That's a dangerous misrepresentation. Theory must be tested to be validated
Yep, but that is not what I said. I said the job of science is to know, it isn't to come up with theories all the time. Once it knows it's done its job.
In what sense? Why should it take that role when science is the natural, perhaps the only fitting candidate?
Quote:
It concentrates on area that the physical sciences cannot, such as morality, life, the here-after.
Now this I agree with. But this directly contradicts your previous sentence.
Unless you're a fundamentalist, I guess.
No it doesn't. If the job of physical science is to know about the outer world, the job of religion is to know the inner the world. They can both be sciences - a science is simply a valid and systematic means of knowing.
If religion is not scientific is not a valid means of knowing. Whatever it says is as good as fairytales.
Religion is not supposed to even aim for objective value. That is science's role, human sciences in this case. Religion deals with the subjective values and their interation and practical uses.
Theology shouldn't get out of hand and think of itself as an "alternative" human science, as it all too often does.
Of course religion needs to aim for the truth. It has no value otherwise. A person needs to know why shouldn't he sin, otherwise they will sin. If by doing so they end up in hell in the here-after, then the necessity for knowing the truth from the beginning becomes clear.
Questions like what is moral and not moral, what is the purpose of life, how can one attain peace and happiness, what is reality are important questions and their answers can shape our life here. If we don't have valid answers to these questions, then society would be in a mess.
Consider one of the questions: How do we attain happiness?
If religion x answers saying you attain happiness through war and conquest. Then realise just how destructive that is to society and to the individual in society. But with the kind of dangerous philosophy you are telling here that religion is not about truth it it just for our needs, this is valid. But we know it is not valid, we know that war and conquest does not bring happiness, it brings great suffering. So we can say that that religion x is false and reject it. To counter such a religion we need another religion y that teaches us the truth about happiness. If religion y says that we can gain happiness through loving one another like our own. Then realise just how beneficial that is to the society and to the individuals in society. Wouldn't you want to be born in a society where everybody loves each other like their own? It is also true that happiness does come from love. Therefore religion y is true.
So religion can know the truth and it is possible to have true and false beliefs in a religion and true and false religions. A religion that tells you to loot, maim, kill and rape innocents cannot be a true religion. Many of us would intuitively accept that looting, maiming, killing innocent people is wrong ---- but what about people who want proof.
How do I convince for example an atheist and materialist not to commit suicide? If they don't believe in an afterlife, if they do not believe that something will judge them, if they don't believe in sin, then what is stopping them?
Similarly, how do I convince a terrorist not to commit an attack, if he believes that he will be awarded 1000 virgins in heaven for his deed?
I cannot convince them unless I can show that it is objectively true that the atheist-materialist will actually condemn themselves to suffering in the life here-after by commiting suicide, for which I need to convince them that the here-after exists, that it's not lights out after death. I cannot convince the terrorist, unless I can show that their action is immoral and will lead to condemnation in the here-after.
If a religion cannot answer any of the above then it is useless. If a religion cannot tell us truth is is useless. If a religions 'truth' cannt stand up to scrutiny, then it is useless.
