Wrong way round, human morality allowed civilisations to develop, civilisation gave rise to religion
-
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!
Science ... NOT God ...
- Thread starter NewGuyOnTheBlock
- Start date
Wrong way round, human morality allowed civilisations to develop, civilisation gave rise to religion
To see a contradiction between faith and science is false, it assumes religion presents a version of outdated science, when in fact all too many people who claim a high level of knowledge in the field of science have little knowledge in Biblical faith beyond that of a child. Aquinas puts it that one should 'not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, 'irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.'
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Evidence please
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Pointless
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The decline in Western religion can be largely attributed to just one thing -
wealth. You can't see church pedophiles impacting attendance graphs,
and the basic science of evolution hasn't changed in 150 years.
The bible doesn't engage questions of how things work. Galileo said
"the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Don't trigger me.
Wait, you did it! You don't hold reason over any other human. I accept that according to how you combine your accepted precepts, that religion does't make sense to you. But please don't project that onto other humans, because there is no single, universal, uniform or what ever version of reason or indeed accepted precepts.
So if you want to give reason, logic, evidence and what not for that, I can already falsify that and here is the actual falsification: No! I can do it differently than you and we can both get away with be different in a limited sense.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, in some sense. But that this matters to you, is subjective to you and you don't speak for an "us", so keep me out of it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But being bs-exposer is not just science and it only matters to you, because it matters to you. I like my version of bs.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The word "real" is not objective. It has no objective referent. You can't see it or any other version of external sensation. It is not perceptual and what not. It is a subjective belief in your head.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Don't trigger me.
You don't hold reason over any other human. I accept that according to how you combine your accepted precepts, that religion does't make sense to you. But please don't project that onto other humans, because there is no single, universal, uniform or what ever version of reason or indeed accepted precepts.
So if you want to give reason, logic, evidence and what not for that, I can already falsify that and here is the actual falsification: No! I can do it differently than you and we can both get away with be different in a limited sense.
Word salad - yum.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What does love have to do with science?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Like your ability to reason.
I accept that you use emotions, because that works for you, but that is not a reasoned argument.
If that was so then "I love God" is a reasoned argument for the existence of God. If you want to argue in favor of reason, using emotions might not be the way to go.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
No in no sense, the church makes profits from nearly everything because it has money invested in virtually everything.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Science matters to anyone.
Science is the most efficient way of how we know and learn about the world around us.
And that's not an opinion.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the church is not religion. It is a version of religion. But not my religion, but I get your point.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The reference is empirical reality.
You differentiate was is actually real and what not, by measuring or otherwise observing its manifestation in empirical reality in empirical ways.
It's the only means we have to differentiate the real from the not-real.
My keys being real, is not just my opinion.
After you, you made the initial claim
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, if you mean hard science, soft science(including history), humanities, math and philosophy, then yes. But you are of another culture, so you use the word science differently and therefore you control the word. Well, you don't. Nor do I, I am just of another culture, when it comes to science.
So relativism for the world
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, it is. The word "real" has no objective referent.
Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
I think the definition says it is completely objective