Is Science the new relgion?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do people put too much faith in science? Dont we in the west consider most if not all other "sciences" heresy? The same for scientists whos findings dont agree with mainstream thought(dogma) Heres a few articles delving into the topic.


Modern Man's Religion
Science is the modern man's religion, without a god, or morality, but it has all the qualities of an oppressive religion. It can pursue the goal to advance science, that is the institution, rather than the search for knowledge. The following examples illustrate how a theoretical dogma is held in the face of clear counter evidence, the characteristic of religious fanaticism in science. The main point is that the human tendency to persist in holding false beliefs even when the consequences are harmful to themselves and others is found even in science, where its essence is to acquire knowledge through experiment!

Ex-communication


Boris Pavlovitch Belousov performed the key work on this chemical reaction while head of the laboratory of biophysics attached to the Soviet Ministry of Health in the early 1950s. During his research he concocted a mixture of chemicals meant to resemble and so throw further light on aspects of the Kreebs cycle, a metabolic pathway by which living cells break down foodstuffs into energy. Belousov's experiment contained a mixture of chemicals to mimic the reaction. To his amazement, the solution started to oscillate between being colourless and of a yellow hue. This might not sound earth shattering, but it was totally against all theoretical expectations. However, 'its antics turn out to resemble nothing foreseen in the thirty years devoted to the subject by theoretical chemists and biologists'. Unfortunately for Belousov, the reaction was so peculiar that he had great trouble in convincing the scientific establishment. In 1951 a manuscript of his work was rejected. The editor told him that his 'supposedly discovered discovery was quite impossible. Belousov submitted other reports, only to have them published in obscure publications, often in drastically abbreviated forms. The scientific establishment was so besotted with the simplistic interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - order decaying uniformly to disorder - that no one was prepared to accept Belousov's reports. People thought the second law said that a chemical reaction always heads for degenerate equilibrium. A chemical clock which switches between two colours implies that the reaction is somehow turning back on itself, a travesty of the Second Law. (In fact, Belousov was not the first to suffer from this misinterpretation. The discovery of an oscillating chemical reaction in the conversion of hydrogen peroxide to water by William Bray of the University of California at Berkeley in 1921 was dismissed as an artefact caused by poor experimental procedure.) In the ensuing years, the scientific community began to discover just how important Belousov's work was. Unfortunately, Belousov died in 1970, before receiving his deserved international recognition for his work. The discovery of Belousov and the many variants subsequently developed have together come to be known as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction.

Science is about experiment, but only as long as the experiments support the current theories! If the current dogma is threatened, then all the powers of religion are used to stop the heresy.

Science vs. Religion (http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Theory/ScienceAndReligion.htm)

A view from Islam


The Real Meaning of Science

To see the reasons why accepting science as the only guide is wrong, first it should be grasped what science is and what science is not.

For the ones who support the idea that science is the guide, science is absolute, and independent from all the cultures, all ideologies and beliefs. According to this, science is the universal criteria different than all other sources of knowledge. It is the centre of everything, and everything should be regulated accordingly.

The deception is at this point. Contrary to the propagation, there is no such constant and 'universal' science above religion, cultures and ideologies. Science is not a universal guide, contrarily, science is guided.

The "paradigm" concept of American science philosopher Thomas Kuhn explains it clearly. According to Kuhn, who is not semi-positivist like Popper, all kind of science are built on a series of some presumptions. The general theoretical conjectures, rules and technics that are made up by the people in science and their applications constitute "paradigm". Until a new scientific fact comes up, this paradigm will be valid, but later it will definitely collapse. For example Newton's scientific hypothesis is a scientific paradigm. With the rise of Einstein's paradigm that is valid today, Newton's paradigm lost its validity. This means: when a new scientific crisis appears, this paradigm will lose its validity too. The important point is that paradigms cannot be stated as a general law. Paradigm is nothing but conjecture that is accepted to be true for a temporary period of time.The scientists who take science as their guide and their followers accept a certain paradigm as being the absolute truth, hence in fact they take a conjecture as their guide. The Qur'an points out that the unbelievers:

"....follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!"

(Quran, 53:23)


The Religion of Modern Science (http://www.ifew.com/insight/14038rch/haruny.htm)

[Zaknafien]

I would say most people are coming around to the uselessness of religion and fairy tales as we more and more understand the universe we live in today with science and fact. We no longer need obscure mythical explanations for things, because the universe and science in themselves are far wondrous enough to keep us occupied with our imaginations. its an evolution of mankind.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its obvious you did not read the article and are one of the faithful.

[Zaknafien]

I did read the article but dont find it disturbing. people are stubbon, its human nature. Its like the long war between those who believed there were 8 dimensions and those who believed there were 9. Now we know there are 9 in fact, the other side was wrong. big deal. as long as we learn, we're progressing.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well it seems the young generations seem to care less. but..
from St. Augustines philosohphies, "For, with the exception of a few in whom nature is excessivley depraved, the whole human race confesses God to be the author of the world." things are still not explained by science. such as this, "what created the world?" "the big bang." "what started the big bang?" for example. (i only believe in Adam and Eve creation but this is something science cannot explain) and the stigmata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata). of course many are proven self-inflicted and others well...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I did read the article but dont find it disturbing

Then may I suggest you the worlds fastest reader? And did you read them both? Just because you discover how something works doesnt mean someone else didnt invent it. We even call the science of other cultures junk.

[Lemur]

Science lacks some of the key characteristics of a religion. There is no leap of faith; there are no unseen spirits, saints or supernatural creatures; God is neither proved nor disproved; and every belief is open to disputation. There is a conspicuous lack of holy texts, and those ideas that are widely accepted draw the most regular challenges.

Doesn't really sound at all like a religion to me.

Scientists are people, however, and they're just as susceptible to group-think as anybody else. Belousov's problems sound like a classic example of a guy challenging the orthodoxy and getting smacked up for it. This can happen in any field, religious or otherwise. An economist with a radical idea would face the same problem -- does that make economics a religion? A taxidermist with a radical new method for stuffing and mounting birds would face a backlash -- does that make taxidermy a religion?

The articles are well-written, but they are aiming for a false-equivalence fallacy. (Everybody has ideas. All ideas are just ideas, and nobody can declare which one is better. Therefore my idea that Gawain is a flock-intelligence of sapient Roombas (http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=122) is as good an idea as any other.)

-edit-


With the rise of Einstein's paradigm that is valid today, Newton's paradigm lost its validity.
Wrong. Newtonian physics are just fine, thank you very much, and we all appreciate having them. They only go out the window in certain macro- and micro-environments.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Science lacks some of the key characteristics of a religion

So We lack many of the characteristics of monkeys but were still mammals. All those things you mentioned were mentioned in the article.

The point is we believe western science to the exclusion of all else. On top of that we set the rules as to what constitutes science. Anything that does not go with our consensus is heresy until proven wrong. And as has been demonstrated it sometimes takes a while for that to happen. Dont get me wrong Im a firm believer in the scientific principle. All science is , is our best guess at the time. To take it as anything more is a leap of faith and hence like a religion.

[Zaknafien]

science is all about enabling people. religion is only about restricting people. they are diametrically opposed. religion is the realm of the ignorant and frightened, while science is the realm of those who want to know just to know.

[Lemur]

So We lack many of the characteristics of monkeys but were still mammals. All those things you mentioned were mentioned in the article.
The differentiation between groupthink and religion is addressed by neither article. In fact, the first one draw a false equivalence between them.

The point is we believe western science to the exclusion of all else.
Please cite examples of other sciences that are treated unfairly. Last I checked, there's serious research going into proving/disproving things as diverse as ki, Chinese herbalism, etc.

All science is , is our best guess at the time. To take it as anything more is a leap of faith and hence like a religion.
"Best guess" is the misleading part of that statement. You start by guessing, you progress by testing, you finish by having other people reproduce your work so's they know you're not on crack.

I'm not aware of any religion that allows all of its tenets to be challenged. Even Buddhism has some holy cows. The "science is religion" meme is as false now as it was in Darwin's day. (Which is not to say that there aren't some misguided souls for whom science is religion, but I don't think they count any more than the people for whom chocolate is religion.)

[Zaknafien]

right. Also, science tells you it is only a "theory" until it is proven. Religion claims to be fact when in reality its just an imaginative fairy tale.

[discovery1]

I haven't read the article, but that's probably unimportant.

Lemur is dead on about what science is(guess, check the guess, other people check so that you are a quack), but how many people actually do the testing for themselves, rather then just take what 'the scientist' tells them as a matter of faith?

[Navaros]

Science is indeed the new religion.

Science absolutely does require constant leaps of faith, despite the fact that people have generally been desensitized to those leaps of faith and do not recognize them due to how "scientists" casually yet relentlessly promote their propaganda constantly into all aspects of the average joe's life, from a very young age.

Ie: Any any "science" television show will say things like "150 million years ago, thus and so happened". As if they know that as a fact. When really they have no proof whatsoever that the Earth was around that long ago but rather they only have their faith that it was based on what other men have told them.

Science is merely the "hip" religion of the modern age since it is the only religion that supports secular humanism and evil ways of life which due to man's sin nature, is what man "wants" despite it not being good.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Science is all about enabling people. religion is only about restricting people. they are diametrically opposed.

Doesnt every religion claim to enable people? How did the christians who led the civil rights movement restrict people? The US is founded on christian principles(this will draw fire :laugh4: ) You confuse organized churches with the religions they claim to represent.


religion is the realm of the ignorant and frightened, while science is the realm of those who want to know just to know.

There you. Anyone who doesnt believe as you is either a fool or a heretic. Scientist KNOW very little. Especially when you consider how much there is they dont know. Yet you are willing to follow them as if there word were gods.


Please cite examples of other sciences that are treated unfairly. Last I checked, there's serious research going into proving/disproving things as diverse as ki, Chinese herbalism, etc.

That indeed is a recent development. Still until they are proven to our liking their junk-heresy.


'm not aware of any religion that allows all of its tenets to be challenged. Even Buddhism has some holy cows.

Sounds like the Global warming cult :thumbsdown:


"Best guess" is the misleading part of that statement. You start by guessing, you progress by testing, you finish by having other people reproduce your work so's they know you're not on crack.

Religion has developed over similar lines or do you think the bible is an original document containing only old jewish tales? I want to see you reproduce global warming other than on some computer program designed by who? Scientists?

[Zaknafien]

Humanism is far superior to any religion that's ever graced this earth. Religion ruins everything and has caused more suffering in human history than any political extremism. Religion only restricts people --dont do this, dont do that, "God" said so. Its ridiculous. Science enables people by helping them live longer, fuller lives, and expands our understanding of the universe in which we live.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Religion without political power behind it is pretty much helpless. Look at christianity before Rome took up the cross.

[Navaros]

Also, science tells you it is only a "theory" until it is proven. Religion claims to be fact when in reality its just an imaginative fairy tale.

Yet trying saying to most "scientists" that evolution is not a fact and they will be up in arms in a religious fervor instantly. And definitely won't agree that evolution is a theory, as the possibility of evolution not being a fact deeply insults their religious beliefs.

Science is in a large part based on fairy tales made up based on arrogant mens' best guesses & wild speculations about what they think is reality. Often for things that are way beyond their realm of comprehension yet they must "come up with an answer" for the sake of having an answer. When no provable answer exists, they simply fabricate a scientific fairy tale to provide it.

[Zaknafien]

um, evolution is a fact. sorry if you don't like that.. lol

[Navaros]

um, evolution is a fact. sorry if you don't like that.. lol

I like the quoted post here, because it proves my point. :yes:


Humanism is far superior to any religion that's ever graced this earth. Religion ruins everything and has caused more suffering in human history than any political extremism. Religion only restricts people --dont do this, dont do that, "God" said so. Its ridiculous. Science enables people by helping them live longer, fuller lives, and expands our understanding of the universe in which we live.

Must strongly disagree here too. Science has no regard for human life whatsoever. Science says: "We have the science to murder babies via abortion, so let's go ahead and do it since that is fine and dandy". Likewise for with "stem-cell research". The mass murders legally conducted all over the world via these two things vis a vis "science" is by far the worst atrocity ever committed in human history, and there is no end to it in sight.

Additionally, how many millions have and will make Darwin their god and thereby abandon the real God for Darwin's sake? With Darwin as their god and no real God in their minds, nothing about being a moral person matters. Thus giving themselves over to the natural evils of their own hearts, thereby causing destruction in their own lives here on Earth and beyond.

[Zaknafien]

well first of all, "God", "Zeus", "Yaweh", "Allah", "Krishna", "Jupiter" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist.

Secondly, how can you possibly be opposed to stem-cell research? You can oppose abortion on moral grounds without being religious about it, but stem-cell research uses dead tissue in research that will lead to miraculous health beneifts in the next decade.

Thirdly, simply because you agree to be rational and believe in facts does not mean you "worship" Darwin, for instance.

Morality is not dependent on false religions. Like I said, Humanism is far more "moral" anyway, because it doesnt lead to witchhunts, burnings, beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, beatings, mutilations, and insane sexual rights that molest children.

[Navaros]

Darwin's books and messages are worshipped by scientists and by many led astray by them, as if they are holy books, that is what I mean when I say Darwin is their god.

There is just as long and just as bad of a list of things that humanism promotes, most heinous of all the two listed in my previous post.

[KukriKhan]

So, my take-away from this discussion, is not the rightness or wrongness of established religions or science. Rather, posters seem agreed that the follow-on actions of laymen (non-scientists, and non-priests), those millions of people who subscribe to beliefs without fully understanding them and their details,

and their (laymen) penchant for the violent defense of those beliefs...

is deplorable.

With that, I must agree.

And wonder what is it in our human makeup that leads us to ponder the seemingly imponderable, and to be moved to emotion-laden words, and violent action in defense of matters of which we know so little?

Seems to me, the guy who figures that out will likely be designated the next savior.

[Yun Dog]

If this is another debunking science thread then yadda yadda..

However I think there could be some value in discussing the cultural phenomena of science being treated as a religion. To explain further - Im talking about peoples acceptance of scientific theories and laws they themselves have no or little understanding of. They turn the switch and light comes on, water comes out of the tap (hot if its the red one), peoples voices can travel through the air and magically find your mobile and cause it to ring. Many people have little understanding of the fundamental building blocks of science, nor do they understand the rigorous methodology of science, or how to critically appraise something as proven or false. This leads to an erroneous attitude - 'that science will provide' - many people are not concerned about global; warming or other environmental disasters because they believe that science will find a way to extend the longevity of the planet indefinitely or that we will colonise other planets through our conquoring of that little thing called relativity.

to paraphrase that bit out of Jurassic park - "I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it! "

I see the popular ignorance of science as the real problem, it has its blind faith, it has its fanatics and high priests, and its heretics.

"I had retrod the steps of knowledge along the paths of time and exchanged the discoveries of enquirers for the dreams of forgotten alchimists." Frankenstein

Edit: science is a tool for discovering HOW, it has never and should never be used to explain the WHY

[CrossLOPER]

@ question:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

[Zaknafien]

I can definately agree with that much. But one thing I think that should prove science to be far superior, is that 'men of science' if you will, are perfectly content to let people believe whatever spritual myth they want to make them feel better at night, if they think it is naive. "men of faith" on the other hand, are far too often eager to dismiss the others' claims as heresy, ignorant, and condemn them to a mythical place of punishment in the afterlife. Take evangelicals, for instance. They sincerely espouse the fact that they and only they will go to 'heaven' and that all jews, muslims, buddhistas, etc, will burn forever in a pit of fire..

come on now.

[Papewaio]

Same facts, different conclusion.

Belousov wasn't accepted by the group-think in power. Thankfully overtime his ideas were tested by others and proven to be the most accurate current model.

So to my mind that shows the power of science that it can overcome entrenched thinking and change its models to a more accurate one.

Now can the same be said for religion?

As for Newton vs Einstein, that is not an issue at all. At non-relativistic speeds Einstein's equations are virtually identical to that of Newtons. As far as gravity effecting the mythical apple in the orchard falling form a tree... well the two sets of equations will come up with identical models.

=][=


um, evolution is a fact. sorry if you don't like that.. lol

Incorrect evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory that fits certain facts and supported by other facts and theory. Gravity is a theory that fits certain facts as well. We test theories by experiments to find out if the theories will predict the facts that will come out.


Any any "science" television show will say things like "150 million years ago, thus and so happened". As if they know that as a fact. When really they have no proof whatsoever that the Earth was around that long ago but rather they only have their faith that it was based on what other men have told them.

Not difficult with a TIMS or SHRIMP to verify the age of something. Carbon dating is for the short term scale, other isotopes allow million year verification, and others allow for billion year calibration. The age is then supported from other disciplines and theories (stellar formation for instance).

[Marshal Murat]

will lead to miraculous health beneifts in the next decade.


Ah, a leap of faith.
What proves that there will be miraculous health benefits? We have scientists words and what they say are facts. If someone were to say that there was an alternative to stem-cell research, that stem-cells can't help cure cancer, that stem cells are a false hope?
They have full evidence of this, experiments that are double-blind, and that stem-cells are a bunch of confetti like Eugenics?

I think that Science and Religion are required by humans. Science is required for advancement, religion for spiritual fulfillment. Science can explain alot of things, but religion has done alot for humanity as well. Science isn't 'human'.
It is a group-think, ammoral group who decides on calculations and theories.
Religion provides the ideal concept of the human, and challenges the believer to live up to that standard.

Science has caused more deaths than religion ever has. For while man might fight for his religion, who gave him those weapons?

[Zaknafien]

Incorrect evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory that fits certain facts and supported by other facts and theory. Gravity is a theory that fits certain facts as well. We test theories by experiments to find out if the theories will predict the facts that will come out.


Quite right, what i mean to say is that we know for a fact evoultion occurs in species. There are gaps in the current understanding of evolution to be sure but to deny it exists is false.

[CrossLOPER]

I Sure Do Hope No One Saw This>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Papewaio]

I think that Science and Religion are required by humans. Science is required for advancement, religion for spiritual fulfillment. Science can explain alot of things, but religion has done alot for humanity as well. Science isn't 'human'.
It is a group-think, ammoral group who decides on calculations and theories.
Religion provides the ideal concept of the human, and challenges the believer to live up to that standard.

I take it as an insult to label a group ammoral because they do not belong to YOUR religion. Morality is not exclusive to religions nor do scientists have to be non-religious, nor do ones who don't belong to a religion have no morals. That is quite a rude statement to make.

Nor does religion provide the ideal concept of the human, as no two religions can agree on what that concept is. There are different dietary laws, clothing, how to pray, when to pray, where to pray, how much to give to the institution, how to treat other believers, how to treat non-believers etc etc



Science has caused more deaths than religion ever has. For while man might fight for his religion, who gave him those weapons?

So weapons only happened after the scientific method came about? So the Samurai Katana is what not a weapon because it didn't involve a scientist making it?

[Zaknafien]

well, at least most religions agree that pigs are evil and women's unmentionables are unholy. *groan*

[KukriKhan]

...We test theories by experiments to find out if the theories will predict the facts that will come out...


And isn't that the very goal of both religion and science?

And yet we villify, fight, and kill, on behalf of the supposed correctness of our individually- and group-held predictions.

What will happen when I die?

Depends on what you did alive; or not. Religion and science both seek to ultimately answer that question. No?

[Marshal Murat]

Nor does religion provide the ideal concept of the human, as no two religions can agree on what that concept is.

The different geo-political situations lend to different religions. There are reasons why Hebrews didn't eat pig, because it might kill them. Religion gives you a standard. I'm not expecting someone who lives in the Sahara to give me the same sort of religious talk as someone who lives in London.
Religion gives you their ideal person.
Here is Jesus, the greatest person this side of God, and he is charitable, wise, generous, forgiving. Those are all virtues you should embrace. Golden rule and all that jazz. Sets the mark pretty high, so you can try to live up to that standard as best you can, and contribute to society.

I'll cut the offending part from my belief.

I'm sorry I offended you as a person, and I'm sure glad my religion is agnostic, so I don't have much of a religion. I would be offended by Zaknaifens statements, but that would be in place of other people.


So weapons only happened after the scientific method came about? So the Samurai Katana is what not a weapon because it didn't involve a scientist making it?

The person who made the katana was a copier, a man who made the best sword out there by using the previous sword designs, evaluating them, testing them, and then he hit on the design for a katana. They figure out what works. Same with the bronze sickle sword, the chariot, the bow and arrow. It was a scientific process, but not to the exacting measures of modern science.

[Orb]

well first of all, "God", "Zeus", "Yaweh", "Allah", "Krishna", "Jupiter" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist.

Prove it. Take your time.


Thirdly, simply because you agree to be rational and believe in facts does not mean you "worship" Darwin, for instance.

For me, and for other Christians, believing in God/Christ is rationally believing in a fact.


Morality is not dependent on false religions. Like I said, Humanism is far more "moral" anyway, because it doesnt lead to witchhunts, burnings, beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, beatings, mutilations, and insane sexual rights that molest children.

Sure. It's not as if aetheist regimes have ever done similar things to that...
Religion is not the root of this bloodshed, human greed and anger is. If there was not a religious pretext for something, there would certainly be another one, whether it's nationalism, or revenge, or self-interest.

I see that you are ignoring the positive side-effects of the clergy. Those odd things like promoting non-violence, helping the needy, leading civil rights protests, miracle healings, helping people overcome hardship or problems, inspiring poets, artists and others. There's also a side-effect you don't believe in, which is the ticket to heaven.


I can definately agree with that much. But one thing I think that should prove science to be far superior, is that 'men of science' if you will, are perfectly content to let people believe whatever spritual myth they want to make them feel better at night, if they think it is naive. "men of faith" on the other hand, are far too often eager to dismiss the others' claims as heresy, ignorant, and condemn them to a mythical place of punishment in the afterlife. Take evangelicals, for instance. They sincerely espouse the fact that they and only they will go to 'heaven' and that all jews, muslims, buddhistas, etc, will burn forever in a pit of fire..

It's like saying that food is superior to sleep. We need both science and religion, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Additionally, if you take this from their viewpoint: The Bible is correct, those who don't come to Christ will go to Hell, and that they have been commanded by God to go out and to convert people, their actions are in the interest of those who complain about them.

You're here saying that our claims are essentially heresy to your viewpoint, but that we are too eager to dismiss others' claims as heresy :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

Sounds like the Global warming cult :thumbsdown:
Oh dear lord, is that what this is all about? You don't like the global warming theorists? One of the nice things about science is that opponents are free to publish contradictory and challenging papers. Such has been done. Such is being done. If you're angry at Al Gore, there are shorter ways around the barn than an intellectually dishonest thread about how science and religion are the same animal.

Religion has developed over similar lines or do you think the bible is an original document containing only old jewish tales? I want to see you reproduce global warming other than on some computer program designed by who? Scientists?
Again with the global warming. Let me get this straight, you want to see global warming "reproduced"? Using something other than technical people (sometimes called "scientists") and computers? Would an army of alchemists using abaci and astrolabes be more to your liking? Some of your rhetorical flourishes are weird, Gawain.

And are you saying that the Pentateuch was written according to some sort of unrecognized scientific precept? THat's going to irritate both fundamentalists and humanists to no end.

[Lemur]

well, at least most religions agree that pigs are evil and women's unmentionables are unholy. *groan*
Zaknafien, a belief in the validity of science does not require disrespect toward faith.

[Papewaio]

And isn't that the very goal of both religion and science?

And yet we villify, fight, and kill, on behalf of the supposed correctness of our individually- and group-held predictions.

What will happen when I die?

Depends on what you did alive; or not. Religion and science both seek to ultimately answer that question. No?

Reminds me of the Adams family were the kids are playing 'Is there a god.'

So I suppose by killing each other members of different religious faiths are using scientific experimentation to figure out if their religious theories are correct... just wish the amount of data comming back was larger so they could stop testing it.

[Zaknafien]

The different geo-political situations lend to different religions. There are reasons why Hebrews didn't eat pig, because it might kill them.

Not quite. while it is usually argued that the ban was originally rational, as in hot climes pig meat can become rank and develop trichinosis, this is absurd when applied to the actual conditions. first, trichinosis is found in all climates, and in fact occurs more often in cold than hot ones. second, ancient Jewish settlements in Canaan can easily be identified by archaeologists by the absence of pig bones in their rubbish heaps as opposed to their presence in other communities. the non-jews did not sicken and die from eating pork, in other words.

(and anyways, even if they did, there'd be no reason for the god of moses to urge their slaughter by non pig eaters).

On the contrary, according to many ancient authorities, the attitude of early semites to swine was one of reverence as much as disgust (and indeed, when we study ancient faiths the confusion between the sacred and profane comes up quite often).

I would wager something about the look of the pig, the taste, and the dying screams of the pig, were too uncomfortably reminiscent of the human. (we know pigs and humans are fairly close genetically, anyway), and this probably relates to an aversion to more primitive cannabalism than anything else.

[Zaknafien]

what im saying is that most religions developed from a primitive disgust in the female vagina. Just look-- Jesus was born of a virgin. Ok, so was Perseus. Bhudda was born through an opening in his mother's flank. Huitzilopochtil, an Aztec god was born of a virgin. Attis was born when his mother the virgin Nana took a pomegranate from the tree watered by the blood of the slain Agdestris. Ghengis Khan was born of a virgin. Krishna was too, and Horus, and Mercury, and Romulus and Remus. For some reason, the birth canal to primitive man was seen as a one-way street. hell even the Quran treats the virgin Mary with reverence.

[Lemur]

what im saying is that most religions developed from a primitive disgust in the female vagina.
Okay, that does it. Zaknafien, Gawain and Navarros will all have to report to the Reasonable Argument Inculcation Center at 06:00 hours. Do not be alarmed by the black-clad paramilitary types at your door; they are only there to ensure you reach the Center safely.

Do not bother packing. Everything you need will be provided at the jungle compound.

[Marshal Murat]

Actually, Romulus and Remus are conceived of a virgin and the God Mars. This was a ploy by the virgin to prevent her early demise for being promiscuous (or raped).

I'm going to say that
Science=Religion
They both have merits, and position abuses.
Science isn't a religion, and religion isn't a science.

As Napoleon said (and I will translate and paraphrase)
Religion governs where government doesn't.

I might also add that female goddesses are revered above male gods because of their unique anatomy. Earth Goddesses in particular.

[Zaknafien]

not to argue the details here but its far more likely Romulus and Remus' mother was a prostitute or "she-wolf", the latin term being later mistranslated and accepted in popular lore as a real animal.

Concerning religion, I have four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipism, that is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded in wish-thinking.

How much effort it takes religion to affirm the incredible.. the Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day to ensure the sun would rise. monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that, since maybe he's deaf. how much vanity must be concealed in order to pretend that one is the object of a divine personal plan? how much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm in an awareness of one's own sin? how much needless assumptions be made,how much contortion is requried in order to recieve every new insight of science and make it "fit" into the revealed word of man-made deities? God did not create man in his own image; evidently it was the other way around, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions and the fratricide both between and among faiths that has so retarded the development of civilization.

past and present religious atrocities have occured not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partially rational. our prefrontal lobes are too small, our ardenal glands too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So weapons only happened after the scientific method came about? So the Samurai Katana is what not a weapon because it didn't involve a scientist making it?

Now here is an example. The making of a katana is indeed an exacting science. Who knows whats been lost to science over the centuries. For once navaros is making the most sense here. Scientists have no roof of anything other than their own observations of reality. It sounds good to most of us so we believe it. How many of us are capable of compitently reviewing their work in the first place? No its all a leap of faith, And Im here in the church preaching to the choir :help:

I hope like me the rest of you learn as you grow older how really dumb you are and how little you really know.


I am gross and perverted
Im obsessed n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you cant look away
I make you think Im delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin out
From your tv set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we dont need you
Dont got for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

Thats right, folks..
Dont touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin along on your livinroom floor

I am the slime from your video
Cant stop the slime, people, lookit me go

Frank zappa (guitar, vocals)
Ralph humphrey (drums)
Sal marquez (trumpet, vocals)
Tom fowler (bass)
Bruce fowler (trombone)
George duke (keyboards, synthesizer)
Ruth underwood (marimba, vibes, percussion)
Ian underwood (flute, clarinet, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone)
Jean-luc ponty (violin, baritone violin)
Kin vassy (vocals)


I was always taught in science question everything, You people dont question enough. Science is handy for a guide but I wouldnt bet my soul on it. And I dont even know if I have one.

Is it any wonder that all the latest great discoveries are referred to as the miracles of Science.

[Tribesman]

Hey Gawain
That indeed is a recent development. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: thank you

[CountArach]

well first of all...the Flying Spaghetti Monster do[es] not exist.

HERETIC!

[Ironside]

Now here is an example. The making of a katana is indeed an exacting science. Who knows whats been lost to science over the centuries. For once navaros is making the most sense here.

I was always taught in science question everything, You people dont question enough. Science is handy for a guide but I wouldnt bet my soul on it. And I dont even know if I have one.

Is it any wonder that all the latest great discoveries are referred to as the miracles of Science.

Well, first we start out by asking what discoveries has been done without science? As the making of a katana is science...


Scientists have no roof of anything other than their own observations of reality. It sounds good to most of us so we believe it. How many of us are capable of compitently reviewing their work in the first place? No its all a leap of faith, And Im here in the church preaching to the choir :help:

Second, thanks to the very vague concept of saying that anything you accept as truth, while not having any empirical data for it or perfect understanding of it constitutes as religious thinking, you've classified about everything as religion.
To expect a friend that you'll meet at some time tomorrow is a leap of faith and as leaps of faith constitutes enough to make it a religion...
A fish that have learned that something hitting the water surface on one side of the aquarium means food, makes a leap of faith the next time something hits the surface and is thus religious...
Every prediction of the future, even a split second one is based on the faith that things will behave as they've always been, but would you class that as religous?

Even if we skipped the semi-philosophical stuff, the only way to give people enough empirical data to be able to question everything within all scientiffic fields would be to insert the memories of atleast thousands scientists (probably millions) in to every living person's brain.


Navaros, as you bring up embryonic stem cells, that usually comes from the in vitro fertilisation process, I'm curious on your oppinion on it. As the process creates lives and takes (in your view) other's lives, but they alive ones wouldn't exist without the process. And what's your position on stem cells based on embyons that would be naturally aborted by the mother's body if inserted, due to genetical defects?

And unless I missed something Newton's theory of gravitation is perfectly correct mv2/2 is always applied, the thing he did miss is that m isn't constant, but affected by the velocity itself. Thus he wasn't wrong, merely incomplete. There's way better examples were paradigm shifts were needed to comprehend new data.

[Meneldil]

Simple fact : many scientists are member of an established religion. In france (and I think the same could be say about many other civilized places), many scientists are believer (mostly protestants, but also catholics and jews) and I doubt they would agree with anyone saying "Science is religion".
This -stupid- statement is only used by die-hard conservatives who think science threaten their so called religious - stupid and intolerant IMHO - values and way of life (I'd go as far as saying this concern mainly american and muslim conservatives, but that's OOT).

As explained a crapload of time on this forum (cause that's like the 2.000.000th "Is science a religion" thread opened here), the main difference between science and religion is that religion is written in the stone. Someone wrote a book thousand years ago, about angel fighting deamons and spagheti monsters in some weird place, and then, you have to believe it, even if it sounds totally unbelievable and stupid. And if the author thought that theft should have their hand cut off and that sodomy is a bad thing, well, you have to stand to his words.

On the other hand, science is open to discussion and to arguments. Theories are just that, theories, and while evolution is an interesting idea, someone might come to prove that Darwin's theory is more or less flawed, or that he forgot to take some factors into account.

Furthermore, while religion is quite often restricted to a few people (iman, priets, prophets) who somehow received the gift to understand what's going on and to share it with the rest of the people, science is open to everyone. It just takes will and some intelligence to become a scientist. That makes science much more attractive than religion : yes, I don't understand a whole lot of things, but if I wanted to, I could do it, after studying (unlike the "God created earth in 7 days, believe it or burn in hell" crap).

To sum it up, religion is a conservative force, while science is a progressive one*. And while most people on earth are conservatives, we are in a progressive era, wether they like it or not.

*That's not to say science only had positive consequences. It's just that science is aimed at the futur, while religion is stuck in the past. In that sense, Science has a lot in common with Reason.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As explained a :daisy: of time on this forum (cause that's like the 2.000.000th "Is science a religion" thread opened here), the main difference between science and religion is that religion is written in the stone. Someone wrote a book thousand years ago, about angel fighting deamons and spagheti monsters in some weird place, and then, you have to believe it, even if it sounds totally unbelievable and stupid. And if the author thought that theft should have their hand cut off and that sodomy is a bad thing, well, you have to stand to his words.

That's not entirely true, you know. Whilst there are some religious adherents who maintain every word of their scripture is written in stone, they are usually in the minority of whichever sect.

There is a philosophy known as theology which encourages exploration and interpretation of religious texts, and often leads to changing guidance and thought. Most mainstream religions have changed substantially through their history, as reasonable men and women have developed their views. Often this is done through what we might term "scientific" methods, certainly very critical and subject to peer review.

Religion has benefitted from scientific method, much as science owes a great deal to religious thought and education - and even inspiration.

One of the most instructive examples of this is the debate conducted by Charles Darwin and Robert FitzRoy during the voyage of HMS Beagle. Darwin's faith challenged in the light of evidence and FitzRoy's more fundamental, unyielding approach raging against his own scientific mind is an incredible microcosm of the moment when faith and science decided to divorce. It led to estrangement between the two men, for very sad reasons echoed in this thread. It's almost an allegory.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

well first of all, "God", "Zeus", "Yaweh", "Allah", "Krishna", "Jupiter" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist.

That is an unsupportable statement of fact based on your belief system.

That makes Science your religion. You know there is nothing to disprove the existance of God, further, Science tells you that at one point the universe was created, which begs the question how/by whom.

[doc_bean]

Science tries to answer the "How ?" question, religion tries to to answer the "Why ?" question. When they venture into eachothers territory they are inevitably inadequate.

[Conradus]

what im saying is that most religions developed from a primitive disgust in the female vagina.

Have you read Pandora's Myth in Hesiod's 'Theogonia'? Basically all religions agree that the only thing humans has in this world is hope, and that hope comes from women...

Further I agree with Orb and Doc_bean

[Soulforged]

First: By definition they are something different, both are separated categories. There might be sometimes when scientific knowledge leads to fanatism, but it's still not religion, is just fanatism on the basis of a pure belief.

Second: Science is about experiment, but only as long as the experiments support the current theories! If the current dogma is threatened, then all the powers of religion are used to stop the heresy.
Nope. Nothing new here. Is now an accepted fact that science moves between different paradigmas(not dogmas), and it's hard to break one when some new information contradicting the previous one comes to light. That doesn't show fanatism, just a simple lack of acceptance until there's enough evidence to accept the fact that an old law has been properly overruled.

Third: I fail to see how science "...can pursue the goal to advance science, that is the institution, rather than the search for knowledge." If in any case something does that, it's not science.

[Husar]

Its like the long war between those who believed there were 8 dimensions and those who believed there were 9. Now we know there are 9 in fact, the other side was wrong. big deal. as long as we learn, we're progressing.
There are actually 10.:dizzy2:

[Zaknafien]

that's according to M-theory, I think. Which seems to be becoming the accepted theory I'll grant. That also counts time as a dimension as well.

Why doesnt someone start an evolution versus intelligent design thread so we can rip each other's arguments apart on that. Heh, I've got a preview for ya: Why would an intelligent creator deisgn our eyballs upside down and backwards? Or create such a weak spinal structure and lower back? too large ardenal glands for rationality? etc, etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh dear lord, is that what this is all about? You don't like the global warming theorists? One of the nice things about science is that opponents are free to publish contradictory and challenging papers.

And are these ever included in their precious reports? No. Their not even mentioned . It seems their not fit to be included in the bible. No dissenting opinions can be published there.


Again with the global warming. Let me get this straight, you want to see global warming "reproduced"? Using something other than technical people (sometimes called "scientists") and computers? Would an army of alchemists using abaci and astrolabes be more to your liking? Some of your rhetorical flourishes are weird, Gawain.

No my point is that you cant prove it. Have you ever seen the shows on the ancient greek machines and how the priests used them in the temples? Using science to perform miracles? The scientists set up a computer model and then when it tells them what they want to hear its a miracle and global warming is born :laugh4: Of course you cant duplicate this but what the heck.


Not quite. while it is usually argued that the ban was originally rational, as in hot climes pig meat can become rank and develop trichinosis, this is absurd when applied to the actual conditions. first, trichinosis is found in all climates, and in fact occurs more often in cold than hot ones. second, ancient Jewish settlements in Canaan can easily be identified by archaeologists by the absence of pig bones in their rubbish heaps as opposed to their presence in other communities. the non-jews did not sicken and die from eating pork, in other words.


This one really has me confused. Many religions dont allow the eating of pork not just Jews. Muslims dont eat it either. Could it be that as you say it occurs everwhere. You say there were no pig bones in their garbage so that proves it didnt kill them. Sounds more like it proves they didnt eat pigs. I believe there is also the matter that pigs are seen as dirty filthy animals. Thats why Muslims refer to Jews as pigs.


what im saying is that most religions developed from a primitive disgust in the female vagina. Just look-- Jesus was born of a virgin. Ok, so was Perseus

Where do you come up with this stuff? It couldnt be that most of these people who claim to be born of virigins also claim the same daddy. God. Now that couldnt be the reason could it? It wasnt that they wanted this person to seem some how super human could it?


past and present religious atrocities have occured not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partially rational. our prefrontal lobes are too small, our ardenal glands too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee.

So let me get this straight. Its your opinion that people are not evil but religion is? That when humans do things bad its because we cant help it but that religion is the cause of all evil since we are not. Only through relgion can evil be done. Ok lets Ignore Hitler and Germany and Stalin and Russia. Two great examples of your secular saints.


Science tries to answer the "How ?" question, religion tries to to answer the "Why ?" question. When they venture into eachothers territory they are inevitably inadequate.
Today 11:13

Science seeks to answer the book of creation while religion seeks to answer the book of revelations. Both have their place in this world and help keep perspective in balance.I pity those who cant see this. Anyone who thinks one disproves the other or that their mutually exclusive should think about it a bit more IMO.

[Slyspy]

That is an unsupportable statement of fact based on your belief system.

That makes Science your religion. You know there is nothing to disprove the existance of God, further, Science tells you that at one point the universe was created, which begs the question how/by whom.

From a scientific point of view you do not have to disprove that which cannot be witnessed to exist. That is faith talking.

Instead you have to prove that it exists (at least in theory, which may later be proved or disproved) or just take it on faith. The first is science and completely different to the latter.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Instead you have to prove that it exists (at least in theory, which may later be proved or disproved)

So you have to prove it even though in most cases its usually wrong? What kind of proof is this? This is the whole point. You must prove it to your priests who will then preach it to their congregations who are too dumb(yes even dumber than the scientists) to know if their being hoodwinked or not. You either prove it or you dont. You mean prove it as excepted by todays scientific thought .

[Zaknafien]

Right, I dont need to prove a negative. You need to prove it does exist if you believe in something "unprovable".

And Gawain, Im saying that there are pig bones in other semitic cultures digsites, indicating they did eat pigs. Arabs and Jews are the same people so it is no wonder they share the same cultural more that dictates no piggies. Like I said, it most likely developed form an ancient lesson agaisnt the evils of cannabalism since pigs are so like humans.

[King Henry V]

Right, I dont need to prove a negative. You need to prove it does exist if you believe in something "unprovable".

However, in order to make categorical statements such as "God does not exist", one needs some proof to back up one's thesis, if not it is no different to any article of faith.
Personally, I love militant atheists: it just goes to show that they can be as dogmatic as believers any day of the week.:2thumbsup:

[CrossLOPER]

Like I said, it most likely developed form an ancient lesson agaisnt the evils of cannabalism since pigs are so like humans.
Hmm. I thought it was because pigs are more likely to be contaminated. Granted, that sounds a bit advanced for ancient civilizations, but observation could lead to speculation. It's not like ancient Jews and Muslims had cooking guidelines.

[Zaknafien]

Me said:


Not quite. while it is usually argued that the ban was originally rational, as in hot climes pig meat can become rank and develop trichinosis, this is absurd when applied to the actual conditions. first, trichinosis is found in all climates, and in fact occurs more often in cold than hot ones. second, ancient Jewish settlements in Canaan can easily be identified by archaeologists by the absence of pig bones in their rubbish heaps as opposed to their presence in other communities. the non-jews did not sicken and die from eating pork, in other words.

(and anyways, even if they did, there'd be no reason for the god of moses to urge their slaughter by non pig eaters).

On the contrary, according to many ancient authorities, the attitude of early semites to swine was one of reverence as much as disgust (and indeed, when we study ancient faiths the confusion between the sacred and profane comes up quite often).

I would wager something about the look of the pig, the taste, and the dying screams of the pig, were too uncomfortably reminiscent of the human. (we know pigs and humans are fairly close genetically, anyway), and this probably relates to an aversion to more primitive cannabalism than anything else.

[King Henry V]

Pork was thought to be an unhealthy meat because firstly it goes off very quickly in hot climates and can provoke nasty food poisoning and secondly because pigs were thought of as unclean animals who ate any old rubbish (literally).

[CrossLOPER]

Pork was thought to be an unhealthy meat because firstly it goes off very quickly in hot climates and can provoke nasty food poisoning and secondly because pigs were thought of as unclean animals who ate any old rubbish (literally).

OK about the pigs. All agreed.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by King Henry V
Pork was thought to be an unhealthy meat because firstly it goes off very quickly in hot climates and can provoke nasty food poisoning and secondly because pigs were thought of as unclean animals who ate any old rubbish (literally).

Thats exactly what I said. It seems Zaknafien disagrees. Its because they sound like humans when you kill them lol.

[CrossLOPER]

Thats exactly what I said. It seems Zaknafien disagrees. Its because they sound like humans when you kill them lol.
Count three above and read the fourth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Count three above and read the fourth.

Just quote what you think is relevant please.

[Orb]

'Why doesnt someone start an evolution versus intelligent design thread so we can rip each other's arguments apart on that. Heh, I've got a preview for ya: Why would an intelligent creator deisgn our eyballs upside down and backwards? Or create such a weak spinal structure and lower back? too large ardenal glands for rationality? etc, etc.'

Why not? We work. I'm guessing that if we were made into perfect predator-styled powerful creatures, we wouldn't have been so selected for intelligence, and so wouldn't have developed into people.

Why would evolution encourage religious belief?

And why do you think evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

'Why doesnt someone start an evolution versus intelligent design thread so we can rip each other's arguments apart on that

Please not that again :laugh4: Besides no one here believes in intelligent design (other than maybe Nav). At least not in the strictest terms. Most believe that god(whatever) created everything and that science is discovering how god did it.

[Zaknafien]

Hm, thats an interesting statement when you say "most". Poll time I think!

And if you read my argument you'd see the bit about pigs being unclean is bunk. Plenty of other cultures in the area did eat pigs regularly. In nature pigs are found to be very clean, sociable, and family oriented, with brains that speak to intelligence on the scale of dolphins. We know pigs share many of the same DNA as homo sapiens sapien. We are pigs :)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hm, thats an interesting statement when you say "most". Poll time I think!

I speaking of religious people and Im afraid for you my friend most americans are not only religious their the worst kind. Christians


And if you read my argument you'd see the bit about pigs being unclean is bunk. Plenty of other cultures in the area did eat pigs regularly. In nature pigs are found to be very clean, sociable, and family oriented, with brains that speak to intelligence on the scale of dolphins. We know pigs share many of the same DNA as homo sapiens sapien. We are pigs :)

Did I say they werent? You know what is meant by "are seen as " dont you?

[Moros]

Do people put too much faith in science? Dont we in the west consider most if not all other "sciences" heresy? The same for scientists whos findings dont agree with mainstream thought(dogma) Heres a few articles delving into the topic.

The other "sciences" are just not scientific. They're fundation is believe and revelations (if that's the correct word). So if we talk scientifically, they have no bearing. Now, I'm not going to say that God doesn't exist. I would never say that, however you must agree that there are few evidences that a God exist. Ofcourse we could ask the question; should there?

Now, too much faith? Perhaps. But we could also ask that question about religions, there are many religions and I can't see how they could all be right. So there must be many a man who believes in a wrong religion, no? With science it's different. We all know at least a part of it is correct. And those things that aren't are subject to change, if a better theory is found. Science may not have all the awnsers but atleast gives a few. While religion, well it may have all awnsers but only if you are lucky enough to be part of the right religion. So if it's awnsers and truth you want perhaps it's better to put your faith in to sceince. If it's hope ( if you want hope science definately is the wrong place to search) ,... you want then stick to religion. Tough, imho I think you can put your faith in both. If you are sick, you can light up a candle and go to a doctor. Who cares, what made the difference in the end?

Ps: to bad the topic about the Quran has been closed, I noticed your respons to late (Exams preparation time,....). We'll talk about it some other day.:yes:

[Zaknafien]

I speaking of religious people and Im afraid for you my friend most americans are not only religious their the worst kind. Christians


Thankfully that's changing and is more propaganda put out by the hardline christian crazies and southern baptist ministers.:oops: The proportion of the adult population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2000 according to the census. less than half of those were regularly practicing, though. (35 %).

The number of atheists and agnostics rose from 8% in 199o to 15% in 2000.

Nearly 40% of respondents who identified with a religion indicated that neither they nor anyone else in their household belongs to a church or some other similar institution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The other "sciences" are just not scientific

Just continue to make my point for me thank you. Their heretical. Only our science is correct. Even though we still cant figure how the ancients did many of the things they did.Their science is lost to us. But it was junk anyway so who cares.


Now, too much faith? Perhaps. But we could also ask that question about religions, there are many religions and I can't see how they could all be right. So there must be many a man who believes in a wrong religion, no?

Of course there is. Probably most.


With science it's different. We all know at least a part of it is correct.

We all believe at least a part of it is correct. Again we dont know anything in reality or even if there is reality. Life is truly mind boggling if given any real thought. Science is just another way man has found to explain reality and his existence.


to bad the topic about the Quran has been closed, I noticed your respons to late (Exams preparation time,....). We'll talk about it some other day.

Feel free to start a thread on the topic at any time . You notice I used the Koran to back up somethings in this thread.

[Zaknafien]

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.


Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in

If you want to discuss this please start a new thread and leave mine alone thank you. :laugh4:

It will be very short because I doubt anyone will argue you on most of these points.

PS are those your thoughts or did you cut and paste them?

[CrossLOPER]

PS are those your thoughts or did you cut and paste them?
He probably got it from an anti-Christian website for which he will not be providing the address because it has FACTS despite it's obvious bias.

[Ironside]

And are these ever included in their precious reports? No. Their not even mentioned . It seems their not fit to be included in the bible. No dissenting opinions can be published there.

I don't recall any decent newer theories that have a reason why there's a global warming atm and doesn't includes CO2 or other green-house gases, in the last global warming thread.
And considering what the heavy industry feels about imposing CO2 reductions, I would very much doubt that the "dissenters" are underfunded and without support. Is there scaremongering involved? Yes, but if it occurs a major global temperature change by whatever reason, it's going to be a painful transition stage.


No my point is that you cant prove it. Have you ever seen the shows on the ancient greek machines and how the priests used them in the temples? Using science to perform miracles? The scientists set up a computer model and then when it tells them what they want to hear its a miracle and global warming is born :laugh4: Of course you cant duplicate this but what the heck.


Those computer models are also used to predict the weather reports. Ever noticed that the news have a tendency to give longer weather reports nowadays? It's because those simulations has became better, so the error margin has dropped. And notice that it's much, much, much easier to predict general trends than it is to predict the weather on Manhattan 4 July 2043.


Just continue to make my point for me thank you. Their heretical. Only our science is correct. Even though we still cant figure how the ancients did many of the things they did.Their science is lost to us. But it was junk anyway so who cares.


Well, the historians would be overjoyed by something like that. I would find it interesting.
So what's "thier" science (that made the katana) and how does it differ from ours? And how did this ancient knowledge become "lost to science" as claimed in post 43, when the scientiffic method doesn't show up as a western idea until the enlightment?

I do know some fields that had a loss of knowledge due to ignorance by the "new principles" (the medical field for example), but there's been an improvement generally, as time catches up with the occational ignorance and conservatism. Please notice that science does need a certain conservatism as in most cases when a result is odd, it's because something has been done wrong, not that something new has been discovered.


And why do you think evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive?
Well, if you go after the intelligent design that former creationists propose, then the most powerful and intelligent being in the universe does really need to think outside the box. ~;p He's ideas of lifeform are generally very unimagitive and does follow the same basic concept all the time.

As for a more general view, they're not mutually exclusive, but they aren't in the same field. That is, unless something very interesting technology shows up.

[Marshal Murat]

Those computer models are also used to predict the weather reports. Ever noticed that the news have a tendency to give longer weather reports nowadays? It's because those simulations has became better, so the error margin has dropped.

Is there a fact to back this up? Weather is predicted, and those models that simulate it can predict at a longer range, but it isn't perfect. Weather involves to many variables to accurately predict the weather, and the weather for the next day isn't even assured.

That is one of the issues with global warming. There are reports of global climate change of a degree (give or take) and I'll stop right there because this is all off-topic.
Reference 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton
:stop:

:hijacked:

The problem with global warming is that many people are convinced that it exists, and any data that goes against it is 'biased' or 'faulty' and the scientist are 'industry funded and corrupted'. This sounds like a a fixed religious opinion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

don't recall any decent newer theories that have a reason why there's a global warming atm and doesn't includes CO2 or other green-house gases,

:wall:



Those computer models are also used to predict the weather reports.

And their still notoriously wrong. Yes they are better than in the old days .


And notice that it's much, much, much easier to predict general trends than it is to predict the weather on Manhattan 4 July 2043.

And our point is if that is so how can you be more sure of the climate in Manhattan 4 July 2043? If you cant even get tommorows weather right all the time? There are far too many variables as Einstien himself has said.

Science must be constantly questioned. Accpet nothing and you will learn more. I believe a lot of things. Im certain of very little.

[Moros]

Just continue to make my point for me thank you. Their heretical. Only our science is correct. Even though we still cant figure how the ancients did many of the things they did.Their science is lost to us. But it was junk anyway so who cares.

By saying that religion isn't scientific, I make your point. Religion doesn't follow the scientific way of tought, so it's not a science. That doesn't mean it isn't true. It means it isn't a science. It's the same with squares an triangles. A triangle doesn't have four sides, so it ain't a square. This doesn't mean triangles don't exist or anything. You have a wierd sense of logic, my freind. Or don't you believe in logic? Cause then my friend, we can't hold a discussion, as a discussion should be based on logic.



Of course there is. Probably most.

indeed.



We all believe at least a part of it is correct. Again we dont know anything in reality or even if there is reality. Life is truly mind boggling if given any real thought. Science is just another way man has found to explain reality and his existence.
Well, okay let's say we don't know a part of it is true. Don't you think that a part is verry likely to be true? How likely is a random religion to be true? If you hounestly think that the random religion is more likely to be true then the next time you'e hurt, do not visit a doctor but pick a random religion and pray. Next time you need to be somewhere don't use your car, the chances are small it will bring you were you want to be. Pray.



Feel free to start a thread on the topic at any time . You notice I used the Koran to back up somethings in this thread.

Haven't completly read the thread afterwards as it was closed anyway, but I'll do that sometime. However as exams are comming, I do not have the time to read a Quran.


Well my position is they are both needed equally for balance and understanding.
Well I did say combining them is possible and plausible. So I think we aren't disagreeïng so much. Also you Aknowledged the fact that a random religion is verry probable to be incorrect. Which means if you think, a large part of science is probable, verry probable or even just more probable than a random religion to be correct; we even agree.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

By saying that religion isn't scientific, I make your point.

No by saying you havent seen any studies that confinece you. So what? Have you seen all the studies? Even if you have are you qualified to judge them , is anybody? Oh thats right the priest.


Well, okay let's say we don't know a part of it is true. Don't you think that a part is verry likely to be true? How likely is a random religion to be true? If you hounestly think that the random religion is more likely to be true then the next time you'e hurt, do not visit a doctor but pick a random religion and pray. Next time you need to be somewhere don't use your car, the chances are small it will bring you were you want to be. Pray.

Most of the major religions are basicly the same. The point is that you only know a small amount about the universe in fact even the earth and yet scientists talk like they know it all. We are not gods. We dont know everything. We will never come even close to knowing everything. Take everything with a grain of salt. People take this stuff to seriously. Moderation in all things is the name of the game. Putting too much faith in science or religion is a bad thing IMHO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know, with Science I thought you came up with a theory, looked for evidence to support it and if you couldn't find anything that didn't fit you accepted the theory as valid until proven otherwise.

Theory: God exists.

Evidence for: We are discussing the concept of a higher power we cannot understand, we are concious of the possibility of such a power.

Evidence against: None really, unless you're a litteralist.

Conclusion: From a scientific basis the existance of God is a valid theory, with a weak foundation.

[Zaknafien]

I wouldnt say "God", but the existence of a higher, alien intelligence is not only possible but probable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I wouldnt say "God", but the existence of a higher, alien intelligence is not only possible but probable.

By that I assume you mean aliens not just some supreme intelligence of some kind that created the universe like most people do,

[Lorenzo_H]

Science is a religion.

[Zaknafien]

well of course I do. The universe is almost definately swimming with life of all sorts, and a good portion of that is probably far superior to our own.

[AntiochusIII]

Gawain: interesting points, but in the end I must disagree. Science is not a religion. The components we associate with religion are, simply put, not there. The only major claim I see is that at two levels -- the most fundamental logical basis (and by God ~:) I hate logic at such a level) and the practical day-to-day basis -- science requires a leap of faith.

Faith alone does not a religion make. Next time you'll tell me the things I see with my eyes are religion. Blue is a religion; because, you know, I need faith to jump from that spot from I perceive blue to blue exists.

Evidence for: We are discussing the concept of a higher power we cannot understand, we are concious of the possibility of such a power.That's not evidence. Humans being "conscious" of something is far, far from acceptable evidence in the scientific field.

I wouldnt say "God", but the existence of a higher, alien intelligence is not only possible but probable.What do you mean?

Edit: just saw your post. I see, that's what you mean.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I wonder if we took a poll of all the people on earth today if more would say they believe in aliens than some sort of God?


Science is not a religion.

I never said it was, My point is some people treat it like a religion. Just as I accepted catholicism until I got older because it was all around me. You never get away from science. people just believe what their told. The world is not that simple. Its not either or , Im right and your wrong.

[Zaknafien]

well the existence of extraterrestial life is all but guaranteed by the propensity of stars and planets in the galaxy let alone the universe. plus we know that water exists on several planets within our own star system so the chance of bacterial life existing on them is great as well. it would be the height of absurdity to assume that one rock out of the trillions of planets in the universe has life on it and it just so happens to be ours.

[AntiochusIII]

I wonder if we took a poll of all the people on earth today if more would say they believe in aliens than some sort of God?Not likely. Despite the increasing importance of secularism (Thank God?), most people in the world remain religious. Many young "agnostics" in American suburbia grow up religious as well. In my less hospitable and reasonable days I could even say that they are cowardly to do that; fad followers who consider themselves agnostics because it's cool and become religious when it counts.

But that's just my less hospitable and reasonable self speaking.

I never said it was, My point is some people treat it like a religion. Just as I accepted catholicism until I got older because it was all around me. You never get away from science. people just believe what their told. The world is not that simple. Its not either or , Im right and your wrong.I see. So your point is that ordinary people ought to be more aware of the scientific aspects of their life -- to learn, understand, and not just take things at face value -- correct?

Then I have no problems with your point. However, the comparison to religion would be unnecessary; misleading, even. A comparison to, say, politics, and how the average person ignores it much to his/her detriment, is more appropriate, I think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I see. So your point is that ordinary people ought to be more aware of the scientific aspects of their life -- to learn, understand, and not just take things at face value -- correct?

I would have to say this extends to scientists themselves as well. Again I like the way Einstien thinks.


A comparison to, say, politics, and how the average person ignores it much to his/her detriment, is more appropriate, I think.

Politics could also fit in for those who follow one party or ideology alone. These days all three are inter twined and thats another point thats brought up in the article. This is OUR science not even the worlds. If there is life that is vastly more intelligent than us I bet they think our science is junk. Vodoo.

[Zaknafien]

Im sort of the opposite--raised southern baptist, i even went to a christian college my freshman year and was planning to attend seminary and become a minister. needless to say, my first semester of Old Testament and New Testament studies revealed the depth of the mistakes and idiocy of the "infallible" biblical texts and caused me to seek real answeres to questions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Faith alone does not a religion make. Next time you'll tell me the things I see with my eyes are religion. Blue is a religion; because, you know, I need faith to jump from that spot from I perceive blue to blue exists.
That's not evidence. Humans being "conscious" of something is far, far from acceptable evidence in the scientific field.
What do you mean?

Granted it's not great evidence but I'd like to know how you could invent God. Lets not argue that point, my intention was to demonstrate that science does nothing to "debunk" God.

I was actually brought up religious iuntil 10, then told God didn't exist. I spent the next 8-10 years relearning belief and I'm not part of a Church at the moment.

[AntiochusIII]

Politics could also fit in for those who follow one party or ideology alone. These days all three are inter twined and thats another point thats brought up in the article. This is OUR science not even the worlds. If there is life that is vastly more intelligent than us I bet they think our science is junk. Vodoo.So you also oppose excessive conservatism in the scientific community...I personally think that kind of overly cautious consideration -- the mob mentality excepted of course -- is preferable to wild "adventurous" experimentation with a lot of junk being accepted as fact and a lot of publicity games being played. Nobody wants to have his sister put into some insane "new way" of treating a mental illness only to see her killed. [/Kennedy family reference]

And the part about "other" sciences: what other sciences? As far as I'm aware Indian medical procedures and natural herbal medicines, Mayan astronomy, and even Chinese acupuncture are given quite a lot of attention by not a few scientists...unless you're saying that the basic methodology of science is inherently Western and biased against the offerings of other cultures?

Because if that is your point, then it is going to be a discussion of its own, one which I have neither the expertise nor the will to fully participate. I would understand your comparison with religion there, as well; my God trumps your God kind of thing -- but I don't think it's going to be the main point or even completely relevant.

Granted it's not great evidence but I'd like to know how you could invent God. Lets not argue that point, my intention was to demonstrate that science does nothing to "debunk" God.Your intention is understood and agreed upon. I don't believe scientific methodology can be used to conclusively disprove something entirely out of its own circle either. But the "evidence" you present is, well, just not evidence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

my intention was to demonstrate that science does nothing to "debunk" God.

I dont think you will get much of a debate on that.

[Boyar Son]

I dont think you will get much of a debate on that.

I dont think science disproves God at all.

It be better like this,

Science is how and God (religion) is why.

[CrossLOPER]

Science is a religion.
No it is not.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont think science disproves God at all.

It be better like this,

Science is how and God (religion) is why.

I keep telling them that and they keep telling me Im nuts and that anyone with half a brain would realize it.

[CrossLOPER]

I keep telling them that and they keep telling me Im nuts and that anyone with half a brain would realize it.
Just one more month Cross... one more month....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Science is a belief system. Religion is a belief system. However, all belief systems are not religions; Science is not a religion.


Science has core beliefs:

All phenomena interact with and influence one another.

Everything is explainable (at least once you have the correct metrology and data gathering tools in place).

The basic scientific method is the ultimate tool for explanation.

Once proven beyond reasonable doubt, a "statement" may then be validly used as "fact" to form the basis for creating further "statements."


-- If you call these core beliefs into question, you do question the very nature of science itself (Navaros does). To date, I should note, I have doubts about the "absoluteness" of two of the above statements, but acknowledge that on a practical level, I have seen/experienced little that would completely (or for that matter significantly) invalidate them either.


Religions also have core beliefs:

About the existence and nature of a deity(ies).

The nature of humanity and of humanity's relation to the deity(ies).

*** Note, these vary from religion to religion.


-- If you call these core beliefs into question, you do question the very nature of that religion itself. In practice, it is impossible to invalidate someone's beliefs on such issues, though it is often possible to suggest any number of shortfalls and/or internal contradictions.


So, as belief systems, Science and Religion share some paralells. However, as science does not pronounce absolutes regarding the deity and humanity's relations thereto, it doesn't take on the central defining component of a religion per se.

There may well be "zealot" believers in science who choose to use science as their means of denying religion (a sort of inverse religious exercise), but science itself -- unable to prove or disprove a deity with its own tools -- would simply set the question aside until some means of evaluating the question properly could be developed.


For myself, I have never found science or religion to be incommensurate. Thus, I am damned by the zealots of both perspectives.

[Zaknafien]

even the things we know as "facts" are only relevant in this universe. we know that physics may work differently in other universes.

[Ironside]

:wall:

Ah, "the smiles bouncing thier heads in the wall and the friction creates heat that causes global warming"-theory. I forgot that one. To be fair the most commonly cited alternative one was that it was the solar emittance varience that caused it, but it doesn't follow the data since about 2003 or something.


And our point is if that is so how can you be more sure of the climate in Manhattan 4 July 2043? If you cant even get tommorows weather right all the time? There are far too many variables as Einstien himself has said.

Science must be constantly questioned. Accpet nothing and you will learn more. I believe a lot of things. Im certain of very little.

General trends. I cannot predict by myself any temperature for any day of the year, yet me stating that 4 July is going to be warmer than 4 January in Manhattan is going to be correct, because the summer is generally warmer than the winter.
The models do show a general trend towards a warmer climate, so either they're wrong, very incomplete or generally correct. And if something is generally correct you adapt towards it, but not exactly, because as you said, in real life there's too many variables. That means culculate something, then add a hefty safety meassure just to be safe that it's working properly. The principle of better safe than sorry.

And yes science must be questioned, but if you never accepts parts of it as "good enough", you'll never get anything useful from it.


Granted it's not great evidence but I'd like to know how you could invent God.
Think of a monkey. Now add 4 more legs on him, then add 2 more tails. Now give him the visdom of all humanity combined, omnipotance, the abillity to create universes etc, whatever abillities you describe God.
Congratulations, you have just invented a weird monkey that has the powers of God.
So how could you invent God? By imagination.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The models do show a general trend towards a warmer climate, so either they're wrong, very incomplete or generally correct. And if something is generally correct you adapt towards it,

You have no idea which of those three applies. I maintain its #2. And knowing that its warmer in summer than winter is far different from predicting the climate in 100 years.

[Slyspy]

You know, with Science I thought you came up with a theory, looked for evidence to support it and if you couldn't find anything that didn't fit you accepted the theory as valid until proven otherwise.

Theory: God exists.

Evidence for: We are discussing the concept of a higher power we cannot understand, we are concious of the possibility of such a power.

Evidence against: None really, unless you're a litteralist.

Conclusion: From a scientific basis the existance of God is a valid theory, with a weak foundation.

Of course there is the old argument (Voltaire I think) that as the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker then so the existence of the world implies a creator.

However, on this basis, it does not follow that the creator is God (with a capital G) as opposed to god. Nor does it mean that your god is the creator as opposed to his god. To take it further this idea does not even necessitate that the creator be an entity (although this was of course assumed by the creators of the argument). Further, as our knowledge of watchmaking (or the world) increases so we realise that the function and workings of the clockwork parts (or natural phenomenon) are best uncovered in relation to each other, rather than in their relation to the absent watchmaker (the creator).

Then to take your example of scientific process your "evidence for" is not evidence at all, unless you are including "in the minds of men" as part of your definition of "exists".

Your "evidence against" should really include the fact that there has, as yet, been no testable proof of the existence of god (let alone God). After all, the various religions of the world cannot be used as physical proof for the existence of god because they presuppose it by nature.

So the conclusion should be that, yes, god exists, but only provably in the minds of men. Until more definitate evidence is forthcoming on the actual existence of god then this is how it must remain.

This is, in itself, deeply fascinating.

Voltaire also said "If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him" or something similar. He also said something about doubt being preferrable to certainty, but I can't remember it precisely.

[Lorenzo_H]

No it is not.
I should rephrase that. A sole belief in science is a religion.

[AntiochusIII]

I should rephrase that. A sole belief in science is a religion.Sole belief? :book:

I'm quite curious by the attitude of those who seem to imply that every atheist relies on the theories of science to sedate his spiritual side. A few fringes, perhaps, but really. :balloon:

Is religion such a necessary thing that the lack of one leads the faithful to assume that another mantle has to be taken in its place?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Everyone needs a philosophy :laugh4:

[AntiochusIII]

Everyone needs a philosophy :laugh4:But not a religion...

See what I mean?

[Soulforged]

I'm quite curious by the attitude of those who seem to imply that every atheist relies on the theories of science to sedate his spiritual side. A few fringes, perhaps, but really. :balloon:


I second that. It seems strange that there's a dicotomy here, we don't have a Science or a Religion, we have sciences and religions, but we also have philosophies, ideologies, praxis, etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But not a religion...

See what I mean?

Well religion is a philosophy. If you had but one philosophy I would have to say thats your religion.
Heres a few definitions of religion people dont usually trot out.



a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

That fits science.


the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

So does that.


4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Are you catching my drift?

[AntiochusIII]

Are you catching my drift?So religion is a philosophy by that definition; science is a philosophy by that definition:

It does not follow that science is a religion by that definition.

I found this nice little snippet from a quick google which refutes your insistence on that point, I think, quite sufficiently:

A number of modern scholars of religion have commented on the difficulty of defining what religion is. Over the centuries, influential thinkers have offered their own definitions, with greater or lesser degrees of assurance, but virtually all of these definitions have been found wanting by the majority of scholars. In some cases the definitions are too narrow, defining religion in terms of the speaker's religious beliefs or those of his or her culture and tending to exclude the religious beliefs of other cultures. In other cases the definitions are so vague and inclusive that they do not sufficiently delimit religion from other areas of human thought such as psychology, law, economics, physics, etc.[emphasis mine]

I'd be interested in discussing with you the apparent human desire to hold on to a set of values and beliefs to live by, but I think I must dispute the attempt to shoehorn all those different values into religions.

[Moros]

No by saying you havent seen any studies that confinece you. So what? Have you seen all the studies? Even if you have are you qualified to judge them , is anybody? Oh thats right the priest
Hey, don't start using difficult words as confinece! I can't go against such eloquent words! ~;p
Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean.



Moderation in all things is the name of the game. Putting too much faith in science or religion is a bad thing IMHO.
Then we do agree.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey, don't start using difficult words as confinece!

Did I write that :oops: Hey my spelling has improved greatly lately if you notice:beam: I meant convince of course.

[Moros]

Okay, that's a word I do know. I really tought it was a word I didn't knew. lol. (Me not speek zo very gud Inglish.)