Should science replace religion?

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

  1. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Prior to the dawn of man I wonder how many ecosystems and species were left behind as the climate changed and other "natural disasters" occured? Can you maybe name a few per scientific study of nature and the history of this earth prior to hominids and particularly humans?

    Humans have an effect just as every other thing on earth has an effect. That's life. While religion may not have all the answers, it doesn't hurt to honor principles and values given you prescribe to one. Taoism is not a religion I'm very privy to, but I doubt that it is the only valid one who honors nature. Actually, I think I'll challenge you to back that statement up. I rarely do this. Tell me about Tao and teach me how other religions fail to honor nature.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Crap. Says who?

    No person asked to be part of the Universe

    What right / obligation are you trying to lumber onto anybody?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Think of what you are saying, wegs.
    You place your faith in a completely fractured philosophy of theism that rests on mythology, while rejecting the unified philosophy of strictly controlled and unified science that rests on proof.

    Ask yourself, do you believe in 4000 gods? If not, you are an atheist to all those religions, no?
     
  8. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    I look at my city, state, then on to other states, my country, my government, education systems, family, friends, and neighbors, both community and foreign and I think to myself (not really) "It's not my duty to concern myself with any of the above." Wait wait ... I was being backward. That's almost all I do.

    Says who eh?
    No worries. It's alright. You're you, so who am I to suggest we have obligations to the world we live in and on.
     
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Why do you believe that I'm rejecting science? Not all people who believe in God, or who follow a particular spiritual ''path,'' are resistant to science.

    I don't believe in 4000 gods, but I think you're misinterpreting what I had posted - I'm simply saying that if one's perception of religion and/or spiritual beliefs is ''bad,'' for lack of a better word, then he/she will feel the need to defend science against it. To be honest, science and faith have a lot of synergies, and they don't have to oppose one another.
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Oh you are talking massive COLLECTIVE (well mostly collective) agreed upon obligations

    Sure

    Wanting a quiet peaceful time during my existence I will mostly go along with the crowd

    Sad to say while I know I have Earth shattering words of wisdom to impart to the general crowd I am being distracted by a person trying to improve my health and those shattering words of wisdom have been lost to prosperity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    as my train of thought is being derailed

    Sorry about that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,598
    Other people place their faith in the stock market, and it makes them rich, even though it is often driven by almost entirely irrational fundamentals.
    Other people place their faith in family and friends, even though you cannot scientifically determine the value of love and community.
    Heck, some people place their faith in football, and spend much of their life oriented around that game.

    There is nothing wrong with placing your faith wherever you like, as long as you don't try to replace science with it. Heck, I bet even you believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, even though Newton was a very religious sort.

    Are you certain that every single one of those gods is false?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    You are performing a category error. I never claimed that the Universe (Nature) is a sentient creative agency. It is a creative agency, but it is not motivated but stochastic in principle.

    OTOH, man is a creative/destructive agent and therefore has the obligation to maintain it's own environment. The earth's Biosphere is a self-correcting system, honed by 3,5 billion years of natural selection of organisms that are both users and contributors to the system.
    Only man has the power to corrupt the system and cause his own extinction. (see 6th mass-extinction).

    What’s causing the sixth mass extinction?
    https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

    Biosphere
    Biosphere Reserves
    ........

    much more...... https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/biosphere
    This is where you are overlooking the difference between evolved living habits compatible with other life in the same the environment, and humans (who disobeyed the laws of Paradise according to scripture).

    Unlike our common ape ancestor and our great ape cousins, humans, through a beneficial genetic mutation that was causal to a sudden extra-ordinary brain growth, have become gods of the earth with the "ability" to purposefully create and/or destroy. Unfortunately, we act like spoiled children that are "unable" to control their "greed" (the extreme expression of "hoarding" for the lean winter months) and the greediest among us control the allocation of resources, with total disregard or ignorance of their impact on the biosphere.
    Until religion directly addresses our responsibilities toward Nature rather than to honor principles and values of some "unknowable God up there!", it has no survival value at all.

    Religion has had 3000 years to teach humans about the world they live in but instead of embracing Nature as the nurturing system it has condemned "Naturalism" without offering a viable alternative, other than prayer for divine intervention.

    Naturalism (philosophy)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2023
  13. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Did I imply anything less? Yeah, as a smoker, the distractions to improve my health seem endless, if not malicious in effort. Prosperity, health and wealth, although thoroughly desired, neither they nor earth shattering words of wisdom are my strong suit. I will say this, however, I'm not a terrible mind, even if the ghetto it goes sometimes.

    Have a nice day.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Looking back at the title of thread science would have no interest in taking over and replacing religion as religion has nothing to offer up for examination

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635

    Typically, humans display similar traits as nature in form of immunities and adaptability in self healing as well as self regulation. In any case, I agree with humanity being somewhat selfish and often unthinking in terms of causation. I will disagree with religion being on the out if your condition of it's survival isn't met. 3000 years is much longer standing than any environmentalist concern to date.

    What if the expansion of the strasophere and atmosphere is what is happening as it relates to the hole in our ozone. Room to grow and, as you suggested, she is self regulating I concern myself less on what we've done to add to pollution than what we can do to possibly improve our world. I am a environmentally minded individual, and maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but religion taught me how to have a little more than a little faith in life.

    Example: Evolution ongoing in the humanoid sphere of existence.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    I used to think that and tried to find common denominators in both disciplines. Alas ........
     
  17. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Survival of the fittest is either relevant in the human domain also or it isn't. Hoarding like squirrels and I'm sure other types seem to be a point of contention and deemed as greedy behavior. I'll suggest that greed goes far beyond simple hoarding for sake of self preservation. Also, I'm missing the link to your paradise lost statement. Coming of age seems an appropriate view and parents sending the kids out of their homes in the community to become contributing adults with families of their own. Working, the difficulty involved, the increase of pain during labor ... Warnings of the realities of life it seems. I'm sure mom or pops, one of them anyway, wasn't far from ringing the little turds neck after knocking her up.

    That's life
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    C
    Not against 3.5 billion years of stochastic evolution. There is no designer other than mathematical probabilities.
    You do know that the Ozone destruction was attributable to human use of
    https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ozone-hole-and-global-warming#
    Have we made any spiritual growth in 3000 years? I don't think so.
    Yes, but evolution is a double-edged sword. We live longer by "artificial means" such as vaccination, but at cost of increased immunity to vaccination by bacteria and viruses. And bacteria and viruses are winning the race.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    So, then you've answered the OP. You believe that science should replace religion. There are no right or wrong answers here, just an exchange of ideas. For some reason, I thought you were following Buddhism. Maybe I'm mistaking you for another member.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Not if the hoarding is limited to survive the lean winter months.
    Aside from humans , name me one species that takes more than it needs to survive.
    The Bible!
    Caused by the sudden mutation of brain growth and larger skull to accommodate the larger brain.
    Because he neglected to protect his wife from pregnancy.
    That's human life trying to avoid their responsibility to Nature and the environment.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Yes, I'm a retired atheist who dedicated his working life to community services for the poor and elderly.

    But I am happy to hear your impression of my mind-scape.
    I like the Buddhist's concept of "moderation in all things".

    'Everything In Moderation' - The True Meaning
    more .....
    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6915567
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2023
  22. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    To avoid procreation in order to help ensure the ongoing survival of a species is the transgression? Are you suggesting that animal instincts are somehow transgressions against the future and the environment?

    You lost me at "neglecting to protect his wife from pregnancy".

    It's no different than bunny rabbits having a great Easter. The difference is in how the leaving home to care for a new family is viewed? It's not a bad thing. It's actually something expected of most people in times past. To be fruitful and multiply. The choices we make as we go, how we choose to conduct our lives, and how we interact with our neighbors may be a point of contention, and rightfully so, but ... Where does the fault rest on that one? In procreation or education and being prepared enough to meet the needs of the growing human family?

    Ate you one of the types who prescribe to population control knowing that even you aren't exempt from the possibility of the dire straights? I ask this because sacrifice is what we do as humanists, scientists, physicians, teachers, nurses, clerks, line workers, janitors, lawyers, architects, astronomers, governor's, jailers, etc.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    No, because in Nature the number of individuals is regulated by nature and in a stable environment there is very little long-term growth, before it is restricted by the availability of resources.

    Few humans understand the consequences of the "exponential function" as it applies to population density.

    I recommend you watch this excellent lecture by Prof Albert Bartlett (RIP)


    For humans the act of sex is both pleasurable and healthy. The consequences of "unprotected sex" can be financially devastating and unhealthy.
    It is not the responsibility of the woman to avoid pregnancy any more than it is the responsibility of the man.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2023

Share This Page