Should science replace religion?

How do establish value for anything? I would say that the value of anything, life included, would be dependent on its relative usefulness to the entity in question. I can’t think of a better process to analyze the elements of usefulness in any case better than science. With sufficient information science can perspectively describe the value of anything, including instances of sentimentality.

I agree

Unfortunately the future is unknown

Except for predictions in physics

Which I would contend are not really predictions but projections of the behaviour of the physics system

Give scientists (or a group of nurses) a large bunch of newborns to rate relative usefulness how many do you think you would guess correctly at say their age of 20?

When I was showing mums, who required some tips on baby care, if the baby gave a large burp I would predict the kid would be a politician

No idea of my success rate

:)
 
How do establish value for anything? I would say that the value of anything, life included, would be dependent on its relative usefulness to the entity in question. I can’t think of a better process to analyze the elements of usefulness in any case better than science. With sufficient information science can perspectively describe the value of anything, including instances of sentimentality.
That would include love, respect, pride, etc I assume?
What value does science grant love do you think?
 
From 1 to infinity, what value would you put on your own life?
Now ask the same for what value science would put on your life...
 
Until science can provide a value for life, I don't see how it could become a religion. Objectively science is incapable of generating "sentimental" values.
I don’t know about that. I’m feeling a little sentimental over what I’ve been learning about entropy. :D (I posted a thread about it “Entropy in everyday life”)

But, yea. Science and philosophy can partner together, without the need to brand that connection as a “religion.”
Religion is sometimes viewed as a tool to control the masses, and in some ways it has done that throughout history. So, it is difficult to view the word itself without relating it to something negative.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so hard to understand that science is not an object or entity; it has no physical existence. It has no volition or personality.
It cannot decide, do or say anything. It's a process of the human mind.
Philosophy is not a thing with an independent existence and qualities; it cannot decide, do or say anything. It's a process of the human mind.
So are spirituality, imagination, crime, work, education and art processes of the human mind.
Concepts and ideas engendered in the human mind are classified by that same mind, as belonging to this or that category - like putting pots in one cupboard and plates in another. But there is no natural or absolute barrier between cupboards; no obstacle to putting a serving bowl in with the casseroles, of aluminum camping dishes in with the pots.
When creating a social organization, humans can take whatever concepts, ideas, narratives, rules and procedures they want from any category and mix them together in a single institution. The very mind that conceives this new institution can't even tell what parts come from which cupboard: a government can have aspects of various disciplines; it can employ strict mathematical accounting, mythology, social bonding rituals, methodical repression, self-sacrifice, larceny and delusion, all at the same time. So can a church, a corporation, a soccer league or a broadcast medium.
None of the categories or functions or disciplines can replace any other. No institution can replace another.
But if an institution no longer serves its intended function, or an intellectual process is no longer useful, it will fade away, like a language nobody speaks.
 
Concepts and ideas engendered in the human mind are classified by that same mind, as belonging to this or that category - like putting pots in one cupboard and plates in another. But there is no natural or absolute barrier between cupboards; no obstacle to putting a serving bowl in with the casseroles, of aluminum camping dishes in with the pots.

umm.... what ?! but you HAVE to believe in something right !
oh my poor ego it is suffering under your horrible personal beliefs now i have demanded you conform to my ego.
how big is my penis !
 
Last edited:
umm.... what ?! but you HAVE to believe in something right !

Sure, if you have to, nobody's stopping you. Unless you picked the wrong thing to believe in at the wrong time.
oh my poor ego it is suffering under your horrible personal beliefs now i have demanded you conform to my ego.
how big is my penis !
I know a rather unfortunate and quite unprintable joke about how to make it bigger... but isn't that off topic?
 
I know a rather unfortunate and quite unprintable joke about how to make it bigger... but isn't that off topic?

When creating a social organization, humans can take whatever concepts, ideas, narratives, rules and procedures they want from any category and mix them together in a single institution. The very mind that conceives this new institution can't even tell what parts come from which cupboard: a government can have aspects of various disciplines; it can employ strict mathematical accounting, mythology, social bonding rituals, methodical repression, self-sacrifice, larceny and delusion, all at the same time.


Why is it so hard to understand that science is not an object or entity; it has no physical existence. It has no volition or personality.
Sure, if you have to, nobody's stopping you. Unless you picked the wrong thing to believe in at the wrong time.

you miss my metaphour
i thought you would get it.

my reply is in the adult-child character of patriarchal religious indoctrination of the childs ego as a form of physical materialist command of reality being smashed out as the Neo-narcisst transference reality.
wound into the psycho-sexual semi misogynist patriarchal overt sexually repressed self association of self actualization as a model of gender conformity.

umm.... what ?! but you HAVE to believe in something right !
oh my poor ego it is suffering under your horrible personal beliefs now i have demanded you conform to my ego.
how big is my penis !

making a small joke and a point at the same time, while agreeing with you
 
As I mentioned a few posts up or pages back...I'm having title regret. I thought ''could'' would have been a more appropriate word than ''should,'' but now I'm not so sure. What would have been a better title? Hmm.
 
Back
Top