It's obviously bonkers, but don't get how the dad blocked the lifeguards if they swam out? No different to the Jehovah's Witnesses cases where they refuse blood transfusions for the kids I guess. So blinkered.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
That story is 20 years old.
Keep science away from your bullshit.
Is it?
So religion is bad and science is good, now?
The same religion which gives hope and faith to some ends up as a excuse to kill for others. The same science which gives us medicines also ends up creating the atom bomb. Blame the wielder, not the tool. If the person is bad, science will be as bad as religion.
So religion is bad and science is good, now?
The same religion which gives hope and faith to some ends up as a excuse to kill for others. The same science which gives us medicines also ends up creating the atom bomb. Blame the wielder, not the tool. If the person is bad, science will be as bad as religion.
More like our time would be more wisely spent doing something constructive instead of than pondering made up fairy tales.
'wisely'? So science equates to wisdom now?
The point I was trying to make is the importance of morality. Without that science and religion will only end up as a tool for destruction. So just replacing religion with science without emphasizing on the morality is just as bad.
'wisely'? So science equates to wisdom now?
The point I was trying to make is the importance of morality. Without that science and religion will only end up as a tool for destruction. So just replacing religion with science without emphasizing on the morality is just as bad.
I definitely agree with that. I was just suggesting its better to spend ones time actually developing ideas and building things that help people, rather than engage in an entirely fabricated construct that doesn't exist.
Religion is about as immoral as it gets, holding a (metaphorical) gun to their followers head if they don't do as told. There's a thousand ethicists people can learn more from than the corruption of religious texts.
do social sciences count as science? Teaching critical thinking and ethics could be a more efficient way of spreading morality.
Science deals with facts while religion is in some absurd sense a set of opinions made by another human being (no controversy attempted here) which is being followed for years and is very open to interpretation of each follower.'wisely'? So science equates to wisdom now?
The point I was trying to make is the importance of morality. Without that science and religion will only end up as a tool for destruction. So just replacing religion with science without emphasizing on the morality is just as bad.
Its just not possible for science to replace religion. While people may eventually come to terms with there is no God like Hawking recently spoke about, religion serves a different purpose, a different realm. A lot of people who are religious seem to be in need of hope of their life eventually getting better. Religion is probably rooted to human beings by our desire to hope there is something to cling on to even there is nothing. In times of trouble, the hope that there is someone up there looking after you gives all the moral boost a person ever needs to survive. Science can never replace that.
Morality is another issues though. While we have laws and regulations to replace some part of morality by civilizing the people to behave in right ways, a person can chose to be moral or immoral in cases based on his goals - selfishness, focus on his own interest, being happy at helping other people comes to mind. Morality is more like a choice, while science is a fact and religion is more related to hope. Not one can replace another as long as we think the way we think right now.
Well said!
Laws reinforce and enforce morality, not replace them..at least in most cases. The 'definition' of morals is quite grey and differs between races, geographies etc.
Thought this was interesting... Alright, sickening. But heyo, religion.
http://www.wral.com/cops-to-discuss-man-s-fatal-beating-inside-new-york-church/14967995/
http://www.wral.com/cops-to-discuss-man-s-fatal-beating-inside-new-york-church/14967995/
they're not true christians™.
So science equates to wisdom now?
The only possible source of wisdom is science. Unless you are using some weird definition of wisdom.
It's really two different things. Knowledge is just having clarity of facts. Wisdom involves practical application of knowledge aided by judgement and ability to discern.
It's perfectly possible to be knowledgeable and not wise.
that makes no sense at all.
Very interesting that these two collaborated since they have differing views on religion.
How, exactly, is it considered wise not to put tomato in a fruit salad?
It would be unwise to use arsenic instead of sugar as a topping, but tomato would just be a taste preference
Shit quote.
It would be unwise to use arsenic instead of sugar as a topping, but tomato would just be a taste preference
Shit quote.
It's really two different things. Knowledge is just having clarity of facts. Wisdom involves practical application of knowledge aided by judgement and ability to discern.
It's perfectly possible to be knowledgeable and not wise.
Did you pull that directly off of Facebook?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in infomation?
T.S. Eliot
Science has the benefit of changing. Things we find true can be false & false things are later; real.
In a life of 80 years; can you afford to have everything changing? Thats the only reason anyone wouldn't believe in soley science. It's not enough to believe in something that might change after you are gone; is it?
In a life of 80 years; can you afford to have everything changing? Thats the only reason anyone wouldn't believe in soley science. It's not enough to believe in something that might change after you are gone; is it?
Science is not a belief system, it's a method of how we study and learn things. If there is something I want to know about the world around me, I defer to science as the best available answer, not books written by men who didn't know where the sun went at night.
To add to what the poster above has said (which I would completely agree with), if you aren't going to believe in 'solely' science, I would ask by which other reliable method would you intend to use to find out about the world around you?
why does believing in science mean you cannot belive in God.
For me it would be because believing that something is real/true with no evidence would mean that I would only use the scientific method when it suited me. Which would make me feel an utter hypocrite amongst other things. The complete lack of evidence for the existence of a god or supreme being makes it an utterly ludicrous idea to me.
Thats your opinion on science being reliable.
Science gets things pleanty wrong as it does gets things right.
Recently watched something on TV where they found a human fossil that may break darwins theory of evolution. If that turns out to be true, science will find a way to correct itself. Wont it? Ultimately; within an 80 year lifespan you could follow something your whole life that wouldn't mean jack sh*t the years after your gone.
What is there to believe in science anyway? Religion is more than gods and heavens & i'd say that religious people from all variations will think of science more regularly than anyone else.
I dont believe in god but; the same reason you can look in to space and say 'nah no way, there isnt any god', is the reason that some people do believe in it.
I don't get that at all. No even a little bit. If there is something you don't fully understand it seems to make no sense to just default to "god did it".
Science acknowledges the possibility of it being wrong. Religion revels in absolutism.
The greatest strength in the scientific process is that we change our understanding as the evidence changes. if you think something isn't correct then test it. If this doesn't confirm your idea then either you are wrong or you need a better experiment.
No they didn't and if they are selling their documentary this way they should be ashamed.
It won't.
I'm really not sure what your point is. In your hypothetical you seem to be suggesting that because some unspecified scientific theory may change after an individual dies that you might as well not bother in the first place. Which is an incredibly odd thing to think or say. Why does a random person's life duration have anything to do with scientific discovery?
There is nothing to "believe in science". There are things to understand based on the evidence.
And why would you think that religious people are more scientific? Seems like an odd and baseless thing to suggest.
Wisdom should be added to believe in a new category of words that are usually used to justify nonsense.
No, it isn't. People don't look into space and say "Nah, no way, there isn't a god". They look at the evidence, of which there is none and come to the conclusion that the existence of a god is highly unlikely.
Theories are challenged all the time, a great example being the field of Psychology. Thats the beauty of 'science'. Saying that I allow believe there is a great deal to learn from specific 'religious' texts, one such example being the Dharma, and the premise of 'non-self', which is continually rehashed by 'modern day gurus'.
As for the original question about the point of religion, the answer to that, is personal and will come from the individuals experience.
Which will range from the comfort it brought my mother when she lost her sister, to my own 'euphoric' experience after completing a 10 day retreat, where all i did was practice 'mindfulness' and count my breath through extended periods of vipassana.
I have always found it naive and a little insulting when people feel the need to lecture me on how 'religion and all that' is a 'load of bollox'.
I' m also studying dhamma. Infact, i couldn't see a more scientific religion than that itself; but trying to explain why one would choose religion over science is hard because each of us feels a different level of completeness.
For me there is a big difference between something that changes every so often and finding something you agree with and wont easily change.
Again, as a scientist & a buddhist; i can understand why science is highly rated; however i can't find a reason to actually believe in science itself. Just because some religions might have bad habits or rituals; doesn't mean all religions make people bad.
What's funny? Did you type in darwins theory is false? The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems. The documentary i saw; was based on a human like fossil found ages ago where we were thought still to be only monkeys.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+scientist+darwin+wrong+tree+life&client=ms-android-htc-rev&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAWoVChMI_K-z95TOyAIVRm8UCh1YFgqs#imgrc=_8wbTcR2F0A2tM:
Just an example of many if you spend less time laughing and a more time searching bud.
The reason why religous people are more scientific is because religion is more personal than science. So ultimately when every person is getting closer or more distant from a religion they are using knowledge and science to believe or contradict what they have learnt from religion.
Everytime i hear something new in regards to science; i see if it matches with my religion or not. My religion is then automatically against proof of science that might aswell change years down the line.
I do this every time. How does science become something personal to you?
For example; IF I WAS christian; then the theory of evolution seems to go against what the religion believes in. Yet if i was a scientist believing in science and science alone; why would you even think about evolution at all other than put another religion down?
Because science isn't based on belief. It usually is a theory which leaves the possibility to be disproven (if it is incorrect), and it is based on facts, not feelings.
The religion is completely on the other side. It isn't based on facts, and doesn't leave the possibility of getting disproven, even if in reality there are a ton of scientific mistakes in that religion's holy book.
Ultimatelly, I think that the debate can be simplified in being rational or not being rational. If you are rational, you will do/believe science and be cynic when it comes to religion. If you are not rational, you'll be the other way around. Maybe there is some place in the middle, but really it is mutually exclusive to be rational and believe in God, at the same time. As it is mutually exclsusive to not be rational, and do science.
Not really. It really shows that you have no clue at all for the theory of evolution.