Should science replace religion?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 7, 2019.

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Do you have any spiritual beliefs, river?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Thinking about it .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Of course
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Ah, I know. Is it possible for religion to be replaced by science?

    Yep, that would have been better. Oh well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Why ?

    I understand the Universe , not as any science or religion .

    But as it is .
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Refer to the image of the Auditors, above, analyzing the elements of an oil painting.
    The "sufficient information" required by a scientific investigation of the value - to a human, presumably - of something like sentiment, would include an overarching and governing "whole picture" aesthetic/ spiritual etc framework of the role of sentiment in human life. This would have to be supplied from outside the frame in which the scientific - aka rational - analysis takes place. The rational analysis cannot frame itself.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Agreed

    Rational , reason or reasoning , is based on knowledge known .
     
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I think my struggle is with the word ''should.'' Should seems obligatory, like we are obligated to change from one thing to the other. Nah, that wasn't my intent. I'm unsure now as to what my intent was with starting this thread. Hmm.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To your point, imo - I think it's safe to say we attempt to make sense of the physical aspects of the universe through science, but there is also that metaphysical component to it. Or is there? That's where our subjective opinions and experiences come into play, I guess.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Where were you 28 pages ago, when we so desperately needed it explained?
    Too late now.
     
  13. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    The psychological expressions you note can all be related to the neurology and existential conditions that produced them, scientific investigation of those and any other aspect of reality is the only useful way to ultimately understand them.
    I don’t doubt that scientists will at some point be able to associate detailed neural states with their associated psychological expressions. We make detailed descriptions of the function and behavior in other forms of machinery, it’s only a matter of time until we can do it more effectively with the human variety.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Sure, but how does that relate to value?

    Are you familiar with the ethical dilemma posed by the field of Eugenics?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    That first word underlies the problem with your conclusion.

    The moment you start using science to explain EVERYTHING is the moment you introduce a watered down, practically useless version of science.
     
  16. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Value is a condition of usefulness, so the more that is known about a subject, the better the assignment of usefulness can be determined, and correspondingly its value.
    Sure, we practice it on livestock all the time. To some degree we are inherently and conditionally predisposed to practice eugenics on a personal level. Selecting reproductive partners based on their physical appearance, intelligence and state of health could be considered such a personal form of eugenics. Should we discourage such practices?
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    By who's criteria do you determine usefullness?
     
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    We don't need religion.
     
  19. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    • Please quote people accurately. Do not edit words to suit yourself.
    Fixed that for you.
     
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    You want religion. If you were rational you wouldn't need religion.
     
  21. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    You are still merely talking about your values as if they encompass something broader than your self.
     
  22. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Reported.
     
  23. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    LOL, this from a god man.
     

Share This Page