Science vs Religion stream of consciousness...

Science is falsifiable - religion is not

 

Nice! However falsifiability is simply a get-out clause in case you get it wrong.

 

I'm a bit late joining in here so I'll cover a few points.

Religion is not required to teach guidelines for how to be a good person. I believe it was used for a control for the masses and still is. ALL religion is bad. Just be a good person and form your own beliefs based on experience... not fear! Buddhism is pretty cool though!

Mr.S, I completely agree, I decided when I was about 5 years old
that the reason for existence was to learn and to 'have fun'. I still hold that as my reason for existence.

I think the reason science is thought of as having domination over the natural world is because many people forget what science is - the study of the natural world and the 'space' we exist in. It is not something to believe in, it is the study of what is.

I don't think science goes against life after death. It just doesn't know. Luckily, I think I do! I have a memory of a past life. As do both of my parents. They have a few, but I only have one. There was a period when I was young that both my parents regularly meditated and I joined in. It bought back a 'past memory' of a pretty traumatic death being crushed by a car I was working under. Quite an old one with a cranking handle! My Dad has a past memory of wrestling a wild bore to prove his manhood at about 14! You can think it was a dream or made up or something but I assure you it is quite a different experiance. It is simply a memory. I also just 'feel' it is right that we live life to life, learning and experiencing.

Something that has always interested me is asking where someone says 'they' are. What part of them is 'them'. Do they point to their head? Not often! I have often wondered why I always feel 'I' am around where my chest is.

To finish I think everyone who has joined in this thread should watch the film/documentary 'What the bleep do we know!?'

They present the part about water molecules as fact but AFAIK they have not actually been replicated outside of Dr. Masaru Emato's experiments. Apart from that I think its all good stuff!

 

Oh and once we learn the lessons we are meant too, we become cats! ^_^

 

In which case I must make a mental effort not to learn my lessons, just the smell of cat food makes me gag. And they lick their own arses.

 

mans interpretation of religion has caused the crusades, 9/11, various atrocities in northern ireland. but then mans interpretaion of science has caused the atomic bomb, sarin and weaponised anthrax.

religion at least tries to lay down some social rules the fact that they were laid down several thousand years ago - or in the case of scientology as a bet means that most of them are not relevant. i'd ask is science can actually provide the same.

i'd be interested to read which bits of science actually question an afterlife. have a read of a book called permutation city for some interesting ideas about the nature of consciousness and then think about the 'infinite universe full of infinite possibilities' and connect the dots.

unfortunately some people need the idea of a bogeyman with a big stick watching them in order to keep them in line and be nice to their fellow man.

as for saying all religions are 'bad' or 'evil' is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water - a lot of them have sensible things to say and a lot of wisdom - it's just a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff (imho of course) i'm off to shave my head and play my tambourine for a bit now....

 

I can’t help but think no ones interpretation of science did those things. Our understanding of it gave us the ability, and our other beliefs made us use it in that way. The same understanding gives us many other things.

I think all religion is bad because the good parts of it don't require it to be a religion at all!

 

what i mean is that saying religion is bad is like saying 'guns are bad' either can be used or abused. the gun that kills your parents is bad but the gun that kills the guy that was going to kill them is good. it's not the gun that's good or bad it's the person holding it.
at least a religion attempts to put forward some kind of morality however like the gun it's up to the individual to interpret. i was just wondering if science could put forward a universal morality that wasn;t open to such abuse. it seems, given the absulute nature of science, like it should be able to.
for example is science able to tell us when it's acceptable to kill another human being and when it isn;t? 'never' is the knee jerk response but what if it was you or him, or if it was him or someone you loved, or you him and a complete stranger?
religion has a stab at answering these dilemmas but science (afaik) hasn;t as yet, social science being the preserve of 'girls who can;t type' as one book put it.
cheers


julian

 

No it isnt its the key part of science - also you must lose the concepts of "truth". I refer you to thomas kuhns "theory of scientific revolution".

Science can be falsified, religion cannot and that is the key difference. Thankfully.

Science can also teach us about ourselves and how to live. But in the end it leaves the choices and responsibility up to us. However it is about the physical world and not the "spiritual" world. The later is internal and science (especially evolution and game thory) teaches us it is purely relative and that we are sole masters of our destiny and to make the best of this life.

Organised religion is a purely social construct with no real spiritual purpose - its just a means of social control. Consequently it tends to be "evil" in the same way that governments and corporations. The exceptions being types of bhuddhism and shinto. Personal religion - whether in the form of spirituality or a more atheistic philosophy is another matter and is a part of our makep as human beings. It doesnt fal lner the umberella of science as its a matter of choice and belief.

 

Good post Julian.

Not true. All of the major religions offer valid spiritual paths, for example the Kabbalah (Judaism), Sufism (Islam) or Yoga (Hinduism). Most of society's members aren't interested in the spiritual journey.

Religions fulfill a number of functions:

1. Spirituality
2. They tie in to universal human myths that arise from our deepest psyches.
3. They offer a way of life and bind society through institutions like the family.
4. The law. Before the separation of states and religions, this was a major function of religions.
5. Social control - opiate of the people and all that.

I'm not an advocate for religious orthodoxy and I'm not religious myself, although I'm totally committed to allowing the freedom to choose. I do feel however that much nonsense is talked about religion in our secular and liberal society. If we look at ourselves, from our consumerism, through our attitudes to race and war, to our 'Big Brother dumbing downism', are we sure we have all the answers?

Regards
Steve

 

I dont dispute that however for each of those choices of religion the vast majority of that religions adherents do not partake - they are just part of a religious social construct which has little or no real spiritual content. This is why I drew a distinction between organised religion and spirituality. The sects you have mentiuoned fall into the latter camp.

 

Religion isn't required for any of those things. It's like the debate over morality. People of faith believe that they have the monopoly on morality when quite obviously nothing of the sort is true. This is partly what makes religion so dangerous, it's absolutism. The fundamental beliefs that there is "only one true way" and all others are either: wrong, misguided or worse evil. Compounded by the fact that these fundamental and absolutist beliefs are not disprovable because they are based purely on faith, which of course can never be argued against.

As for questioning the existance of the afterlife. Well medical science does that quite succinctly IMO. The operative word being questioning not disproving however. It is just this quesionability alone which would one supposes lead people to make the most of their current situation. Unlike those that lead life certain in the belief that they will live in a better place later. Particularly when such belief is twisted by those with extremist views. How many suicide bombers would there be in the world if they commited the acts in the certainty that death was ulitimate and that they weren't going to move on to a greater glorious existance for committing the act?


GTM

 

The same is true of course for a number of Utopian political ideologies such as Communism, Maoism or National Socialism. Looking at the number of dead over the last 100 years, one would struggle to argue that religion is more dangerous than political doctrine.

However, for me the important thing is that people should have the freedom to believe or practice whatever religion they want or not - as long as their practice doesn't impinge negatively on others. Similarly, people should be free to follow whatever political or philosophical doctrine that they choose.

People of faith don't have the monopoly on morality. Neither do people of no faith.

Regards
Steve

PS: As for the afterlife, I'll defer worrying about it until I'm dead - if it's ok with you guys.

 

One of the most decent persons I know died recently in a car crash last week. I just spoke to his father a few minutes ago and he seems to dealing with it a lot better than I expected, mainly because of his religious beliefs. He genuinely believes that my cousin has gone to a better place. I'm not that religious, but can't help thinking that if it works for him, why not?

 

Just for the record I think it is important to draw a distinction between the concept of religion as a faith versus the manifestation of religion as an organisation/church/ideology.

The way in which religion is twisted and distorted by people to wield control and organise/influence other people is a demonstration of human behaviour rather than an illustration of the evil inherent in one religion or another.

I was interested to hear that both Judaism and Christianity both went through a form of religious revolution around the 13th Century of their respective timelines. Islam is currently in the 13th century of its timeline. Curious.

 

Exactly.

 

One core problem with religion in general is the "narrow path" principle. Ie. surrounded on all sides with temptation/immorality, etc. as one tries to understand and walk the narrow path as taught in whichever handbook (Bible, Tora, Qur'An, etc.). The more fundamental the narrower the path.

On one hand this makes complete sense if one accepts whichever tenets to be adhered to. In the case of anything difficult (sport/learning, etc) it is accepted one has to forsake fun and the easy life to achieve something greater - this applies to theology too. On the other hand the narrow path can in some cases end in blowing yourself up and killing a bunch of innocent people. This doesnt make sense, but is clearly a demonstration of committment of the highest order.

 

All this kind of discussions about Religion vs Science is really pointless and boring.

It is deviant and incompetent Politicians that we have to fear.

 

...therefore I'm going to bump the thread back to the top.

 

As opposed to the other kind?