Why science is better than religion...

[Acim]

If you want to go and do medicine, do you go to religion to learn medicine?

If I desire healing (well being, and/or peace), I go with spirituality. If I want (mere) treatment, I go to medical science. Great to have both.

Unfortunately, one costs and arm and a leg, and then proponents of that one want to know if the other will magically grow my leg back, as that is only way healing can be understood (by some).

 

[Acim]

What your reading.

Equals scripture then is plausibly evidence, and not (in any way) subjective.

Oh wait, we've been down this road, you deny that observation, at base level, is interpretative and, instead think that we all (regardless of how advanced our awareness is) see exact same thing(s).

There is no difference there. We think something when a chemical sends us a signal to.

And we (do) think(ing) before chemical sends signal. Again, please do your homework.

Yes well your version of using our inner thoughts to justify spirituality which you feel comes from our thoughts is a bit circular.

Admittedly so. I am not in denial about framework that is obviously circular. Belief about objective, external 'reality' is circular. Awareness / knowledge shows this. You barely have to pay attention to come to this realization.

No I mean what I said. Faith is what is left after going through what we know. We all have a degree of certainty. If I'm 95% certain I will take the remainder 5% on faith.

With your logic, I will assert that I am 100% certain that honest faith is derived from actual knowledge.

Depends on confusing physical need for emotional need.

Doesn't even a little bit address what I said.

Mimicking your method.

I am flattered.

Critical analysis never stops as long as we don't know everything.

Critical analysis could be applied to conception of 'when would we ever know when to stop said analysis?' Not that it needs to be stopped, but at a certain point it can / does become emotional need.

You think your thoughts belong to you.

In Consciousness, and not in body. Thus far thoughts of say 'poem I am writing tonight' (each stanza, word choice, etc.) are not something found in any body / brain. And unless shared symbolically (in say written form), this would not be found, at all.

We are a product of the electo-chemical responses in our brains. We "feel" love because of this. We obsess over people because of it. It is these needs that drive our emotional state.

Yeah, again you're not addressing (actual) Love, but a distortion of love. One that is mistaken to be felt and expressed (only) through physical. Awareness of Agape (type) Love may have correlation (after the fact) in brain chemistry, but the experience itself does not. At least not in meaningful way. Like saying all science and scientific method is, is chemical reactions in brain, it is nothing more, and therefore offers nothing like proof, for that is also (when thought about) just a chemical reaction. There is no science really. Just mind made fiction.

 

[Riverwolf]

Great until there is an earthquake.

Just get away from any earthquake zones.

 

[Riverwolf]

Wrong. It's excatly what anti-theists think they know about God. The testing comes from faith and prayer. The result is getting answers from God.

Which God? I've gotten answers from Lord Ganesha, after all, and all but one of my prayers was answered, and even then, that one seemed to be more playful.

Faith is belief without evidence. It's a leap, and requires a suspension of logic. This is a life-long test, and for the majority of us, the results won't appear until after we die.

 

[gnostic]

Wrong. It's excatly what anti-theists think they know about God. The testing comes from faith and prayer. The result is getting answers from God.

And if you don't get answers from God?

 

[Adonis65]

Ah, so basically whatever strikes your fancy...

Speaking from personal experience?

 

[Adonis65]

Which God? I've gotten answers from Lord Ganesha, after all, and all but one of my prayers was answered, and even then, that one seemed to be more playful.

Faith is belief without evidence. It's a leap, and requires a suspension of logic. This is a life-long test, and for the majority of us, the results won't appear until after we die.

The only real god that there is. "Lord Ganesha" is known by many names, but "Creator of the Universe" is not one of them.

Wrong. Faith is belief that you will eventually get evidence. That's one reason why prayer works.

You have faith that one day some atheist will finally produce irrefutable evidence that God does not exist. See, we all exercise faith in way or another.

You're right about this being a life-long test, but you're wrong about results. At the end of the day, we all get results based on our faith.

 

[Adonis65]

And if you don't get answers from God?

It means I've already turned to the self indulging charms of atheism. :yes:

 

[Tristesse]

The only real god that there is. "Lord Ganesha" is known by many names, but "Creator of the Universe" is not one of them.

Wrong. Faith is belief that you will eventually get evidence. That's one reason why prayer works.

You have faith that one day some atheist will finally produce irrefutable evidence that God does not exist. See, we all exercise faith in way or another.

You're right about this being a life-long test, but you're wrong about results. At the end of the day, we all get results based on our faith.

So many things wrong here. First prayer doesn't work, there is no evidence to suggest that it does. Second, athiesm in and of it's self is not a belief that a god doesn't exist, it's a rejection of a belief in a diety. There is no faith required. And third faith plays no role in my life.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

First of all, my opinion is that testing your hypotheses and beliefs is a much greater approach to life than simply accepting blindly without reason (faith).

You are assuming that by faith is meant blind imitation or blindly accepting. I believe faith can be and must be based on independent investigation of truth and finding signs in the verses of the Scriptures and historical facts.

Religion is based on faith, and therefore is not based on evidence.

That's not true. I agree that the majority of religious people have their faith not based on evidence, but faith can be based on clear evidence.

When religious people call science a religion, I am simply astounded. Science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity to discover its own origins and purpose. If you wish to be religious as well, that is obviously fine.

Religion is not science. But there is a harmony between science and true religion. If a religion is not in accordance with science, then it's superstitious or that part of it is man-made and not part of the original teachings.

Religion is outdated, in my opinion, as it neglects evidence.

Every religion has an expiry date. Just as medicine which although is for curing, but it can only be used until the expiry date. Once the expiry date of a religion has come, then another religion comes with accordance to the exigencies of the age. That's why so many religions came after another one and shall come.

If you believe that religion is reasonable or that faith is good, please tell me why.

Thanks,
Richard.

We need both science and religion. Religion teaches spirituality and morality. It teaches spiritual growth. It bring new laws for the age.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" —Albert Einstein

 

[McBell]

Speaking from personal experience?

As a matter of fact, yes.
There is more than one member of RF who pushes this same line of thought.
One constantly threatens people with their god.

 

[McBell]

The only real god that there is.

This is nothing more than a bold empty claim.

"Lord Ganesha" is known by many names, but "Creator of the Universe" is not one of them.

So?

Wrong. Faith is belief that you will eventually get evidence. That's one reason why prayer works.

Wrong.
Faith is believing something your intellect would normally reject.
Otherwise, there is no need for faith.

You have faith that one day some atheist will finally produce irrefutable evidence that God does not exist. See, we all exercise faith in way or another.

People who wait around waiting for others to prove their claims false when they cannot prove their claims true are dishonest at best and down right deceitful at worst.

You're right about this being a life-long test, but you're wrong about results. At the end of the day, we all get results based on our faith.

Another bold empty claim.

 

[lunamoth]

First of all, my opinion is that testing your hypotheses and beliefs is a much greater approach to life than simply accepting blindly without reason (faith).
Religion is based on faith, and therefore is not based on evidence. When religious people call science a religion, I am simply astounded. Science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity to discover its own origins and purpose. If you wish to be religious as well, that is obviously fine. But I find that it is ridiculous to say that 'evolution shouldn't be talk in schools' etc. when evolution is science, and science has more evidence, by default, than religion.
But the main point of this thread is not to ridicule religion. For much of my life, I have heard people say things like 'don't reduce things to science' or 'science spoils things because there is no mystery anymore'.
This is supremely stupid. Science is considered by many to be something which destroys any meaning or mystery behind things. This is untrue.
Science enhances our understanding of things, of course. This, I am sure nobody would dislike. But, to say that science removes meaning or mystery is misguided. If discovering the truth about something removes meaning, it simply means that the meaning was simply an illusion in the first place (like religion) and that we should embrace a more rational, logical approach. We create our own meaning in life. We have family, friends, knowledge, ourselves etc. We are alive. We are fortunate to be alive, and that should be meaning enough to live.
Also, to say that science destroys mystery is wrong. Although its immediate effect is to remove mystery (why anyone would prefer mystery to knowledge is beyond me), it can in a lot of ways create new secrets and mysteries to solve.
In short, science is a wonderful endeavour by humanity which places emphasis completely on evidence. Religion is outdated, in my opinion, as it neglects evidence.
If you believe that religion is reasonable or that faith is good, please tell me why.
Thanks,
Richard.

Art is outdated, as it neglects evidence.

 

[Riverwolf]

The only real god that there is. "Lord Ganesha" is known by many names, but "Creator of the Universe" is not one of them.

Uh...

O Lord Ganesha
I Pay my deep homage to you, the Lord of the Deva-Gana
You are the first facet of the Bramha-Tatva to arise
You have alone created this Entire universe
You alone can maintain this universe
You are indeed the all conquering supreme Lord
Indeed you are the “ATMA” || 1 ||
-From the Ganapati Upanishad

In the "Garland of Ganesha's 108 Names", number 19 is:
19. Aum Srishtikartre Namah
Adoration to the Creator

Wrong. Faith is belief that you will eventually get evidence. That's one reason why prayer works.

So why doesn't it work for most people?

Besides, the dictionary definition of faith is:

faith


noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

-from Dictionary.com

I see nothing in there about believing you'll one day get evidence. It's okay to say that one has faith that evidence will one day present itself, or that when you place faith in something, you hope you'll get evidence eventually, but faith itself is not belief that you'll get it.

You have faith that one day some atheist will finally produce irrefutable evidence that God does not exist.

No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be a theist.

See, we all exercise faith in way or another.

You're right about this being a life-long test, but you're wrong about results. At the end of the day, we all get results based on our faith.

So why have so many not gotten results at all?

 

[Adonis65]

As a matter of fact, yes.

Sorry for you.

There is more than one member of RF who pushes this same line of thought. One constantly threatens people with their god.

And the other constantly threatens people with their godlessness. One of us is right, and I'm certain it's not you.

 

[Adonis65]

Uh...

O Lord Ganesha
I Pay my deep homage to you, the Lord of the Deva-Gana
You are the first facet of the Bramha-Tatva to arise
You have alone created this Entire universe
You alone can maintain this universe
You are indeed the all conquering supreme Lord
Indeed you are the “ATMA” || 1 ||
-From the Ganapati Upanishad

In the "Garland of Ganesha's 108 Names", number 19 is:
19. Aum Srishtikartre Namah
Adoration to the Creator

You misunderstand... your god dwells below, not above. Think about it.

So why doesn't it work for most people?

You mean most Christians, or most non-Christians, or both? It's a dumb question if you mean non-Christians.

Besides, the dictionary definition of faith is:

faith


noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

-from Dictionary.com

I see nothing in there about believing you'll one day get evidence. It's okay to say that one has faith that evidence will one day present itself, or that when you place faith in something, you hope you'll get evidence eventually, but faith itself is not belief that you'll get it.

That dictionary sucks. Use Merriam Websters; it's the best and most reliable dictionary:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

I do see something about getting evidence, and it comes by way of a promise.

No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be a theist.

You're a theist who depends on atheists to tell you what you believe. That's the worst kind of theist.

So why have so many not gotten results at all?

Because either their faith stinks, or they're ignoring the right answers & looking for the wrong ones.

 

[Riverwolf]

You misunderstand... your god dwells below, not above. Think about it.

"Above"? There's nothing "above" but more universe. Lord Ganesha is at the base of the spine, yet all things are in His belly.

You mean most Christians, or most non-Christians, or both? It's a dumb question if you mean non-Christians.

Doesn't matter. Christian or not, prayers aren't always answered.

That dictionary sucks.

It's based on Random House, which is actually one of the most standard.

Use Merriam Websters; it's the best and most reliable dictionary:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

I do see something about getting evidence, and it comes by way of a promise.

That's quite a stretch. It's best to use multiple dictionaries, and actually, the best is Oxford English.

You're a theist who depends on atheists to tell you what you believe. That's the worst kind of theist.

No, I'm not. What I believe is decided by me and me alone. Atheists just help me keep from becoming too superstitious. But they can't keep me from God.

Because either their faith stinks, or they're ignoring the right answers & looking for the wrong ones.

How can you be sure of that? I personally find it hard to believe that every single Christian who was directly beneath the Nagasaki bomb were weak in faith. (No, really. The epicenter of that bomb was a Christian church.) In fact, I find it impossible to believe.

Let alone speaking of every other strong-faithed Christian who had to endure terrible suffering and death for no reason, and yet would almost certainly have prayed to be released from it with the intention of continuing their lives.

 

[otokage007]

And the other constantly threatens people with their godlessness. One of us is right, and I'm certain it's not you.

I want to learn to do that. Would you teach me plz? :flirt:

 

[McBell]

And the other constantly threatens people with their godlessness. One of us is right, and I'm certain it's not you.

Sad that you think I was talking about you.
Sadder still that you are so quick to put others in boxes.

Now since I figure you are not in this thread for honest discussion...

 

[work in progress]

When you introduce the term 'better' or 'valuable' or 'good/bad', then the argument becomes subjective. What one person experiences as better than the other is quite personal.

I'm brand new here, and as much as I can sift through six pages, this seems to be the closest to the way I see it. The thread opener makes the same mistake that Richard Dawkins, Hitchens and an assortment of new atheists do - that religion is just a primitive version of science, looking for scientific answers.

One point I haven't really seen made so far, is that most religious belief and practice seems to be about dealing with the problem of human mortality. I heard a comedian recently say that 'if we all lived to be...say 10,000 years old, we probably never would have got around to creating religions in the first place.'

It seems to me that whether you are religious or non-religious depends on whether you are a skeptic by nature - reluctant to believe things until they can pass some level of scrutiny, or if you are intuitive by nature, and just want to go with your gut instinct that the Universe must have some higher purpose, and have some kind of kind of intelligent creator....and that we have a place in this creation. I'm with the first group, but I think the biggest mistake of new atheism has been to assume that everyone needs to be a skeptical rationalist, and will be happier and more satisfied once they are freed of their religious beliefs....in a way, this Dawkins dogma qualifies as a faith-based assumption!

Since becoming aware of scientific matters, and accepting many current understandings, I've gained a lot of knowledge, which I value, but on the other hand, I'm no longer the happy and hopeful person I used to be. Sometimes I really miss the old me.

And that's why I think it is futile and possibly even harmful to push evangelical atheism. If we are alone in the Universe, that doesn't really bother me, nor does the prospect of death...hopefully not for a few decades.

If there is something that is giving me great existential anxiety in recent years, it is the growing realization that the human race is heading towards possible extinction - according to some experts in as little as a hundred or two hundred years, because of the combined effects of overpopulation, climate change, and over-consumption of available resources. What a waste!