Should science replace religion?

[wegs]

You don’t know me at all, Q. I don’t consider myself really anything you’re labeling me. *shrug*

 

[(Q)]

I'm not labeling you at all, Wegs. You stated you have beliefs in Jesus' teachings, which would have come from the Bible, which has some good gems in it as well as some negative stuff. I'm merely assuming you probably take the good stuff and try to live your life accordingly. Is that way off the mark?

 

[wegs]

You implied that you feel sorry for me. I think you’re condescending so perhaps you should go pick on another believer. That seems to be your sport.

 

[(Q)]

Wow, that wasn't what I implied at all.

 

[sculptor]

Faith based "science" is already here.

 

[wegs]

Faith based "science" is already here.

Faith based science. I think you’ve coined a new phrase! I kinda like it lol

 

[billvon]

It's really a shame, I feel for people like yourself who try and take the very best from those religions and dump the negative stuff, but unfortunately that negative baggage continues to stick.

The US Constitution supports slavery, and even says you have to return escaped slaves to their owners. Do you feel the same way about Americans - wanting to take the best from the Constitution, but unfortunately stuck with all that negative baggage, and destined to spend their time denying the Constitution?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The US Constitution supports slavery, and even says you have to return escaped slaves to their owners. Do you feel the same way about Americans - wanting to take the best from the Constitution, but unfortunately stuck with all that negative baggage, and destined to spend their time denying the Constitution?

You make a good point however surely even the most sacred writings deserve amendment to remove the bad bits?
Re slavery for example, what objection could there be to the proposition of removing negative references to slavery in both the bible and in the constitution.
Alex

 

[billvon]

You make a good point however surely even the most sacred writings deserve amendment to remove the bad bits?

Sure they do. But that part of the US Constitution was never erased; we just said "well, we didn't really mean it; here's what we think now in Amendment 13." But the original is right there, preserved for eternity under glass in our capitol.

(I would also note that the same thing happens in religion. Example - a recent Pope said that evolution was valid.)

 

[iceaura]

The US Constitution supports slavery, and even says you have to return escaped slaves to their owners.

The word "slavery" appears in the text of the Constitution for the first time in the amendment banning it.
The language of Article IV 2 specifically refers to "involuntary servitude" as supported by State law only, not Federal law.

But that part of the US Constitution was never erased; we just said "well, we didn't really mean it; here's what we think now in Amendment 13."

To return a slave to its owner is now, and has been for 150 years, a violation of the Constitutional rights of the enslaved.

I would also note that the same thing happens in religion.

That confusion of physical and legislated "law" has done a lot of harm over the centuries. The word in physics was a metaphor - an unfortunate and misleading one, as it has turned out. It's not the same thing.

And that bears directly on any attempts to replace religion with science or vice versa - religious law and scientific law are not interchangeable, and one cannot replace the one with the other.

Institutional inertia appears whenever and wherever institutions appear.

 

[billvon]

The word "slavery" appears in the text of the Constitution for the first time in the amendment banning it. The language of Article IV 2 specifically refers to "involuntary servitude" as supported by State law only, not Federal law.

"No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." You can still see it under glass in Washington, DC.

They used the term "held to labor" to describe slavery. Nothing to do with "involuntary servitude." Specifically, any slave "held to labor" had to be returned to their owner upon demand.

Fortunately, we do not heed that portion of the US Constitution any more. If we did, you'd have to return sex slaves to their owner upon demand.

To return a slave to its owner is now, and has been for 150 years, a violation of the Constitutional rights of the enslaved.

Exactly. Times change, and we later amend our understanding of that document based on those changes.

 

[iceaura]

They used the term "held to labor" to describe slavery.

And they did that deliberately, to avoid saddling the Federal government with "slavery".

There are many ways to hold a person to service or labor without enslaving them, without creating ownership of human beings or making capital of them.

Fortunately, we do not heed that portion of the US Constitution any more.

It would make no difference if we did. (And we do, in the case of prison labor and contracted services - such as the doctors who reneged on their agreement to deliver national service in return for government-paid medical schooling, and faced extradition.

Exactly. Times change, and we later amend our understanding of that document based on those changes.

As far as me and my ancestors, no amendment of "understanding" was necessary, and the understanding of that document has not changed in that respect.
We - in my familial case - have understood that aspect of that document pretty much as we do now from the day it was written. So did lots of other people - abolition was a powerful political force in American politics.

If we did, you'd have to return sex slaves to their owner upon demand.

Ownership is a legal matter.
There are no legal owners of sex slaves in the US. Ownership of a human being is illegal, and so there is no owner to legally return a de facto slave to.
That's one of the differences between "held for service" and "enslaved" - foreseen by the abolitionists and liberals and southern capitalists alike, in the US.

 

[billvon]

And they did that deliberately, to avoid saddling the Federal government with "slavery". There are many ways to hold a person to service or labor without enslaving them, without creating ownership of human beings or making capital of them.

Yes. However, that part of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment - because it was put in there to support slavery. Specifically, it was put in to placate the southern states that the north would not interfere with their slaves.

As far as me and my ancestors, no amendment of "understanding" was necessary, and the understanding of that document has not changed in that respect.

That's fine. However, someone reading the Constitution for the first time will not know that, and will have to note that the 13th amendment changes that part of the Constitution.

There are no legal owners of sex slaves in the US. Ownership of a human being is illegal, and so there is no owner to legally return a de facto slave to.

Exactly. And that is due to the 13th Amendment.

 

[iceaura]

Yes. However, that part of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment - because it was put in there to support slavery.

It was carefully worded to avoid committing the Federal government to support of slavery.

Exactly. And that is due to the 13th Amendment.

And so if we heeded the Article, now, we would not be bound to return sex slaves to their owners - despite the Article's continued presence in the Constitution.
This, in other words, is wrong:

Fortunately, we do not heed that portion of the US Constitution any more. If we did, you'd have to return sex slaves to their owner upon demand.

Meanwhile, we do, return those held to service or labor under the laws of a State. Not to "owners", but to the penal systems and prisons and military units and so forth that have a legal hold on their services. That is, we do heed the Article - right now.

And no change in the meaning of the carefully worded Article is necessary.

 

[davewhite04]

If suddenly, everything about the universe could be scientifically explained, would we still yearn for answers as to what it all means? Are we existential by nature? Existentialism doesn't automatically lead to questioning if there exists a higher power or not, but it often does.

Religion, for many, offers meaning to people's lives. It can contribute something essential to the human condition.

If science replaced religion, would we all somehow stop our storytelling? Would myths and legends cease to be believed, if we had all the answers to the universe, explained to us by science?

Can science replace religion?

But it will.

EDIT: No, but it will. Was what I meant to say, good post!

 

[Luchito]

In my opinion, science is limited and can't replace the amplitude of religion.

The only reason why science is gaining more adepts than ever is because it has been invaded by theories carrying fantasies by lots, and that are very attractive to the ignorant.

 

[Michael 345]

In my opinion, science is limited and can't replace the amplitude of religion.

The only reason why science is gaining more adepts than ever is because it has been invaded by theories carrying fantasies by lots, and that are very attractive to the ignorant.

I feel the Jan is strong within this one

 

[billvon]

The only reason why science is gaining more adepts than ever is because it has been invaded by theories carrying fantasies by lots, and that are very attractive to the ignorant.

Religion = superstition. Occasionally some fact creeps in by accident.
Science = facts about the natural world. Occasionally some fantasy creeps in by accident.

 

[Dicart]

Religion = superstition. Occasionally some fact creeps in by accident.
Science = facts about the natural world. Occasionally some fantasy creeps in by accident.

Superstition must be defined or your quotes could be superstition.

So you think science is about facts and this would prevent science from superstition ?
As science invent facts, nothing is certain...

In science, a fact is an interpretation of observations related to a theory.
Observation : With the hope it is not an illusion.
Interpretation : An invention of the mind, with the hope that common sens is of value.
Theory : A logical set that takes in account, or not, precedent theory.

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge.

A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.

These are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

[billvon]

Superstition must be defined or your quotes could be superstition.

Belief in the supernatural. Gods, angels, ghosts, demons, devils, curses etc.

So you think science is about facts and this would prevent science from superstition ?
As science invent facts, nothing is certain.

Then you don't understand science.

Religion asks "what do you believe?"
Science asks "what can you prove?"