Should science replace religion?

[wegs]

Wow, so Christians have already decided that the Bible is open for interpretation? I wonder if any Christian could show me the verses stating that they can interpret Gods word to mean whatever they want? I would think God wouldn't be too happy if his word were not taken literally by his alleged followers.

I know, right? Surprising. If we're honest, even on this forum, people interpret others' views on scientific matters, too. I've observed a lot of disagreement on theories, that you'd think should be agreed upon, at least from a scientific method perspective. We like to interpret, because maybe it gives us a sense of individuality? It's human nature, perhaps. But, if Christians preach about the ''inerrant Word of God,'' then as a group, Christians should come together in unison.
I have a feeling that is a problem in the West, and not in other parts of the world, where Christianity is a minority religion. The ''American Church'' is a joke, honestly - with various interpretations and abuses of humanity going on each and every day. Not what Jesus intended at all, me thinks.

The Scientific Method has been shown to be a valid process for gaining information and knowledge about the world around us. Faith is basically guess work and if you only "feel" it's a path to knowledge, that would show you're not entirely convinced. And, you would remain unconvinced until you actually used faith and it consistently worked. Unfortunately, the only thing consistent about faith is t's capacity to be wrong.

My faith helps me with my own life, but science helps me understand life around me, and the mysteries of the universe. I'm good at compartmentalizing.

And, I would stand next to you in the regard, but unfortunately, religions have been violating their rights for centuries and continue to do so today and here we are, trying to find solutions to the problems created by theists on our societies. They want their freedoms but they want them at the expense of others freedoms.

Word. You make a good point.

 

[exchemist]

I think the thing is with Krauss is that he asserts that the vast majority of those who you would say have, "a complex inner life that has needs beyond what rationality alone offers" are not valid, in that most of those folks were indoctrinated as children into their religions, which forced on them the concept of needing that which is beyond rationality. He understands those people are already slaves to their faith, shackled to the irrational through inculcation. They are false needs set up by the Church; first in creating the problem (all men are evil through Adam) and provide the solution (saved by Jesus).

But that is trite and obvious nonsense, as anyone with a partner, children or parents can attest. When I speak of an inner life I don't just mean any religious ideas, I mean plain and simple human feelings and needs. We all (I think?) want to belong, to feel loved, to love, to trust and be trusted, to experience joy in beauty, to be calmed and comforted when tragedy strikes us, to get a sense of quiet perspective amid the hurly-burly of daily modern life, etc., etc. You do not address this side of the human psyche with scientific ideas. As I know from my own education and career, a large part of the intellectual life of the scientist involves setting everything like that aside, in pursuit of objectivity, so far as we are able. It is essential - indeed noble - to do this for understanding the physical world, but there is more to human experience than that.

Religion, by contrast, does - or at any rate can - engage at this other level of human experience. That, I submit, is a big part of its appeal to the human spirit. And that is why, in my submission, a project like Krauss's is not going to get very far with many people. This is not, please note, a defence of any religious ideas. It is just a commentary on the reasons for the appeal of religion in general.

 

[wegs]

I get that gardening.

Pics of garden as evidence?

 

[Goldtop]

If we're honest, even on this forum, people interpret others' views on scientific matters, too.

I'm not so sure that's fair equivocation

But, if Christians preach about the ''inerrant Word of God,'' then as a group, Christians should come together in unison.

When hell freezes over? (;

.

 

[exchemist]

Unfortunately, Krauss' view and treatment of women causes me to just tune him out now. Upon learning about his stance on religion, etc...I respected his views, but he sounds like a basic sexist jerk, albeit an intellectual one.

He's just another flawed human being, as we all are in some respects.

One of the things I have found, as I have got older, is that virtually all the heroes and paragons held up before us turn out to have feet of clay, in some respect. Actually I find it rather comforting, as I feel it takes the pressure off me to some extent.

So I don't generally tune out when these discoveries come up, I just laugh and allow myself to think that this guy can be a jerk, like anyone else. But I can see women may find this particular type of failing more unforgivable.....

 

[Goldtop]

But that is trite and obvious nonsense, as anyone with a partner, children or parents can attest.

Yet, I am a parent. Are you?

We all (I think?) want to belong, to feel loved, to love, to trust and be trusted, to experience joy in beauty, to be calmed and comforted when tragedy strikes us, to get a sense of quiet perspective amid the hurly-burly of daily modern life, etc., etc. You do not address this side of the human psyche with scientific ideas.

And, none of that has anything to do with needing religious beliefs. Those are human emotions requiring human needs, not false promises from religions.

As I know from my own education and career, a large part of the intellectual life of the scientist involves setting everything like that aside, in pursuit of objectivity, so far as we are able.

So what. You're now conflating education/career with human emotions.

there is more to human experience than that

Human experiences require humans, not gods. If one has to turn to religions to find human experience, then they are missing out on human experience.

Religion, by contrast, does - or at any rate can - engage at this other level of human experience. That, I submit, is a big part of its appeal to the human spirit.

That would be trite and obvious nonsense.

 

[wegs]

He's just another flawed human being, as we all are in some respects.

One of the things I have found, as I have got older, is that virtually all the heroes and paragons held up before us turn out to have feet of clay, in some respect. Actually I find it rather comforting, as I feel it takes the pressure off me to some extent.

So I don't generally tune out when these discoveries come up, I just laugh and allow myself to think that this guy can be a jerk, like anyone else. But I can see women may find this particular type of failing more unforgivable.....

Absolutely agree IF he owned up to it. He passed off the allegations as “he was joking.” We are all flawed, definitely.

 

[Jeeves]

Pics of garden as evidence?

Sure. As soon as you supply pics of god as evidence.

 

[Jeeves]

We all (I think?) want to belong, to feel loved, to love, to trust and be trusted, to experience joy in beauty, to be calmed and comforted when tragedy strikes us, to get a sense of quiet perspective amid the hurly-burly of daily modern life, etc., etc. You do not address this side of the human psyche with scientific ideas.

You need neither supernatural nor scientific ideas to 'address' human nature; you just need a reasonable amount of freedom and reasonable relations with other people - i.e. a sane society. Prairie dogs, crows, dolphins and beavers can do it!
But state religion, and organized religion on any level of power, does not add to the sanity or the amity of societies. If the people are already similar, the spiritual leader performs the same function as a wise uncle; if they're not, the spiritual leaders have less means to minimize friction than a secular government.

Also consider: Not everything that makes you feel good or satisfies a craving is good for you in the long term.

 

[wegs]

I think the key is to simply not impose one's ideas onto others, because that's where the offenses come into play. If my faith beliefs work for me, great. If others have different philosophies that work for them, great. It's in the audacity to think that we have a right to tell others how to live their lives, where the challenges enter in.

 

[spidergoat]

I think the key is to simply not impose one's ideas onto others, because that's where the offenses come into play. If my faith beliefs work for me, great. If others have different philosophies that work for them, great. It's in the audacity to think that we have a right to tell others how to live their lives, where the challenges enter in.

No! If you think you're ideas are right, I would expect you to want to influence others. The problem is you can't show it's right. Evangelism isn't an issue unless the thing you are evangelizing is wrong and harmful.

 

[wegs]

No! If you think you're ideas are right, I would expect you to want to influence others. The problem is you can't show it's right. Evangelism isn't an issue unless the thing you are evangelizing is wrong and harmful.

I don't know if that's true across the board, with all spiritual ideas though. Sure, I might want to share my ideas, or what I believe in (if asked) but not all believers feel the need to evangelize. It doesn't make what we may believe in, any less significant.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know if that's true across the board, with all spiritual ideas though. Sure, I might want to share my ideas, or what I believe in (if asked) but not all believers feel the need to evangelize. It doesn't make what we may believe in, any less significant.

But people think the problem with religion is trying to convert others. That's may be annoying (not to me, for whom it's a challenge), but it's not wrong.

 

[wegs]

But people think the problem with religion is trying to convert others. That's may be annoying (not to me, for whom it's a challenge), but it's not wrong.

That's a good point, and I'd agree. A few of my atheist friends see evangelizing as a condescending way of recommending to someone that he/she needs to change. They don't find it necessarily offensive all the time, but they don't like the common implication (which they see as blatant in all theistic beliefs) that ''we're not complete without God''. It's the implications that bug them.

Of course there are other belief systems that they take less offense, but they're speaking mainly of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Jeeves]

I think the key is to simply not impose one's ideas onto others,

But that is exactly what christians are called upon to do: spread The Word, save the souls!

It's in the audacity to think that we have a right to tell others how to live their lives, where the challenges enter in.

That is a god's prerogative. He made you, he owns your ass, he tells you where to park it, how to comb your hair and what to eat. His representatives on earth have that prerogative. When a person joins an organized religion, or is born into one, he accepts its rules and his duty.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Pics of garden as evidence?

Here ya go city-girl... this is what garden plants look like... an these 6 gem squash plants are kinda special sinse they are from south Africa
I made the containers out of newspaper.!!!

 

[exchemist]

Yet, I am a parent. Are you?



And, none of that has anything to do with needing religious beliefs. Those are human emotions requiring human needs, not false promises from religions.



So what. You're now conflating education/career with human emotions.



Human experiences require humans, not gods. If one has to turn to religions to find human experience, then they are missing out on human experience.



That would be trite and obvious nonsense.

OK, you clearly can't understand my point. I give up.

 

[Jeeves]

Mine look just like that! Ordinary Canadian squashes - and two short-season mini watermelon. I didn't kill anybody's little boy, or ask any god to make them grow, but the seeds figured it out all by themselves, just like they've been doing for millions of years before the first god was invented.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Mine look just like that! Ordinary Canadian squashes - and two short-season mini watermelon. I didn't kill anybody's little boy, or ask any god to make them grow, but the seeds figured it out all by themselves, just like they've been doing for millions of years before the first god was invented.

Ok... but what if those squashes is doin fine an puttin on fruit and just days later one of 'em wilts an starts to die... woud you then consider spendin some time in you'r prayer closet an readin you'r bibie... or mayb buyin a crystal.???

 

[Jeeves]

Ok... but what if those squashes is doin fine an puttin on fruit and just days later one of 'em wilts an starts to die... woud you then consider spendin some time in you'r prayer closet an readin you'r bibie... or mayb buyin a crystal.???

That never occurred to me. Mostly, I look for the damn cat's been pissing on it.