By rejecting, or not sufficiently understanding, evolution, people are basically providing a rationalization for their dangerously idiotic anthropocentric conception of the universe. This allows them to treat any and all species other than human as simply existing solely for them to exploit. Consequently, we think nothing of causing mass extinctions, "processing" hundreds of billions of animals every year through concentration camps so that they (humans) can fulfill their lifelong dreams of being lazy and obese, etc.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
By rejecting, or not sufficiently understanding, evolution, people are basically providing a rationalization for their dangerously idiotic anthropocentric conception of the universe. This allows them to treat any and all species other than human as simply existing solely for them to exploit. Consequently, we think nothing of causing mass extinctions, "processing" hundreds of billions of animals every year through concentration camps so that they (humans) can fulfill their lifelong dreams of being lazy and obese, etc.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
True, but it is a serious problem of the world, nonetheless. It's one we could rid ourselves while we work on other problems. Unfortunately, many religious people work on wishful thinking rather than logic and reason, so we have that problem to deal with as well.
Because it propagates false hopes, false answers and ignorance. It makes people believe that other people are worthless, evil and threatening in the sight of their God. It basically causes good people to do bad things.
Unfortunately, as we can see in society, those who want their religious freedoms demand others lose their freedoms from religions.
The separation of Church and State, of course.
Again, no one is going to want you or anyone else to give up their religious beliefs just as long as those beliefs don't affect them. That isn't that case, unfortunately. Religions are now out in public (against the teachings of Christ, of course) and they affect a great deal of people who want nothing to do with them. In other words, religious people want their cake and eat it too.
Maybe you don't mind living in a society of scientifically illiterate people. Personally, I'd prefer an educated populace.
https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/2017...approves-curriculum-that-challenges-evolution
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Of course. I just keep hearing that they are religious but explanations are usually about what they don't believe in (about religion) but very little about what is left to believe in.
Last edited:
Whatever happened in the history of North Korea, the removal of religion was not a causative agent, either of its survival or its troubles.
To make a test case for whether religion improves a society or not, there would have to be no factors, such as a protracted war or international embargoes. Where religion declines naturally, as Norway, France and Australia, you can make a before/after comparison. You'd have to find a standard to apply and the stats to compare.
As regards North Korea, you would then be talking about a few dozen western missionaries (who'd got no business to be there in the first place) and their little communities of converts (who'd have little or no influence even before the wars.)
Who suggested this?
Who suggested this?
It's not very productive to project a false scenario onto someone else, then choose a non-illustrative object for its refutation.
We have friendly arguments over why I choose not to vote for a candidate who displays religious symbols.
It wouldn't.
What would affect my life is that neighbour exercised his political clout to keep me from marrying my gay partner, my daughter from perinatal care, or my transgendered son from going to the toilet, both of them from a comprehensive education and all of us from looking at the art and reading the books of our choice.
Now, we are getting somewhere, and I agree. Religious concepts (unless it's a broad study of ''world religions'') shouldn't be introduced into the public school classroom, at least not in a way that conflicts with traditional subjects. And, definitely not in a proselytizing manner.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The only organization that pays for this is a religious one. We know that there is little that is original about the Bible. That's not what religious people focus on however. They speak of how unique Christianity is. It's not.
People, scholars or not, who are religious are very vague about what they do believe in after they claim that science and religion can go together (which of course it can if you look at religion as philosophy) but in the end they usually contradict themselves. Otherwise, the initial impression they leave is that God is just the switch flipper but as time goes on it usually turns out that's not really how they feel.
I think it's more that Trump brags about how he attracts undereducated people, and that he regularly attacks the value of education and of teachers. "I love the poorly educated" . . . "You don’t have to be indoctrinated by these loser teachers" . . .
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
So, we use that lesson to kill and eat others in our community so we may live? When they talk about the lamb lying down with the lion, it wasn't used as a lesson for the lamb giving himself up as food for the lion.
Please show me anything you mentioned above can be linked directly as a result of religion? Did Boyles law come from the Bible or the Quran? Perhaps, the Talmud? That's all just strawmen.
Why? To what avail? There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of gods throughout history. What would be the point? What would they learn that they can't learn elsewhere?
Please explain how children are indoctrinated into science? How does that work exactly?
What scientific beliefs? To what are you referring?
Totally agree, separation of church and state.
I'll respond to the rest of your post, later. I need to get back to work...
I don't believe that religion has any place in our governance, and prefer it to remain separate and away from state/federal policies.
So... no Jews? No mumbo-jumbo about Destiny or world domination...
it was just a breeding program driven by scientific curiosity
good to know at last
I haven't heard him say this (not surprised though), but have heard so many other vapid remarks of his.
The funniest thing he has said to date though, is when he first took office, he commented that the Bible is his favorite book.
You're an adulterer, you pay hush money to porn stars, you are under investigation for tax evasion, you have made racist comments, you tell men to grab women by their....What does that mean, the Bible is your favorite book? **crying laughing**
kx000
Valued Senior Member
The point is there's hope.
I haven't heard him say this (not surprised though), but have heard so many other vapid remarks of his.
The funniest thing he has said to date though, is when he first took office, he commented that the Bible is his favorite book.
What does that mean, the Bible is your favorite book? **crying laughing**
It's absolutely astonishing that some Christians believe Trump was sent by God to save America. I guess you can always bend your belief system to to fit your needs.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Hope that folks give up wishful thinking in supernatural entities? Agreed.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That was their big mistake back in the late Reagan and early Bush years, religion trying to have more influence by becoming political.Totally agree, separation of church and state.
I'll respond to the rest of your post, later. I need to get back to work...
I don't believe that religion has any place in our governance, and prefer it to remain separate and away from state/federal policies.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Trump is, by Harry Frankfurt's definition, a bullshitter, viz. someone who is not even a liar. A liar sets out to deceive, for a reason. A bullshitter simply does not care whether what he says is true or false: he says what he says on the spur of the moment, because it seems to him to fit the occasion. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit.I haven't heard him say this (not surprised though), but have heard so many other vapid remarks of his.
The funniest thing he has said to date though, is when he first took office, he commented that the Bible is his favorite book.
What does that mean, the Bible is your favorite book? **crying laughing**
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Trump is your drunk Uncle at a party. Eventually the room clears.Trump is, by Harry Frankfurt's definition, a bullshitter, viz. someone who is not even a liar. A liar sets out to deceive, for a reason. A bullshitter simply does not care whether what he says is true or false: he says what he says on the spur of the moment, because it seems to him to fit the occasion. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit.
lolTrump is, by Harry Frankfurt's definition, a bullshitter, viz. someone who is not even a liar. A liar sets out to deceive, for a reason. A bullshitter simply does not care whether what he says is true or false: he says what he says on the spur of the moment, because it seems to him to fit the occasion. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit.
Learn something new everyday on SF!
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
As far as this thread is concerned, that is rather beside the point, which is that there are plenty of scientists with religious convictions or inclinations, just like other members of the population, and they see no conflict. I would submit that this is ultimately for the reasons I gave in post 5, explaining what I see as the lack of overlap between the functions of religion and science.