Should science replace religion?

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

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    I wouldn’t consider people’s spiritual beliefs to be based on “superstition.” Possibly for some, that may be true. But faith for many, doesn’t stem from fear of something bad happening while superstition generally does. Faith often requires you to give up control (let go, let God type of ideology) while superstition tries to keep you in control.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    I agree. But that's the difference between spiritual beliefs and most religions. Most religions (with a few exceptions) have a deity that's supernatural, and generally require you to believe in the supernatural powers of that deity. That carries over into their beliefs. Many people, for example, hold the superstitious belief that if you pray for something you are more likely to get it due to divine intervention.

    That's different from someone's spiritual outlook on life; you can have one and not the other.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    I think that's a common fallacy about prayer life. Sure, for many, prayers are little more than a wish list, and the idea that if you wish long enough, God will grant you the wish. But, I've come to see prayer as a way to meditate on my beliefs, and to ask God for strength, etc. Not necessarily asking him for ''things,'' and wish granting.

    I think it's impolite for lack of a better word, to assume that one knows why people believe what they believe, simply because one doesn't share those beliefs. It's just as impolite for a believer to force their own beliefs onto others.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    Ok, so why do you exclude "facts" from the "etc." ?
    Do you have any rational reason for that ?
    Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye ?

    I understand science very clearly.

    Religion dont asks, it makes affirmations without the need of presenting any "scientific proof".
    Or you would name religion "science".

    Science on the other hand dont need any proof too.
    How could anyone proove something ???? This is nonsens.
    For doing this you would need supernatural abilities... ability that you could suppose God have.
    This is some basic philosophical interrogation : You can not proof something using nothing, so you need to refer to something else... and proof the "something else" and so on...
    A possibility to not have something not prooved in you rational chain is to do "a circle", so to use finaly the thing you wanted to proove first.
    This is a circular thinking and this is how science work.

    But by chance you dont need to know all that to pratice science.
    The only thing we asks science is to be able to predict correctly.
    The science duty is not to explain or such (this is philosophical, metaphysic or religion) but it is a usefull technik with a "scientific method".
    All sciences objets that "exists" doesent realy exists, they are usefull objects invented for the purpose of usefull predictions.
    The real existence is related to the "being" a philosophical, metaphysical or religious concept (to be or not to be) but science dont care about this sort of objects (conceptual facts), it cares about scientific facts (invented facts).

    If you think scientific facts are real, so you are super stitious, you go too far above the object you are dealing with.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    Because they are the opposite of superstition.
    See above.
    Your words - "science invent facts." From those three words, it is clear you do not understand science.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    Agreed. That is superstition expressed in prayer.
    Also agreed. That's meditation through prayer.

    Right. I don't assume that. Some people believe in the superstitions inherent in most religions; some do not. Up to them.
     
    wegs likes this.
  10. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    I agree.
    You dont even need the use of any cult.
    The use of the cult is to remember, today we have books.
    If you go further, using cultist objects, places like churches, statues, etc, you have a superstitious behaviour.
    Same with praying, there is no "technik", everybody can do as he like (myself i am almost permanently "connected" to my Creator).
     
  11. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Just to be clear, I didn't mean to infer that you're being impolite. It was a general statement.

    Upon abandoning Catholicism, there are a lot of traditions and rituals in that religion that border superstition, imo. In my experience, it seemed like the emphasis was on the RCC itself, and not on God. God was this faraway judgey entity that one could only ''access'' through the RCC. I don't really ''belong'' to any particular denomination or church now, and just follow Jesus' teachings.
     
  12. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    You dont really try to understand what i write, do you ?
    Did you at least read the wikipedia facts about facts ? (no joking)
     
  13. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Interesting. Did you ever follow an ''organized'' religion prior to coming to this position?
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    Yes, I did - and they reinforce what I said. For example, you claim that "How could anyone proove something ???? This is nonsens." So you don't even understand the concept of a proof.
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,985
    "Imply" not "infer"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm just being difficult...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Idk why I always confuse those two. What would we do without you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    It happened that i was there, but only as an observer or to debate about religion.
    Because of my need of independance, i dont want anybody to tell me how i should deal with my Creator.
    And i dont want to lie, so i can not do as if i would agree what the priests (or church) attend from me and be part of the group (thats what "the cult" is sometime used for too, to be part of a group, but this is not the primary purpose of the cult) .
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,985
    Infer is what you do internally, imply is verbal. I think some would do quite well without me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  19. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    Ok then, it looks like you try to understand.
    I dont joke, the concept of proof in science is really a circular concept, but it is not a problem, it has the advantage to deal exactly with the objects we want to use (because it is simple to deal with etc).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
     
  20. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    250
    Some other lecture about proof in science :
    https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570
     
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Someone should start a new thread:

    “How does evidence and proof differ?”
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,997
    Evidence is open to interpretation; proof is not.
    Well, that was a quick thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Lol

    Can evidence ever be considered proof or does it merely lead to proof?
     

Share This Page