There appears to be a consensus forming that the religion science needs will not be a theistic one.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
I understood what you were saying. It did not convince. You simply failed to support your point.
Lots of people interpret the word of God lots of different ways. That's a fact.
Sort of debatable but I understand the concept
- first prove god exists then
- prove he wrote the bible (some slack here - others wrote the words which he spoke)
Chinese Whispers writ large
I guess it means diferent thangs to diferent people... what does "I believe in God" mean to you... an are you certain that this God exists.???
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.!!!
This thread needed a plant!
That's a great pic.Regarding your question. I have doubts sometimes, but overall, my hope and faith are strong. Not only in my belief that a god exists, but I have hope in humanity. It all connects for me.
Fun ''religious'' fact: Lady bugs are named after the Virgin Mary. When the farmers of the past saw the beetles flying toward their soon-to-be destroyed crops, they felt that the Virgin Mary was looking out for them and, thus, they named the insect after her. In Germany, for example, they call the ladybug “Marienkäfer,” which translates to “Mary's Beetle.”
Last edited:
This thread needed a plant!
Thanks... ther my favort babies right now... raised 'em from meer seeds.!!!
My radishes this year have been the best ever... tender... jucy... crisp an mild flavor wit just the right amount of peppery taste.!!!
Well i must admit... i dont have any particular faith in humanity... i can only make guesses at its future an i dont particularly worry about what i dont have control of... but like you... it all connects for me to.!!!
Thought of an analogy:
Asking science to take over for the religion it currently lacks would be something like asking the players of a football game to make up the rules of the game as they play.
The doings of the "lower" levels of human thought, such as rationality, are overseen and regulated and governed and fit to their good purpose by the appropriate aspects of the "higher" levels, such as aesthetics. In the case of something as powerful and encompassing as scientific research, a flimsy and ill-founded and superficial organization of the aesthetic/spiritual/ intuitive level of human thought will not suffice - it's going to take a religion, a community organization, to bring science into the body of human life.
Of the several reasons why this is the necessary reality of human intellectual endeavor, this one seems (in my limited experience) to impress the self-described "rational" technocrats most: humans need to make decisions without adequate information, and that includes the most important decisions they make. Rationality does not suffice if one simply hasn't enough to reason with.
Asking science to take over for the religion it currently lacks would be something like asking the players of a football game to make up the rules of the game as they play.
It may be important - imho it's central - to keep in mind that setting aside certain aspects of "irrational" human nature will cripple rationality itself - toss the baby with the bathwater. Most scientists seem to grasp this, and behave accordingly - but their situation is dicey: they have no formal or recognized spiritual or aesthetic establishment to help them. They are kind of on their own, even within a local scientific community of sound ethics and agreed customary principles. They are vulnerable. They are far too easily corrupted or misled by those with strong personalities and direct agenda.
The doings of the "lower" levels of human thought, such as rationality, are overseen and regulated and governed and fit to their good purpose by the appropriate aspects of the "higher" levels, such as aesthetics. In the case of something as powerful and encompassing as scientific research, a flimsy and ill-founded and superficial organization of the aesthetic/spiritual/ intuitive level of human thought will not suffice - it's going to take a religion, a community organization, to bring science into the body of human life.
Of the several reasons why this is the necessary reality of human intellectual endeavor, this one seems (in my limited experience) to impress the self-described "rational" technocrats most: humans need to make decisions without adequate information, and that includes the most important decisions they make. Rationality does not suffice if one simply hasn't enough to reason with.
I don't see how superstition, twisting even that little, will help make a better decision.
Thing is: religionists co-opt everything that can, with any stretch of credibility, be classified as not rational.
But that's wrong.
Intuition doesn't belong to them.
Aesthetics do not belong to them.
Dreams and the subconscious do not belong to them.
Empathy does not belong to them.
Emotions do not belong to them.
The desire to form patterns does not belong to them.
The urge to tell stories does not belong to them.
The need to invent meaning and purpose does not belong to them.
Wonder does not belong to them.
They have co-opted these human attributes and served them very badly.
That's nothing to do with science, which isn't meant to, and doesn't pretend to do anything more than satisfy curiosity. They've set science up as an adversary, even though it never attacked them, because it ignores them.
Satisfying curiosity fills all the human needs that are left over from work, friendship, marriage, art and sport.
Nobody needs religion.
They're terrified we'll all find out.
Why not
Religion does that now
Reminds me of a joke which resulted in a senior acolyte being sacked
Apparently the acolyte had hear a woman remark on a pronouncement the pope had regarding female reproduction
The woman said "He don't play the game, he don't make the rules"
When the acolyte repeated this in front of others he was sacked
I think the woman had a point
So superstition will also be excluded. No deity, no superstition. Done.
No religion appropriate for science and scientists would do that. For one thing, it would have to incorporate the rational in human life (something the current inadequate religions have attempted and failed).
(My own eye-opener was the co-option of music by the Christian church - the sheer brass of that, the arrogance. )
So they and their religion will not do at all.
Agreed.
The fact that almost everybody puts up with your completely sound and sane list of sins committed by the religions at hand argues otherwise.
I listed, earlier, a couple of benefits of religion that are unavailable from science. They are not small. There are others. Science needs them. It is getting lost.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Would you suspect that to be hypocritical to others who don't follow God, who don't interpret the Bible but instead read the words for what they are?
Shouldn't all Christians agree on what's in the Bible?
No religion can be appropriate for science, and science doeasn't need a religion. It needs a philosophy and ethic to guide its practitioners - just as medicine and law have theirs.
Almost everybody is followers. If their leaders say "jump off the cliff", they line up in single file at the cliff edge. Every time some fathead declares a war. That's not an endorsement of religion; that's a condemnation of human autonomy. Free will, my sweet Aunt Fanny!
The reason religion can co-opt all of culture is that in state religions, the church also carried the burden of social services, community organization and entertainment. While churches still run some charities, they're marginal; they no longer control the culture, but their history and doctrines are deeply embedded in all cultures.
They're still credited with most festival days.
And yet again, the false dichotomy!
Science isn't mandated to fill every nook and cranny of human emotional need; nor do all the gaps left by science automatically fall to domain of religion.
Science satisfies curiosity. That's all it's supposed to do.
Then there's work, friendship, marriage, art and sport to fill the other needs.
Religion fills two needs: exceptionality (we are ooo-soo special!) and an excuse to behave badly (permission to kill them and take their stuff)
Those needs can as well be filled by nationalism, ideology and alcohol.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if religion is responsible for "creating bad people", as much as it may attract people who have personality disorders, and are prone to immoral/unethical behaviors. This is why we see a lot of sociopaths as leaders of various denominational churches in the West, as one example. Did religion breed that behavior, or does organized religion in particular, merely attract different types of people who have bad intentions to begin with? In my opinion, it's more likely the latter.
I think if we stripped the religious labels from many people, their characters might likely remain the same. Just my $.02.
I think if we stripped the religious labels from many people, their characters might likely remain the same. Just my $.02.
Read an article recently talking about Einstein's thoughts on science and religion. Seems like he felt that science was in need of a ''cosmic religion,'' of some type. I wonder if pantheism is a decent enough stand-in for now. Buddhism would also seem to complement science.
A ''cosmic'' type of religion. Hmm. Sounds interesting, and potentially possible if we could all find common ground, as to what it means.
A ''cosmic'' type of religion. Hmm. Sounds interesting, and potentially possible if we could all find common ground, as to what it means.
No. No more so than scholars who have different interpretations of Beowulf are hypocritical.
The Bible doesn't even agree what's in the Bible.
That applies to pretty much any religion. If only everybody practiced Thuggee....
Yep. And sometimes religion helps such people - and sometimes it amplifies those behaviors.
Definitely.
Bad social and familial relations "create" bad people - or, rather, turn ordinary children into bad adults.
No more than business, the military, the entertainment industry and politics do.Each area of endeavour may attract a proclivity or present opportunities, for bad behaviour of a different type.
And as leaders in all walks of life: because they seek power over others. Healthy psyches don't need an unfair advantage.
Neither. It provides them with an almost seamless cover for their illicit activities, with community status, and with a near-impregnable establishment that's beyond the reach of secular law.
Their characters may well have been formed, at least partially, by the religious upbringing and education. Having to exercise double-think from the moment you can first speak gives you a huge advantage in mental agility - the ability to compartmentalize, to rebrand crimes and atrocities, to interpret ... pretty much anything. Unfortunately, it also gives you a corresponding inability to distinguish truth from falsehood.