Should science replace religion?

[iceaura]

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.

Quite a bit of the writing in the professional journals does take those topics into consideration.

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.

That's actually a research topic these days.

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.

It's working on them - those topics. Inadequate progress, maybe, from your point of view - but within the arena.

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.

Lots of religions do exactly that.
Science needs a religion that doesn't. Which is maybe the beginning of the trouble.

 

[Michael 345]

Non-binary gender fluid...

All that means not picking one out of the traditional two

You have it seems you have another 70 choices now

Fluid I understand as you can pick what ever gender you wish

One day in The Guinness Book of Records I expect to read of a new record where someone manages to change into X number of genders within a certain time limit

 

[wegs]

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

Yea, I'll have to think about it and get back to ya.

 

[Jeeves]

Well, we all have limits, right?

Yes, and we don't know what they are until they're tested.

I may have read your comment wrong, but it seems like you're inferring that only religious people have intellectual limits,

I was neither inferring nor implying anything about the intellect of religious people.
I said it's not the limits of science that drive people to religion - especially as they have not clue #1 what the limits of science might be: nobody has any way of knowing that.

therefore they seek God to fill in the gaps.

They must be seeking God for some reason.

 

[wegs]

Just a blanket generalization, but I feel like these types of discussions would be better served, if we moved away from the usual circle jerk between atheists and believers. I find the circle jerk to be kind of boring. Atheists think one thing, believers think another, bla bla.

Science explains, faith believes. Maybe it's just as simple as that. A believer might not have scientific evidence to support his/her beliefs, but science can't disprove that a god exists. So, maybe this is an inevitable impasse, that we will always come back to. It might boil down to atheists and believers having unrealistic expectations of one another. An atheist wants a believer to approach the idea of a god in the way he/she does, while a believer wants an atheist to take a leap of faith.

That type of discussion might get us away from the usual circle jerk.

 

[Jeeves]

An atheist wants a believer to approach the idea of a god in the way he/she does, while a believer wants an atheist to take a leap of faith.

Why do you think anybody wants anything from anybody?
You ask a question; you get responses; you reject the answers and insult the people who offer them, then sum everything us by repeating your own opinion at the beginning.
What for?

 

[wegs]

Why do you think anybody wants anything from anybody?
You ask a question; you get responses; you reject the answers and insult the people who offer them, then sum everything us by repeating your own opinion at the beginning.
What for?

I didn't insult anyone. You have, though. If you go back through the thread, you'll be able to see that.

But, this is what I mean by the circle jerk. I don't have anything further to add, but thanks to everyone who contributed to the thread. It's been mostly enlightening.

 

[sculptor]

Some days, when discussing "science and religion" I am reminded of poor Hypatia.

Intolerance and zealot led mobs are scary entities best not experienced.

 

[Jeeves]

I didn't insult anyone.

Circle-jerk includes pretty much everyone.

You have, though. If you go back through the thread, you'll be able to see that.

Whom? Where? How?

 

[wegs]

Metaphorically speaking, a circle jerk is when a group of people echo one another, thus stroking each other's egos. There's not much diversity of the central opinion, within circle jerks. There can be mini circle jerks that go on within these types of threads however, in terms of atheists and believers parroting their respective peers.

But, that's not quite what I meant. Oh well, not sure of the right phrase to describe when two opposing sides of a discussion talk past each other, and nothing productive is being gained. Hmm.

 

[iceaura]

Atheists think one thing, believers think another, bla bla.

Bothsides is bullshit.

It might boil down to atheists and believers having unrealistic expectations of one another.

No, it won't.
Atheists and believers are not coherent groups with "expectations".

A believer might not have scientific evidence to support his/her beliefs, but science can't disprove that a god exists.

Reason can demonstrate that a particular God does not exist. For example, there is no omnipotent and entirely benevolent God - witness pontine tumors in children.

Metaphorically speaking, a circle jerk is when a group of people echo one another, thus stroking each other's egos. There's not much diversity of the central opinion, within circle jerks.

There is very great diversity of opinion within the large fraction of human beings who are atheistic, including the posters here.
There is somewhat less - but still significant - diversity within the fraction that have Gods of some kind.

 

[Goldtop]

A believer might not have scientific evidence to support his/her beliefs, but science can't disprove that a god exists.

Science can't disprove Unicorns aren't being raced by Leprechauns in the Kentucky Derby. Should we denigrate science for that or should we just ignore the person making that ridiculous claim? Probably the latter, same goes for those who claim gods exist.

So, maybe this is an inevitable impasse,

The existence of Unicorns and Leprechauns is not an impasse to science, same as the existence of gods. There is no impasse at all. It's just people making ridiculous claims.

It might boil down to atheists and believers having unrealistic expectations of one another.

I would suspect the only realistic expectation of any atheist towards a theist would be to use their brains. The theists expectation is that we don't use our brains and just believe everything they claim.

a believer wants an atheist to take a leap of faith.

Right over a cliff into an abyss of ignorance.

 

[wegs]

Science can't disprove Unicorns aren't being raced by Leprechauns in the Kentucky Derby. Should we denigrate science for that or should we just ignore the person making that ridiculous claim? Probably the latter, same goes for those who claim gods exist.

No one in this thread is suggesting to denigrate science.

The existence of Unicorns and Leprechauns is not an impasse to science, same as the existence of gods. There is no impasse at all. It's just people making ridiculous claims.



I would suspect the only realistic expectation of any atheist towards a theist would be to use their brains. The theists expectation is that we don't use our brains and just believe everything they claim.

As much as all atheists would like to portray their unbelief as one of logic, I think many turn from faith because of a bad faith experience, thus it is more of an emotional response. Not all, but many. I think it has just become the acceptable narrative within atheist circles that theists or believers lack the ability to apply logic and it’s all based on emotion that drives their beliefs. But the same can be said of some atheists.

Just another perspective.

 

[Goldtop]

No one in this thread is suggesting to denigrate science.

By saying science can't prove something is denigration of science.

I think many turn from faith because of a bad faith experience, thus it is more of an emotional response

Maybe, but if you actually listen to atheists who were once theists, you'll find it's all about thinking, not emotions.

theists or believers lack the ability to apply logic and it’s all based on emotion that drives their beliefs.

And, here we are. Certainly, it isn't critical thinking skills, rational thought or logical interpretation that drives religious beliefs.

But the same can be said of some atheists.

Feel free to point that out here, I doubt you'll find it, though.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Right over a cliff into an abyss of ignorance.

Now that was uncalled for.!!!

Im very religous an i even have my own church (NACA)... an i also scientifically foller the evidence whare ever it leads... an the way i reconcile the 2 is... i simply dont let my religious beleifs affect my life.!!!

 

[wegs]

By saying science can't prove something is denigration of science.

Science can prove all things?

Maybe, but if you actually listen to atheists who were once theists, you'll find it's all about thinking, not emotions.

Most of my friends are atheists and some seem to take a logical approach and others, it seems like an emotional reaction. When I was an atheist, I wasn’t angry with theists for believing, nor did I care to argue about something I didn’t believe in. Anger is an emotion which I do see a lot of on here, among atheists when they discuss these topics with theists. Mockery and name calling stem from that anger.

And, here we are. Certainly, it isn't critical thinking skills, rational thought or logical interpretation that drives religious beliefs.

That is your opinion.

Feel free to point that out here, I doubt you'll find it, though.

I don’t know any of you (who are atheists) to determine why you are atheists.

 

[Goldtop]

Science can prove all things?

Science DOESN'T prove things. Science is a process to help our understanding of the world around us. Proof is in mathematics.

others, it seems like an emotional reaction

Like for example, after they've been told by a Christian they're going to roast in hell if they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, or some other such similar event? Yeah, that kind of hatred can get a rise out of people when they've been threatened.

Anger is an emotion which I do see a lot of on here, among atheists when they discuss these topics with theists.

Sure, when theists are dishonest and can't have discussions without lying, then there's going to be frustration, which is probably what you're observing, not really anger.

That is your opinion.

Yet, you can't argue otherwise.

I don’t know any of you (who are atheists) to determine why you are atheists.

We don't determine we are atheists, theist do that for us. We're just normal folks who don't accept outrageous claims from others who make them, whether it be religious or pseudo-claptrap. Most flat earthers, for example, are pretty hard core Christians, which means they believe in outrageous things that aren't religious. It's about using your noodle, or not.

 

[Goldtop]

i simply dont let my religious beleifs affect my life.!!!

Which means, you don't allow yourself to fall over that cliff when it comes to real life. That doesn't mean that cliff into the abyss doesn't exist or that there aren't armies of people who would be only to happy to lead us over it.

 

[wegs]

Science DOESN'T prove things. Science is a process to help our understanding of the world around us. Proof is in mathematics.

You used the word ''prove'' in your quote above mine, so I was just following your line of thought.

Like for example, after they've been told by a Christian they're going to roast in hell if they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, or some other such similar event? Yeah, that kind of hatred can get a rise out of people when they've been threatened.

Of course, that is wrong on a theist's part to do that, but no one in this thread remotely suggested that. No one is proselytizing in this thread, from what I can tell.

Sure, when theists are dishonest and can't have discussions without lying, then there's going to be frustration, which is probably what you're observing, not really anger.

Of course, that makes sense. But some atheists lie also at times about theists, to suit their own narrative.

Yet, you can't argue otherwise.

I could, but I can't speak for theists, or other believers. Faith is a subjective experience, so what would my one story prove to anyone here?

We don't determine we are atheists, theist do that for us. We're just normal folks who don't accept outrageous claims from others who make them, whether it be religious or pseudo-claptrap. Most flat earthers, for example, are pretty hard core Christians, which means they believe in outrageous things that aren't religious. It's about using your noodle, or not.

Only 2% of Christians, or maybe less, believe that the earth is flat. I'd say a greater number of Christians believe in creationism over evolution. Where that can be a problem, is if those religious views seep into the public education system, for example. I'm against religion mixing with government. But, a great many religious people and spiritual types adopt a ''live and let live'' type of mentality, and don't bother anyone.

I tend to discern someone's treatment of me and others, whether or not I can trust him/her, over their religious affiliations. (or lack thereof)

 

[iceaura]

As much as all atheists would like to portray their unbelief as one of logic, I think many turn from faith because of a bad faith experience, thus it is more of an emotional response.

"All atheists" would not "like" to do any such thing. That is bullshit.
The projection of "bad faith experience" unto other people is likewise bullshit. It is a personal denigration, and like all your claims regarding "atheists" it overlooks the very wide variety of people that fall into that category. (It also, side note, seems to confuse "faith" with "religion")

I'd say a greater number of Christians believe in creationism over evolution.

Somewhere around 90%, give or take. But the Abrahamic religious theists are only one category of theist.

But, a great many religious people and spiritual types adopt a ''live and let live'' type of mentality, and don't bother anyone.

A great many religious and spiritual types are atheistic.