Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?

[sojourner]

Does that make you deserving of heaven?

God certainly thinks so -- or what's a heaven for?

 

[sojourner]

Like what?

(be specific!)

Like a deeper sense of self and identity. Science would have us be the sum of our parts. Spirituality affirms that we are greater than the sum of our parts.

 

[sojourner]

Why would an ecological or environmental perspective be the most salient one here? Doesn't the toll religion takes on human life- by inciting violence, hate, and war, and by infantalizing people and destroying human potential- at least equal, if not exceed, the damage done to the environment by irresponsible uses of science or technology?

We live in a world where we have the power to completely undo creation at the turn of a nuclear key. We live in a world that can no longer sustain our excess. I'd say an ecological perspective is eminently salient.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Like a deeper sense of self and identity.

How is this unique to religion? This appears to be something one can find in many different places- self-reflection/introspection, art, participation in a community/group, etc.

We live in a world where we have the power to completely undo creation at the turn of a nuclear key. We live in a world that can no longer sustain our excess. I'd say an ecological perspective is eminently salient.

I didn't say it wasn't salient, but asked why it should be the most salient. Also, I notice you didn't respond to the substantive portion of my post, regarding the relative pro's and con's of science vs. religion, and whether the pro's of either are unique to that activity. (it appears that the pro's of science ARE unique to science, whereas the pro's of religion can be found elsewhere)

 

[thau]

Oh, dear God! What's next, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?" The whole "wrath of God" thingy. God's a big bogeyman in the sky who's gonna git'cha if you're not careful. What a terrible thing it must be to live in fear and dread, afraid of one's own humanity.

Oh, I get it. So long as the message is on forgiveness and happy thoughts you have no problem with Christians. But the moment we dare speak of hell and consequences for one being totally dismissive of God and being as selfish or indulgent as they please --- then we are to be mocked for our stupidity.

Sorry, but God is real and He knows far more than you or I could ever imagine --- that what is or what should be. I can accept that and what He has chosen to reveal to us. You, on the other hand, prefer to tell God (if he exists) that his message is baloney. Ok.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Penicillin was a boon in days past, but it's getting us in trouble now. What we've succeeded in doing is to create a Frankenstein -- lots of resistant "super bugs" that we can no longer eradicate. We've relied far too heavily on antibiotics, and we're paying the price.

It's actually from improper use of antibiotics if I remember correctly. Bugs that have adapted adapted because people were either given improper prescriptions or people stop taking their medication the moment they feel better not realizing that there are still more left to kill. Sometimes your immune system takes care of it but sometimes nope.

 

[outhouse]

What world would you rather live in? Do we need a balance, or is one more important than the other?

You would be dead without science, I dont think the question even needs to be answered.

Nature has a way to deal with over population and exploitation of natural resources, disease.

 

[Me Myself]

You don't need religion to preserve humankind. If anything, religion does more to kill us. There's nothing beneficial about religion that you can't gain elsewhere.

Its not because religion preserves us but because religion is part of us.

Sure, atheists exist. I myself dont consider myself religious.

But what would have to happen so thatRELIGION does NOT EXIST?

What would have to happen so NO ONE is religious? NEVER?

This would mean eier some fundamental deep change on human psychology of which ranifications we simply cannot guess, or some sort of state law ruling against religion and being so EXTREMELY powerful as to be able to erradicate it completely and MANTAIN such power and law to keep erradicating it always BEFORE it happens.

I certainly dont want the state thing, and if someone so deep in human psychology changed as so that we are no longer able to make religion, could we still be calling ourselves humans?

Things dont happen in a vaccuum.

If there was no religion I am certain there would be no or almost none human population. (And when I say almost none, I mean like, what? Three?)

 

[Me Myself]

Would you rather live in a world without penicillin or a world without art? Obviously a world without art.

And in what way does that denigrate art?​

A world without penisilin.

NO doubt.

 

[illykitty]

You can have god without religion but our world without science would be a serious disadvantage. So I'm not compromising on my belief in god, rather that religion isn't as important as science is to me.

 

[thau]

I never cared much for the "Church of Eeyore" -- "We can't all and some don't. That's just How It Is." So much for humanity being the crowning glory of God's creation -- made just a little lower than the angels, worthy of God's attention in becoming one of us.

Choose not to extract one teaching and label the entire faith with its dour message. God is extremely merciful beyond anything you might even expect.

But if you also are unable to see empirical evidence and reasoned evidence for the Judeo-Christian Lord, then I am not sure what else to offer?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For all intents and purposes, I already live in a world without religion.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Choose not to extract one teaching and label the entire faith with its dour message. God is extremely merciful beyond anything you might even expect.

But if you also are unable to see empirical evidence and reasoned evidence for the Judeo-Christian Lord, then I am not sure what else to offer?

Not sure you know what empirical is. There is a reason that faith is pushed.

 

[thau]

Not sure you know what empirical is. There is a reason that faith is pushed.

Thank you, but I am very much in the know what is meant by empirical evidence.

First definition: “Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”

This is not the same as when some try to tell me that empirical evidence has to do with scientific experimentation --- i.e. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

That is another definition of empirical, but by no means the way it is applied or has to be applied when seeing evidence for the supernatural.

When one sees a statue of the Virgin Mary weeping tears of blood from her eyes, that is empirical evidence for the supernatural --- unless you have a plausible alternative explanation? When one sees a mere child in an exorcism start to speak in guttural vulgar words, start to speak in Latin or other languages the child could never possibly have known, start to levitate and have objects moving in the room --- that is empirical evidence for the supernatural --- unless you have a plausible alternative explanation.

There is far more that can also be offered up. No, that does not destroy the need for faith because we have faith for many other religious matters associated with the same God. Faith that our sins have been forgiven, faith that we will some day be allowed into heaven, faith that we will see those dear to us again, faith that tells us prayer makes a difference, and so on.

Now if some claim they have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior, then wonderful. Do not think for a second they do not have many good reasons and signs for believing that, it is anything but a blind faith.

But as for me, I am saying I know Jesus is the above. It is past just faith for me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thank you, but I am very much in the know what is meant by empirical evidence.

First definition: “Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”

This is not the same as when some try to tell me that empirical evidence has to do with scientific experimentation --- i.e. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

That is another definition of empirical, but by no means the way it is applied or has to be applied when seeing evidence for the supernatural.

When one sees a statue of the Virgin Mary weeping tears of blood from her eyes, that is empirical evidence for the supernatural --- unless you have a plausible alternative explanation? When one sees a mere child in an exorcism start to speak in guttural vulgar words, start to speak in Latin or other languages the child could never possibly have known, start to levitate and have objects moving in the room --- that is empirical evidence for the supernatural --- unless you have a plausible alternative explanation.

There is far more that can also be offered up. No, that does not destroy the need for faith because we have faith for many other religious matters associated with the same God. Faith that our sins have been forgiven, faith that we will some day be allowed into heaven, faith that we will see those dear to us again, faith that tells us prayer makes a difference, and so on.

Now if some claim they have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior, then wonderful. Do not think for a second they do not have many good reasons and signs for believing that, it is anything but a blind faith.

But as for me, I am saying I know Jesus is the above. It is past just faith for me.

Yes for you, your experiences and observations are yours. There really isn't more out of that. It's why there are denominations because the experiences and observations are not constant.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I don't think spirituality is particularly an "emotional fabrication." Emotionally, religion doesn't give us anything that can't be gotten elsewhere. What religion gives us spiritually, OTOH, is a different matter, and simply can't be replicated by any other discipline.

I don't understand the difference between emotional nurturing and "spiritual" nurturing. In the end don't people just do it because it makes them feel better? I don't even believe in a spirit/soul, yet don't feel like anything's missing from my life. How do you explain that?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But as for me, I am saying I know Jesus is the above. It is past just faith for me.

It can only be past faith if you have proof. Other than that you just have a lot of faith.

 

[Ingledsva]

It occurs to me that this thread is an excellent demonstration of how utterly spoiled first world humans truly are. We're apparently completely unwilling to fathom giving up the luxuries science applications have provided for us. This scares me. We're pathologically addicted to the status quo.

And what makes you think choosing science over religions means those people are spoiled by luxuries provided by science?

I chose science over religion - and I'm a real Alaskan. I built my own house from the ground up on a beautiful Southeast Alaskan island. I chop 20 plus cords of wood every year for my woodstove, hunt for moose, elk, and deer, fish for salmon and halibut, dig clams, catch Dungeness and King crab, can strip bark and make native bark baskets, and reed baskets, can tan skins and make moccasins, and bead those moccasins, etc.

So how exactly did choosing science make me spoiled?

I think you are taking the idea here away from the gist of the original question.

"Most" of the people choosing science aren't spoiled, they just see the past, and continuing, problems with religions. Such as the abuse of gay people.

Science was actually there from the beginning, ideas brought out from magic = led to alchemy = and modern science.

*

 

[sojourner]

How is this unique to religion? This appears to be something one can find in many different places- self-reflection/introspection, art, participation in a community/group, etc.

Self-reflection and introspection, as well as art, are spiritual activities. As far as xy is concerned, group participation also has spiritual dimension.

I didn't say it wasn't salient, but asked why it should be the most salient.

Because our planet (and thus our very existence) is in serious jeopardy.

I notice you didn't respond to the substantive portion of my post, regarding the relative pro's and con's of science vs. religion, and whether the pro's of either are unique to that activity.

Everything has pros and cons. Both are beneficial. For me, the difference between the two is that science is a tool. Spirituality is part of who we are as human beings.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I get it. So long as the message is on forgiveness and happy thoughts you have no problem with Christians. But the moment we dare speak of hell and consequences for one being totally dismissive of God and being as selfish or indulgent as they please --- then we are to be mocked for our stupidity.

Sorry, but God is real and He knows far more than you or I could ever imagine --- that what is or what should be. I can accept that and what He has chosen to reveal to us. You, on the other hand, prefer to tell God (if he exists) that his message is baloney. Ok.

I don't think you do "get it." Forgiveness is primarily what Xy is all about! Reconciliation. Jesus preached, "Turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near." In other words, "God loves you -- start acting like it!"

Yes, when it comes to judgmentalism and condemnation of others, I mock those things as Christian values.

I don't think God's message is baloney. I think your interpretation of God's message is baloney.