Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

Yes, intelligent* is what I was meaning. I believe there is a God. But its all opinionated though. Having a god wouldn't be necessary, but it feels better going to sleep at night thinking that there might be a purpose to my life history. I'm a science and evolution freak, but I also don't believe you get something from nothing. Most religions over-exaggerate, and that's what scares everyone off. Either way, it takes faith to believe in anything so its not worth arguing about; NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It certainly wouldn't feel better to me to think there's a purpose assigned to my life regardless of what I want & need. It wouldn't feel better to me to believe there's an insane god responsible for this mess who will have most people suffering horribly for eternity.
Accepting the existence of gods doesn't affect whether you can get something from nothing.
It does not take faith to believe in anything. It takes faith to believe things with too little or no evidence.
I know for certain the god of the KJV does not exist because it's selfcontradictory.
I know for certain the god of the KJV is immoral & disgusting.
I have good reason to strongly suspect no other gods exist & I know for certain there's no reason for me to believe they do.
I know for certain that IF any god(s) exists, there's no reason for me to praise or worship.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still evolutionary theory cannot explain a lot of things. For example how could a mother's love for her child be explained by evolution?

Even if evolutionary theory is true and there really is no God, it's still good to believe in something especially in difficult times. Religion gives hope to people, the hope that there is an an afterlife and the hope that there is someone out there who cares for us. Religion also gives meaning to people's lives and put their fears to rest. And that's a good thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you kidding? You really don't see why a mother loving her children would be an evolutionary advantage? :bugeye:

In case you're being serious, I'll spell it out for you: mothers who love their children are more likely to have their children survive, and thus pass on their (loving) genes.

 

But why do parents really care about whether or not their children will live after they're dead? Why would anyone care about what happens after they're dead?

 

Because they're biologically programmed to care via evolution, just like they're biologically programmed to want to eat and drink and have sex. Parents who cared were more likely to have their children survive, and so were more likely to pass on their genes.

 

Excuse my interjection, but 2 key phrases result from this: r-selection & k-selection. Humans are altricial so its no surprise; duh. Ecology 101

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

invest more energy in your offspring and you increase their competitive abilities, thus increasing your fitness but you decrease your life span in the end.

 

Yes

 

Evolutionary biology cannot explain a parent's love. It's because biology deals with genes and cells, it doesn't deal with the spiritual aspects.

I believe these are the true reasons why a parent loves his child:

http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/rcgw/Rcgw-2-5.htm

 

What do you mean by "explain" the love? It can certainly explain why the love occurs; it occurs because loving your children gives your genes a selective advantage over people who don't love their children. That's an explanation, and simply repeating over and over again that evolution can't explain it doesn't invalidate the explanation.

Well, that's certainly an alternative explanation. Can you demonstrate that Adam and Eve existed? Can you demonstrate that god was happy when he created them? Can you demonstrate that we "inherit god's right of creation"?

 

Evolution cannot explain same-sex marriages.

Obviously being attracted to the same sex contradicts evolution which says we should only be attracted to the opposite sex in order to reproduce.

 

For pretty much all of human history up until 50 years ago or so, there were still very strong incentives for a person to mate and reproduce with someone of the opposite sex, even if they weren't sexually attracted to them - so it was probably never very strongly selected against.

 

Evolution also can't explain menopause or why spiders commit suicide during mating or why moths fly into candles or birds into windows.

If you don't use your brain, that is.

 

It's because biology only deals with the material aspect of reality, not with the spiritual aspects of it. Reality also has a spiritual element to it not just a material one. For example the word "pig" has both a spiritual and a material elements to it. It's called substance dualism.

Substance dualism is a type of dualism most famously defended by Descartes, which states that there are two fundamental kinds of substance: mental and material.

http://www.philosophyofmind.info/substancedualism.html

 

Do you have ANY shred of proof that "spiritual elements" actually exist? Yeah, the word "pig" has a meaning associated with it in our brains, but our brains are physical things. When hear someone say "pig" and have some sort of mental reaction to it, there is no evidence that your reaction isn't just a physical process going on in your brain, caused by the interactions of your neurons and neuro-chemicals according to the laws of physics.

 

And I repeat,

if you don't use your brain.

 

The sad part about all this is that you guys need proof inorder to determine something that could easily be a possibility. You ask for evidence at every little comment as if you do not have any common sense. You know 2+2=4, you do not have to do this 1+1+1+1-4+4=4. Instead of using your own brains you guys go find an alternative that half of it is bs. It is still a mystery to me. Actually I think all of you have nothing really better to do than try to act smart on this forum, instead of actually trying to understand what 2+2=4 really means. Science needs to break down everything into little pieces to even TRY to put the big picture together. Fails miserably everytime. It will continue to fail until the end of time. That is why you have a brain and that is why people tell you to make up your own mind. If you lead a normal life you should be able to think of all the possibilities any other normal life leading human can. People just like to make things difficult in order to prove something that they are missing from their life. (from manhood to a shirt) Yeah it is that easy.

 

You contradict yourself.
Some people go too far asking for evidence but that's much better than accepting things as facts with no evidence.
They know what 2 + 2 = 4 means. What it really means is only what it means, there's only 1 simple meaning to it.
Science sometimes fails to find the answer & scientists are flawed humans yet it's only 1% as flawed & failing as religion.
If you think science fails EVERY time, you definitely don't understand it & probably don't want to. Religion fails miserably in being positive, constructive & beneficial.
98% of religion makes things difficult. 2% of science makes things difficult.
It's accepting absurd cruel fantasies which indicates something missing from your life.

 

For the millionth time evolution & gods do not invalidate each other.
It is extremely rare that it's good for someone to believe something that's not true. It's usually harmful, often very harmful.
Religion gives false hope. The Holy Babble clearly indicates God does NOT care for us.
Absurd cruel fantasies do NOT give meaning to people's lives nor does it put fears to rest.