Should science replace religion?

iceaura said:
Christianity was born in the city - it's a city religion.
Click to expand...
Rome? Probably
Its roots may go back through Mesopotamian agriculture, herding and empire-building - with lots of farmyard sacrifice and some other atrocities along the way - but those roots were largely ignored by both HRC and the Byzantine branch. Still, they sold it to a lot of serfs transplanted peasants, none of whom seemed to care about its inhumanity. They did a great job of wiping out pagans and natives, who did have some regard for other species.
 
Jeeves said:
Well, if it's mandatory for fathers and brothers to kill any soiled girls in their family, Allah can't value those girls very highly; if dead guys to be given virgins in heaven, those virgins can't possibly have souls of their own, or free will or any of that fancy stuff spiritual stuffing men have.
There is no way you can finesse anything but a very large penis under the draperies of the Abrahamic god.
Click to expand...
There's no sex in heaven! lol

I have a feeling Muhammad ''borrowed'' that bit from Matthew 25:1-12 - the parable of the ten virgins. Borrowed it, and then created his own ''version.''
 
I heard an interesting take on religion, recently. ''God didn't create religion. God created man. Man created religion.'' Hmm.
 
sculptor said:
If god is god then god is outside the gender binary.
Click to expand...
Ummmmm "Interesting" he says, while taping his fingers together

"Sooooo what gender (I understand Idiotbook has 72 you can pick from) would you assign the spirit who impregnated the engaged 14 year old virgin before her marriage?"

:)
 
Well, Jesus wasn't ''conceived'' in the traditional sense, according to the Bible. It's a miracle, if you believe in miracles.

What I don't get is why the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a ''perpetual virgin'' meaning she never had actual sex with a man, ever. But, in the Bible, there are passages that speak of Jesus' brothers, and she is their mother.
 
wegs said:
What kind of heaven are you thinking about?
Click to expand...
I wasn't. You were. You asserted, categorically, authoritatively:
There's no sex in heaven!
Click to expand...
directly contradicting one of the main Abrahamic religions.
I legitimately asked: where did you you get that information?
LOL'ing all over the place doesn't alter that observable, verifiable fact that you keep changing positions.
My heaven will be very prudish. Lots of harps.
Click to expand...
When and from whom did you receive entitlement to a heaven of your very own?
 
Yikes. It’s called joking around.

Hopefully, there’s levity in heaven.
 
Jeeves said:
directly contradicting one of the main Abrahamic religions.
Click to expand...
Sex in heaven who would have thought?
Certainly not me

Under free will? or obligatory?

Nuns given free will to engage or not?

Pregnancy?

Only conventional approved? or open season on what's your pleasure?

This is a whole new playground for me

:)
 
wegs said:
If science replaced religion, would we all somehow stop our storytelling? Would myths and legends cease to be believed, if we had all the answers to the universe, explained to us by science?
Click to expand...
What is it that science hasn't explain from it's perspective? If you look at a rock and that's all you see--a rock--what more answers do you need? I think that should science answer all your question and gives you comfort, you should look no further.
 
Bowser said:
What is it that science hasn't explain from it's perspective? If you look at a rock and that's all you see--a rock--what more answers do you need? I think that should science answer all your question and gives you comfort, you should look no further.
Click to expand...
Because for many, life is more than what they can see, touch, etc? For many, the existential answers to life can't be answered by science. Should we even go down the existential rabbit hole, though? Not that people need religion or even a belief in a higher power to find purpose and meaning in their lives, but many do find spirituality/religion to give them just that. Again, for me, I believe that they can coexist, and there's no need to ''choose'' one over the other.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
Because for many, life is more than what they can see, touch, etc? For many, the existential answers to life can't be answered by science. Should we even go down the existential rabbit hole, though? Not that people need religion or even a belief in a higher power to find purpose and meaning in their lives, but many do find spirituality/religion to give them just that. Again, for me, I believe that they can coexist, and there's no need to ''choose'' one over the other.
Click to expand...
Strange to say, or perhaps not, I agree

Problems arise however when people try to bring the imaginary world into the real world

Little more complex but you get the drift

Real world does not try to move into the imaginary

It might seem that way when a subject, like vaccine, comes up, and people claim religious reasons for not having to get vaccinated

Tricky

:)
 
Bowser said:
What is it that science hasn't explain from it's perspective?
Click to expand...

Science describes and classifies what it sees. It relates bits of physical reality to other bits, typically mathematically, chemically, or mechanically.

Science doesn't examine itself. It doesn't tell us what science is. It doesn't tell us what kind of intellectual authority science has or why it supposedly has it.

Science doesn't supply the broader metaphysical context. It doesn't really tell us why there's a physical reality in the first place, or why physical reality displays the order that we believe it does. It doesn't explain what kind of being the so-called 'laws of physics' possess. Science doesn't account for the existence of mathematics or logic or explain how humans know about such things. Science doesn't tell us what other kinds of unknown and unimagined reality might hypothetically exist. Science doesn't tell us what truth, meaning (of language or of life) or knowledge are or how to acquire them.

And it doesn't provide us with a direction. It doesn't tell us what human flourishing is or what the goal of a human life should be.

I'm not saying that religion provides most of that either, certainly not convincingly or plausibly (in my estimation anyway). If religion has any virtue, it might be that it doesn't prematurely slam all the intellectual and emotional doors shut.

Science doesn't always slam them shut either. There are countless (perhaps the majority of) scientists who still retain a sense of wonder and appreciation for the mysteries of reality. In many cases, it's precisely that feeling that drew them into science in the first place.

If I'm criticizing anything here, it's that (typically layman's) religious-style faith in science that we call "scientism". We occasionally see it here on Sciforums, many of the terribly-misnamed "skeptics" display it, and it's the stock in trade of the "new atheists". It seems to me to merely be replacing the age-old historical function of religious priests with a new authoritative priesthood in white coats. "Scientists say..."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top