That's a silly thing to say. Of course some do, as do some Jewish, Hindu and Islamic societies.
Yep. And millions living together in harmony does not.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Not universally.
Many societies have had no gods, in any careful use of the term. The reflexive assignment of gods (inevitably inferior to the sophisticated Abrahamic monodeity) to them is a known flaw of Western anthropology and sociology and analysis and simple bigotry, which is past due for dismissal and correction.
In theory maybe.
In practical reality, the "problem" does not appear to have been "solved" in those older societies - at least, the historical record does not present us with longlived or widely distributed examples of such solutions.
The "tolerance" of deity based religions seldom extends to women - that would be the exception.
Which millions, for how long? I'm not saying they never have; I'm looking for numerical comparisons, particularly as regards the efficacy of
"edicts like "turn the other cheek" and "treat others as you would be treated"
as practiced in Christian nations compared to the tolerance level of Hindu societies.
I will certainly admit that Islam is - at this moment in history - not the best poster child for religion as peace-making tool...
but these are all religions we're comparing - and it's the ability of all religions to make peace in large groups of which i am skeptical.
If we were to compare religious law to secular law, the numbers might be different.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
This argument is actually "people have an innate need for comfort over reality". We're all going to die but that's not comforting. It's not a reason to continue with the ignorance however.
As a child, you may have been given a comfort blanket or animal. It was taken away at a certain age as it outlives it's usefulness at a certain age. We don't argue that there is an innate need in humans for a comfort blanket.
Look at the number of people who say "I have no problem with science and religion coexisting, but I just haven't been shown that Evolution is correct". That's generally because they haven't attempted to be shown that it's incorrect. Their only exposure, seemingly, is as presented by their church.
This can generally be summed up by "I ain't no monkey". No book learning was involved.
As a child, you may have been given a comfort blanket or animal. It was taken away at a certain age as it outlives it's usefulness at a certain age. We don't argue that there is an innate need in humans for a comfort blanket.
Look at the number of people who say "I have no problem with science and religion coexisting, but I just haven't been shown that Evolution is correct". That's generally because they haven't attempted to be shown that it's incorrect. Their only exposure, seemingly, is as presented by their church.
This can generally be summed up by "I ain't no monkey". No book learning was involved.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
No, you didn't.
How can faith be valuable when those who make the claim it is valuable cannot produce a single valid example of faith being valuable? You have yet to do that also.
Yes, it's exactly what happened.
Translation: "I am capable of making extraordinary claims, but incapable of supporting them, so I'll move on with tail twixt legs."
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
They make it public such that it infiltrates many facets of society in which it eventually affects me, when it should be behind closed doors where it belongs.
I wish that were actually the case with religion as opposed to the reality of religion and how it affects our societies.
I don't view UFC fighting as being rational, but the UFC doesn't affect society such that it eventually affects me.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
If you believe life.
I don't know about that. It's possible the first glimpses of religion appeared a very long time ago. Of course, it's hard to really substantiate these findings as irrefutable, but it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion
It seems that many atheists focus on Christianity as if there are no other religions. Maybe because it's been the dominant force in the west, but it's only been around for 2000 + years. Before Christianity, there were quite a few monotheist pagan cult-like religions. If anything, I'd say ancient pagan rituals inspired communities of that time, to band together, and celebrate their newfound spiritual beliefs. That bonding experience can be seen today in mosques, churches, temples and retreats. Different beliefs, similar rituals.
But, would early mystics and shamans have been drawn to their religious ideas, if they had access to science, as we do? Did they look to religion for knowledge of the universe around them? They didn't have the theories that we do today, so they invented their own.
It is, and it doesn't compete (for me) with religion. I just believe that the two can coexist. Harmoniously, I dare say?
True. So, do you think that the world would be better off if religion didn't exist?
Last edited:
You answered your own question. Christianity is the blight I have to deal with most often.
That tells me not that religion is good, but that having community is good.
What do you do when they are in conflict? Do you apply scientific rigor to religious assertions?
In the end, yes. That being said, it's possible for those institutions to do good, because many of the people that make them up are good. But I would take hard and difficult facts over comforting lies. Perhaps a dying child would not.
If I had a sick child, I would take it to doctor, not a priest.
In a larger view, we might consider those institutions that do so much good in the world - the schools, orphanages, hospices, homes for unwed mothers. It might be worth comparing the conditions and results of their work with the conditions and results of similar institutions operated on scientific principles.
But I would also tell it comforting lies, out of compassion, if there was nothing else I could do.
Can you not do that without instruction from a cleric or rules in a holy book?
I'm just saying, there can be compassionate exceptions to my desire to be as true to reality as possible. It's not for everyone. Fantasy has it's appeal.
Aren't you the one who asked whether the one should replace the other, and me the one who said they are both always present?
This wasn't about which people are normal or good or whether the religious have any redeeming qualities - it wasn't about the people at all; it was about the institutions.
I maintain that the functions that religion serves can't be taken over by science, but can be carried on without organized religion.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The topic wasn't "does religion affect you".
Most people, for as long as they live.
Yep. And if that doctor said "there is nothing to be done; he will die in a few days" then a priest might provide some comfort to the child (and their family.)
Sure. And as long as they are similar, then great - I am glad we have both. Personally I contribute to both MSF (Doctors without Borders) and Catholic Charities every year - they both do very good work.
Nowadays governments generally do a (slightly) better job at that. But we were talking about the role religion _used_ to play in a society. And back then, telling people "don't kill strangers" and "be really careful butchering your meat" and "don't have sex with sheep" had some pretty strong benefits to the society that enacted such religious rules.
Why did you say above ''if I had a sick child, I would take it to the doctor, not a priest.'' That seems to imply that you assume religious people would do the opposite. Thus, my reply to you.
I dont know if thers a God or not an i dont have a yearnin to concern myself about stuff imposible to figer out.!!!
If we was able to understand the universe thru science ther woudnt be any superstition.!!!