"Which does a better job at 'understanding'. Will science replace religion as the best approach to getting closer to 'truths'?"

Understanding which truths'?

Note that I specifically stated,  "getting closer to 'truths' ".

Defining 'truth' is a philosophical pitfall as I am surely about to discover in this thread.

Science does not make the claim to know the truth, only to move towards a better, more verifiable understanding.

In answer though,  any truth, you chose.

Neither.  They do different jobs, and are not comparable.

One thing to remember about this is that everyone here uses the scientific method everyday in our lives.  Not all scientists are white coated geeks playing with lasers (although that's a lot of fun).  At it's very basic level science is just applying rigorous standards to test hypotheses.  That's all it is, not some technological bogeyman set to turn everyone into bland clones of each other.

A trite example.  It's a bank holiday but you need something from the shop but you don't know whether that particular shop is open that day.  Your hypothesis is either "the store is (or is not) closed on a bank holiday".  You can now test that hypothesis.  One way might be the following: You drive to the store, get out the car and try to open one of the doors of the store.  It's closed.  You conclude one of two things...either that door is broken or the store is closed.  You try another door...closed.  OK..it definitely looks like the store is closed but just to be sure you check to see if there are any lights on and if any sign is posted.

Congratulations...you have just performed an experiment to test your hypothesis.

Science is not a swearword.

Really? I thought they both sought to provide an understanding. Can they not be compared in that context?

  I think that the parameters of the discussion as set up in a binary fashion are a false premise. To me it's not just an either/or sort of debate. There are many shades of grey.   For one which as Waterfall commented on which truths are we talking about here.  Humans have a myriad of different ways of expressing 'truth' or seeing truth.  I do think that an immediate dismissal of one or the other or taking a side so to speak in it's absolute form sets us up to potentially actually miss 'truth' or the whole truth.

I have a couple of examples pertaining to agriculture where 'science' competed with 'religion' in an either/or fashion and the overall 'truth' was missed to the detriment of those involved.  Gah my time has gotten away from me. I have to step out for a few hours.  I'll get back to the examples a bit later....

Personally, I'd make a telephone call before wasting the gas. Others would drive to the store on faith that it is open.

My point is that believers seem to be operating day-to-day, without using their capacity to make better decisions. It is a very inefficient way to spend a lifetime.

That's a good point to remind people of, Atheisto.

The way I see Science and Religion is that they are trying to approach the same thing from different ends.  Science uses unbiased observations to get nearer and nearer to a logical understanding of what we call 'truth'.  Religion tries to interpret our own feelings and biased opinions FROM what we think is the 'truth'.

In last Sunday's sermon, my Associate Minister told us how he believed that Jesus IS truth, and so everything truthful is His.  This doesn't necessarily set up Science against him... in fact, you could say that science is just another way to the same understanding.

That's convenient. I wonder if that's what they said 300 years ago as the rennaisance moved into the enlightenment, and traditionally held religious attempts to provide explanations of truth in the natural world were chipped away, piece by piece. Though I suspect you're referring more to the contemporary belief that religion seeks the "truth" on those things that can never really be known... yes?

Truth itself isn't going to bend necessarily to a "scientific method" or religious scrutiny is it? It will remain constant despite the limitations we place on it.

The scientific approach is based on shades of grey, in that it never proclaims to know the absolute truth to anything. Only a better understanding

Religion, on the other hand, continually professes to know 'the truth', and sells it every day. And then when it is pointed out that the Earth actually does go around the Sun, looks foolish.

The question remains, which is the better approach?

Pose a question that the,  "Jesus IS truth" methodology and the scientific methododgy can be used to come to the "same understanding". Give me a real world example.

'Truth' has bent many, many times to the scientific method, in the face of preconceived religous claims. And 'truth' does not remain constant. It changes with more evidence.

Ultimate truth is what we term a 'limit', scientifically; one moves towards it but never arrives. But science does get you closer to the asymptote.

Hello spockis53,

Question.  Why do you provide a definition of science which addresses what it is yet provide a definition of religion which addresses what it claims?

Wouldn't the most obvious comparison be between definitions that attempt to address the same facet of understanding?

So if we start with "Science is" should we not compare that to "Religion is" or, if we start with "Religion claims" should we not compare that to "Science claims?"

Further, how can we compare something constant to something variable?  You provide a definition of science but do not feel capable of providing a definition of religion?

Question.  Do you equate 'understanding' with 'truth'?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hello revjohn

Point taken. So science claims to understand using the scientific method and likewise with religion.  As for the "facet of understanding", multifaceted understanding still has the gemstone at the centre, which we'll call 'truth'. Am I getting your understanding?

Yep.

Clarify please; what is the "something" that you are refering to and which one is variable/constant?

and, yes, I can provide a reasonable defnition of science. I am not qualified to define religious approaches to understanding, but suffice it to say they are different than the scientific method.

Yes, but I am using a qualified definition of 'truth' (always with scare quote notation).  Science doesn't recognize absolute truths. But is does move towards them.

So which gets us closer to the gem?

spockis53,"Truth' has bent many, many times to the scientific method, in the face of preconceived religous claims."

Truth didn't bend, religion did. Religion isn't Truth.

spockis53,"And 'truth' does not remain constant. It changes with more evidence."

Sorry I believe truth remains constant---it doesn't change, but you can gather more evidence to realize it.

spockis53"Ultimate truth is what we term a 'limit', scientifically; one moves towards it but never arrives."

So true.

Absolute nonsense.

http://www.acorscadden.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/science_vs_faith.jpg

Hi spockis:

As I said many times before here on the Cafe, I experience the cosmos as a synthesis. I feel and think that the cosmos is in an ultimate state of synthesis, which can only be experienced, and is expressed metaphorically. The experience of the cosmos as an inseparable whole is what I regrad as "spiritual experience." Religion, to me, is an outward, organized and formalized expression of the Unitive cosmic experience.

Because, in the Unitive experience, we experience the cosmic whole as it really is—as an insperable whole—this experience is a universal Unitive feeling, which is sometimes described as a feeling of Unitive universal love, and is regarded by some of us religious types as an experience of God. Hence the saying: "God is love."

When experiencing the synthetical cosmic wole, we experience the universe as it really is, not as we think it is. That's why I describe the experience of the undifferentiated whole as an experience of the ultimate, capital T, synthetical Truth, and the analysis thereof as the small t analytical truth.

In my world view, there are two types of truth: Synthesis, and analysis. In the direct unmediated expereience of reality we experience synthesis, the capital T Truth, the cosmos as it really is. In the analysis we analyze the capital T Truth, and the results of our analyses are the small t truths of science.

The capital T Truth, however, is not only absolutely and ultimately True, it is also ineffable. A mystery which we can truthfully experience but are unable to truthfully define because it is in a Zero state of synthesis. All definitions of the ultimate state are necessarily metaphorical.

However, because we experience Unitive love when we experience the ultimate state, and some of us think that we expereince God, the metaphorical expressions of the Unitive experience became the stuff of mythology and the foundation for morality.

In the relam of the small t analytiacl truth, scientific findings undoubtely are most true! The problem comes in when the mythological and metaphorical explanations of religion are are taken as pseudo-science, or science is taken as a pseudo religion and assumed to be ultimately True.

Ideally, the small t truth of analysis and the capital T Truth of Synthesis should complement each other rather that battle each other. The long awaited union between intuition and reason, religion and science. 

I don't quite understand what you want - can you rephrase the request?

Sure,  you stated, "Jesus IS truth, and so everyhing truthful is his." and that "science is just another way to the same understanding".

Give me an example of a question which you would personally investigate to gain a better "understanding". Then explain to me how you would investigate it from the perspective that "Jesus IS truth, and so everyhing truthful is his.". Personally, I find the statement incoherent but that is the authority you're subscribing to so I assume you understand it somehow.

I can easily explain how science would approach an investigation. I want to hear how you would approach it.

Arminius,

Once again lots and lots of words that appear to make no sense at all but do sound very mystical.

Religion is to modern life as alchemy is to modern chemistry.  Outdated and not necessary.

I don't see a need for religion at all in its god worshipping mode.  As far as a philosophical niche for understanding life...you can do that very well without religion.  You don't need religion to appreciate the arts..you don't need it to understand science...you just do not NEED it at all.  The same way that you do not NEED to believe in a 20 legged unicorn to function normally everyday.  However...some people want to and that's their choice.  As long as that choice isn't fostered onto other people via politics or education then there's no problem with that at all.  We live in a free society.

Hi Atheisto:

Yes, of course. I know that you are not against religion as such, you merely are against religion shoving its opinions down other people's throats—which it has done for far too long!

You are right; I'm a mystic. And I think the interpretations of my mystical experiences are metaphorical, and I have no quarrel with science. But I am against "scientism" shoving its opinions down other peoples' throats as much as I am against religion doing the same.

(By "scientism" I mean not the scientific method and scientific findings—which I respect greatly and assume to be true—but the belief that the rationalistic/scientfic world view is absoutely valid.)

No honest scientist would ever claim their understanding of the world is absolutely valid. Only that the method is the best current way to investigate it (at least until we can isolate what Arminius is smoking )

Actually, I was simply stating what I thought was an interesting perspective that my minister shared with us.  It isn't something that I have investigated or subscribed to fully myself, just something that caught my interest that I'd like to explore further.

I think what I was trying to say is that truth, as my minister sees it, is the answer and not the question.  We are always trying to find out what the right questions are.

Whereas science is a mode of questioning, but it never achieves an absolute answer - just an approximation, or a statistical probability.  So it seems like I'm trying to find a balance between the two.

i'm with the camp that feels science and faith are not the same thing at all...

imho, science is constantly striving to prove itself wrong in an attempt to find the correct answer.    it is based on what can be proven.

faith is attempting to find the correct answer, but it is different for each individual and is based on what cannot be proven.

Okay. "truth... is the answer". That is pretty straight forward, if inherently vague.

And, yes, science "is a mode of questioning" - a method of investigating a question, moving toward a better answer.

The question remains, how does religion move one closer to 'truth'? What is the methodolgy?  Does it offer the quality of predictability (as science does)?

Faerenach:

Forgive me - I don't quite follow. Your minister says the revealed truth as he teaches it (or as Jesus taught it) is the absolute truth - and your job via religion, is to find the right questions that make the religious claim to "truth" more... what? True? 

Hi spockis:

I'm ingesting the astronomically immense cosmic mushroom. I have ingested so much of it that I believe to be the mushroom.

In other words, I'm high on the universe.

I am not a tradionalistic religious believer; I don't believe in a supernatural God. To me, God is the natural universe, which I believe to be in an ultimate state of synthesis. To me, the natural universe, a.k.a. God, is supernal. Or, in plain language, just plain super!

One more thing: my words are not in competition with science. They are only metaphorically true. In other words, my philosophy is art.

I think there's a fundamental issue of definition, here. Some define religion as "absolute Truth from Judaeo-Christian monotheism" and that, taken literally, does conflict with science.

However, one can also look at religion more broadly as the search to put some kind of meaning on our existence and our place in the universe. Science provides the data and interprets it, but it doesn't always invite us to approach the universe in a personal way and to experience awe and wonder at just how amazing some of the processes that drive existence really are. For me, religion is about the latter and therefore doesn't have to conflict with science. Gazing at the night sky and pondering the mechanisms that drive stars and galaxies can be a religious experience in this sense, as can studying paleontology and the mechanism of life and evolution. "God", for me, is the face we put on billions of years of natural processes, not a supernatural Creator.

The first question is a good question - how does religion move one closer to 'truth'.  My answer to that would be that religion is not necessarily the search for truth, but the search for the ability to recognize it.  If that makes sense.  The other two questions are trying to put scientific process into the mix (methodology, quality of predictability) and I don't know what you mean by them.

I think you've misquoted my minister.  He simply made the statement in his sermon that Jesus is Truth, and it got me thinking.  I don't see it as my job or purpose to find the right questions, but rather to ask questions and learn to recognize Truth when I see it.  I'm not sure I believe in an 'absolute truth' in the way I think you mean it, though.  Maybe you could define it in your own words for me?

In fact, most dedicated scienists are driven by exactly that personal experience of awe and wonder. Their personal revelations are real and tangible and exhilarating. And the consequences of discovery often have benefits way outside their personal satisfaction.

All this and religion has nothing to do with it. Amazing, huh?

Apologies if I misquoted. I'd never heard religion described that way - and clearly I didn't quite follow you. May I ask if you asked your minister why Jesus is Truth?

 Hey Spock53,

 My fault of course of having to run without actually giving an example of what I'm trying to convey. I can see by your response that my words were perhaps a bit clumsy or perhaps without the actual example unclear to you.  Even in this response the binary one or the other as a 'better' approach is set up as either or. My comments about 'grey' have to do with approach and application.  Here you say that scientific approach is 'based on shades of grey'. I don't disagree it is but your question was which is a better application to find truth and understanding.  My 'grey' comments have to do with issues of discounting one over the other, always, in an absolute sense and the potential consequences not only for 'science' as potentially missed opportunities but in real life situations.   Perhaps my examples will make it more clear as to what I'm trying to say.

 Here we take a trip to Bali.  In one part of the Bali the indigenous people there primary source of food is rice. In this particular area the terrain is rough and uneven and the rice is grown in a system of terraced paddies. There are also issues to do with the consistent availability of water. The growing of rice was directly connected with the peoples religion. It was called a rice water cult by some. Things like irrigation was done through a system of water temples and managed, so to speak by the communitys 'priests'.  The whole working of the growing was relgious, from planting cycles, harvesting etc etc.

So as part of the Green Revolution, some agra-scientists, I think from Harvard, along with the Balinese government came to the area to help modernize and increase the yield of rice with the intent of making life better.  The idea? The genetically modified rice plants, engineered to deal with the specific mirco-environment of the area would make rice growing better with one of the goals to also get rice production up for things like export.  The experience of the the community and it's relgious understanding of their growing of rice was pretty much discounted as backward mumbo jumbo in relation to the 'scientific' understanding of rice growing and modern agriculture.   In some cases force actually was used to make the people take on this better way of growing, warnings about 'angering the water spirits' and other 'relgious gobbly gook' not heeded, some of  the water temples were even destroyed and a reeducation effort started.

So the first set of rice was planted. In short what happened was many years of using 'science' to get it right. The yields were invaribly higher for the first couple of years and the the strain would experience some problem, disease, pest attack which would quickly spread through the entire system, or it just crapped out for some reason. So then another engineered strain was tried. Again yields up for a few years then down and leveled off.  There were problems with irrigation.  Along with this there were other consequences. The big one being a sharp decrease in the biodiversity of the paddies themselves as well as problems with a decrease in overall fertillity. Why? Because most if not all gmo plants come partnered with fertilizer and other chemical inputs such as various pesticides and the like.  These additions affected the whole ecology of the system and the area saw various fish species, plants and other animals die off. What the scientists failed to take into consideration in the rather myopic goal of increasing the yields that the people whose main source of food, yes was rice, but that they also ate much more out of those paddies then just rice. So while for a number of years the yield of rice may have been up and down but they overall yield of foodstuff coming from the system steadily declined, as well the overall fertility of the system decline so then you found the it being caught up in vicious positive feedback loop. Less fertile=more fertilizers needed and on and on.   When the years went by and the averages up the up and down years were taken there was no marked 'overall' increase in rice yields at all.

 At somepoint a scientist, if I remember who was an ecologist and anthropologist got into the mix. He started to actually study the 'religion' as related to the ecological reality. In a nutshell what he figured out was that this relgious mumbo jumbo really wasn't mumbo jumbo afterall.  Through the religious practice the 'priests' managed things like pests or disease that attacked their rice crop. It might have been expressed in a the 'water spirits are angry' sort of way but the results were that the diseased paddies were cut off from the system by shutting down the irrigation to the specific areas through the temple system thusly containing it and allowing it to take it's natural course without affecting the who crop in the area.  The system they had, had been very complex and quite intricrate and allowed for such things to happen. Many other practices they had also led ecologically to keep the system functioning at a high level of diversity and production overall.  If I remember correctly this guy to his findings to the other science guys and for the longest time was dismissed on the grounds that this wasn't 'science' it was relgion and as we know I guess 'science' wins out over religious mumbo jumbo. It took a long time for this guys points to tear through all of the preconceptions.  Understandbly I suppose because in order for some consessions to be made on the part of the ag scienctists they would have to admit that many of the warnings and complaints about what was going to happen from these culturaly backward and unscientific 'priests'  were actually correct.

I do believe that in the end some of the area was allowed or they tried to go back to the older way of doing it though the question was whether it was even possible to entirely fix it as so much had been changed in the meantime.

This is what I'm talking about when I speak of 'grey' in taking one side over the other as a way to get to the 'truth'. In this case the dismissal of the religion as junk and unreasoned mumbo jumbo led to some pretty serious consequences.  The ag scientists were acting from the position of science first and only, the priests religion only.  The ecologist came in and BECAUSE he didn't take take one over the other figured out where the two came together.  In this case that  communities religious cult was actually an expression of a very real 'truth' related to the ecological system that they lived in.  The ecologist was able to translate that truth into the scientific realm and express it in a scientific manner. The priest  might talk about disease in terms of 'water spirits getting angered' and the resulting consequences their anger spreading,  while the ecologist would express the same disease outbreak in terms related to the reproduction of the disease entity and the capacity of water as a carrier etc etc.  Invaribly it is the same 'truth' in terms of the consequence.     The ag scientists? Well in this case I'd say their scientific truth was pretty wrong because of it's myopic nature. 

Anyways this is longer then I thought it would be. I do have another example from North America pertaining to the Three Sisters or corn, beans and squash.

If the results are inconclusive, science and religion should be required by law to keep at least 500 meters from each other

Hi spockis53,

Close enough I think.  Although I don't know that (even in a multifaceted arrangement) we are actually discussing the same gemstone.  This sameness would need to be determined somehow in order for us to be able to compare facets.  If we are discussing the same gemstone then we can compare clarity and cut and comment.  If we are discussing different gemstones we can still do the same but we would need to realize we are discussing something different rather than the same.

That being the case one of the above definitions set up for the purpose of comparison needs to be changed somewhat.

Dictionary.com offers this definition (among many) for religion.

I've picked this particular definition because it holds up elements that would tie in to the definition you have provided for science, particularly the elements of cause and nature.

Do you think that this would be a fair definition to work with for the sake of comparison?

Scientific Method would be constant whereas religion is a variable.  Religion as definition remains constant but religion as practice fluctuates.  Primarily because, if we stick with this definition, it operates out of belief.  Making comparisons between pure religion and pure science somewhat problematic because Science has a method but Religion has methods.

I think that there are definite differences.  I do not know that the chasm between the two is so wide it cannot ever be crossed.  Certainly there will be religious methodologies that  wouldn't dare to make the jump, some will dare and fall and others may step across without fear of falling at all.

We all have qualified definitions of 'truth' are yours the same as mine?  (Sorry couldn't resist the paraphrase.)

If we are allowed to qualify 'truth' what becomes of primary importance 'truth' itself or the qualifications we lay on it?

I would like to say the same thing about Religion but that would force me to speak for all religion and I don't have the qualifications to do that.  Staying in the arena where I have qualifications Christian theology is best understood as approximation (although I'm going to have the Christian Fundamentalists thirsting for my blood for saying that).

An ideal flowing out of the Reformation was that the Church of Christ be Reformed and always reforming.  That the Church could not 'settle' on one issue as it were, we would need to grow, mature, evolve in our understanding of God.  The Christian Fundamentalists (I suspect it is true of all Fundamentalists in general) resist the idea of change or growth and insist upon sameness and constancy.

Again I think we need to determine if we are after the same gem using different disciplines or, are we actually targetting different gems.  I mean if you are looking for an apple seed in an apple no matter how you go about it you are going to find it.  If I'm also looking for an apple seed but all I have is an orange I would never find it.

If, however; both of us are looking for apple seeds in apples the question of which is better is a question which has merit.

The obvious test being can either of us find the seeds in the fruit we are holding?

One of the obvious differences I see in the definitions (yours for science and dictionary.com's for religion) is the element of bias.  Scientific method strives to reduce the impact of bias whereas Religion takes it for granted and actually celebrates bias.

Are both methods viable?  Science would uncover something valued by all (theoretically) whereas Religion would uncover only that which was of value to the one doing the digging.  That is a difference but which is truly better?  The answer would probably depend on how objective or subjective one is allowed to be.

We could both be looking for diamonds.  I think you and I would agree that diamonds are the most precious/valuable of gemstones with respect to market value.  So if you are finding more diamonds than I am on that level your method is winning.  Suppose I really don't care much for diamonds but actually prefer emeralds.  If I go looking for diamond and hit emerald I've found (dollar-wise) an inferior gem but because I like emeralds more than diamonds I'm likely to condsider myself one fortunate gem hunter.

I think this might be part of why RevMatt thinks that there is no comparison.  Both seek to find 'truth' and yet the qualifications of that truth are different.

Mining for diamonds I'm looking for something that has a universal worth (or as close as one can get to that on the open market) whereas when mining for emeralds I am looking for something I value more than market value.

I think that there can be some overlap.  I think that there is area that doesn't overlap and the discrepancies at those points become magnified in extreme conditions.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Jadespring,

That was a amazing story and a convincing argument. Exactly why I find these dialogues personally enriching.  Thank you.

Or, you could just give them a phone call.

Science observes, measures and describes the physical universe.  Religions attempt to provide a tangible framework for internal experiences and intuitive longings that seem to have been a part of humanity's experience for thousands of years.

Science is about the objective, religion is about the subjective.  Science has no need to ascribe meaning to any of its findings.  Religion is all about shaping meaning. 

Religion and science should be complimentary, IMO.  I need science to help me understand and function within my world;  I need religion to provide the language of myth, metaphor and symbol to help me voice my inner intuitions and experiences, and to help me communicate about them with others.   I don't need religion to tell me the earth was created in 6 days, and I don't need science to tell me that my life is an inherently meaningless random accident.  I use religion to help me take meaning from the world that science describes to me.

As long as religion can learn to accept the fact that there are probably as many "truths" as there are humans alive,and no religion can possibly claim ownership of it, and when some scientists stop ascribing meaning to their work, through promoting the mechanistic or naturalistic worldview as the way the universe  must be, then peaceful coexistence of the 2 -without one needing to be superior to the other -  can be both helpful for humanity and, I think, maybe even possible!

I would amend that to say that "organized religion" has nothing to do with it ("organized religion" is also an oxymoron, but I won't go there in this thread). One does not need to go to a church to be religious. A scientist may not describe the experience as religious because religion is so tied up with organized churches and a belief in the supernatural in our society. I think we need to recognize that 're tying' or 'rejoining' ourselves to the universe doesn't have to involve either churches or the supernatural. It's simply a matter of recognizing that we are in an awesome, beautiful universe and, more importantly, that we are a part of it, not just remote, dispassionate, external observers of it.

Diana,

I came very close to saying, amen, there. Whew!

Wouldn't that kind of peaceful coexistence be spectacular?

Lovely words.  I can add nothing there.

Hi spockis:

You don't have to come down to our level and say "amen," just thinking it is enough.

Of course science and religion complement each other. After all, they are opposite approaches to deriving truth.

Up and down are of essence to each other;

Left and right necessitate each other;

Logic and intuition complement each other.

All things diametrically opposed

Are mutually exclusive

As well as inclusive

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Arthur C Clarke

IMHO, religion is a method of providing meaningful answers to questions that science is not yet able, or hasn't got around to solving. Those answers may not be "correct", but they do serve a purpose.

Just like the germ theory of disease has replaced the demon possession mythology of disease, I expect that science will find more answers as time goes on. Some of those answers will undoubtedly differ from the explanations given by religion. Some of them may turn out to be the same, who knows? In the end we won't really know the difference, as we go about our daily lives, no longer concerned about dying of Typhus or Diptheria.

It also may ultimately turn out that science and religion simply are two different spheres of reality.  There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea of more than three dimensions. Now I understand that there may be many more, even though I have difficulty grasping the nuances of string theory.

I guess what I'm saying is that in my experience, science and religion are most useful as tools when they don't try to do each others job.

If you make the call and no one answers can you say for certain that the store is closed? I would say that would be one of the outcomes...the other being no one is answering the phone.

Welcome to experimental design.

What she said.

Thank you for a wonderful post and an illustration of the need to view our world with an open mind.  It also beautifully illustrates the dangers of misinterpreting language and projecting our own definitions upon another.  Often we are all saying the same things but they get lost in the semantics.

Science has offered and offers much to our existence and I cringe when I hear others use religion as an excuse to prevent, dismiss or ignore the pursuit of scientific discovery.  However, I have also seen the disasterous end result of a scientific theory pursued with a disregard for all the factors.  Science (or technology) has wrecked havoc on our phsyical world just as Religion has on our psychological and I believe for the same reason, the imposition of a single view point. 

Which leads me to, dare I say it, a truth I gleaned from Jadespring's example:  that the world operates best when it is diverse and the healthiest environment is one where no single species dominates.

LB

Difference is an accident of birth and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace: respect for diversity.      John Hume

Ahhh... the yin yang of it all!

At best it's more of a one way street. Lawrence Krauss recently recounted that, as a human being we stand to be better informed on moral issues by religion. But as a scientist there is nothing religion brings to the table to help in the empirical-based investigations of nature.