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

[sojourner]

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?

I have no idea what you're on about here. God is extremely merciful beyond expectations, you say, but you assert that God condemns fellow human beings for all eternity? What's so unbelievably merciful about that?

The evidence I see is that God exhibits unconditional love and radical grace.

 

[illykitty]

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.

Really? That's how you see it? I just like the fact that we got medicine and knowledge about the world we live in rather than being completely in the dark. For me, it goes hand in hand with knowing the deity and nature it created. I value knowledge.

The is some downsides though, terrible things happened and we are over-reliant on some things but I don't know, the choice is hard... Would you rather be in the dark and have religion instead?

 

[sojourner]

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?

A person blind from birth doesn't miss sight.

Soul work does make one "feel better," -- but in a way that's way more holistic than simply "being happy." Emotions are involved, yes, but so is the whole person.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

In other words, no, these activities are not unique to religion. So the benefits of religion can be had elsewhere, and religion causes serious harms to boot.

Looks like we could safely cut religion off then, according to this line of reasoning.
(which is what I was driving at anyways)

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

That doesn't answer my question. Why should our planet being in serious jeopardy, in terms of unsustainability and damage to the environment resulting from the application of science, be any more worrisome than the loss of human life and suffering caused by religious wars and persecution?

Or the fact that many religions, particularly Christianity, are life-denying and tend to destroy humanity's innate potential?

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.

Except, as above, we can see that we can get the pro's of religion from other things which don't carry the same con's, whereas we cannot get the pro's of science anywhere else.

Looks like science is indispensable but religion is entirely dispensable.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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

:no: Uh....No.
Introspection and the study of the subconcious are certainly covered by science.
Similarly, saying things like 'without spirituality, we could not have art, or peace, or love, or blah blah blah.....' .... is a vacuous straw-man.


As to your earlier post, suggesting that science lets us know that we are the sum of our parts, while religion "affirms" that we are more than the sum of our parts....:sorry1:....is wrong.
Science is always asking "are we more than the sum of our parts?", and is always looking for that thing that brings it all together. Religion doesn't "affirm" anything. It simply struts in, declares that it is right, and that everyone should stop searching, because religion already has all the answers you need.
No thank you. I will keep looking for answers.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think it would be impossible to have a world with only one... A world without spirituality - without spirits - would be a world without life... a world without life would also be a world without science, without intelligence being able to study itself and it's surroundings.

So we have to assume you are a creationist.

I on the other hand - am Spiritual - rather then a follower of religious dogma - and thus have no problem with science and evolution, etc.

I see religion as the great divider - saying -

We are "God's" people - and YOU aren't!

*

 

[thau]

I have no idea what you're on about here. God is extremely merciful beyond expectations, you say, but you assert that God condemns fellow human beings for all eternity? What's so unbelievably merciful about that?

Which fellow human beings? You have names? No, you have no idea and neither does the Catholic Church which is why they will never say any particular person is condemned. So what is your mission here? To understand all the greatest truths and mysteries before you put a toe in the water? You will grant your creator no specific reverence and gratitude and obedience before all your reservations are satisfied?

That is my biggest issue with critics and opponents. They tell us all the things God should be about and not be about, but personally do not subject themselves to the God they think they know. IOW, very little demands or sacriices needed.

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.

Tell us then: What is God's message? And what is your source for this message? And what evidence do you have it came from God?

Are there any specific rules or laws to this message? Or is it pretty much whatever one's conscience feels is the right thing to do?

And what if that message is not abided by? No real consequences after death?

Personally, I do not believe God is all that vague. Nor do I think what we do here on earth or what we do not do does not carry eternal consequences.

 

[Ingledsva]

Science does not exist without - conscience/intelligence/spirit/mind - call it what you will - but an intelligent entity who is self-aware and environment-aware - aware and able to record/understand information / surroundings.... If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If two rocks collide in space, and there is no intelligence/mind/awareness to understand or question the result, does science exist?

Again - as has been pointed out to you - You are a creationist. You think a god is required.

A god is not needed for the evolution of consciousness.

Raven are self-aware, and very intelligent, and there is no religious story of a god giving them souls.

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

A person blind from birth doesn't miss sight.

Soul work does make one "feel better," -- but in a way that's way more holistic than simply "being happy." Emotions are involved, yes, but so is the whole person.

Analogy doesn't really apply to me. I was a theist at one point and did believe in souls and spirituality; I still didn't get any extra fulfillment out of religion.

 

[sojourner]

In other words, no, these activities are not unique to religion. So the benefits of religion can be had elsewhere, and religion causes serious harms to boot.

Looks like we could safely cut religion off then, according to this line of reasoning.
(which is what I was driving at anyways)

For purposes of this thread, religion = spirituality. Those activities are inherently spiritual activities, which means, not only are they unique to religion, they are inherently religious activities. Without religion/spirituality, there would be no self-examination, because that's a spiritual process. There would be no art, because art is a spiritual expression.

That doesn't answer my question. Why should our planet being in serious jeopardy, in terms of unsustainability and damage to the environment resulting from the application of science, be any more worrisome than the loss of human life and suffering caused by religious wars and persecution?

Yes, it does. If the planet becomes unsustainable, we, as a species, are gone. I'd say that's slightly more dire than loss of some human life due to war.

Or the fact that many religions, particularly Christianity, are life-denying and tend to destroy humanity's innate potential?

Huh?!?! How is Xy "life-denying???" Its very tenets advocate for abundant life.

 

[sojourner]

Except, as above, we can see that we can get the pro's of religion from other things which don't carry the same con's, whereas we cannot get the pro's of science anywhere else.

Looks like science is indispensable but religion is entirely dispensable.

That "except" is HUGE. In order for religion/spirituality to be gone from our experience, we could no longer be human beings. We can't get the "pros of religion" anywhere but through... religion. Art is a spiritual endeavor. Without spirituality, there is no art. there's no such thing as "non-spiritual art." It's like saying "I can get beef from a source other than a cow." There's no such thing as non-cow beef.

 

[Ingledsva]

I disagree, provided your meaning of "religion" = "spirituality."

To me the two are separate.

I am Spiritual. I am not religious. I believe religious dogma is used to separate, and garner ideas of superiority, and inferiority.

If you don't follow my religion you are wrong, and going to Hell, etc.

If you don't follow my religion's ideas of morality, you are a pervert worthy of death, etc.

Spirituality without organized religious dogma would be fine.

*

 

[sojourner]

Introspection and the study of the subconcious are certainly covered by science.

We're not talking about "study of the subconscious," though. Even theology -- the study of God -- isn't particularly a spiritual activity. Spirituality and religion aren't about study. They're about being. When we engage in activities that deepen our self-awareness and self-experience, and that bring us into total intimacy with other people, it is spiritual. Introspection is a spiritual endeavor.

Similarly, saying things like 'without spirituality, we could not have art, or peace, or love, or blah blah blah.....' .... is a vacuous straw-man.

No, it isn't. Unless you have some warped definition of "spirituality." Any time -- through whatever means -- we are totally engaged in relationship as whole human beings, it's spiritual.

Science is always asking "are we more than the sum of our parts?", and is always looking for that thing that brings it all together.

Science can study that aspect of humanity. Science can define it. Science can't live the experience of it, though. When science studies the holistics of humanity, it's approaching spirituality. But it will never be spirituality until it engages us.

Religion doesn't "affirm" anything. It simply struts in, declares that it is right, and that everyone should stop searching, because religion already has all the answers you need.

You have a pretty warped and very narrow sense of what religion is and does. Religion affirms our acceptance as whole human beings. Religion declares nothing except what is true for us. It creates space for questions and the mystery of human life. Religion doesn't have all the answers -- and doesn't particularly seek answers. But it does seek to ask questions.

 

[Ingledsva]

It depends on what you consider an emotion, these are certainly feelings you get from it: A kind of altruistic satisfaction, an abnormal type of comfort by faith and faith alone, spiritual connections, etc.

Right there is where I disagree.

There is not even a need for faith in a spiritual person.

Look it up in a good dictionary.

I could be called a Spiritual Agnostic.

It does not matter to me if there is a god, or no god.

I believe in doing what is best for self, family, and friends, and with logical contemplation, that eventually leads to altruistic ideas toward humanity as a whole.

*

 

[sojourner]

Which fellow human beings?

the ones you assert are so evil and condemnable.

You have names?

Do you? That's my point. You can't say with any certainty. So why claim that God is angry with anyone?

So what is your mission here? To understand all the greatest truths and mysteries before you put a toe in the water? You will grant your creator no specific reverence and gratitude and obedience before all your reservations are satisfied?

I have no idea what you're on about here, but I've been swimming in the spiritual soup for some time now. Reservations? I've got none. Questions? Yes. Do I have to have them answered before I engage God? NO! I engage God because I have questions.

That is my biggest issue with critics and opponents. They tell us all the things God should be about and not be about, but personally do not subject themselves to the God they think they know. IOW, very little demands or sacriices needed.

You have no idea abut me. You're making an awful lot of assumptions. In other words, you've already condemned me before you know the facts -- which is what I've accused you of all along. Thanks for playing along and demonstrating my suspicions so clearly!

You have no idea what I've subjected myself to, what has been demanded of me, nor what I've sacrificed.

Tell us then: What is God's message?

Asked and answered.

And what is your source for this message?

The bible. What's your source of information?

And what evidence do you have it came from God?

The bible? None. The bible is a human document.

Are there any specific rules or laws to this message?

Again: Asked and answered.

And what if that message is not abided by? No real consequences after death?

I don't think God's really about "consequences." That's the whole idea behind grace, yes? God doesn't punish as we deserve.

Personally, I do not believe God is all that vague.

What's "vague" about "I love you. Period."?

Nor do I think what we do here on earth or what we do not do does not carry eternal consequences.

Which is why I'd rather spend my time loving and accepting others and giving them the benefit of the doubt, rather than harboring ill will and judgment.

 

[sojourner]

Analogy doesn't really apply to me. I was a theist at one point and did believe in souls and spirituality; I still didn't get any extra fulfillment out of religion.

Maybe you weren't giving enough of yourself? Or maybe your spiritual fulfillment comes from something other than theism, so those structures didn't jive with you?

 

[sojourner]

To me the two are separate.

I am Spiritual. I am not religious. I believe religious dogma is used to separate, and garner ideas of superiority, and inferiority.

I said for purposes of this thread. This thread (unless I'm completely wrong) is devoted to pitting science against spirituality -- not particularly the structures of religion/churchgoing. Are we better off with science or with spiritual awareness, in other words.

Spirituality without organized religious dogma would be fine.

And is often better for us.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm inclined to believe that science -- overall -- is more informative than the religions have been, although there are exceptions to that. Therefore, I would prefer science to religion if forced to a choice between the two.

 

[Ingledsva]

Romans 1:18-25 (below) is rather frightening. Sorry. No, we cannot understand all there is to know about God’s ways, but we surely know enough. And we surely would be fools to ignore that which has been revealed.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

We have no reason what so ever to believe this is the revealed word of God.

*

 

[sojourner]

We have no reason what so ever to believe this is the revealed word of God.

*

Good call.