- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I definitely think there’s a strain of dogmatism in science. We need to be careful. Science is not the Truth, it’s a method for producing accurate predictions. We accumulate evidence until the predictions seem overwhelmingly likely, or not. At no point have we proven that things might not be completely different from what we imagine them to be, or that they won’t change. Science isn’t Truth, it’s just a method of finding the best answer up to that point.
And religion is not only a truth, it’s not a method of finding the truth either.
You’ve eloquently stated my position.
deleted by creator
I think it’s also just hardwired into us. We want a definite explanation for things. That’s a big reason why we’re where we are as a species!
deleted by creator
Careful. Science is not the Truth, it’s a method for producing accurate predictions. We accumulate evidence until the predictions seem overwhelmingly likely, or not. At no point have we proven that things might not be completely different from what we imagine them to be, or that they won’t change. Science isn’t Truth, it’s just a method of finding the best answer up to that point.
Listen to the mainstream, not the mediastreams, don’t listen to the jackasses spewing transdimensional micro-wormholes – yet. There’s mystery in science, but that’s literally how we find the next-big-thing. When there’s mystery in religion, you are supposed to ignore it.
Science and religion are two entirely separate things. Treating religion like science is bad, but treating science like religion is worse.
You cannot “believe in” science; it is not intended to tell you how to live a moral life or provide meaning to your existence, etc. If you try and make it do that, you are not being scientific, you’re being dogmatic.
These concepts aren’t related to each other, and shouldn’t be compared.
Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive. Granted there are some origin storys in religion (Eve’s sin or Noah’s rainbow) but we’ve had people dismissing their own fables back in the classical age, instead trying to hypothesize how things are really.
This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.
The religious equivalent is scriptural passages to kings ( govern wisely ) and to bonded servants, ( obey ), without any elaboration on the mechanics or consequences.
Consensus among religious scholars is that scripture (whether Christian, Muslim, Hellenic, Nubian or whatever) are just early attempts at moral philosophy distilled down to divine command theory, which is very basic deontological ethics (creed-based ethics). With centuries (and centuries) of further thought on the matter, our religious ministries have focused more on profiteering than on keeping up with the times.
Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive.
This is true, but also it’s prescriptive about different things… religion is focused on morality, which isn’t the kind of thing science is useful for; morality is a philosophical and religious thing.
This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.
Or “the lord moves in mysterious ways,” type hand waving.
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula
I wouldn’t call that science, that’s philosophy
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.
This is … a political science theory relying on haphazard historiography, maybe?
I do not know anyone claiming to have a “science of morality” that I would consider to be scientific, or moral…
Huh. You seem to be using words in ways that are not consistent with how I understand them.
I do not understand what you mean by philosophy or morality according to your responses. You might be writing in a different language than I am.
Ok… “science” is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
So it requires empirical data, a theory you can test (and disprove), attempts to disprove it, and the ability to use that theory to correctly prove future events.
Philosophy and historiography are studies; they seek to explain and understand systematically, but without predictive power or falsifiability. They aren’t sciences.
Morality is a subjective, personal and interpersonal phenomenon; it’s not something you can have a science of. You can study the way people think about morality, but there is no science of morality.
There have, however, been lots of pseudo-scientific movements and appeals to “science” by people who want to make their goals seem “scientific” and therefore non-evil and totally rational. Eugenics is a good example.
Science develops models of the mechanics of the universe. Some are very simple and fundamental (such as the law of falling bodies) and some are complex and abstract (such as the tendency of mammals, including humans to stay loyal in the prisoner’s dilemma, paradoxically when they’re better served in the immediate situation to betray). Yes, some scientists who focus on the harder, less abstract sciences may not like the more abstract ones with fewer absolutes, but they are sciences and still provide us with predictable results.
You’re right that no-one is an authority on mores, through religious ministries do try to assert that they are an authority (or are able to find scripture that attests that their opinion is right). But there is a scientific approach. Firstly, there’s the matter of what social mores have evolved (and some, such as the ethic of reciprocity, have) then (defining morality as an aspect of systems of social organization) what known human history shows about how our social systems fail, and the mores that facilitate the longevity of those systems (or quicken their dissolution). So while science can’t tell you what you want, the models we have can inform how we might get there.
Moral philosophy covers not just what should be right or wrong, but how to derive action from it and how we fail to do so. The whole Trolley Problem thought experiment, while it is an example of a paradox of deontological ethics (by taking a wrongful action you can make a situation less terrible), the variations show us our emotional assessment of the scenario strongly informs what action we see as suitable. It’s easier to pull a lever to switch the path of a trolley. It’s a lot harder to personally execute by handgun an innocent refugee to save their fellows. Hence why there’s so much controversy on Kant’s take on deontological ethics. (Kant wouldn’t lie to Nazi Jew-hunters to protect the lives of Jewish refugees, though he lived before the Holocaust, so the scenario was the Murderer at the door.)
So my take from moral philosophy is one backed by countless scientific studies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: We naked apes don’t adhere to mores but feelings anyway. For day-to-day living this serves us well, but as the fascists take over in the United States, it’s evident that has its limits, and is even putting the species at existential risk. The question is not if we can find a better morality, because we don’t care what Jesus said (or anyone else), rather if we can find psychological tricks to nudge the population towards a more ethical system of organization. And that will take more science.
So absolutely true. Until people realize this, memes like these sound stupid.
This meme is targeted at religious people who think that their belief makes things true. Pretending that religion is true is responsible for countless millions of murders.
Sure, science is amoral, but that’s got nothing to do with truth.
Sure, science is amoral, but that’s got nothing to do with truth.
I mean, it does from a moral philosophical standpoint I suppose, insofar as using science to justify your actions as moral is usually as misplaced as using religion to do so.
The issue with OP is that more or less any clever religious person is able to retain their belief that their religion is valid and instructs them to do [whatever they wanted to do anyway] while accepting the validity of science, too.
However, both are ways people seek to, understand the world around them.
I’d love to see your source for “belief” in science being worse than religion.
It’s not worse than religion, it just is religion. Treating religion like it’s science only convinces those that want to be convinced.
… But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what “science” says. Since doubt is the basis of empiricism, removing it from science destroys the utility of science… and that’s bad.
Cool, then we agree.
When I say “science” I’m broadly referring to the scientific method, which is the assumption of a deep ignorance that can only be relieved by constant measurement and testing.
Yes; it is not something you should “believe in”, which was my point. It isn’t an alternative type of faith.
But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what “science” says.
I think there’s a good argument to be made that there will inevitably be a subsection of the population that NEEDS to be told what to believe. They cannot function in a chaotic world.
And I think it’s not a small minority either.
By treating science like religion we limit the harm that these people can do. If they dogmatically follow something, let them dogmatically follow “the science”.
Unfortunately these people can’t distinguish actual science from bad science or completely made up things that claim to be based on science.
I mean, bad science is usually still better than good religion
I’m curious, who are these people that treat science as a religion? Do you have any notable examples? I keep hearing about these people, but I have never seen them myself. I can’t help but feel like this is coming from religious people who would mistakenly say say that atheists have “faith” in science the way they have faith in a god.
No, I’m an atheist… I hear what you’re saying, but this kind of person pops up all the time, some even on this thread iirc.
Think of the kind of person who, without thinking critically about it or making any attempt to understand it, blindly starts sentences with, “Science teaches us ___”. No ability to differentiate scientific theory from pseudo scientific nonsense, and glad to half-remember something they learned poorly in high school to justify “through science” whatever crappy thing they want to do.
Think if many an intel screed about “females” and “evolutionary psychology” or the pseudo scientific racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
“Yes, but that’s not actually science,” I hear you say. Yes, that’s the point; it’s jumbled up dogma in service of being a dickhead, which is what I mean by “treating science like religion.”
We shouldn’t think of science as a better replacement for religion. It’s a different thing entirely; if we start worshipping rationalism, we’ve just made ourselves the gods of a new religion.
What if I told you that many people don’t believe in any gods at all? Worship is a choice and not a necessity.
I think their point was that we inherently start worshipping ourselves once we begin to think that we are the source of empirical truth and rationality that our gods used to be.
My point is that many people reject the idea of godhood altogether, and the concept of worship is akin to voluntary slavery. Some people never had any gods at all.
Just because a group of people does something frequently, does not make it a requirement or even an expectation of the whole.
Rationalism can lead to a cult mentality. It’s happened before. Of course, you could say that this isn’t “true rationalism”, but you have to ask yourself if you’re actually practicing rational thinking or just fetishizing the trappings of rationalism. I think that this means that skepticism is just as important as rationalism.
Science is definitely a better replacement of religion. But let’s not go crazy there…or we end up with eugenics and phrenology.
Unfortunately, so many. Like vaccines.
Science itself during the dark ages.
Romans were doing very well before my buddy JC came along.
Maybe our sins should have stayed unforgiven, you know?
Just name one thing? Reason! Ha, checkmate atheists!
I mean, religion by definition is basically just guessing what’s true, or guessing that what somebody else told you is true is true. Not exactly a foolproof method.
I googled the website on one of the signs, bounced on 2 or 3 links and found this gem :
https://www.thetrumpet.com/literature/1176-does-god-exist/print
Checkmate atheists!
(/s, in case anyone needs this)
That hurt to read, I feel I’m dumber now
I questioned the existence of God! Also I questioned the opposing doctrine of evolution.
Right out the gate, there’s a false premise. Evolution is not an opposing doctrine to belief in God. In fact, some Christians believe in both God and evolution. There’s no contradiction there, as evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists.
Image Transcription:
A 4-panel Angry NPC Wojak meme. The first panel shows grey NPC wojak saying “Religion and science are both ways of finding the truth” In the second panel the white character replies “Can you name me one thing that was found by science and was later replaced by religion” The third panel is grey NPC wojak with no text, and the final panel is the titular angry NPC wojak with his brows furrowed.
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
deleted by creator
Nope. Atheism is the lack of a logical assertation.
“Can you name one thing…?” OK I’ll try.
Religion: Creation.
Science: Steady State! No initial creation!
(CMBR has entered the room)
Science: Oh shit.
Sources:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+1%3A1&version=NIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
The religious notion of creation still presumes there was a state of nothing in some alleged p before time.
The Big Bang makes for a chronological event horizon, yes, so we can only hypothesize what happened before or if there even was a before, and if there is a prime movement of the cause-effect chain.
God is not an answer. At very best, it is a label with no established properties. Especially not the first-dad properties that religions appoint God (omnescience, omnibenevolence, etc.)
(If you want to argue a simulated universe, then we can start talking about programmers.)
But where Stephen Hawking posited time only started with the Big Bang (so if there are causes, they’d have to occur on a separate, perpendicular axis of time), where Brian Greene (focusing on string theory and brane cosmology) figures ours is a single universe in a vast foam of them in a higher order manifold, and the intersection of two branes can cause a big bang event which is commonplace within this foam.
But what they figure is the universe we live in was started by natural forces, much the way our star was formed, or this earth. Those who are desperate for a creator deity to worship might try to insist They created the bulk (the foam manifold) but that positions all of life on Earth as infinitessimal and incidental. The depths of our own universe are unfathomable, let alone the countless others that exist alongside us.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Religion’s contribution was that the universe… began?
It’s stll a presumption, and if we were to take Hawking’s approach (time started with the big bang, ergo, there’s no before in which causes could occur) it still leaves no room for a creator agent. Nothing happens without time.
So how does that work? We don’t yet know. It remains a singularity in our models.
But just as science is merely a (pretty darned accurate) model of the mechanics of the world we live in, religion is a mythical narrative of that world, based on tradition, and willfully modified to adapt to political, cultural and technological developments. The real world continues on its own and doesn’t care what we think… or if we’re around to think about it.
i’m not religious, but anti-religious enlightened atheist garbage is some of the worst content out there
anti-religious enlightened atheist garbage is some of the worst content out there
Really? Pedantry is as bad as fatwas and religiously motivated killings?
How quaint.
deleted by creator
since when are religiously motivated killings “content”? same goes for fatwas. obviously i was referring to online content, specifically the trash found here and on /r/atheism
Define “trash”. I suspect your definition is equally quaint.
can you define quaint? bc it doesn’t seem like your intention lines up with its meaning
I’m being facetious. Believers like you complaining about atheists while enjoying a position of privilege are perfect targets for mockery.
The person started by saying they were not religious. Feels like you’re just looking to offend some religious people… on an atheist community. Kinda proving their point there bud.
exactly my point. the atheism subreddit used to be exactly like this too. it’s chock full of anti-religious circlejerkers that want nothing but to own believers and it’s just pure brainrot.
but that’s my problem with the current state of lemmy in general. it seems like there’s a lot of reactionary bullshit and no actual discussion. people will just assume that you believe certain things if you disagree with what they’re saying.
while you’re defining quaint, have a go at defining “content” and make sure it includes fatwas and religious killings, since you consider those to be content.
or perhaps you’re just circlejerking with the other antitheists here and it doesn’t matter as long as God bad Science good.
or perhaps you’re just circlejerking with the other antitheists here and it doesn’t matter as long as God bad Science good.
Maybe. But given that we’re not wrong, I don’t care if you’re offended.
It’s not the atheist part that sucks, just that a community for people who don’t believe in something’s (as opposed to a community for people who believe in something) lowest common denominator is basically hating something else, so you get a lot of condescending posts.
Doesn’t help that a lot of posts are also very edgy, because atheism tends to skew towards the younger generation. I cringe every time, but at least it’s not as bad as people taking the opportunity to be racist in the name of atheism.
are you sure you didn’t catch religion off someone who was contagious at the time?
I think all communities can be annoying in this exact way if they resort to virtue signaling / dunking / repeating the classic lines, as opposed to working to form new arguments.
as opposed to working to form new arguments.
Atheism is the rejection of thiest’s arguments. You’ll have to get the ball rolling over there before we can do anything.
A sense of meaning. Not replaced but science hasn’t found it yet.
Many people find meaning in understanding how the world works.
Didn’t say it was the only thing that provided meaning but you’ll find in a church depression is less prevalent likely due to the sense of meaning and purpose attendees have.
That sense of meaning is something all attendees can achieve because they are taught to. Science doesn’t teach a person how to be okay with their purpose in life, in fact some of the answers science finds may push people further from purpose.
I have found plenty of purpose in my life without religion.
But you know this is the only life you got, right? Your life is finite and coming to an end. Well, for the ones with faith, life never ends. You might have found purpose but many many others won’t be able to. Just like me, an atheist, struggling to deal with the thought of NOTHINGNESS once this is over.
What helps me is considering that I won’t be around to contemplate that nothing. Sure, I dislike that my continuity of experience will eventually end, but, in the ending, there won’t be a me to care anymore.
What helps you would make some people very depressed. It’s great that you don’t need it and can provide your own path through life and death but many others need help.
That’s not a justification for believing otherwise pernicious falsehoods. It’s only an explanation.
You’ll find very low rates of depression in amusement park jobs. Yet, they dont teach them about purpose of life there, are they?
Your logic is awful. You’re making the most ridiculous conclusions.
There’s actual scientific evidence of it helping with depression and lower rates of mental health problems. If you google it you will find not one but many dozen articles discussing links between religion and improved mental health.
Not everyone who needs can work at an amusement park but anyone can find a religion to suit them even in the US.
Nobody said it can’t help. But you’re making a bigger deal of it than it is. The effect is rather small. If you compare it to benefits from science such as having running water, heating, access to medication, etc. It’s not even on the same level.
Besides, not everyone’s mental health is helped by religion. As the studies shows, it’s only a portion of them. And a lot of people are miserable when religion is forced upon them.
Besides, weather or not religion helps with depression has absolutely nothing to do with science not being able to provide a sense of meaning. You’re simply arguing in bad faith here.
If average mental state is the measurement, then we get to include both the positive and the negative effects of religious mentality. Like Jim Jones, and the neverending stream of “posessions” that stem from complete mental conflicts and disconnections from reality – encouraging people’s mental illnesses.
Churches, hiding and covering up relgious negative experiences, cult worship as offshoots, death cults etc.
We pretend like the salem witch hunts were last eon or something, tell people “there are witches, they exist, satan compelled them to do things and they can make you do things.”
All of a sudden a whole village was being “tempted” by satan, and it was all these witches fault.
Just gotta come up with a story as to how “it’s not your fault” and people will fall over themselves to figure out how they fit in that story.
Science has and will continue to provide a lot of things that improve our lives. I only argue it has failed to deliver a sense of meaning on the scale of religion thus far.
If we believe in evolution then we must also believe that religion is an evolved advantage to our ancestors because it has formed over and over in all great civilizations past. It must have played and likely still plays some important role in the ability for humans to work together, live happily, and to be something bigger than the individual.
I don’t think forced religion is good people should have freedom of choice to include atheism. I also think it should be considered that it has had its place in history and probably still fills an important role.
The backpedaling is hard there. You were literally saying « science hasn’t found a sense of meaning » before. Now it’s « not on the scale » of religion.
People don’t need either science nor religion to find a sense of meaning. It can be through family, friends, sport, traveling, charity, etc. I’d wager religion isn’t that big as a meaning giver that you think it is globally. A big part of why it helps people mentally has likely more to do with the sense of community provided by those groups than it is with the beliefs themselves in the first place. It’s the same as being in any social club. Mental health is mainly about our human interactions, not so much about out individual beliefs and such.
Science has and will continue to provide a lot of things that improve our lives. I only argue it has failed to deliver a sense of meaning on the scale of religion thus far.
That’s like complaining that architecture hasn’t provided a solution for world hunger. That’s not its purpose.
We have lots of religions, some that we’re expected to abandon as adults, some we’re expected to carry forward as adults.
Why? Because they make things easier for you (other) people.
Santa Claus: Won’t give you presents if you don’t go to bed X-mas eve!
(Now get outa my hair kid so I can do a bunch of work to make you happy tomorrow morning.)The Easter Bunny: This bunny poops colorful, cooked, eggs all over the yard and it’s ok for you to eat them in sandwiches for the next week. Ok so he doesn’t poop them, he only hides them after you cook them. Somehow…
Everyone gets a valentine: There’s someone who loves you everywhere, and we should share our love with everyone.
Life is Fair: Things should be fair, and when you get something you should share it with your sister, or your classmates. Not enough for everyone? None for you!
Fighting is bad: Anyone who gets in a fight gets in trouble, whether you started it or not!
We tell these lies because we want to control the experience and the environment of children, we want to protect them from the lies all those things are meant to keep them from seeing.
Santa Claus Ain’t Real, you’re prolly gonna be broke in an apartment alone eating premade food on a Christmas eve one year… and that’ll be a blessing, cause you could afford something to eat.
The easter bunny was the least adult, adult’s responsibility and one year the eggs stop coming.
Everyone doesn’t get a valentine, and sometimes that kid goes home and gets beat up or hurts themselves – that’s why they’re “too weird” for anyone to be their friend.
Life isn’t fair, people don’t get the same things and some people starve.
Fighting is sometimes not bad at all, and some people make a living doing it. We just want to be able to bet on our fights and make a premium selling the broadcast rights.
As we get older, we’re only supposed to keep the more “adult” religions, like being subservient to our betters, elders, priests, lawmakers etc. They tell you to “be honest (in business.)”. “Don’t murder others (unless I tell you to)”. “Follow the laws of the place you’re in.” and “Don’t cheat on your wife (and get caught).”
We’ve got a few others in there, but those are pretty much the ones you’re “expected” to follow.
Your reward? You get to think about the ending of a fictional book you haven’t actually read a whole lot as though it were real, and you’re one of the characters. It’s amazingly pacifying if you’re trying to keep millions of people from stealing, killing each other, and sleeping around.
I won’t argue that religion hasn’t been usurped throughout history in the name of control. I can mostly only speak with any confidence on Christianity. The Bible regardless how holy and true we are told it is has no doubt been tainted by men throughout history.
There’s still plenty of good in religion despite that. And I don’t think it’s wrong to believe there’s more than what we see. What life looks like after death is a mystery. Science points to your body shuts down. Fact. But we can’t say with any certainty that’s it.
From my experience a healthy church encourages my skepticism. It’ll encourage asking tough questions. It helps me to explore what I believe. The reward when doing that exploration seems to vary from one to another. Myself I became more resilient to the day to day troubles around me that were too big. Me yelling in the void of social media doesn’t change much about issues like global warming or people in need. I can reduce my consumption I can repair instead of replace. I can volunteer my time to help kids who’s parents can’t take care of them. The universe as a whole will be a little better for it
Not all need religion, I accept that, some people have all they need to get by and will cruise from now to the grave. But to some of us it is a major force for happiness and healthiness.
There are many things that provide comfort for people. Drug/Alcohol use, literature etc. Fandoms are just… weird, and religion is the oldest and most mature category of fandoms.
The Bible “has been tainted by men” because it’s a construct and story written by men, it’s always been that.
We don’t worship George Lucas today, but maybe in a thousand years we’ll worship Geo Luca and the virgin birth of Anak SkyBoots.
If you think I’m being reductive or insulting, it’s not meant to be. I grew up taking communion, and agonizing over every masturbation. The story isn’t the problem, it’s the rules to be part of the Fandom.
depression is less prevalent likely due to the sense of meaning and purpose attendees have
You don’t care that they’re deluded?
Science doesn’t teach a person how to be okay with their purpose in life, in fact some of the answers science finds may push people further from purpose.
Reality can be hard. It doesn’t make it less real, nor the search for gods less futile.
Having a reason to live, a reason to do the right thing is a good thing. Religion done right accepts that the world is tough, they accept each other for their mistakes, teach one another how to get through life without anger and they forgive. It’s something very hard to get in day to day America. Until someone comes up with a better way to do this religion will still have a place.
But ultimately belief in a God isn’t deluded, intelligent design is still a real possibility.
Religion done right
No such thing. Any ideology based and unprovable and unverified claims is a mistake by definition.
But ultimately belief in a God isn’t deluded, intelligent design is still a real possibility.
You’re mistaken on both counts, I’m afraid. Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html and subsequent pages.
No such thing. Any ideology based and unprovable and unverified claims is a mistake by definition.
Given that religion is the root of past major civilizations which we are built on I’d say we wouldn’t have science without it. Hardly a mistake in my opinion. We might still be beating each other in the head with rocks without religion.
You’re mistaken on both counts, I’m afraid. Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html and subsequent pages.
This doesn’t disprove intelligent design. People still argue we are a simulation within science. That’s a form of intelligent design. As is sending a spacecraft that terraforms the beginning of the world and steers throughout history. There are plenty of ways in which a god could have formed us.
No such thing. Any ideology based and unprovable and unverified claims is a mistake by definition.Given that religion is the root of past major civilizations which we are built on I’d say we wouldn’t have science without it.
We wouldn’t have science without oxygen either, and that doesn’t mean that science owes its existence to oxygen. The post-hoc fallacy runs rampant in your assertion.
Hardly a mistake in my opinion.
Is religion based in unverified and unverified claims? Yes. That’s by definition a mistake. I don’t care about how useful or convenient it is or it was in the past; I only care about whether is true or not, and if we’re justified in accepting it based on that. Accepting untruths for convenience is always a mistake.
We might still be beating each other in the head with rocks without religion.
That nonsense would be hilarious if it wasn’t tragic.
Religion done right
I challenge you to find two people that agree on what that looks like
I know this is anecdotal, but for a lot of people, church actually increases depression.
I’m tempted to go and find a Unitarian or Secular church because of this. I believe singing in a choir is one of the most calming activities I’ve ever had in my life.
I go to church but don’t fully buy into church and I don’t think you have to. For instance when they talk about god, I replace with universe. science hasn’t disproven it.
Jesus. Maybe son of god or maybe just someone with really good morals and wanted us to love each other. Either way someone we should hold up and adore.
I was defined atheist at one point in my life. Now I’m somewhere in the middle. Churches and religion offers a lot of good things. Community being my favorite. Americans don’t find many reasons to get together but church is like heyo it’s potluck time every other week. Delicious food and good people.
Maybe son of god or maybe just someone with really good morals and wanted us to love each other. Either way someone we should hold up and adore.
Adoration is intrinsically disgusting.
I was defined atheist at one point in my life. Now I’m somewhere in the middle.
Nonsense. Belief in a god is a binary proposition.
Nonsense. Belief in a god is a binary proposition.
Life isn’t black and white. Neither is religion, at least not a religion I’d follow. Those who make it black and white are we have hatred and division.
Life isn’t black and white.
Nobody said anything about “life”. Nice strawman you have there.
Neither is religion, at least not a religion I’d follow.
The more important question is why any rational being would want to follow a religion, but I digress.
I’m answering specifically to this assertion you made:
I was defined atheist at one point in my life. Now I’m somewhere in the middle.
The assertion “I believe in God” is true or false. It cannot be anything else.
So, do you believe in half a god then?
Understanding how the world works doesn’t mean that there is no god.
Doesn’t mean there is one, either.
Nobody said that. All I said is that science gives a sense of meaning to many people. There’s plenty of other things that do as well. Family, art, traveling, charity, etc.
Not replaced
Exactly. Why did you post comment irrelevant to the question?
To counter the core of what I felt this comic is saying. Religion can be replaced by Science. Right now it can’t.
If you reach it in an external, supernatural being who grants it to you, maybe you’re searching in the wrong place.
I think genuinely my life would have been a lot easier with Spirituality, and the result of my life is being required to practice Mindfulness instead to manage the many many confusing thoughts.
I don’t find Atheism and Spiritualism to be, necessarily, incompatible with each other. One can believe in something beyond our material existence and also believe that there are no gods.
One can believe in something beyond our material existence
What would your foundation for it be?
Are you saying that science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence?
What?
