Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?JP Cusick wrote:What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".
Science without religion is lame,
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Science without religion is lame,
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #151That is all wrong on so many levels. Science is not a religion. Creationist like to make that claim for some weird reason. Perhaps in their minds it is a denigration of science, which ironically wouldn't say much for their religious beliefs. To state that you are an atheist you must lack a belief in the existence of gods. That's it. The rest of your post is just..........ramblingPurple Knight wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:12 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #149]
I should add that I think a lot of atheists are this religion already. There is no benefit to being an atheist. If anything, it is the opposite. To state that you are an atheist, you must value truth over lies. The atheists who did not value truth wouldn't say they were atheists. They went and pretended they were religious and took all the money and raped all the children of all the religious people who had blind faith in their leadership.
Now, atheism seems to be on the upswing and this might not be true for long. But with a few exceptions like cash cow YouTube channels and atheist books, you're not gaining anything by being an atheist.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1132 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #152I didn't say science was a religion. I could certainly make that case but I won't. I said science needs religious belief (or at least, moral belief) to function properly. Scientists need to have a codex of things that are immoral, like falsifying data or only seeking the desired result, and collectively decide not to do them. Without true morality behind that decision, you get a bunch of lip-service to integrity and a replicability crisis.brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:45 pmThat is all wrong on so many levels. Science is not a religion.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:12 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #149]
I should add that I think a lot of atheists are this religion already. There is no benefit to being an atheist. If anything, it is the opposite. To state that you are an atheist, you must value truth over lies. The atheists who did not value truth wouldn't say they were atheists. They went and pretended they were religious and took all the money and raped all the children of all the religious people who had blind faith in their leadership.
Now, atheism seems to be on the upswing and this might not be true for long. But with a few exceptions like cash cow YouTube channels and atheist books, you're not gaining anything by being an atheist.
No it wouldn't. I guess they're trying to say, your beliefs are no better than mine, but even that's not true. When talking about the outer world and not some inner world, the person who closes his eyes and makes statements is inferior to the one who opens his eyes and makes statements based on what he sees. Science is a way to help you observe and quantify, so yes, beliefs founded on observation and experimentation are superior.
My point is, you wouldn't state you were an atheist unless you were being honest, since there's no benefit to it. There are more benefits to saying you're religious, so the religious community absorbs more of the nakedly self-interested who don't necessarily believe anything.
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #153Yes
All of them. All religions have the same aim of pointing to God.
This is an easy question. Shall I point to what science has not answered? There is a reason that materialistic science can not provide us with real answers to questions about the nature and origin of the Universe, man, and consciousness. Religion fills in a lot of these big holes.
Materialism leaves man unsatisfied. It offers no true happiness.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #154It doesn't leave me unsatisfied. I have true happiness absent acceptance of the unsupportable claims some make about the experience of something or other.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 780 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #155No, they don't. There are religions that don't point to any god. There are religions that point to many gods. Most certainly don't point to God as defined by Christianity (or they would all be called Christianity or it's predecessor Judaism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
Religion is like ice cream. You can have one scoop in many flavors, multiple scoops in many flavors, or just have the cone.
It should also be noted that while some who practice good science also "eat ice cream", the "eating of ice cream" is not relevant and "dripping" on results is to be avoided at all costs.
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #156Read the first page of this discussion, Argument from Happiness. Then come back and explain to us what true happiness is.
I practice religion every day. I say this without having fully read any major religious Scripture.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:40 amNo, they don't. There are religions that don't point to any god. There are religions that point to many gods. Most certainly don't point to God as defined by Christianity (or they would all be called Christianity or it's predecessor Judaism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #157[Replying to Swami in post #156]
If you've never fully read any religious scripture, is the religion you practice every day your own invention, or was it developed by someone else?
Another difficulty with religion ... anyone can make up their own version and claim that it is true simply because they believe that it is. This is why science is so much better at explaining the natural world than religion ... anyone can shoot down any hypothesis with evidence against it, and this happens all the time. Once a religious dogma has been established and enough people follow it, it is nearly (or fully) impossible, by design, to challenge it or change it.I practice religion every day. I say this without having fully read any major religious Scripture.
If you've never fully read any religious scripture, is the religion you practice every day your own invention, or was it developed by someone else?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #158I stopped reading about different religions when I realized that all them come from a common origin. Think of an evolutionary tree for religion.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:51 pm [Replying to Swami in post #156]
Another difficulty with religion ... anyone can make up their own version and claim that it is true simply because they believe that it is. This is why science is so much better at explaining the natural world than religion ... anyone can shoot down any hypothesis with evidence against it, and this happens all the time. Once a religious dogma has been established and enough people follow it, it is nearly (or fully) impossible, by design, to challenge it or change it.I practice religion every day. I say this without having fully read any major religious Scripture.
If you've never fully read any religious scripture, is the religion you practice every day your own invention, or was it developed by someone else?
Benchwarmer has his religion. You have yours, and I have mine. We are all correct on some level. We are all on one branch or another.
My first response dealt with religion at the level of its origin. When you trace all religions back to their common ancestor then it becomes apparent that all are seeking to understand reality by explaining its origin and nature. God in my philosophy represents fundamental reality.
Because of my focus I have to come to the realization of my life, from its origin to the Ultimate.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #159I don't hafta read anything on that page to know happiness is a subjective term or feeling.Swami wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:38 pm Read the first page of this discussion, Argument from Happiness.
Then come back and explain to us what true happiness is.
...
And that some folks think they've got em an extra special dose of it by calling it "true" happiness.
I despise these kinds of arguments for the following reasons...
1- The ignorance involved with not recognizing a subjective term
2- The implication folks can't be "truly" happy unless they follow the preaching / teaching / practices of others.
I'm happy smoking pot, does that mean all them that don't, ain't?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #160That's a claim clearly based on inaccurate data:
Even if it were true, and it's not, that wouldn't prove materialism wrong. Some make the error of concluding that if something doesn't make one feel all peachy keen it can't be true. That's exceedingly poor logic.What do you believe?
Psychological scientists are exploring the causes and effects of atheism—and finding that believers and nonbelievers may have more in common than they realize
For the nonreligious, however, meaning may be more likely to come from within than from above. Again drawing on data from the General Social Survey, Speed and colleagues found that in the United States, atheists and the religiously unaffiliated were no more likely to believe that life is meaningless than were people who were religious or raised with a religious affiliation. However, atheists and the religiously unaffiliated were more likely to believe that meaning is self-produced (SAGE Open, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2018).
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom