science and religion (Buddhism, ghost, Abraham, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
religion is better equipped to address, for example, building and nurturing a relationship with the Divine; prayer; nourishing our soul; viewing and living every part of daily life as sacred and holy; reincarnation process and role; angels and other non-physical beings; partnership of an eternal non-physical soul housed within a temporary physical human body; understanding holy books; symbolism, allusion, exegesis, explication, imagery and hermeneutics. Those are a few examples.
But does not address at all any evidence that the Divine exists.
religion is better equipped to address, for example, building and nurturing a relationship with the Divine; prayer; nourishing our soul; viewing and living every part of daily life as sacred and holy; reincarnation process and role; angels and other non-physical beings; partnership of an eternal non-physical soul housed within a temporary physical human body; understanding holy books; symbolism, allusion, exegesis, explication, imagery and hermeneutics. Those are a few examples.
I appreciate the honest answer (or at least the honest effort to answer!). But I fear we are talking apples and oranges.
As others have already noted, that list, with few exceptions, consists of things that are inventions of religion. This creates a circular argument and/or self-fulfilling mission. Science can help us understand how the human body works, how the solar system works, how crops grow, how the oceans rise, etc, etc... but no one (a) thinks that science (or the humans who do science) created those things, or (b) questions whether they exist. By contrast, there is (and should be) much debate over the existence of most things on your list. In the absence of any evidence, it is a fair conclusion (or at least a fair starting point) that things like angels, souls, divine beings, everlasting life, reincarnation, prayer, etc.... are inventions of religion (or, to maintain the parallel, "the humans who do religion"). There is no doubt or debate that holy books exist, but also no doubt where they came from, so that's even more of a circular argument.
Science and religion have different purposes, that much is clear. But a lot of that traces back to the "objects of their attention"... apples to oranges.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 10-30-2018 at 08:45 AM..
If there was an evidence of YOUR liking then, you wouldn’t have a choice. Then, you would complain, “Ohhh God never gave me a choice” There is no evidence for everyone’s likeness.
I - for one - evaluate evidence based on it's ability to support the proposition. My personal liking never comes into it. YMMV of course but do not assume that means other people function like you do. My own evaluation that there is currently _no_ evidence that there is a god is because I have not been shown any evidence there is a god. It is not that I have been shown it and I personally disliked it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
There are only signs - for those - who want to believe and have faith in God.
Sure - but anyone else can say the same nonsense too. For example if you want to beleive the government are specifically following you and spying on you - you will see signs of that too if you look for it. You will suddenly notice the occasional camera pointed specifically in your direction. Random pedestrians or people in public will be sitting looking right at you.
So the question becomes - given there are millions of things you can believe first and find "signs" for later - why is it most people appear capable of believing _one_ of them and dismissing the rest as evidence devoid nonsense? Is it not weird that the people who espouse the idea of faith and finding signs - absolutely balk at the nonsense of it when evaluating someone _elses_ pet beliefs? That people espousing this approach - abjectly refuse it except when it suits them? _That_ is the very definition of bias, agenda, and confirmation seeking. Not faith, but fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
It’s a choice !
Speak for yourself. I do not choose what to believe. I am helplessly compelled to beliefs by strong evidence - and left entirely devoid of a belief in the face of a lack of any evidence. I never once in my entire life chose to not believe there is a god. I simply am unable to believe it in the face of not a single reason offered to do so.
Monumentus and fishbrains nailed it: Religion invents the problems and then provides the "solutions." A business model that has worked efficiently for thousands of years.
Monumentus and fishbrains nailed it: Religion invents the problems and then provides the "solutions." A business model that has worked efficiently for thousands of years.
Sort of like a snake-oil salesperson who invents the disease and then the cure.
I think there is a comparison error there. If I beat you to death with a cake - that is not the fault of bakery. The products of a discipline - and what you chose to do with the products of that discipline - are distinct things. Science is no more to blame for the creation and use of WMDs than bakery is to blame for me beating you to death with a cake. There is nothing about science in and of itself that informs you what you must do with it. Science knowledge can be used as data in formulating our moral and ethical actions - but that is all. It just gives us the data. We choose what to do with it.
On one hand your comparison is absolutely horrible in the start and on the other hand I tend to agree with the last statement.
Now, the INTENTION behind baking a cake (using scientific knowledge) and the INTENTION behind making WMDs (using scientific knowledge) are two absolutely different things. The intention behind WPD is to KILL millions of people in a very short time. And you are trying to kill someone with a cake?
You gave an absolute horrible comparison - it's not even apple to oranges. It's more like bee honey to human turd.
But then again, you agreed with me in the end. If there was no science at all, then there wouldn't be a cake and there wouldn't be WMDs. But since they are both here, it's now OUR choice as to how we use it. Whether it's religion or it's science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Religion however is not so innocent. It not only tells us that evidence free claims are important - but the most important things possible. It actively tells people that adherents to other religions are a threat to your eternal well being or that of your loved ones.
Seriously, our govt tells us the same, isn't it? "They are coming to kill you and they hate your way of life".
Also, I would like to know if you could quote me a few religious guidelines from all religions in the world that tells it's followers that "other religions a threat to your eternal well being or that of your loved ones". This is a new one to me.
If there is one religion that states this, and you believe it does not sit well with your intelligence, logic, reasoning, understanding and perception, THEN reject it and move on to the next to continue your quest.
Now, if you come back and tell me that ALL religions in the world tell it's adherents to create divisions within themselves then, I will take your original statement seriously.
Quote:
It actively tells us that moral actions are immoral - or that immoral actions are justified.
Again, who decides what's moral and what's immoral? You?
Quote:
And it poisons the very nature of what it is to be an ethical species by presuming to tells us that morality is grounded outside us. And it creates divisions even within it's own groupings - look at the number of different brands of Christianity alone numbering in the many many 1000s - that are not reconcilable through conversation and reason because the claimed evidence lies in a reality outside our purview or access. Thus making the divisions of most import to such people - those which are least likely to be reconcilable.
There are divisions in EVERY group. There are disagreements and groups even in world re-known scientists, physicians, scholars, engineers, among siblings, among construction workers. You name it.
You need to show me where does the religion say that it's adherent should be divided into different groups?
And then you also need to show us where does the medical and science and engineering books state that doctors and engineers and scientists should be divided into different groups to have different views and opinions on the same subject?
You probably won't be able to.
Why because, IT'S THE HUMAN NATURE that creates divisions and gives us the option of having difference in opinion. Our intelligence, logic, reasoning, life experience, education and our nature varies from person to person.
It's the way we think, it's the way our brains work. We will always have divisions and groups regardless of who and what we belong to.
IMO, you are fighting more so with Human condition but hell bent to blame it on religion.
On one hand your comparison is absolutely horrible in the start and on the other hand I tend to agree with the last statement.
Good - it was intended to feel horrible. So it did exactly what I wanted it to do. I do not usually hit the target that cleanly!
Because that is _exactly_ how it feels to hear your claim when one knows better. You know better in the analogous situation so you know why it feels horrible - and I know better in the science context to know why the statements are horrible nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Now, the INTENTION behind baking a cake (using scientific knowledge) and the INTENTION behind making WMDs (using scientific knowledge) are two absolutely different things.
I think you are placing the distinction in slightly the wrong place. Rather I would see the art of bakery and science as not having an "intention" at all other than to learn data. To say "If I put X and Y together Z happens".
What we do with that data is cakes, energy, bombs, prosthetic limbs, the internet and so on.
The intentions and the choices of what to do with the data are not built into the methodology that uncovers that data. The intention to build cakes was not built into the process of discovering what happens when you mix flour and fats and sugar and heat.
So you make my point for me when you write "The intention behind WPD is to KILL millions of people". That is write. That is exactly it! The locus of intention is in the building of the weapon. Not in the science that gave us the knowledge to build that weapon.
So the comparison is not horrible at all like you claim - just the implications of it which you do not like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Seriously, our govt tells us the same, isn't it?
Errrrrr so what? I am not sure the "Those people over there do the same thing" response actually replies to anything I wrote in any way. I would point out however that at least "They" exist in your comparison. So resolution of the claim is possible. We can investigage the "They" and find out if they actually are "coming to kill you and hate your way of life".
Religion not so much. There is no evidence this god thing even exists. So when someone claims what "it" wants and someone else claims otherwise - we have no way to resolve that conflict or difference of opinion. Because there is no data to access. We certainly can not ring this god up and ask it what it actually thinks. Or get it to show up and practice democracy by casting it's vote like everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Also, I would like to know if you could quote me a few religious guidelines from all religions in the world that tells it's followers that "other religions a threat to your eternal well being or that of your loved ones". This is a new one to me.
It is not a direct law or guideline - but the implications from the actual beliefs.
The 10 commandments in one religion for example - the core top 10 concerns adherents to that religion are meant to hold to - specifically mentions false belief and beliefs in false gods and idols. Quite a jealous god their one it seems. But these "commandments" do not even mention non-belief. It seems to believe falsely is far more a concern than to not believe at all.
If you genuinely believe in a hell for example - and certain conditions can lead you or your loved ones to end up in that hell - than anyone who can bring those conditions into your life or the life of your loved one is directly a threat. If false belief in a false religion for example could lead your child to hell - then an adherent to that religion talking to your child about their beliefs is a specific threat to the well being of your child. The _eternal_ well being of that child.
Why do you think Blasphemy was such an issue for so long? The threat posed by those questioning the fundamentals of the dominant religion was great enough a threat as to be suppressed in law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Now, if you come back and tell me that ALL religions in the world tell it's adherents to create divisions within themselves then, I will take your original statement seriously.
Why would you base taking my statements seriously using a measure that I never claimed? That is a very odd way to evaluate someone elses statements indeed.
No - I never once claimed that religions _tell_ their adherents to create divisions. What I said is that this is what those religions _cause_. A much different claim.
And it is quite simple to explain that claim. Since it all appears made up - and there is no evidence that any of it is true - the moment a difference in opinion arises there is no way to reconcile that difference. And so religions split - into sects or branches. Christianity alone has _1000s_ of such splits for example. Islam not so many but they are there and the hatred between their splits quite egregious at times.
Irreconcilable differences of opinion will always create splits. Religion just tends to be an area where all the claims are irreconcilable _by definition_ as none of the claims are evidenced in the first place. Not so much in science where many differences of opinion get resolved by way of experiment, data, evidence and proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Again, who decides what's moral and what's immoral? You?
We all do - together as a species. Or at least that is as it should be. I see no reason to think anything objectively _is_ moral or immoral. Rather we decide what is such together in what should be an ongoing and ever changing dialogue. What religion tries to do is not only presume to tell what is moral and immoral - but also that it is somehow fixed and objective and unchanging. Which is a recipe for disaster in an ever changing world with an every changing culture and ever changing knowledge and technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
There are divisions in EVERY group.
Absolutely - and the best way to strive towards reconciliation of those differences is conversation, data, evidence, reason, knowledge, observation, fact and more conversation. Anything that hinders that process is not a good thing. And religion as I said created divisions that A) are not even based in reality and B) irreconcilable due to a lack of any evidence or data.
No one here is claiming there is not divisions outside religion so I am not sure who you think you are telling this to. Certainly not me. But The fact there is divisions in every group does not mean those divisions are all A) of the same level of depth or B) on a par with the potential to reconcile them or C) manifest equally in terms of the effects of those divisions on the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
You need to show me where does the religion say that it's adherent should be divided into different groups?
And then you also need to show us where does the medical and science and engineering books state that doctors and engineers and scientists should be divided into different groups to have different views and opinions on the same subject?
You probably won't be able to.
Again I would love to know what I "need to show" something I never once anywhere actually claimed. Quite a bizarre thing to demand. Would you not be better off asking me to evidence that claims and arguments I have made - rather than getting me to discuss someone elses who appears not to even have posted on this thread yet? But until you stop putting words in my mouth - I am not sure how to progress an adult conversation with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
IMO, you are fighting more so with Human condition but hell bent to blame it on religion.
Not so. Rather what I am doing is recognising the issues with the human conditions - and lambasting systems of thought that by their nature exacerbate the problem without reason, benefit, or justification. So perhaps it is best I describe my own positions rather than have you try - and fail - to describe them to me? Which will free you up to describe yours - rather than my own - as if I need someone to tell me what my own positions are.
If there was an evidence of YOUR liking then, you wouldn’t have a choice.
Then, you would complain, “Ohhh God never gave me a choice”
There is no evidence for everyone’s likeness.
There are only signs - for those - who want to believe and have faith in God.
It’s a choice !
Your argument first fails on step 2. How do you know what we would do?
It then fails on step 4, the signs, because different people see different signs to get different beliefs. And if you want to believe, you will accept any old rubbish as evidence. It also presumes we have the evidence for a god in the first place. The evidence should be clear for those who want it or not, especially considering the alleged eternal torture. Otherwise that makes your god an immoral monster.
The third fail is the last step. Belief is not a choice when there is no evidence for that belief.
You are just making ad hoc excuses to explain away the fact your evidence is that bad.
If there was an evidence of YOUR liking then, you wouldn’t have a choice.
Then, you would complain, “Ohhh God never gave me a choice”
There is no evidence for everyone’s likeness.
There are only signs - for those - who want to believe and have faith in God.
It’s a choice !
No, actually, it's not.
Belief is not a choice.
You have to be convinced. The psychology behind what convinces people is somewhat complicated, but you can't just wake up one morning and decide to believe in God ... any more than YOU could get up and decide to stop believing.
I never understood why certain believers keep maintaining that we choose what to believe in and then insist that it's a one-way street. Oh, atheists could choose to believe in God if they wanted to, but believers simply can't choose not to believe.
Which would make religion a sort of Roach Motel that, once you choose to enter into it, you can't get out again.
Though we know that isn't true because most atheists are former Christians.
As for actually relying on "signs" of the divine, that's nothing but a gullibility test. The human brain is very good at seeing patterns. Couple that with how the brain abhors chaos and randomness, it means the brain literally forces or superimposes patterns onto chaos and randomness that simply don't exist. Unfortunatly, this is why something so mundane as a vaguely human-shaped stain on the cement or simply surviving a car accident are often touted as signs of God's existence. It's an illusion at best, a delusion at worst.
Last edited by Shirina; 10-30-2018 at 09:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
