Discussion in 'Religion' started by KUMAR5, Dec 9, 2017.
You speak for yourself.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, doubt is now bit common.
So is logical, rational thinking.
Maybe you're hanging with the wrong crowd?
The reason some people "doubt science" is because they think of it as a product, to be delivered to them, rather than a process we all go through together.
"I know nothing about theories and experiments and critical thinking and the progress of knowledge, but they told me it's good for me and that's gospel."
"Wait, new evidence has come forth, and we are updating our theories. But the gospel is the gospel and that makes them liars. This is their fault."
Some people think science* is what other people do.
* skeptical analysis
Yes but how taking delivery of process instead of final product should not create doubts? Why taking food still under process will not cause indigestion and doubts? So this suggests doubts also exist in science and its popularity also created doubts in faiths. This way we are losing faith and its benefits on both sides. Science neither give full faith nor sustain other faiths. Hence we are losing self healing placebo reward expectation motivational effects by dopamine release in brain as well as motivation for religious healthful activities.
A better analogy would be doing your own grocery shopping instead of expecting TV commercials to tell you what to buy. Compare nutritional needs, diet, added supplements, etc. Learn about you own health so that you can make informed choices.
Then, when you have your groceries, there is no such thing as 'I distrust those commercials telling me what to eat, and I distrust the signs in the grocery store. I blame them when my diet doesn't work'. Because you are part of the process.
Science is not a service. Science is simply a bunch of people doing for a living what all us of should be doing with our lives for our own sake: thinking critically, observing, analyzing, rejecting unsubstantiated and antiquated ideas, updating our ideas with the availability of new evidence, adapting, implementing.
Here we share, get or give. The main purpose of discussion forum. Not just entertainment.
Yes, when a thing is still under process, new evidence can also lead to rejecting previous evidences. This certainly make science as doubtful or skeptical as a whole. I do not understand, how a thing should be adopted and implemented which id still under process and is doubtful. Are we just experimenting even on humans by offering partially cooked foods? About evidence just see: a drug should not be fully justified unless it is well studied on many people with and without drug for the whole lifespan of disease, people and drug. In few genetically predisposed diseases such study may also be needed on many generation. Unless all these are conducted, how can we justify a drug application with full surity? Long term side effects and damages are observed. Can we do it? No, due to ethical reasons. Then how can we claim an evidence is true evidence? Due to such odds and due to undue popularity of science, we are losing benefits from faith effect which we can now regain when science will be able to give absolute evidences because otherwise by faith we are already made much doubtful which can not be easily regained.
Judging by last response to you I'm going for this character wants everyone to believe in The One True Perfect god
Particularly when you consider the new thread started which, to me, seems to be trying to pitch religions into a comparison ???? with the intention of allowing his wacked out definitions to shine out true
Am I being wacky? paranoid?
Anyway he's going under the Iggy. To hard to read his post and feel my IQ drop below my shoe size
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then perhaps you could share with us your thoughts upon what discoveries and progress made by "science" are a problem for you.
Or do you believe that we all should go back to times when made up scripture dictated world view.
You do realise many things presented in the name of religion are demonstratively false and that those errors were made by those men who wrote that scripture and had no idea of what they were talking about but all the while presenting their musings as inspired by God thereby removing any opportunity of review by those who would come later with fact and observation proving they were absolutely wrong so we are left to force our modern world into a box that is wrong but of course it can't be wrong can it because even though written by a man it was Gods words.
Does that sound about the way it is for scripture?
Gods word so we have to somehow read the scripture with a personal edit mode switched on and say " well God did not really mean you should stone your child for laziness he really met that you should find the child a hobby.
Or how fascinating to see the mighty step around when a scripture is so wrong you can't even open that page because it is not only clearly wrong but even to you seems both wrong and stupid.
I am prepared to conceded there may be opportunity to improve scientific method although I simply can not speculate what that may be, but you recognise here at least I leave open wide the door to the opportunity that some change in the future may occur presumably to improve the current approach.
So what specific science holds a problem for you? Could it be that science forces you to realise these scriptures upon which you built this faith are wrong being both incorrect in fact and moral approach...or do you think stoning your child is a reasonable response to their laziness.
Your concern is your faith and you believe science is presenting an uncomfortable threat , well it is but the most uncomfortable notion you must face is that science is opening the door to reality, in a manner that gives process and is based upon reason so no doubt you feel embattled trying to defend the indefensible and so resort to following that old saying that says the best form of defence is attack without noting you simply only have opinions presented by ancient superstitious folk which do not have any chance of surviving the most casual request for something other than nonsense.
I confess there was I time where I believed there was a God but having grown up and gaining some ability to reason and question I changed to having faith that I was a thinking individual not perfect but certainly not a sinner and now I am well adjusted with faith in myself.
A feeling far superior to anything faith in nonsense can deliver.
Because we know very few things for certain, and most of them we never will.
But we must advance, or we'd still be throwing chicken bones and dying in our twenties.
One thing that is absolutely irrefutable: with lifespan and health as the gold standard, science is indisputably working for us. We live twice as long - and with a far better quality of life - as our ancestors. Yep. Those God-fearing ancestors of ours.
Tell you what - let's do a test:
I'll take the vaccine. I'll take the antibiotic.
We'll meet in a year and compare notes.
No. After universal true absolute religion, unless intentionally pure selfish interest based, variations in religions can have some logic, truth or rationality due to multiplicity in POVs. Just look it in light of "Mango Tree example" given be me recently in this topic. Main basis & intention of every religion should be doing good to us but variations only become illogical cause to all odds. Hence instead of undue criticizing these, first we can better understand these. Mostly, after it we may discontinue such illogical odds.
Why get undue influenced by one sidedness, advertised popularity and yet non a&f understandings? I respect all understandings and opt those according to risk benefit ratio. But risk & side effects are there in every understanding unless it is a&f...simply we need to care less or more. Probably both sides are balanced in consideration of it.
A very ... pragmatic approach to religion.
What if you concentrated on facts, rather than legends? That seems like the lowest risk-to-benefit ratio.
Health is gold standard on nature. Longevity? Because all three main rules of nature to keep nature/universe fine tunes need health i.e "Live & Let live">"Might is right">>"Survival of fittest". We can not endorse science is indisputable because it is not yet absolute. Moreover, we may need to observe outcome from it for many generation to really understand its ultimate outcome i.e for full life span of disease, medication & patients(many generations in case of inherited diseases and that too with & without medication. Can science do it? Because its non a&f ness and side effects are well anticipated.
Fact can be real fact when it is a&f. Whether so reffered fact by you is a&f? If science & faiths, both are not a&f, then how can we support one and reject other?
What is indisputable is that, due to science, our lives are much longer and much healthier.
There is no need for absolutes, and there is no need to wait. We are already living twice as long.
In the bible I seem to recall folk living upto 800 years and having children doesnt this suggest science has let us down?
Look so. But it is bit early calculation. In view of few apparent odds and non-a&f ness nature of science, we may need to wait for much time to endorse your claim with a&f.
Btw is it a&f? Look so. But it is bit early calculation. In view of few apparent odds and non-a&f ness nature of science, we may need to wait for much time to endorse your claim with a&f.
Well I am always right even if it takes the world time to catch up, so you can proceed safely relying upon my claims.
But there are many things to consider.
Have you thought of a utube video to express your ideas. The exciting thing is you get it out there and having to present it to a wide audience and when you review the final video have a look at yourself ask if you sound credible.
I believe in a&f science otherwise in logic unless I am ready to take risk. Hence I tend to make basis of logic or my inner sense alongwith science. And tend to express accordingly. Quite justified.
Separate names with a comma.