Should science replace religion?

It's not about creating a secular paradise, just rejecting ideas that have no basis in fact. Religion, far from representing the "spiritual" side of life as opposed to the material world, was happy to embrace science while they were confident it would never represent a threat to theology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a really helpful statement, because sometimes I'm confused as to if that is what some may be inferring - as you say a ''secular paradise.''

It's interesting to note though, that there are many religious types (and by that, I mean the variety who are into organized religions) who believe that science and theology can coexist in harmony. The less zealous, obviously have no problem with it. The fundies/radical types, were liked indoctrinated into believing that scientific knowledge (not necessarily science itself) is ''evil.'' In other words, only God should know such things, that mankind is learning too much. (Jan created a thread discussing this very thing, asking if there is an ''end game'' with science. As if there should be a cap on the limit of knowledge we should be permitted to acquire/discover.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. But I'd also say (along with the skeptics, I guess) that human beings, simply by their nature, are going to grasp onto ideas that aren't fully justified and perhaps can't be fully justified. (Belief in the truth of propositions that aren't fully justified is how I would define the word "faith".) And arguably the most recent of those things to be grasped onto with white knuckles is science. Science is constructed atop a whole bunch of assumptions and those assumptions aren't self-justifying.

In my last post, I portrayed modern western intellectual life ever since the end of the Middle Ages as a search for new foundations. I don't think that science has provided us with those foundations. I don't see how it can. We're still just building on sand, like we always have.

I guess that I'm inclined to locate 'spirituality' in individual psychology, and 'religion' in historical tradition.

So yes, I suspect that what we call "spirituality" will always be with us, as long as we possess the psychology, as long as we remain human beings. It's not unlike art in that respect, or ethics.

And I might be one of them. The only religious tradition that I take seriously and actually study is the Theravada Buddhism of the Pali Canon. But I've never formally "taken refuge" and don't belong to any organized Buddhist group. I guess the best way to identify myself religiously is -- Agnostic, with Buddhist tendencies.

We live in a time that places tremendous and historically unprecedented emphasis on individuality. Older group identities, from nations to religions to cultures to traditions to family to... anything... are breaking down and losing their grip. We're all becoming little social atoms bouncing around aimlessly out there, not attached to anything.

That's a recipe for anomie and that's not a good thing. It's associated with all kinds of social and psychological pathologies.

At the same time, as you say, we have the internet which gives us access to every tradition on Earth (and 16 other planets). So the form of religion/spirituality most fitted to today is going to be individual and eclectic, as people try to mine the world's religious inheritance for ideas that seem to resonate emotionally. We are only going to see more of it. Call it "woo" if you like, but it's not going away.

It's going to produce more and more people who have the psychological need, but aren't associated with any particular religious tradition.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you about that.

But don't tell it to the theoretical physicists. They have dismissed philosophy in the most scathing terms, then stepped eagerly into the metaphysicians' still warm shoes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, what female would kill all the kittens and puppies in the world?

 

Cruella DeVille.

 

They're still happy for the big televengalists to use satellite transaction services to collect big monies, and fly around in private jets and build computer-controlled dinosaurs in their theme parks --- just not the part where they're identified with the pigs in Animal Farm.

 

Science isn't "enough" to explain non-scientific questions and descriptive colors aren't enough to explain taste and sight isn't enough where music is concerned. True enough but...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only people who talk about "science" in this way are religious people. Scientists don't really talk about "science". They talk about whatever their narrow interest is. There is no discussion about why can't "science" explain love or why I like basketball better than football.

The only reason religious people even mention "science" is that they feel it "attacks" their religions. If you are the emperor you don't like the dude who keeps yelling "the emperor has no clothes".

Most religious person deal with this just by not studying certain subjects so they can claim, "I haven't been convinced by enough evidence yet". It's hard to be convinced when you don't attempt to learn a certain subject.

 

That post is filled with irony ^^

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol

Do you think you're superior to religious people? Your posts are starting to come across like that, but maybe that's your intent?

 

My intent is to point out that some ideas are better than others. It's not disrespectful to person when you are disrespectful to a bad idea. There is no reason to pretend that bad ideas are anything other than a bad idea.

If you think that Mexicans are bad people and shouldn't be allowed into this country because the are all rapists and I don't. I'm not superior as a person but your "idea" isn't a superior one and shouldn't be treated as such. The obvious should be pointed out.

 

Well, various ideas have been exchanged in this thread. But, your point above sounds like if others don't think like you do on a subject, they're wrong and thus inferior. There is definitely an ''us'' vs ''them'' mentality on here, when it comes to these kinds of topics. It doesn't have to be that way, is all I'm saying.

I don't think there's winners and losers in these types of discussions. I learn a lot here from all of you, and some things, I dismiss. It's that way with most things in life, isn't it?

 

There's some "judgment" going on in your comments, don't you think?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It "sounds" (to you) as if when someone is wrong I'm implying that they're "inferior". No, they're just wrong IMO. It's a discussion forum and a wacky one at that. This is a site to not be taken too seriously, wouldn't you agree?

Fence sitting, an interesting discussion, does not make. "The world is flat you say, others say it's round. I see value to both points of view. I value both points of view equally. Thanks for your contribution."

 

Agree.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why do you reach to the next assumption before you've swallowed the last one?
People are not always, everywhere ranked by the number of their correct and incorrect ideas.
Even if that were so, they would not be automatically inferior if they were wrong about one issue.

You really can't have a debate where everyone is arguing the same side.

It does. And you set up the Y/N question.

Who said there were?
To determine a winner, we'd need a pre-agreed set of rules and a judge.

 

Not an assumption, an observation.

True.

Unless someone's view has the potential to harm someone else ie: hate speech. Hate speech will always be inferior, because it's just ethically wrong. But, just because we believe that we're ''right'' about a topic, doesn't mean that is a superior view. I wish people would say ''In my opinion...'' as a lead in with their assertions. Then, at least it would be inferred that the person isn't stating their opinion as fact, if that makes sense.

True.

Oh, right!

That could be fun, actually.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An observation would be about what you can actually read, not what the other person was thinking, or why they're thinking it.
"But, your point above sounds like" is your opinion and "if others don't think like you do on a subject, they're wrong and thus inferior."
is an assumption regarding someone else's opinion

In your opinion.

Once more, you are the only one who uses the terms superior and inferior.
As nobody else is using them, what makes you think we're thinking them?

Why? If it were not their opinion, they wouldn't assert it. In some cases, too, the assertion is factually verifiable.

Or, you could infer less hastily.

I've seen it tried on forums. Usually have two or three posts each from the contestants and little interest from non-participants.
But you can always try it.

 

Of course people believe their view is the superior one. No one would knowingly hold an inferior point of view.

 

Their belief in science is finely tuned to just that which doesn't contradict their faith. The part that does gets a skepticism they would never apply to (almost) anything else.

 

Do you do that? "In my opinion, you are arrogant". "In my opinion you think you are superior" "In my opinion you are lecturing".

I haven't seen you do that in any of your posts where you imply those things about me.

It's just an odd approach to be so sensitive about how someone else expresses themselves and to not take your own advise.

 

It would also be pretty redundant on a discussion forum where every post is assumed to be one's opinion. Or perhaps I should say, in my opinion it would also be pretty redundant on a discussion forum where every post is assumed to be one's opinion.

 

It's not arrogant if it's true.