Should science replace religion?

Do you have any spiritual beliefs, river?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thinking about it .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, I know. Is it possible for religion to be replaced by science?

Yep, that would have been better. Oh well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why ?

I understand the Universe , not as any science or religion .

But as it is .

 

Refer to the image of the Auditors, above, analyzing the elements of an oil painting.
The "sufficient information" required by a scientific investigation of the value - to a human, presumably - of something like sentiment, would include an overarching and governing "whole picture" aesthetic/ spiritual etc framework of the role of sentiment in human life. This would have to be supplied from outside the frame in which the scientific - aka rational - analysis takes place. The rational analysis cannot frame itself.

 

Agreed

Rational , reason or reasoning , is based on knowledge known .

 

I think my struggle is with the word ''should.'' Should seems obligatory, like we are obligated to change from one thing to the other. Nah, that wasn't my intent. I'm unsure now as to what my intent was with starting this thread. Hmm.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To your point, imo - I think it's safe to say we attempt to make sense of the physical aspects of the universe through science, but there is also that metaphysical component to it. Or is there? That's where our subjective opinions and experiences come into play, I guess.

 

Where were you 28 pages ago, when we so desperately needed it explained?
Too late now.

 

The psychological expressions you note can all be related to the neurology and existential conditions that produced them, scientific investigation of those and any other aspect of reality is the only useful way to ultimately understand them.

I don’t doubt that scientists will at some point be able to associate detailed neural states with their associated psychological expressions. We make detailed descriptions of the function and behavior in other forms of machinery, it’s only a matter of time until we can do it more effectively with the human variety.

 

Sure, but how does that relate to value?

Are you familiar with the ethical dilemma posed by the field of Eugenics?

 

That first word underlies the problem with your conclusion.

The moment you start using science to explain EVERYTHING is the moment you introduce a watered down, practically useless version of science.

 

Value is a condition of usefulness, so the more that is known about a subject, the better the assignment of usefulness can be determined, and correspondingly its value.

Sure, we practice it on livestock all the time. To some degree we are inherently and conditionally predisposed to practice eugenics on a personal level. Selecting reproductive partners based on their physical appearance, intelligence and state of health could be considered such a personal form of eugenics. Should we discourage such practices?

 

By who's criteria do you determine usefullness?

 

We don't need religion.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

You want religion. If you were rational you wouldn't need religion.

 

You are still merely talking about your values as if they encompass something broader than your self.

 

Reported.

 

LOL, this from a god man.