY AS SUPPORT/DISPUTE/CLARIFY

VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED WITHOUT A SUPPORTING COMMENT

THE SUPPORTING COMMENT IS SIMPLY TO VALIDATE VOTES AND DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING RELEVANT

True

Side Score: 4
VS.

False

Side Score: 5
1 point

Science and religion are compatible only if both their process and ends are reconcilable to one another.

The process of science is that of a rigorous, objective methodology. The process of religion is that of subjective assumption. The end of science is an objective conclusion. The end of religion is a subjective assumption.

Science and religion are not compatible as processes, and I would contend that they are "compatible" as ends only if science substantiates the presumption of religion (and such a qualified compatibility is not really compatibility at all). Presumption is the foundation of religion, and if even one of its presumptions are rendered objectively incorrect then the entirety of the religion is cast into doubt; religion cannot afford concession and must necessarily reject any scientific finding that contradicts its presumptions. Nor can science afford to yield to the ends of religion; doing so would necessarily sacrifice the integrity of both the process and conclusions of science (and of science itself, generally).

Neither the process nor the ends of science and religion are reconcilable, rendering the two incompatible with one another.

Side: True
Nebeling(1117) Clarified
1 point

I have made a reply to your dispute. I think it covers your points in this particular post. If you think that any of your arguments here haven't been adequately answered feel free to point it out.

Side: True
1 point

Opening argument

I will argue that this claim is wrong by showing that scientific principles can be applied to religion. I believe this shows that science and religion are not incompatible.

The structure of the argument is as follows: I will prove the existence of what we may naively call a 'religious science'. This religious science need to meet some criteria in order to show that science and religion are compatible. First of, this religious science must have something that is legimately religious as its goal. And secondly, the pursuit of this goal must be guided by scientific principles. If it can be showed that there exists a pursuit which satisfies both criteria, then the argument is over. I will now show that a particular pursuit within the Buddhist tradition is both religious and scientific.

A religious pursuit

For the sake of argument I will assume that Buddhism indeed is a religion. The Buddha is known to have said that he has "taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha". Since Buddhism is a religion, its most central pursuit should be considered religious, i.e. the pursuit of ending dukkha is religious. Therefore I will define the pursuit of the 'religious science' to be the cessation of dukkha. Since this pursuit is legimately religious, the first part of the argument is over.

The pursuit is scientific

I will now show that the scientific method can be applied to the cessation of Dukkha. In Buddhism, Dukkha has a very specialized meaning. The term is well defined, and therefore the concept of it's cessation too is well defined. Furthermore since Dukkha is a phenomenon of the mind, Dukkha is directly observable through first person experience. Therefore Dukkha can be measured. The Buddha gave a framework for ending Dukkha which is known as the Noble Eightfold Path. The theory goes that if you practice the Noble Eightfold Path to perfection you will be free from Dukkha. Therefore we have both a question, "how does the cessation of Dukkha come about" and a theory, "the Noble Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of Dukkha".

There's one last requirement that must be met before this pursuit can be considered scientific. The theory must be falsifiable. Falsifiability of a theory is the property that the theory can be proved wrong by experimentation. Therefore is must be possible (in principle) to prove that the Noble Eightfold Path doesn't lead the cessation of Dukkha. This is indeed possible. The 8 parts of the Noble Eightfold Path are testable. The Path asks us to live in a very specific way; talk a specific way, think a specific way, meditate a specific way, so forth and so on. Because the Path puts forth specific principles to live by, it is possible to put the Noble Eightfold Path into practice. Because it's possible to put into practice it is possible to test if being on the Path diminishes the amount of Dukkha one is experiencing. In other words, the question of ending Dukkha is a religious science.

Conclusion

Dukkha is observable through first person experience. Therefore, if the Path is a true theory one should experience a dimmishing amount of Dukkha while being on the Path. The theory is thus falsifiable for two reasons. We can 'measure' how much Dukkha we are experiencing, and we can see how Dukkha is affected by being on the Path. Therefore the legimately religious pursuit of ending Dukkha can be approached scientifically. Therefore a 'religious science' exists. Therefore science and religion are not incompatible.

Side: False
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

Re: Opening Argument (I will argue [...] tradition is both religious and scientific.)

"Religious science" is at best a contrived oxymoron, and at worst a deliberate malpractice of science whereby the integrity of the means are sacrificed for the sanctity of the ends. Science is first and foremost about process, whereas religion necessarily presumes its conclusions preemptively; science seeks knowledge, whereas religion presumes answers. Science and religion are not compatible as processes , and I would contend that they are "compatible" as ends only if science substantiates the presumption of religion. Presumption is the foundation of religion, and if even one of its presumptions are rendered objectively incorrect then the entirety of the religion is cast into doubt; religion cannot afford concession and must necessarily reject any scientific finding that contradicts its presumptions.

Re: A religious pursuit (For the sake of argument [...] the first part of the argument is over.)

Leading in with an assumption that you are even discussing a religion is tenuous grounds. A not inconsiderable number of persons would contend that Buddhism does not represent a religion as the term is commonly defined; in light of that consideration, I think you are somewhat beholden to offer at least some minimal rationale as to why Buddhism should be considered a religion.

In order for the religious pursuit of Dukkha to be legitimately compatible with science, it must be demonstrated that Buddhism could and would accept the delegitimation of one of its core principles and that the process of science would not be distorted (intentionally or unintentionally) by the assumption of the conclusion.

Re: The pursuit is scientific (I will now show [...] the cessation of Dukkha".)

As a former practitioner of Buddhism, I think the concept of Dukkha is a bit more indistinct and complicated than you represent it to be. Nor is the Eightfold Path so strictly delineated as it seems on the surface. This raises another important distinction between religion and science which renders them further incompatible: scientific language is necessarily precise, whereas religious language is imprecise and often vague. Consequentially, it is difficult to establish definitively what is being discussed and analyzed to begin with.

Re: The pursuit is scientific (There's one last requirement [...] Dukkha is a religious science.

Effectively, your argument is that because a religious belief is falsifiable that makes it compatible with science. That does not follow. Any idea could be falsifiable, but that does not mean the idea is reconcilable with being falsified. Further, this does not demonstrate a compatibility of process but rather a subjection of the presumptions of religion to the process of science.

I think it also notable that you reference the "pursuit" of Dukkha as scientific, but never actually acknowledge the reality that the Eightfold Path (the pursuit) is a subjective process of emotional development rather than an objective scientific one. This highlights, once more, the incompatibility of process.

Re: Conclusion (Dukkha is observable [...] Therefore science and religion are not incompatible.

You openly acknowledge that Dukkha is observable as a first person experience, and yet again make not even the slightest allusion to any scientific means of observation. The if-then presmise you present is not "religious science" but science applied to religion. I reiterate that falsifiability does not render religion compatible with science, but rather identifies a common characteristic among all ideas. Science may analyze as hypothesis the same concept that religion assumes for its conclusion, but this shared interest in no way renders either process nor conclusion compatible.

Side: True
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
2 points

Second argument

"The if-then presmise you present is not "religious science" but science applied to religion"

The strategy of my argument was to show that science is compatible with religion by showing that scientific principles can be applied to religion (i.e. religious content). If you don't believe the compatibility of scientific principles with religious content shows that science and religion are compatible, we have a disagreement we will have to settle.

Buddhism is a religion

"A not inconsiderable number of persons would contend that Buddhism does not represent a religion as the term is commonly defined."

There indeed is doubt about whether Buddhism is a religion or not. This doubt, however, has no rational ground, and is caused by the fact that people assume that religion is inherently like Christianity. Since Buddhism isn't like Christianity, people conclude that it can't be a religion. I will now solidly reason why Buddhism is a religion.

I will list the common characteristics of religion. I will not go into any detail in proving that Buddhism indeed has these characteristics as it will be immediately verifiable. Buddhism has: rituals, contemplative practices, a belief system, a monastic order with strict rules about living, a less strict set of rules of life for lay people (the 5 and 8 precepts), ethics (right talk, etc), Gods (many of the Gods known from Hinduism), holy places, a cosmology (karma, samsara, nirvana), a central spiritual figure, a thesis about the fundamental nature of human beings (to avoid Dukkha), and an ultimate goal of spiritual transcendence (the attainment of nirvana).

Delegitimation of core principles

"it must be demonstrated that [...] the process of science would not be distorted (intentionally or unintentionally) by the assumption of the conclusion"

I will paraphrase what the Buddha states in AN 3.65, the Kalama Sutta. The Buddha demands an experiential emphasis, he demands the neglect of bias caused by tradition, axiom, specious reasoning, authority and so on. It is demonstrated that the process of science would not be distorted by the assumption of the conclusion, because Buddhism has a doctrine that assumption should be systematically neglected. Practitioners are invited to 'see for themselves'.

The concept of Dukkha is complicated

"Dukkha is a bit more indistinct and complicated than you represent it to be"

I present Dukkha as a very specialized, well-defined concept. This does not mean that it is not complicated, for Dukkha is indeed a complicated concept. Dukkha is defined as the five clinging-aggregates. The five clinging-aggregates are clinging to form, clinging to feeling, clinging to perception, clinging to mental formations, clinging to consciousness. The five aggregates have further explanations and definitions. Clinging too is well-defined in Buddhism. Therefore Dukkha is well-defined.

I do not believe, that everyone, or anyone, will understand the five clinging-aggregates upon first reading them. This, however, does not mean that they are not well defined. Religious language is often imprecise, but is not necessarily so.

Scientific principles can be applied to Buddhism

"Effectively, your argument is that because a religious belief is falsifiable that makes it compatible with science."

No, this is not what I propose. My proposition is that since the theory that the Path leads to the cessation of Dukkha is 1) falsifiable, and 2) experimentally testable, it is compatible with science.

"The Eightfold Path (the pursuit) is a subjective process of emotional development rather than an objective scientific one"

Your rejection of my argument is akin to saying that the claim that a drug cures depression isn't objective and scientific because the drug initiates a subjective process. The pursuit involves a process of emotional development, that is true. But the claim that the pursuit develops the mind emotionally in a specific way (towards less Dukkha) is objective and scientific.

How to measure Dukkha

"You openly acknowledge that Dukkha is observable as a first person experience, and yet again make not even the slightest allusion to any scientific means of observation."

Scientific means of observation can be based upon subjective data. I can sensibly answer whether it hurts to cut myself with a knife without relying on third-person neuroscientific methods. It is sufficient to observe what first person, subjective data shows. Equally, Dukkha is a mental phenomenon so I can sensibly answer questions about it by relying on first person experience.

You would probably counter that subjective measurements of this type are inherently unreliable and thus unscientific. You would be right in expressing this doubt, as indeed Buddhism admits that there is a problem here. The solution to the problem is meditation and concentration. Buddhism borrowed and further developed methods from Hinduism that allows one to still the mind so that it's easier to investigate the nature of the mind. This exactly is what makes these first person measurements reliable; the measurements are made accurate by first cultivating certain mind states that allow for greater (converging on perfect) clarity of perception.

Ending remarks

I think your critique of the vagueness and impreciseness of religious language is your strongest point. If you don't think I have answered your doubts I will gladly elaborate.

Side: False
SitaraMusica(536) Disputed Banned
0 points

"Religious science" is at best a contrived oxymoron I disagree. You are presenting a false dichotomy fallacy. People can be spiritual or religious and be scientific at the same time. I am a Christian who loves science.

Side: False
0 points

I agree. I am a Christian and I love science. I think science is essential. I think someone can be religious and scientific. :)

Side: False