"We don't know" - why can't religions except that?

[Gambit]

Are you asking me whether or not I wish that the religions of the world to be illogical?

Yes. Previously you stated: "The more accurate question is why does religion have to be logical?"

 

[Quintessence]

No because science is logical and can produce meaningful things in society than nothing else can.

Considering religions can be logical and produce meaningful things in a society that nothing else can, I'm not sure how that makes a significant distinction between the two.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes. Previously you stated: "The more accurate question is why does religion have to be logical?"

I was saying that was the question that should have been stated.

And the answer is yes, because if something is not logical it does not have evidence.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Considering religions can be logical and produce meaningful things in a society that nothing else can, I'm not sure how that makes a significant distinction between the two.

Name one thing religion can produce that no one else can?

 

[Gambit]

Most religious people say "we believe," not "we know." That's why they call it faith.

 

[Quintessence]

Name one thing religion can produce that no one else can?

The specific framework of life's meaningfulness that a religion produces for any individual is unique... and could only be produced by itself. The universe is diverse like that.

But in honesty, the question shouldn't even be about that. One might as well go "but you could wear boxers instead of briefs, ergo boxers are better!" The argument doesn't hold much weight. Not everyone has to wear boxers, you know. Not everyone likes them, or wants to.

 

[Gambit]

And the answer is yes, because if something is not logical it does not have evidence.

Well, my belief in the existence of God is based on evidence.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The specific framework of life's meaningfulness that a religion produces for any individual is unique... and could only be produced by itself. The universe is diverse like that.

But in honesty, the question shouldn't even be about that. One might as well go "but you could wear boxers instead of briefs, ergo boxers are better!" The argument doesn't hold much weight. Not everyone has to wear boxers, you know. Not everyone likes them, or wants to.

You where claiming that religion is necessary therefore you have the burden of proof.

Also so you are saying only religion can provide meaning to people's lives?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Well, my belief in the existence of God is based on evidence.

Cool, can you share it?

If this is true I would love to know.

 

[Gambit]

Cool, can you share it?

If this is true I would love to know.

That there is something rather than nothing is more than sufficient evidence to infer the existence of God.

 

[Quintessence]

You where claiming that religion is necessary therefore you have the burden of proof.

I recall saying no such thing, though considering social sciences regard religion as one of the five essential institutions that all human cultures have. Both religion and religiousness are part of human nature, and in that sense, are "necessary."

Also so you are saying only religion can provide meaning to people's lives?

I would say that whatever it is that operates as the framework/axis for meaningfulness in a person's life is functionally their religion, whether it is formally called that or not. But in the sense of religion as you probably understand it, no, that's not what I'm saying.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I recall saying no such thing, though considering social sciences regard religion as one of the five essential institutions that all human cultures have. Both religion and religiousness are part of human nature, and in that sense, are "necessary."

So is murder and rape.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I would say that whatever it is that operates as the framework/axis for meaningfulness in a person's life is functionally their religion, whether it is formally called that or not. But in the sense of religion as you probably understand it, no, that's not what I'm saying.

So you have to change the definition of the term for your claim to make sense.

In other words religion is not necessary.

 

[Quintessence]

So is murder and rape.

Really? Really? You're throwing out that card again? Ugh.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Really? Really? You're throwing out that card again? Ugh.

No counter argument?

 

[RRex]

social sciences regard religion as one of the five essential institutions that all human cultures have. Both religion and religiousness are part of human nature, and in that sense, are "necessary."

I'm of the belief that religion was invented by primitive man to explain what, in nature, scared the crap out of him.

And it snowballed from there.

Social sciences? I'll refrain from comment in that regard.

 

[Quintessence]

No counter argument?

There is no point in counter-arguing blatant logical fallacies like reducto ad absurdum and appeals to emotion.

So you have to change the definition of the term for your claim to make sense.

In other words religion is not necessary.

If that's what you want to believe. Meanwhile, those who have made more study of comparative religion and the social sciences will be moving on...

I'm of the belief that religion was invented by primitive man to explain what, in nature, scared the crap out of him.

That's one possibility, though complex social phenomena don't lend themselves to such simplistic explanations. There's quite a list of speculations regarding the origins of religions in academia. There's even various schools of thought that invoke fields like evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Quite fascinating, all in all.

 

[Altfish]

Do you hold sciences to the same standard? That is, they should not try to influence policy, or get government funding for research (paid for by taxes), etc? If not, why?

Science is based on evidence, religion on faith. They are not the same standards.

 

[Quintessence]

Science is based on evidence, religion on faith. They are not the same standards.

I disagree with this generalization about sciences and religions, but agree that there are some important distinctions to be made with respect to how they operate. Regardless, I'm not seeing how this supposed distinction is a reason for censoring or disenfranchising so-labeled "religious" voices from politics yet allowing the so-labeled "scientific" ones. As I understand the principles of democracy in my country, everyone is allowed to have a voice and influence policy. The only exception to this I am aware of is for lawbreakers; those who are convicted of felonies loose their right to vote. I have difficultly accepting any other reason as a valid one for disempowering a group of people from the processes of democracy.

I also have to wonder what my status would be under a nation that disenfranchise people for being religious. Since I'm both a scientist and religious, I would end up in this awkward middle area of being officially approved yet disapproved. Were I a sensible person, I would pretend I am not religious so I could vote and contribute, and all the while continue acting in accord with my religion anyway. Inevitably there would be some sort of inquisition and some witch hunts to ferret out those nasty religious people from influencing anything. There might even be some wars. Delicious drama!

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There is no point in counter-arguing blatant logical fallacies like reducto ad absurdum and appeals to emotion.

I was asking why things we find bad that are common in humans are not tried to been eliminated YOU responded with ad homonien by no provide a counter argument.

Therefore YOU are appealing to emotion!

Do not project your slanderous ways onto me!