Should science replace religion?

[wegs]

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..."

Brilliant post!

 

[sculptor]

You sound like Nietzsche

Ok
so I read him
more'n once

"you are what you eat, including what you feed your head(brain)"?

 

[billvon]

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.

And sisters. Maybe Mary had sextuplets, and all the stories of the Nativity missed the other five?

 

[Jeeves]

Science doesn't supply the broader metaphysical context.

What makes you think there is such a thing?

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.

I can tell you that. There has to be a physical reality so that it can eventually grow a brain convoluted enough ask "How come there's something instead of nothing?" Because if there wasn't you couldn't ask that.

Science doesn't tell us what other kinds of unknown and unimagined reality might hypothetically exist.

Since man is talking to himself, there is nobody and nothing that can tell him about the unknown and unimaginable.
Religion can tell you about what you can imagine. Science can you tell you about what's real.

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.

Life's already got a direction - and only the one: birth >>>> death. Any illiterate savage can tell you how to flourish, while the highly civilized find ways highly sophisticated - and all too frequently god-ordained - strategies to thwart the flourishing of lives, both human and other.
Why should a human life have a goal? When, how and by whom was this mandated?

 

[Jeeves]

Why the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a ''perpetual virgin'' ....
not was; is
The perpetual virgin is not the Mary in the biblical story, who married, raised kids and eventually died.
It's the blue-robed icon with the halo. Kind of a spiritual portrait that captured the essence of this character at a moment in her life when she had just given birth to the Saviour, preserved unchanged forever; who has the tender compassion of a mother and is willing to intercede with the stern father on behalf of poor sinners and frail human souls.

 

[Bowser]

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..."

Thanks for the post. I appreciate what science has given us, a closer look at our environment. My love of science is our exploration via planetary probes and space telescopes.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Nor do I. It seems unnecessary and ridiculous.

I suspect the unhealthy influence of St Paul, who seems to have encouraged the early church to regard anything to do with sex as unclean and sinful, or at any rate second-rate compared to celibacy (it is better to marry than to burn, etc). The idea seems to have taken root from as early as 300-400AD and is found not just in the Catholic but also the Orthodox traditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

 

[Jeeves]

Sure, because the priest who has dedicated his life to the church has no distractions, no other commitments, no other loyalties.
From that lofty, invulnerable position, he can judge - condemn or pardon - all those congregants who are still in the grip of their animal passions, who have not yet renounced the things of the world, who are still mired in original sin, which is passed on through procreation.

 

[wegs]

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..."

And the opposite can be true as well - a lay person exclaims with defiance, ''well, science doesn't know everything!'' but that doesn't mean he/she should assume that any claim (without evidence) thereafter, will suffice. Just because science can't explain something, doesn't mean that any new claim is true. Further, just because science can't refute something, doesn't mean it is true. Or not true.

From my observation (and personal experience), people don't believe in a higher power or follow religion, because science has its limits.

 

[Seattle]

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?"

Non-binary gender fluid...

 

[Seattle]

Brilliant post!

It's "brilliant" simply because you agree with it. Or am I wrong?

 

[Seattle]

And the opposite can be true as well - a lay person exclaims with defiance, ''well, science doesn't know everything!'' but that doesn't mean he/she should assume that any claim (without evidence) thereafter, will suffice. Just because science can't explain something, doesn't mean that any new claim is true. Further, just because science can't refute something, doesn't mean it is true. Or not true.

From my observation (and personal experience), people don't believe in a higher power or follow religion, because science has its limits.

People who believe in a higher power are typically people who lead theirs lives through emotion. Those who don't are typically those who are more analytic in how they lead their lives. That's my observation. What's your's?

 

[Jeeves]

people don't believe in a higher power or follow religion, because science has its limits.

That's right. People don't choose one way over another because of the limitations of any system of thought -
they don't even try to find out what the boundaries of each system of thought might be -
they choose on the basis of their own limitations.

 

[wegs]

It's "brilliant" simply because you agree with it. Or am I wrong?

Well, I've always liked his and CC's writing styles - objective, well reasoned, and empathetic to others' opinions within the discussion. And yes, I happen to agree with that post.

People who believe in a higher power are typically people who lead theirs lives through emotion. Those who don't are typically those who are more analytic in how they lead their lives. That's my observation. What's your's?

I don't disagree with you, except to say there is an assumption about religious people in general, that their lives are governed by their ever changing moods and feelings, therefore they are more gullible than atheists. Having gone through a period of unbelief myself, it honestly just felt like indifference. Nothing more or less. If you look at the writings of CS Lewis however, he was a self proclaimed atheist, who converted to Christianity, and seemed rather unemotional about it. If I had to brand him with a label, it'd be ''intellectual Christian." He seemed to come to belief through logic and reasoning. His writing style is quite stoic, and there are others like him, who despite being religious, don't wear their emotions on their sleeves.

But, I don't disagree with you. It's a general observation I've made, too.

That's right. People don't choose one way over another because of the limitations of any system of thought -
they don't even try to find out what the boundaries of each system of thought might be -
they choose on the basis of their own limitations.

Maybe, but I don't think there's any shame in that, honestly.

 

[Jeeves]

Maybe, but I don't think there's any shame in that, honestly.

Why would there be any question of shame?
You choose to fill your need and get what you pay for.

 

[wegs]

Why would there be any question of shame?
You choose to fill your need and get what you pay for.

Well, we all have limits, right? I may have read your comment wrong, but it seems like you're inferring that only religious people have intellectual limits, therefore they seek God to fill in the gaps.

 

[Seattle]

I was just thinking of the wife of a friend who appeals to her "Prayer Warriors" on Facebook to help her talk to a 13 year old. I think it's very helpful to be very emotional if you are going to embrace the concept of "prayer".

How many people do you hear of that just wouldn't be able to get though a day without the emotional support of praying to God? I just don't know many people that are that "needy" who aren't religious. Not all religious people are that needy of course but it's hard to be stoic and be too involved in religion it seems to me.

You have to be "saved", "to have given your life over to the Lord" "pray for guidance". What if you took the word "Lord" or "God" out of it and then described that kind of behavior? What if it were more like "I just don't know how I would get though the day if I didn't call home and phone my Mother for advice" "It's such a comfort to talk to my Father with his strength, wisdom and grace" "When I come home from work after a hard day, I really need to call my friends up and vent and ask for their comfort or I just don't know how I'd go back to work the next day".

A more analytical person who think, why do I want to both my friends with my problems as they have their own and venting isn't going to help me anyway. I'd better learn to cope with reality and maybe actually do something tangible to make things better rather than just venting and reinforcing needy behavior among my social group.

 

[wegs]

I was just thinking of the wife of a friend who appeals to her "Prayer Warriors" on Facebook to help her talk to a 13 year old. I think it's very helpful to be very emotional if you are going to embrace the concept of "prayer".

How many people do you hear of that just wouldn't be able to get though a day without the emotional support of praying to God? I just don't know many people that are that "needy" who aren't religious. Not all religious people are that needy of course but it's hard to be stoic and be too involved in religion it seems to me.

You have to be "saved", "to have given your life over to the Lord" "pray for guidance". What if you took the word "Lord" or "God" out of it and then described that kind of behavior? What if it were more like "I just don't know how I would get though the day if I didn't call home and phone my Mother for advice" "It's such a comfort to talk to my Father with his strength, wisdom and grace" "When I come home from work after a hard day, I really need to call my friends up and vent and ask for their comfort or I just don't know how I'd go back to work the next day".

A more analytical person who think, why do I want to both my friends with my problems as they have their own and venting isn't going to help me anyway. I'd better learn to cope with reality and maybe actually do something tangible to make things better rather than just venting and reinforcing needy behavior among my social group.

I get where you're coming from.

Do you ever ask anyone for help? There's nothing wrong with that, you know. Your friends might want to help, if they knew you needed it.

Without ''relying'' on friends, family or gods of any sort, can you walk me through how you go about handling difficult situations and making tough decisions?

 

[Seattle]

I get where you're coming from.

Do you ever ask anyone for help? There's nothing wrong with that, you know. Your friends might want to help, if they knew you needed it.

Without ''relying'' on friends, family or gods of any sort, can you walk me through how you go about handling difficult situations and making tough decisions?

Yes, I just handle it.

 

[Seattle]

Without getting too personal, can you walk me though an example of where you couldn't handle something?