mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't understand, science says nothing about religions as such for their truth or not. Now Science does do that, but that is not science.
And at least science don't do morality or ethics as science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there a resource of Athe(ism)?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
I don't understand, science says nothing about religions as such for their truth or not. Now Science does do that, but that is not science.
And at least science don't do morality or ethics as science.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
Yerda
Veteran Member
You can certainly be a theist and also be a scientist or just a person who keeps up with science but it is worth noting that the available evidence from many fields of science directly contradict many religious positions. If your theism is based on a literal understanding of the Bible, for example.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, for some non-religious people their morality/ethics is contradicted by science in a sense.
So your non-religious ideology don't have to be in line with science as such.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Nobody is perfect.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
In what way will that help? They are grown up. One is a teacher who has received President's Prize, the other is a director of an MNC (I am 81). Three grand children. One has done a Master's in Dentistry.
Science talks about Morality/Ethics only as a tangent (as part of social sciences, psychology, etc.).
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
I was replying to the notion of using religion as a proxy for intelligence and courage.
That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That doesn't make any sense.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not just that. Many posters deride science. So funny in 21st Century.
A disciplined mind.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
Ha! Try being a mathematician…lol.
More seriously, if one considers the fundamental insight of atheism to be the notion that humans created religion (and atheism!), rather than the other way around, then the disciplines of history and anthropology become very important to atheism.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
Are you a science denialist when it comes to anthropology?
Or, to word it differently (and less acusatorily), do you consider anthropology a pseudoscience?
Your grandchildren could end up as anthropologists. Scientists make careers out of this sort of thing.
It’s not as easy as math, so I probably couldn’t make a career out of it.
Last edited:
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
It may be worth noting that Scientific Creationalists can probably come up with pithy summaries of their perceptions of the science of biology, as well.
Pithy statements of denial is not just something that happens to anthropology and mathematics.
It happens to biology as well.
This is all happening in the 21st Century.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
And many posters venerate science as if it were the only vehicle for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Such is the Messianic zeal, in the 21st Century, of some of it’s lay followers.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
One who has a genuine interest in science knows its limitations also. Science does not hide anything.
People have been publishing lists since long of what science does not know.
List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia
Lists of unsolved problems - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
Anthropology is a science, you know.
I find it odd that you don’t even believe in Anthropology.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am very interested in Anthropology, but it does not delve into Morals and Ethics.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
You’re making progress.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Still there are demarcation criteria which can be used to distinguish between anthropology, sociology etc, and the natural sciences. Which was what Karl Popper had in mind when identifying the principle of falsifiability.
More generally, it’s fair to say there are no laws of science governing human behaviour, which can make predictions a fraction as accurately as Newton’s laws of motion can predict the behaviour of objects.