Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,551-5,600 of 12,463

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "Gary how you decided spirituality is an ephemeral claims?"

Because no-one has been able to define 'spirituality' beyond the "belief in an immaterial reality". By that description modern science is more spiritual than any religion as "matter" is known to be just a state of energy.

Vishal wrote: "To love mother do you prepare any reasoning Gary?"

Just because you need no reason to feel the emotion, doesn't mean that there is no reason behind the emotion and its function. You do not need to know "why" being stabbed hurts, yet we can explain in exquisite detail exactly how the feeling is transmitted and then experienced and we can easily surmise the reasoning for it within the context of our evolution.

The same with "love for mother". We can experience it without explanation, yet we know the neurochemicals that are released when we spend time with our parents, chemicals that are mimicked by certain drugs that we can get addicted too. Similarly we can understand evolutionary speaking why we feel those feelings about our parents and how it helps the survival of our species.

Also it explains quite well why beliefs that our parents instil in us are very difficult to doubt in later life which is why Christians tend to have Christian kids and Hindus tend to have Hindu children.

Vishal wrote: "Do you also see the whole humanity through scientific explanation, if you do so I suppose you are not there to take advantage of any human emotions."

Scientific understanding is understanding, you can apply scientific technique to understand anything from chemistry to economics to politics and even to art. You don't have to, but you can. Also why does scientific understanding mean a lack of emotion to you? I have felt great emotions of awe, wonder and excitement when just looking at the science of physics.

Vishal wrote: "So simply you have to drop the love, because you can't love someone and can possess the believe of just a chemical reaction."

Why? I know why eating a tasty dish makes me feel good, I know why I feel happy when I am in the presence of someone I love. Do I have to not understand emotions to feel them, no, and I feel sorry for anyone who believes that ignorance is bliss.

Vishal wrote: "Now define love if you have a scientific explanation"

'Love is a label for a complex collection of emotional states that is experienced by humans as part of their neurochemical make up that helps form the social bonds that family and community is based on. These bonds work complicity to enable a community to function and for pair bonding to form for the purposes of sexual reproduction and mutual support. '

That's the quickest and roughest scientific explanation I can give.

Vishal wrote: "and definition of the believe on god can easily come to the same explanation what you will explain for love."

Yes. 'God is the concept of an ultimate parent that is loved and revered for much the same social reasoning as parental love and the belief is often instilled because of the credulous nature of a human child that relies more on parental teaching than almost any other organism. In this way the parents beliefs become deeply ingrained in the child's psyche. This subversion of the child's open acceptance of parental authority and the subversion of love and respect for the self perpetuation of a conceptual entity has distinct parallels with the subversion of a hosts natural biological functions to serve to replicate and propagate a virus, including such parallels as infection, pandemic, recession and adaptation.

Vishal wrote: "Now you are asking for this belief on god, an perfect evidence. Why not you give the belief in love, an evidence?"

I do not need to believe in love as I can both explain it and observe it. This does not make love mystical.

I do not believe in god because I do not observe such an entity and the hypothesis of 'god' explains little and yet demands many questions itself.

Vishal wrote: "but tell me Gary what exactly it benefits to tell a person that this is happening from this science."

Because it's demonstrably true, and by teaching people this we protect them from people who would manipulate unproven claims and constructs to exert control over them.

Vishal wrote: "Reality is that too much complications are getting involved in human through just understanding."

Reality is indeed complex, which is why it is better to look for the truth and to discard the complex, misleading and conflicting claims of thousands of different religions.

Vishal wrote: "We don't need more complications Gary, we just need relaxation and connectivity with our own original naturalness."

In that case why have so many different religions all with different claims? Why not just seek the truth through a simple methodology that seeks to remove human egocentric nature from the seeing of that truth? See nature for what it is rather than what other people invent it to be.

Plus I would relax more knowing that scientists are working on making my daughters future ever healthier, brighter and more promising.

Vishal wrote: "Gary how could you feel the beauty in the flower and explain its reason at the same time. "

Erm, quite easily? Our visual make up has evolved to appreciate both symmetry and beauty, flowers meanwhile have evolved to be symmetrical and attractive to animals specifically to serve the plant's sexual reproduction.

Does all that mean that I don't think flowers look pretty? No. Why do you equate lack of knowledge with beauty?

Vishal wrote: "If you say that spirituality is just the ephemeral claims then it means you are also rejecting every prospect of man's other feelings and just propagating about a science fiction's robotics."

No you are. You assume that if you understand feeling you won't feel it, which is absurd.

Is reading a beautiful poem more beautiful when you do not understand the words, or does the understanding lead to an even deeper beauty?

Vishal wrote: "Only because you are not feeling to kill somebody, mutilate his body or you are not getting the feeling of rape, it does not mean you can say it is just ephemeral claims."

Are you trying to claim like many others that people without religion would kill and rape. Well I have no religion and I do not kill or rape, and the bible condones both rape and killing when god permits it.

Again because I feel life is precious and fragile I think that perhaps killing is a lot worse than if I believed that the person would just be reborn.

Vishal wrote: "Its use for one time is good but its habitualness can cause a great danger to the body and mind. But meditation is not giving you any side effect. It is just the art that can give the same similar results and more than better of that."

That's easily understood because the drugs are only analogues of the real neurochemicals, or they stimulate our neurochemical response but also have other effects. Far more reliable and powerful effects can be achieved with direct stimulation of the precise parts of the brain. Yet meditation does not require religion, it can be practised just as easily without believing in anything.

Vishal wrote: "And that shows that fanatical organized religions are. To crush the man's own dignity and individuality, they think they are following religion."

All religions are organised to one level or another, because you must receive the belief from some source. It doesn't matter whether the authority is a big organised church, or just your parents, or just reading of some kind of scripture, you are still believing in something that other people have claimed.

Most people then subsequently change religion in their own minds to whatever seems right to them which then they often propagate to others.

Trying to claim "only organised religion is bad" misses the point of what makes religion bad. Belief is the problem. If you believe in something no matter what new thing you discover then you have hobbled your own mind.

Vishal wrote: "Even atheists take just the help of science as they are free to take advantage of science and reasoning, they only defend their believe system."

No because the point is not to believe but to accept where appropriate, to critique when there is doubt and to be open to changing your opinion when it is warranted.

Certain religious people like to believe that atheism is just another religion, which is ironic really as what they are subconsciously doing is trying to "drag the atheist down to their level" which means that they fundamentally realise that their beliefs are just as credible as any other random claims but when someone says they have reasoning and evidence it is seen as a threat.

Vishal wrote: "And they involve unknowingly in a belief system."

No, they knowingly reject belief systems as a whole. They accept science because of it's demonstrable advantages but are happy to change their opinion when there is good reason or evidence.

Vishal wrote: "But they hardly have their own thought. These are the thought of millions of others atheist too. Where your individuality has gone? Where your own freedom has gone? You are just getting entangled with one or other belief system. Again and again and this is nonsense, stupidity."

What is stupid is imagining that belief in what other people tell you makes you free or individual. Look for yourself and do not let parents, churches, scripture or elders tell you what is truth unless they can demonstrate their reasoning and evidence that others have independently verified.

Vishal wrote: "But when someone comes out of this stupidity and connects only with his own individuality."

So your definition of stupidity would be that if someone believed they could fly and died when they jumped off a high building would not be stupid, but the person that accepted scientific theory that they'd be splattered and did not die is the stupid one?

Vishal wrote: "because you searched your own religion, that means you have really connected with the universe. So your religion becomes universal."

No you are connected with nothing but yourself and your religion is arrogance.

Vishal wrote: "Although everything has a scientific reason but this will not bear you any fruit."

You typed that into a computer, a computer is the fruit of scientific reason.

Vishal wrote: "First you will have to abolish the marriage. Because what scientific is in that?"

Easy. Marriage is a social construct and contract that is at it's core two people promising fidelity and mutual support to each other. This helps protect that couple from jealousy, doubt and makes for a strong social unit. It can also be (but not necessarily) a strong unit to shelter and nurture children.

So there is a simple scientific reason for marriage.

Vishal wrote: "You'd have to leave sex because what scientific is in that, why this pleasure is needed there."

There is pleasure and also love from the resulting bond, we can explain it scientifically. I can also explain food scientifically, but I still enjoy eating it.

Vishal wrote: "And what is needed to bear a child, it can also happen in laboratory."

Yet it can happen easily outside a lab and thanks to science it's now much safer.

Vishal wrote: "You'd have to leave your mother, because what scientific is there."

Well actually I lost a parent because of religion not science.

Vishal wrote: "You'd have to destroy the whole garden"

Why? If I like something I would want it preserved. That isn't anti-science.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea that you must destroy things, not I. Perhaps that is a more religious idea?

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "His claims not to have been disturbed by human emotions is a lie, anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to work that out.

In his paper The Narcissistic Guru: A Profile of Bhagwan Shree ..."

But when he claimed 'not to get disturbed by human emotions'? He is not saying that you have to fight with these emotions. He is just saying to see these emotions when they appear. It is simple. To get rid of emotions and see this world an illusion is just not Buddha teaching or Osho's teaching. It is the teaching of Hinduism so Buddha asks if there is no real world then why continuing living in this world and still why believing in body because body is also an existence.
My meaning in my previous comment was that getting the others' explanation is a blockage. You are accumulating much explanation of intellectuals. Now if you only stick with their explanation then you are going to have their version on Jesus. Because these were the people who did not see what was in Jesus and they were seeing just him superficially. Of course this man Jesus was not the son of God. How can he be. He was man so he must have born through mothers womb because other options were not available then. But he was the man of great insight and intellectual can not go far. They are just conditioned to bring explanations and theory.
My view is that if you like to go through that man Osho then okay but if you don't have interest then there is not at all the matter of being argumentative.
I can't provide any evidence on any one. I am just a person of no intelligence and I can only understand the art form otherwise you just put a single complication and I am bound to fail that examination.

[Hazel]

Gary, Vishal seems impressed by this Osho guru, and when asked for his personal 10 commandments, these are what Osho said, I think it explains a fair bit:

“
1 Never obey anyone's command unless it is coming from within you also.

2 There is no God other than life itself.

3 Truth is within you, do not search for it elsewhere.

4 Love is prayer.

5 To become a nothingness is the door to truth. Nothingness itself is the means, the goal and attainment.

6 Life is now and here.

7 Live wakefully.

8 Do not swim—float.

9 Die each moment so that you can be new each moment.

10 Do not search. That which is, is. Stop and see."

And the ones he considered most important, and underlined were 3,7,9 and 10

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Gary how you decided spirituality is an ephemeral claims?"

Because no-one has been able to define 'spirituality' beyond the "belief in an immaterial reality". By that description m..."

I am not obsessed by destroying things. I have said other things also but you have not gone there. Now you saying to believe in one's own art is just arrogance. Now you are saying that their is absurdity that people will follow there individuality. Now trying to fly is not the art of living. Why I'd have to fly and what purpose to try to jump over from a building just because I want to fly. This is stupidity. If I go in myself and found that meat is making my health worse and if I accept that till my body is not become to tolerate the meat I'd not have it. Now tell me what is absurd and arrogance is there?

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Gary, Vishal seems impressed by this Osho guru, and when asked for his personal 10 commandments, these are what Osho said, I think it explains a fair bit:

“
1 Never obey anyone's command unless i..."
LOL. Fantastic. Now meditate over each one and it is enough for this thread. hahaha

[Gary]

Hazel wrote: "Gary, Vishal seems impressed by this Osho guru, and when asked for his personal 10 commandments, these are what Osho said, I think it explains a fair bit:"

Thanks Hazel, I think I will address them directly.

Osho wrote: "1 Never obey anyone's command unless it is coming from within you also."

Understandable but dangerous. This is exactly what most religious people do. You will note that many Christians are happy to judge people for having gay sex and yet are oblivious to people wearing shirts of mixed fabrics which is mentioned as an abomination in the same book.

Now if he'd said "don't obey unless the command appears reasonable or justified" it would be better, but the worst part of religion is when it is used to justify our own prejudices and bigotry. Also known as hypocrisy.

Osho wrote: "2 There is no God other than life itself."

Again I like this one superficially as this says there is nothing more important to the living than life, yet equating life to god can also be seen to say life itself is sacred and eternal which means that the living individual is an insignificant part of a whole. So again, understandable but dangerous in interpretation.

Osho wrote: "3 Truth is within you, do not search for it elsewhere."

Bad. All you see inside yourself is your own opinions and prejudice. If you only look within you make yourself the universe and your pronouncements as if god. All truth is extrinsic and only by setting aside self can it be seen.

Osho wrote: "4 Love is prayer."

Again understandable, pretty even, but potentially dangerous. Both "Love" and "Prayer" are such ill defined concepts that the equating of the two is relatively meaningless and within this ambiguity one can enforce their own ideas.

Osho wrote: "5 To become a nothingness is the door to truth. Nothingness itself is the means, the goal and attainment."

Technically true, but it directly contradicts claim 3. If nothingness is the door to truth and the truth is within us, then we and the truth are nothing.

However, looking at this another way, if we reduce our own beliefs to nothing then we are free to experience truth as it really is. The most rigorous and effective methodology to achieve this we know as "Science".

Osho wrote: "6 Life is now and here."

Agreed.

Osho wrote: "7 Live wakefully."

Agreed. Hence all this idea of beauty and love being diminished by understanding is the equivalent of sleepwalking.

Osho wrote: "8 Do not swim—float."

If your only interest is staying alive and afloat then this is fine, if you actually want to get somewhere - swim.

Osho wrote: "9 Die each moment so that you can be new each moment."

Again a metaphor that works well for me. If all you believe in and all your ideas can die in a moment for new ones to be reborn then you are truly seeking wisdom.

Osho wrote: "10 Do not search. That which is, is. Stop and see."

Cannot agree with that, mainly because I know how little we truly see. Literal sight is actually a mental representation of data, not a literal window. This is why optical illusions work. In a similar manner "to see" figuratively can be as easily deceived by our own experience as our sight can. Therefore reducing your own influence to nothing to see the truth would require searching beyond the illusions that our eyes and mind present us with.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Gary how you decided spirituality is an ephemeral claims?"

Because no-one has been able to define 'spirituality' beyond the "belief in an immaterial reality". By that description m..."

You mean to say that to make people understand the reason, they will be more friendly to each other and understand each other. But still science is not a child now. Much time has gone and many scientific reasons are now in the hands of people. But still there is problem. Still so called scientific people are misusing the power. Why? The enjoyment can be attained without scientific realization, then what is different in attaining it before and after scientific realization? You enjoy the taste and you know the reason, but people who have no reason also can enjoy the taste. No just to know the reason you are not going to be intelligent. May be your ego is getting much bigger to think but even a person who have no knowledge can take the taste. What is difference?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Gary, Vishal seems impressed by this Osho guru, and when asked for his personal 10 commandments, these are what Osho said, I think it explains a fair bit:"

Thanks Hazel, I think I w..."

That is almost very impressive. On some point of Osho's thoughts I don't come near what he is saying. But that is why people say him as a danger. His thoughts are somewhat dangerous but religion should to agree on what you have interpreted in point first but still religions are against him.
But then I see his thoughts are just limited with individuality and not going to leave individual only just to impress others. More over it he is saying to just a single man.
I do meditation and I feel bliss and love and peace and you get it without this meditation. It does not mean your theory can be also applied on me. The basic of getting that enjoyment can be non volatile but ways are different. Your ways are not gonna work on me neither mine is gonna work on you or may be it gets work on each other but still you can't claim yours has only one way. I still enjoy this but you claim it absurdity.

[Jesse]

Gary wrote: "Jesse wrote: "These labels or terms are placed on certain things so that we can try to make sense out of things and then the labels take over the idea."

While I appreciate your point it also illus..."
First I want to say that I was not using "I think therefore I am" to say that God exists, but I remembered another philosopher making a piggyback off of it to prove of His existence. That is beside the point because, like I stated before, I was not claiming to be right, only throwing around ideas for fun. However it seems that you enjoy an argument much more than I do and, indeed, may fight me on this post as well. The philosophy was an idea. Praising love is something that I do and I am sorry if you do not see love as having and showing compassion and respect for all organisms on earth. I do not follow any one religion. I praise love as others praise their gods. I used the word God specifically to employ that idea which I thought was clear.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "You mean to say that to make people understand the reason, they will be more friendly to each other and understand each other."

No because you cannot "make" people understand as many people will choose not to listen, especially when other people are offering explanations that seem simpler or quicker.

Vishal wrote: "But still science is not a child now. Much time has gone and many scientific reasons are now in the hands of people."

That is rather arbitrary. Are you talking about science as in having the use of fire, science as in industrial age or science as modern ideas such as quantum physics? We have had science for many years but yet the bulk of our knowledge can be traced to the last fifty, and we still do not usually apply scientific methodology to things like economics, politics or sociology.

Meanwhile public policy and conceptions of morality are still dominated by mysticism and religion, so I would say the age of science has yet to really dawn.

Vishal wrote: "But still there is problem. Still so called scientific people are misusing the power."

Who and where?

Some religious people seem to like to hint of evil mad scientists concocting mad schemes and evil experiments in the shadows. Who exactly is abusing this power, and are they scientists or are they just using the fruits of science?

Meanwhile people die almost every day because of religion. India and Pakistan point nuclear weapons at each other and the principle difference between the countries is one is Islamic and the other is mainly Hindu. The middle east is torn by violence and murder which I know isn't just religious, but even different Muslim sects kill each other regularly.

Meanwhile have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? He is the geneticist that won the Nobel Peace Prize and the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honour. He is credited with saving perhaps up to a billion people or more from starvation. A billion people saved, by the use of science directed by one man.

Vishal wrote: "Why? The enjoyment can be attained without scientific realization, then what is different in attaining it before and after scientific realization? You enjoy the taste and you know the reason, but people who have no reason also can enjoy the taste."

Your the one that kept saying that if you understood something scientifically that somehow it meant you couldn't feel emotions about it.

Yes you can enjoy stuff when you do not understand it, however I would say that knowledge is a good thing so if you both know about and enjoy something that is better than just enjoying it. It is also easily shown that in many cases knowing about something can lead to more enjoyment, not less.

Vishal wrote: "His thoughts are somewhat dangerous but religion should to agree on what you have interpreted in point first but still religions are against him."

That's because religions always tend to be against each other, which is why they cause division and conflict. They are against each other because one religion claims something to be true, then another claims something different. Both cannot be right, but neither will accept independent verification and neither allow for doubt that they are right.

Vishal wrote: "But then I see his thoughts are just limited with individuality and not going to leave individual only just to impress others. More over it he is saying to just a single man."

That isn't true however, he is influencing other people with his personal beliefs and making claims about what is true without showing reasoning or evidence. This means he is attempting to impress his individual beliefs on others, willingly or not.

Vishal wrote: "I do meditation and I feel bliss and love and peace and you get it without this meditation. It does not mean your theory can be also applied on me."

I did not say the theory would apply to you. If you believe in mysticism and 'magic' then meditation will work for you just the same. My point was that it has been shown that people can meditate without needing to believe in mysticism and they enjoy the same benefits as someone who does believe.

Vishal wrote: "Your ways are not gonna work on me neither mine is gonna work on you or may be it gets work on each other but still you can't claim yours has only one way."

You again are thinking with a religious mind. I am not trying to impress a different way on you, science is not just another religion or way or path.

It has nothing to do with "working on you". Science is a methodology and tool you can choose to pick up if you wish. It has provable effects and advantages and has relieved more suffering and saved and preserved more lives than all the religions in history put together.

If you don't choose to use science then that's your choice. I only personally object when people make claims based on their own irrational beliefs that their methodology is somehow superior.

Vishal wrote: "I still enjoy this but you claim it absurdity. "

No. I said that the idea that if you know about something you can't enjoy it is absurd. Does a musician not enjoy music as much as other people because they understand music more, or do they have a passion for it? Does a poet enjoy poetry less because they can understand the language they write it in. Would they enjoy poetry in a language they don't understand more or less? If you read a mystery novel, do you stop before the culprit is revealed in the end because that would spoil the enjoyment?

Personally speaking I find the simple act of discovery and comprehension greatly enjoyable.

[Gary]

Jesse wrote: "First I want to say that I was not using "I think therefore I am" to say that God exists, but I remembered another philosopher making a piggyback off of it to prove of His existence."

In that case consider my refutation to the philosopher rather than to you.

Jesse wrote: "However it seems that you enjoy an argument much more than I do and, indeed, may fight me on this post as well."

I find it sadly amusing that several people have posted claims on here and when challenged have accused the challenger of being argumentative for the sake of it.

I will happily own up to the fact I love debate and the interchange of ideas, but I do not like arguments and pointless ad hominim attacks. In my opinion debate exercises our intellects and opens our minds to new ideas, even if we do not eventually agree with those ideas.

If you think I am being argumentative, imagine what would happen if I posted on a site like this the claim "God Does Not Exist!" If people then posted a slew of responses saying "yes he does", would I be justified in claiming that they are just being argumentative for the sake of it?

Jesse wrote: "The philosophy was an idea."

Good. Ideas are good. Why are discussing ideas that counter the idea you picked a bad thing?

Jesse wrote: "Praising love is something that I do and I am sorry if you do not see love as having and showing compassion and respect for all organisms on earth."

That is rather putting words in my mouth and in doing so is not showing much in the way of compassion and respect to me.

What I said was that you do not need to believe that love and compassion are powerful in order to revere them. In fact they are all the more precious if they are not "the highest power".

Jesse wrote: "I do not follow any one religion. I praise love as others praise their gods. I used the word God specifically to employ that idea which I thought was clear."

This is the problem with using English words for things that they do not really mean, but you are in good company there. Many famous scientists have been cited by religious apologists as being religious when they meant something remarkably different when they referred to "God".

Einstein was once questioned on the reports by apologists that he professed to be religious and he responded thus;

Einstein wrote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Therefore I always admonish people to only use the term "God" when referring to an anthropomorphic deity, because if Einstein can be so badly misrepresented, what chance have we got?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: In that case shy have so many different religions all with different claims? Why not just seek the truth through a simple methodology that seeks to remove human egocentric nature from the seeing of the truth? See nature for whtat it is rather than what other people invent it to be.


Here you come at the matchable point. Yes absolutely right and I am agree with you. But you are getting me absolutely wrong. I am not against science. I am used to it and now it is in my nature to be scientific. And I am also not in the favor of religions. Now knowing science is a great thing. I was just saying that if in the time we are enjoying the food and we start reasoning about the food, we will be distracted. Reasoning can be very helpful but in the time to eat, just eating is enough, the taste is enough.
I have never stated that I am a believer of someone else thought. But thought comes through our surrounding and the thought of an apple tree does not come if I have never seen, never heard about apple. So to know more I still have to keep my door open and to find out something I must have to go through others thoughts. To understand Newton's theory I must have to go through Newton's thoughts and then through reasoning or methods and practical I will have to accept it for me. It does not mean I have become follower of Newton, but it mean I have made his theory mine.
I am a very scientific person and I believe in my art of living that may be you can understand through above statement. But because I am using that word religion for that art of living, you have completely misunderstood me.

Gary wrote: If you don't choose to use science then that's your choice. I only personally object when people make claims based on their own irrational beliefs that their methodology is somehow superior.



When I said I don't choose science? You are blaiming me for no reason. And you can think I am irrational but still I believe opposite. This is only happening because you are misinterpreting me. And anyhow on earth I never claimed my methodology is superior. Still I believe my art is working on me.
I am also not in favor of abolution. I am very much an individual centric person and I respect others' individuality. I don't know much about other countries and also about Christianity. In India we have not that kind of fanatism. And sometime if it happens, reason would be political not religious. You have got wrong. India and Pakistan is not fighting for religion. It is because of some disputable land. And actually India is never fighting with anyone. To leave Pakistan, can you tell me when India has done a fighting with any other country? Actually my general knowledge is very weak. Perhaps you can help me.
By the way thanks for the much valuable information about genetics. I really did not know.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "I am not against science. I am used to it and now it is in my nature to be scientific. And I am also not in the favor of religions."

Wasn't your original post that we needed science and religion? In my opinion religion is not necessary which is the crux of what I am talking about.

If you do not believe religion is necessary then we do not disagree.

Vishal wrote: "I was just saying that if in the time we are enjoying the food and we start reasoning about the food, we will be distracted. Reasoning can be very helpful but in the time to eat, just eating is enough, the taste is enough."

Not really. It's certainly enough when someone else has done the reasoning or the knowing, but not knowing whether something is cooked and safe to eat, or knowing whether a particular plant or mushroom is deadly poison I would say is important.

Knowledge always improves things.

Vishal wrote: "To understand Newton's theory I must have to go through Newton's thoughts and then through reasoning or methods and practical I will have to accept it for me. It does not mean I have become follower of Newton, but it mean I have made his theory mine. "

Yes, but the difference between that and religion is twofold. Firstly because even though Newton made various claims, he also showed us why he claimed these things and how he did it so we can confirm those tests. So you don't have to believe him, you can check for yourself. Secondly we know Newton was not entirely correct, but that does not make his work completely pointless. Einstein's work is more precise when it comes to speeds close to the speed of light or if gravity is different, but Newton will do for everyday circumstance.

By comparison religion makes claims that you are then required to believe. No one can independently check them or verify them. Also religions tend to be very opposed to any idea they may have got something wrong, hence the principle reason why they conflict with science when new science no longer agrees with old religious claims.

Vishal wrote: "But because I am using that word religion for that art of living, you have completely misunderstood me."

The word "religion" in English means something that is "believed" in. If you are advocating a particular mode of living then you should use either "ideology" or "philosophy", though I prefer philosophy as ideology tends to be similar to religion in that you place the idea as paramount.

For example my philosophy is that "belief" and "faith" are not the virtues that people claim, and indeed are only regarded as virtues because that makes it more likely that people will submit to them. If you believe in an idea then you close your mind to new ideas, if you have faith in one thing then you are automatically faithless in regard to others.

Conviction is fine, because there must be a certain threshold of reason and proof to change your mind about something otherwise you would be forever changing your mind. Trust is fine, as sometimes we do not have the time or resources to verify everything we are told, yet trust should be both earned and never blind.

Vishal wrote: "When I said I don't choose science? You are blaiming me for no reason."

Actually you blamed me for telling you to use "my way" by which I assume you mean science. I just said you could use it or not, it's your choice.

Vishal wrote: "I am also not in favor of abolution. I am very much an individual centric person and I respect others' individuality."

Which is one of the reasons I dislike religion, because religion promotes sectarianism and conformity.

Vishal wrote: "You have got wrong. India and Pakistan is not fighting for religion. It is because of some disputable land."

Yes, but why is there a dispute at all between Pakistan and India? India has a very rich and diverse religious background while Pakistan is 97% Muslim. Islam teaches its followers that most other religions, especially those that use imagery and art, are a deadly sin of Idolatry, and that Muslims should be ruled by religious law not state law.

Muslims in Afghanistan destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan and there are rumours that with the victory of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt that some extremists want the Pyramids destroyed because they are pagan symbols.

As for the specific conflict between India and Pakistan, the original intention when the British left was to divide the country between those who wanted Muslim rule and those that did not. The idea being that this would prevent conflict. The problem appears to be that Maharajah Hari Singh chose to officially join India in 1947 despite the majority of the Kashmir population being Muslim.

If it wasn't for the fact that Muslims believe that being governed by a non-Muslim state is unbearable, and that other religions are practically offensive, then there would be little difference between India and Pakistan. In fact it would be likely that it would be all the same country.

Vishal wrote: "By the way thanks for the much valuable information about genetics. I really did not know. "

No problem, I think that Norman Borlaug is perhaps the most unsung hero in all history. Sure he got a noble prize and other recognitions, yet how many people know his name? Meanwhile "Mother Teresa" is now a household name for humanitarianism and saintly kindness despite the fact that she is known to have blamed AIDs on "improper" sexual conduct and her charitable homes were places of suffering where people risked cross-infection and suffered terribly with no pain relief and poor medication based on her belief that "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ".

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I am not against science. I am used to it and now it is in my nature to be scientific. And I am also not in the favor of religions."

Wasn't your original post that we needed science..."

I don't know about other countries and the role of Christianity in there. But I am sorry because I was just trying to consider you from an Indian mind. Here in India when I wander, I see people living still in religion and they don't reject science. Much have happened in India's religions. That beauty when I see, I feel this should to be continued. Yes, there are much differences in them but still they have not lost the beauty. I know your reasoning mind can't understand this. And I am incapable person for any more articulations.
But I am not going to leave these colors. I have seen something in them and I can't define. More over I can't be so methodical. But these religions are soothing my heart (a word I use and I don't wish to leave it whether you understand or not) but my thinking mind not let me permit to believe on them because still they have flaws somewhere in something and these flaws are not there because of there is some wrong in their book but because the obsession and over dependency upon them. Many religious reformations have happened here in India. And when I see today I see the young generation is more more liberal and patient than their former generation was. In India at least many intellectuals believe that the right way of life is the religion. As far as I can think, the Holy book of Hindu's 'The Gita' says the same. India has not invented the word 'religion', India says 'Dharmaa', the English people who came here found no other word in English to denote this because there religion was an institution who was controlling the society from its very beginning to its end but in India 'Dharmaa' was not controlling the society but just managing Indian people's diversity and telling them to manage their work by following right way with truth, honesty and dignity. That is the reason, Hindus in different states in India follow different customs and traditions. But what was then can't be applied now. When priests started misleading people from the 'Dharmaa' and began to establishing their own rules which are no where written any. Many things changed but the meaning of this word remained same in India.
I am really sorry that I was trying to see you from my Indian eyes what I am accustomed for. But thoughts cross the line of countries people begin to see them in their context, in their surrounding.
By the way more than Muslims are living in India than Pakistan. And Islam's message is same in all over the world but in India Islam becomes somewhat liberal. Many Muslim groups are against Hindus but they are in so low in number that their hot speeches hardly make any change in India. And this is not with Muslims only but same is with Hindus. I suppose this is happening not because the message of Islam but the filthy nature of these people who always take benefit from a dead body. More over here traveling from one to another village and town and cities, I see liberalism and love for others' faith in them.
Here I see Muslims are governed by state laws. They have to apply for jobs. Benefit of government arrives to them. They have to apply in Bank with rules, every rules apply here like it applies on another.
In the time of King Aurangzeb, Hindus were converted to forcefully in Islam. After Aurangzeb the king of Kashmir asked to a high priest of Benares whether they could be converted in Hinduism again and high priest said, it is not possible as Hinduism does not allow any double conversion. Most of the Kashmir did not want to join with any one. But because the decision was not only taken because of a Hindu king but because of that that Pakistan was more interested in that part. Now it is the history and history is full with contradictions. Today's scenario is that more patient and acceptance has between these two countries. Fanaticism is not the part of religion. It is just the form of people who are more interested in benefit from something. If Osama has attacked on American buildings, the whole Islam should be blamed for that? In India majority of Muslims, such intelligent people are serving in Indian civil service, sitting, eating, enjoying with other religious people and there is no problem. The former president of India A.P.J. Adul Kalam is the nuclear scientist and he is such a master of Kuran and Gita. He is believer in these religions and their messages. These messages are really harmless. People have not changed. When Mohammed had said, it was in Macca, in Arabia and the climate and situation was different there rather than the climate and situations of Asia. So if Islam comes to India it has to make a little adjustment. Same would be if Hinduism goes to Arabia. Intellectual people here know this so they follow. The creator of Pakistan 'Jinnah' was anyhow not a perfect Muslim. Alcohol is 'haraam' a crime in Islam. Jinnah was fond of wine. Seeing picture, singing music is a crime in Islam but he was just the lover of these. He was more Uropian than Muslim. But still he changed the mind of people. It is simple. You take some line from some scripture which are contradictory or have no use in this time and then say to people what are you doing, this is not the religion you are following, you are committing crime. No one comes forward to see what that person is doing in his life. People get blind folded. This is the mistake in people that they don't use their mind and then blaming on religion starts.
I am not in favor of any form of destroying and establishing. I am in favor change from the root level. Today we are using science. And people in India who are religious are much in favor of science. In India, still science is the favorite subject and technology is on boom. But I see them when they come home. They still follow their 'dharma' what you call religion because their philosophers have said what ever you choose for the living of live would be your 'dharma'. So if they are engineer or doctor, their religion is saying nothing against it. So what is the problem. They still touch the feet of elders and respect any one who is elder than them. This is in their blood. I see in 'Bengal' an Indian state where Hindus worship an idol of goddess 'Durga' who protect women from evil Muslims are establishing idol and worshiping standing with Hindus although their religion does not give them permission. When too much philosophy mixes together from different ways, I see fanaticism gets dissolved that has happened in India and philanthropic thought comes.
I don't know about your way of seeing and deciding what should be or what should be not, what is rational or what is irrational, what is methodical or what is not methodical, what is absurd, what is intelligent. But I love to live among this beauty and still I feel I have searched my 'dharma' my religion. And I have really no problem to follow science and religion together.
Thank you. I suppose I don't need much argument. I am sorry but It was really very interesting to chat with you.
PS- one thing I also wanted to add not because I have any much wish to continue but because I was thinking to tell about magic and mysticism.
Magic, I already somewhere have explained. Mysticism in India has a very different meaning. Sufism is the the branch of Islam. Many great Sufi mystics have done a great job in India. When these mystics found what Islamic people are doing in India, they were very worry about it because this was not the meaning of Islam. These Islamic people were going in Mosque and coming out and again just doing the same thing wrongly. This was not the meaning of Islam. Islam believes in the eternal form of God, that it says 'Allah', 'Khuda'. So these mystics began singing. Just the simplest form but in that simplest form, there was tremendous power. People who just listen their songs are bound to come closer automatically. And people were not understanding their meaning but words were very simpler and with great attraction these words had power to drag anyone closer to these mystics. What they were saying, just that God is not where they go to make a connectivity, but it is just around of a man. They were saying more heart is needed to come closer to existence and just going in the Mosque can not resolve any problem. Actually that is the true essence of Islam to make people to connect with their true existence. And gradually many began understanding their views. They created such a serenity and love around them that even today people who go on the tomb of 'Salim Chisti' they feel some kind of peace.
The science has a believe that there is an unknown element in all over the universe. When people dance or sing and their singing and dancing comes through their whole being, they create some energy around themselves. I don't know more explanation. These Sufi mystics were just making the man's body in the form of dance. I know there would be an scientific explanation around of it but the people who were listening them, used to feel ecstasy right at that moment.
And I don't suppose these mystics were telling anything that is wrong. Like Islam, many Mystics were born who had given same as Islamic mystics. Idol worshiping is still a belief in Hinduism but there was a woman who began 'Bhakti Rasha' worshiping taste (I don't know another word in English). Her name was 'Meera'. She believed that Idol is just a matter of 'dhyan', a meditation. Even if a man would pour down its heart over just the idol, a stone, something tremendous happens. She also accepted the form of singing and her message is same as Islamic mystics. 'Kabir' another personality who was also a mystic but more connected with people and his way was creating poetry. Through poetry he tell many things that had gone vanished from people's faith. He also hit a stone on every belief that is false, like he says to Muslims and Hindus, 'you are screeching in Mosque and Temples to ask God to come as God has ears and he is dwelling somewhere higher. you idiots don't know God is formless and he is even dwelling around you, inside you.'
In Hinduism there is a book 'Upnishad'. This book has written in the form of poetry and it rejects any form of blind believing and more over it says to every students to find out the truth. Hindus don't read it, even a normal Hindu does not read any religious book. These books were in Sanskrit and now Sanskrit is a dead language, so people have to rely on priest and priest has no brain to understand it. The translations are in Hindi and English but still it has not been written in a form as it is in Sanskrit. But still people don't read them.
Why I said, to reason with something is to lose beauty. I am a teacher Gary, and I have done this process with my students. I ask one student to see the leaf of a plant and feel its beauty, just feel how it is coming in the mind. And when that student just see, I ask immediately, why this leaf is green? He starts with the whole system of reflection. And then in the last I ask so you know the reason but what I'd told to you? To just see what is happening in your heart when you see closely this leaf. They say because there was thoughts coming so they just forgotten that. Knowing is a great tool in the hands of man but when concentration is happening just a little single drop can be a distraction. This is still my thinking (Don't consider it as I am establishing any theory). When I paint, (I have learned it) before making it I apply every science but when once I began, I am fully concentrated on that painting but a single drop of anyone's interference as when they say, come and have your breakfast or shake me, I feel I can't continue. I feel I need some time to again make that concentration. Without science, that painting will be just a child's sketch.
Thanks again.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "Much have happened in India's religions. That beauty when I see, I feel this should to be continued. Yes, there are much differences in them but still they have not lost the beauty. I know your reasoning mind can't understand this."

Well that's a bit insulting, saying that I am incapable of understanding beauty because I use reason. It is also nonsense, and nonsense that you keep repeating.

I do not need religion to appreciate beauty. I do not need to believe in old legends and mythology to appreciate them and find them compelling.

Vishal wrote: "But I am not going to leave these colors. I have seen something in them and I can't define. More over I can't be so methodical."

So does that mean it cannot be defined just because you cannot do it? If you cannot be methodical about it is that intrinsic or just your failing?

Vishal wrote: "But these religions are soothing my heart (a word I use and I don't wish to leave it whether you understand or not)"

I think you'll find I understand the term in context.

Just because you find it comforting doesn't mean its real.


Vishal wrote: "India has not invented the word 'religion', India says 'Dharmaa',"

I am aware of the term, in English it is probably closer to "Ethos" which comes from the Ancient Greek. The concept itself isn't necessarily religious, but it depends whether you accept Dharmaa as a good way to live life, or you believe it is a real force that exists.

Vishal wrote: "in India 'Dharmaa' was not controlling the society but just managing Indian people's diversity and telling them to manage their work by following right way with truth, honesty and dignity."

Erm. Telling people the right way to live is controlling society!

Vishal wrote: "When priests started misleading people from the 'Dharmaa' and began to establishing their own rules which are no where written any. Many things changed but the meaning of this word remained same in India."

The same is true in the western world. Religion has adopted the word "morality" as if it was the sole source of morality, yet it is easy to see the immorality in the scripture and actions of the western religions.

Vishal wrote: "I am really sorry that I was trying to see you from my Indian eyes what I am accustomed for."

No need to be sorry, that is what we all do, but this is why it is good for us to discuss things from each of our viewpoints.

Vishal wrote: "By the way more than Muslims are living in India than Pakistan. And Islam's message is same in all over the world but in India Islam becomes somewhat liberal."

Last poll I saw it was about the same number of Muslims (178M in Pakistan and 177M in India) but India has ten times the total population so its 97% Muslim in Pakistan and 9.7% in India.

Vishal wrote: "I suppose this is happening not because the message of Islam but the filthy nature of these people who always take benefit from a dead body."

Sorry that I didn't understand, which filthy people?

Vishal wrote: "Fanaticism is not the part of religion. It is just the form of people who are more interested in benefit from something. If Osama has attacked on American buildings, the whole Islam should be blamed for that?"

Islam should be blamed, but not Muslims. Just as good Christians ignore the worst parts of their religion, good Muslims ignore the worst parts of theirs, yet both religions still have those parts and they are still used to justify atrocities, including justifying violence to otherwise peaceful followers.

Fanaticism is just the result of taking an idea to its natural conclusion.

The Qu'ran says "2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

Sadly there is plenty of wrong done by non-muslim countries to justify Muslims belief that they are not the aggressors. Yet now that just means that their religion tells them to fight until "all religion is for Allah". People who really believe this and really believe that non-Muslims are evildoers corrupting the world find it easy to justify violence and murder as their god commands.

Osama referred to India in a letter as the oppressor of Kashmir. Why? Because in Kashmir the population has to obey Indian state law, not religious Sharia law.

He said of the US "You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"

Vishal wrote: "So if Islam comes to India it has to make a little adjustment. Same would be if Hinduism goes to Arabia.."

That seems reasonable, but religion places belief before reason. Certainly different ideas are better in different places but historically this has led religions to split, and then usually to come into conflict over which version is "the truth".

Vishal wrote: "This is the mistake in people that they don't use their mind and then blaming on religion starts."

Yet religious people always blame other people for getting religion "wrong" (i.e. not the same as them). They are happy to blame people but they never blame the religion, even when those people are doing exactly what the religion teaches.

Vishal wrote: "I am in favor change from the root level."

I agree. Communism tried to eliminate religion, but in reality it just put it's own political ideology in its place. I think that religion needs to be made obsolete by an increase of understanding, not just what we traditionally see as "science" but in ethics and justice.

Vishal wrote: "So if they are engineer or doctor, their religion is saying nothing against it. So what is the problem."

Nothing, as long as "belief" does not supplant reason. If Dharmaa is used as a model for life that's fine, if a Doctor believes in the mystical version of Dharmaa and uses that teaching instead of tried and tested medical science when treating someone, then that is bad.

Vishal wrote: "When too much philosophy mixes together from different ways, I see fanaticism gets dissolved that has happened in India and philanthropic thought comes."

That's true, this is what has happened in the West too, with the mixing of beliefs people have started to see the difference between beliefs and provable truth and are a little more sceptical about the claims of religion. Hence more liberation and more altruistic and peaceful society, yet there is plenty of people working hard to reverse this trend and plunge everyone back into god-fearing obedience.

Vishal wrote: "The science has a believe that there is an unknown element in all over the universe."

Do you mean Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Vishal wrote: "When people dance or sing and their singing and dancing comes through their whole being, they create some energy around themselves. I don't know more explanation."

Singing and dancing are forms of communication, so the fact that it communicates emotion is not surprising in the least. It also doesn't matter if it is Sufi mystics, a catholic choir or even a rock star, similar forms of emotional effect have been observed in all. In fact nowadays in the west we are more used to the idea of music and how it effects us, but just a few decades back people were startled to see the effects on people from "Beatlemania" and other bands with fanatically devoted fans. The effects on them where remarkably similar to the ecstasies, visions and trances reported by mystics and religious people.

Vishal wrote: "He also hit a stone on every belief that is false, like he says to Muslims and Hindus, 'you are screeching in Mosque and Temples to ask God to come as God has ears and he is dwelling somewhere higher. you idiots don't know God is formless and he is even dwelling around you, inside you.'"

This is easy to do with most beliefs, but most beliefs ridicule others while forgetting their own flaws.

Vishal wrote: "In Hinduism there is a book 'Upnishad'. This book has written in the form of poetry and it rejects any form of blind believing and more over it says to every students to find out the truth."

How does this book suggest that students find the truth?

Vishal wrote: "He starts with the whole system of reflection. And then in the last I ask so you know the reason but what I'd told to you? To just see what is happening in your heart when you see closely this leaf. They say because there was thoughts coming so they just forgotten that."

So surely that was your fault for distracting them using your authority? You asked them to just look at the leaf and experience it, then you told them to tell you 'why' it was green. They did exactly what you told them too.

Personally I find the green of a leaf intellectually strange and beautiful too. Do you know why a leaf is green? Because the chlorophyll that allows leaves to act as "solar panels" absorbs red and blue light and reflects green. Yet our sun actually outputs most of its energy in the green, so it seems silly that this is the one colour it reflects. As it turns out there is another chemical that absorbs green light and reflects purple, but the process seems less efficient.

Vishal wrote: "Knowing is a great tool in the hands of man but when concentration is happening just a little single drop can be a distraction."

So that is a problem of discipline rather than knowledge, plus not a huge issue in the world. If all the worlds issues with economics, politics etc. was too much knowledge, the world would be in a much much better state.

Vishal wrote: "When I paint, (I have learned it) before making it I apply every science but when once I began, I am fully concentrated on that painting but a single drop of anyone's interference as when they say, come and have your breakfast or shake me, I feel I can't continue. I feel I need some time to again make that concentration. Without science, that painting will be just a child's sketch."

That is a fine expression of discipline and concentration, but it doesn't need a lack of knowledge or irrational belief to achieve. Look at Professor Stephen Hawking, unable to move, feed or clothe himself, or even to write down equations or draw diagrams, he uses his knowledge with pure discipline, advancing science and understanding by almost sheer effort of will alone.

[Jettcatt]

Jean wrote: "It's understandable that one could be turned off to all religion based on experiences with some religion but there's a lot of religion available. I do think everyone is entirely entitled to opinio..."

Sorry I have had the oppostite, I had religion and now I don't and my life is a lot calmer and happier now without being riddled with guilt and always living in fear of not making the holy grail and getting left behind when it all goes down,, each persons experience is different so I don't think you can say you don't know what your missing, your experiince is personal and the next persons will be different again

[Gary]

Jettcatt wrote: "Sorry I have had the oppostite, I had religion and now I don't and my life is a lot calmer and happier now without being riddled with guilt and always living in fear of not making the holy grail and getting left behind when it all goes down,, each persons experience is different so I don't think you can say you don't know what your missing, your experiince is personal and the next persons will be different again"

Same here.

I know a lot of people say "everyone is entitled to their beliefs", which is fine if that didn't effect others. The problem often isn't people's experience of religion, it's people's experience of other people's religion.

Bigotry, hatred and intolerance all disguised as "morality" and "righteousness".

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Jettcatt wrote: "Sorry I have had the oppostite, I had religion and now I don't and my life is a lot calmer and happier now without being riddled with guilt and always living in fear of not making ..."

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, they are not entitled to have other people respect those beliefs.
That seems to be the problem people have, this idea that the minute you say 'I believe' you gain a magic shield.

If you believe crazy stuff, I'm gonna question putting you on the babysitting list or electing you to government office.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Much have happened in India's religions. That beauty when I see, I feel this should to be continued. Yes, there are much differences in them but still they have not lost the beauty. ..."

You have said you can explain love and also the taste of food. Please feel free to explain. Also I ask you to explain the Dark matter because I have no knowledge about of it. I will be thankful if you do so. Please.

[Shanna]

Vishal wrote: "You have said you can explain love and also the taste of food. Please feel free to explain."

Chemistry and evolution on both, taste is relatively well understood and how to alter it. Love is a neurochemical reaction, with aspects of social characteristics thrown in.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Vishal wrote: "You have said you can explain love and also the taste of food. Please feel free to explain."

Chemistry and evolution on both, taste is relatively well understood and how to alter it..."

Thanks Shanna but please consider me a poor student and Gary can explain rather better. Thanks!

[Evan]

As a theology major and former practicing, ordained minister, I have devoted countless hours to personal religious study and internal debate. The long list of books read, sermons listened to and given, and the unbelievable amount of time I continue to spend delving into religion and all things spiritual has led me to some conclusions. Though my conclusions themselves are not written in stone, and continue to be up for debate and refinement, because a life bounded by unchangeable dogma is a life only half lived. In direct answer to the initial question, I would choose science, because I no longer feel the need for religion in my life. That said, I fully consider science to be a form of religion. The words "hypothesis" and "theory" are easily replaceable with more religious sounding words such as "hope" and "faith". Remember that the helix-shaped pattern for DNA was a firmly held belief by scientists, well before it could actually be scientifically proven. Both science and religion are looking for answers. One relies on data. The other is based on the unseen, yet religion is glad to embrace archaeological evidence, so long as it doesn't upset the fundamentalist apple cart. Many religious types have a very hypocritical approach to radio-carbon dating, especially when tens of thousands or millions of years terms are bandied about. Religion I feel, is a necessary support (cynics may insert the word "crutch" here), for individuals who feel the need to belong to something larger than themselves, and also for the types who do not trust their own judgment, or take the time for serious introspection. It gives structure to many, especially those who need a list of do's and don't's to affix to the refrigerator door as a constant reminder. My major gripes with religion are two: hypocrisy and divisiveness. It was a gentleman in India in the 1940's, a guru I think, quoted in the New Dehli paper who evidently coined the phrase, "Religion divides. Spirituality unites." Four very powerful words. However, the notion of spirituality fails to suffice for those who want life spelled out plainly in the form of ten commandments, or a book thousands of years old, or (you fill in the blank). Spirituality is not some meaningless ethereal term, nor is it a cop out. It is the natural progression for the individuals who are willing to let go of outdated, illogical, rigid, judgmental dogmas and labels, and who trust the spark of the Divine within themselves to venture out on their own, living a life based on the tenets of love. Religion may satisfy the emotional needs of many. Science may satiate the cerebral need-to-know for others, but neither of them can be ultimately as fulfilling and harmonious as a path that seeks to control the ego, experience the Divine, view everyone as totally connected, live with a mind that is open and free from fear, and find the sacred in every moment. This is where I find myself, fifty-two years into my incredible journey. I can only speak to my own experience.

[Hazel]

Can you define what spirituality is, without using anything that we can explain in other ways? I am as yet to find someone who can define spirituality without referring to the ephemeral and supernatural (you yourself have referred to the divine, another word that has no real meaning), as anything else they put is explicable through natural processes, chemistry, biology and physics. Spirituality is a cop out term, because it is a wishy washy term that cannot be applied to anything real that cannot be properly explained through the use of the sciences. Spirituality is a meaningless word.

[Jettcatt]

Perhaps spirituality should be defined as well being, a feeling of well being is in a sense feeling a ease with yourself and with where you are at at any particular time. The height of Well being is reaching self actualisation, this is the journey of all humans and should not be dependent on religion or spirituality or any other hocus pocus name you can put on it. it is what it is.

[Drew]

Evan wrote: "As a theology major and former practicing, ordained minister, I have devoted countless hours to personal religious study and internal debate. The long list of books read, sermons listened to and gi..."

I do not agree with you even a little bit that science is a religion, it is the opposite of religion. Religion is based on nothing but beliefs and superstitions, science is based on cold hard fact, sure some hypothesize but they never claim something as the end all be all if there isn't enough proof.

[[deleted user]]

The great way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinion for or against...
The struggle of what one likes and what one dislike
is the disease of the mind.

[Hazel]

what a pile of hogwash. If you want to see the truth, then investigate it, don't sit around contemplating your navel.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "You have said you can explain love and also the taste of food. Please feel free to explain. Also I ask you to explain the Dark matter because I have no knowledge about of it. I will be thankful if you do so. Please. "

I'll do my best! We must first remember that both things are incredibly complex and are actually labels for many different things that take place that we collectively label as a single thing.

Taste. What we understand of taste is that we actually do not experience it anything like we imagine. The human perception of taste is actually mostly of smell, as anyone who has a cold can tell you. If you cannot smell food tastes relatively bland except for strong tastes like heat, bitterness or sweetness.

Tests have proven that the overall sensation of taste involves at least five different things, first is conceptual, if you are used to a certain kind of food you will find the sensation of taste stronger and will likely find something tastes bad if you are not culturally accustomed to it. Second is visual, which means that if the food is the right appearance and colour it will taste better, which is why many processed foods are dyed. Third is smell, both before eating and during. Scent from cooking food prepares the sensation of taste, and during eating the process of chewing allows scent to pass into the olfactory cavity. Fourth is texture, the feeling of the crunch/softness etc. as measured by the touch sensation of the mouth, tongue and base of the teeth. Finally there is the rather simplistic level of information gained by the tongue that we usually call "taste", yet it seems that the tongue is the last step and mainly responsible for detecting potentially poisonous food. This entire sensation is presented to the conscious mind as the "taste" of the food in the mouth.

Now imagine that 'simple' concept applied to something like "love".

'Love' is actually a label for a complex set of human social interactions of community bonding. That includes but is not limited to familial love, communal love, idealistic love and sexual love. One of the great problems in human society is this idea that 'love' is one thing. In fact it is possible that many mental dysfunctions are caused when these lines are blurred. Even these bonds themselves can go wrong, for example when a parental bond makes the parent dominate the child, or even reject it violently for perceived rejection of their own ideals. When a person's love for a potential sexual partner turns into an unhealthy obsession or when a person feels love for the idea of their partner when that partner does not live up to that ideal in the slightest.

So love is incredibly complex. This does not mean it cannot be comprehended or it is mystical, it just incorporates a lot of things. In the same way a government is a complex interaction of different rules, motives, people and organisations that we give a convenient collective label to.

One of the ironies of the current western conflicts of love is deliciously ironic. The issues of premarital sex, homosexuality and contraception all come from an idea that "sex for pleasure" is somehow bestial. The catholic religion gives the clearest rendition of this concept. That sex should only be for procreation within the bounds of marriage and anything else is lustful and evil.

The irony is that sex for procreation alone is bestial. Animals that broadcast when they are "in heat" or receptive are behaving in a manner where sex is about procreation. In humans it can be shown that sex helps to form and reinforce bonds by the neurochemical reactions it engenders. This is important for our species as it reinforces are social and family bonds for the long term raising of children and the building of a strong society.

Advocates that decry homosexuality or contraception as being "against nature" are treating humans like beasts or even worse like automata, as some species do have similar uses for sex. Moreover, because sex forges such strong bonds religion gains strong control by imposing regulation and authority over sex.

Of course sex, and even "romantic" love is not the entirety of love, yet when people say "love is the most important thing" or "god is love" they are reducing the term 'love' to an incredibly vague ideal.

What is important, at least amongst humans, is compassion. This generates from what we call a "theory of mind". This trait allows a human to imagine themselves in another persons position, to imagine their suffering or their needs. This trait is arguably more important that "love", as it not only allows social bonding, but it also allows us to dissolve or alter those bonds when needed. Like the conflict between the love for a child and the need to let the grown child leave to find their own way in the world.

When this theory of mind fails you get the condition of sociopathic behaviour. Where the person cannot appreciate the pain or desires of other people and therefore only acts on their own.

This "theory of mind" unfortunately explains why humans so readily ascribe motivations and personalities to events and forces around them. When a tool breaks or a computer crashes we often feel it 'wanted' to break. It is easy to see how when we apply this idea to the world or the universe, how we imagine motivations and desires behind the forces of the universe that we call religion.

Well hope that scratched the surface with 6,491 characters to spare!

[Travis]

Drew wrote: "Evan wrote: "As a theology major and former practicing, ordained minister, I have devoted countless hours to personal religious study and internal debate. The long list of books read, sermons liste..."

Yeah, the 'science is a religion' thing is an automatic 'not an argument to be taken seriously' alarm for me.
Science is religion, if religion actually provided proof, or if you believe gravity is caused by magic.

[Hazel]

It amazes me, you get people obsessed and excited about all sorts of things, there are people who love to paint and spend all day doing it, but no-one ever says art is a religion, there are people who devote their lives to uncovering the past, but no-one ever says that history is a religion, people spend their entire lives parsing mathematics, but no-one claims that maths is a religion. I know someone who can name almost any British bird just from its song (in fact, there are a lot of people who can do this), is his bird watching a religion? I can name all 50 US states and show where they are on a map, same with european countries. Does this make geography into a religion for me? What is it about science that makes people claim its a religion?

[Gary]

Hi Evan, I have to say I was intrigued by your story, and impressed by some yet I would have to strongly disagree with parts.

Evan wrote: "Though my conclusions themselves are not written in stone, and continue to be up for debate and refinement, because a life bounded by unchangeable dogma is a life only half lived."

This part I fully agree with and in my opinion forms the core of both a healthy approach to life and the fundamental principle behind the process of science.

Evan wrote: "In direct answer to the initial question, I would choose science, because I no longer feel the need for religion in my life. That said, I fully consider science to be a form of religion. The words "hypothesis" and "theory" are easily replaceable with more religious sounding words such as "hope" and "faith"."

Sadly, no.

Hypothesis is an idea, one that we need testing to see if we are right.

"It will rain today" is a hypothesis (or a certainty this summer in the UK!) We can test this hypothesis by going outside on the day in question and checking for the fall of water droplets.

"I hope it rains today", is different. It indicates a desired result but says nothing as to its likelihood or whether it needs testing. When a hypothesis is tested it either fails or matures into theory. When a hope is tested it simply ends as the desired result is present or not.

"Theory" is the concept that most non-scientists consistently misunderstand. The whole reason that scientists regard the "laws" of nature as theories is encapsulated in that first statement that I agreed with. Yes we accept that this hypothesis has been rigorously tested and had passed with flying colours, but we also accept that the theory could be incomplete, inaccurate or a simplification of a far more comprehensive theory.

Faith meanwhile is the rejection of the concept of "theory" in place of a concept of dogmatic "truth". The problem with this is that as soon as you place the unquestioning trust of "faith" in a theory you have stopped seeking further truth, and stopped doing science.

Most great advances have come at the expense of cherished theories. Yet good scientists accept when sufficient evidence and reason has been shown. At the same time, whether it is the heliocentric sun, the geophysical age of the Earth, the cosmological age of the universe, their will always be the faithful, religious or secular, who will refuse to believe.

Evan wrote: "Remember that the helix-shaped pattern for DNA was a firmly held belief by scientists, well before it could actually be scientifically proven."

Er... No. In From 1878 to 1919 the non protein "scaffolding" of DNA was identified, in 1937 X-ray diffraction patterns showed that DNA had a regular structure, in 1927 Nikolai Koltsov proposed that the scaffolding would make two mirror strands of base pairs. However it was in 1953 that Watson and Crick made the double-helix hypothesis based on X-ray diffraction pictures. This hypothesis was then confirmed by a lot more evidence before finally the DNA molecule could be imaged by advanced electron microscopes in the late 20th century.

So nowhere was it a "belief". It was a hypothesis, based on evidence, that became a theory that best explained the results of X-Ray crystallography. A hypothesis made after the evidence was seen.

The structure of DNA was known to be regular from

Evan wrote: "Both science and religion are looking for answers. One relies on data. The other is based on the unseen, yet religion is glad to embrace archaeological evidence, so long as it doesn't upset the fundamentalist apple cart."

No. If both were looking for answers then "religion" would be as unified and mutually supporting as science is, not mutually exclusive and divisive.

Science looks for answers beyond our assumptions, religion assumes the truth then looks for evidence to support this conclusion and decries anything that would cast doubt on it.

Evan wrote: "Religion I feel, is a necessary support (cynics may insert the word "crutch" here), for individuals who feel the need to belong to something larger than themselves, and also for the types who do not trust their own judgment, or take the time for serious introspection."

Actually there are plenty of non-faith based philosophies, organisations and communities that could serve this need. Religion does not serve as a crutch, it takes advantage of this need in order to control people and propagate itself.

Evan wrote: "It gives structure to many, especially those who need a list of do's and don't's to affix to the refrigerator door as a constant reminder."

When religion replaces conscience and compassion, atrocity eagerly follows.

I have (much earlier on this thread) derived a few of the "ten commandments" from sound ethical principles, the ones that didn't derive easily were also the commandments that are directly in competition with what we expect from a modern democratic society (e.g. "freedom of religion")

Evan wrote: "Spirituality is not some meaningless ethereal term, nor is it a cop out. It is the natural progression for the individuals who are willing to let go of outdated, illogical, rigid, judgmental dogmas and labels, and who trust the spark of the Divine within themselves to venture out on their own, living a life based on the tenets of love."

Illogical and judgemental labels I would include are "spirituality" and "divine". Spirituality is the belief in the "immaterial", yet science has shown us that our old concepts of matter and energy are archaic to say the least. I have yet to hear anyone define "spirituality" in terms that are not circular or assumptive. "Divine" is also a strongly judgemental term that refers to something "godlike" (from the latin root 'Deus' from where we get the terms deity, and divinity). By assuming people have a "divine spark" within them it quietly assumes that they are intrinsically of better substance than things that do not have this 'spark'.

Finally, the concept of "love" as I discussed with Vishal above, is so incredibly complex as to render the idea of living a life based on the tenets as infinitely flexible on what counts as love. For example many "Compassionate Christians" would like to convince homosexuals to go through the trauma of self-denial, indoctrination and the decimation of their self-esteem because they 'love' that individual and want to help them be 'normal' and 'well'. Just the same as the father who beats and abuses their child out of 'love' and a desire to see them grow up 'right' to the husband that beats his wife, or the wife that forgives and defends their abusive husband. All of this can be claimed as love by some.

What is more important than love is compassion and mutual respect.

Evan wrote: "Religion may satisfy the emotional needs of many."

As has various unhealthy political and ideological movements. I am sure the KKK appeals to the emotional needs of its members to feel special and superior. This does not make it right or even desirable.

Evan wrote: "Science may satiate the cerebral need-to-know for others, but neither of them can be ultimately as fulfilling and harmonious as a path that seeks to control the ego, experience the Divine, view everyone as totally connected, live with a mind that is open and free from fear, and find the sacred in every moment."

Science can do so much more than be some sort of plaything for us cerebral types that you casually dismiss it as. The process of science could be just as equally applied to politics, economics and even ethics, probably with surprising and wonderful results.

Again you talk about "experiencing the divine", "seeing everyone connected", and more concerning, "controlling the ego". What do you mean by "experience the divine", or is this one of those claims that will be met with smug satisfaction that you can only experience it if you believe in it? What connections are you talking about between people, are you talking about society and community or some sort of mystical bond that can equally bind as well as connect? What do you mean about controlling the ego, other than submitting our ego to another? The process of science recognises and accepts the role of our ego and then attempts to place it aside in the search for truth. Assuming one is master of their own ego is itself quite egotistic.

I am sorry if any of that sounds overly contentious as I had so much hope considering the start of your thesis, yet it seems (in my perhaps deluded opinion) like your incredible journey could be on the cusp of a true epiphany.

[Gary]

Vishal wrote: "The great way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinion for or against...
The struggle of what one likes and what one dislike
is the disease of the mind. "

Sorry Vishal, but that entire text is what I tend to refer to as a philosophical zero-sum equation. The entire thing denies itself within its own context.

For example if you want to seek the truth you need to deny your likes and dislikes, yet 'seeking the truth' has been defined as something 'wanted' therefore a 'like'. So that entire part could be rendered "If you want to seek the truth then just don't".

[Evan]

Vishal wrote: "The great way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and..."

Vishal, is your quote from Hafiz or Rumi? I'm very familiar with it (but evidently not enough)

[Evan]

Gary wrote: "Hi Evan, I have to say I was intrigued by your story, and impressed by some yet I would have to strongly disagree with parts.

Evan wrote: "Though my conclusions themselves are not written in stone..."

hello gary. please pardon my use of lower case letters only. just having returned from the hospital following shoulder surgery, i am reduced to typing with one hand. four weeks in a sling is feeling a bit daunting at the moment.

i thoroughly enjoyed your response to my comments. i wish reason was more prevalent in my particular corner of the world. i'm sure you've heard the term bible belt used. well, apparently i live in the buckle. it's impossible to throw a stone in any direction without hitting a church.

i didn't intend to insult anyone in the scientific community by refering to science as a religion. oh, the many nuancees of the english language. even the word love, in the english language is so non-specific and up for multiple interpretation. as my greek professor pointed out in his logic class, americans say, i love this ice cream, and i love you. at least in greek, there are two distinct words that differentiate one's love of ice cream compared to one's love of a mate. that said, when i used the word religion, associating it with science, i should have more plainly said one's personal belief system, and even that may be inadequate. perhaps one's approach to life; view of life; way of thinking---words fail me. however, i do assert that everyone has a personal belief system, no matter how amorphous it may be, nor how conscious one is of it. we have our own filters, whether unique, or largely associated with a group mentality. as i mentioned earlier, my hometown tends toward the group mentality, most prevalently the southern baptist religion.

i would love to communicate with you further, but i am more than slightly incapacitated. i greatly respect the sincerity you exhibit in your well-thought-out opinions. with relatives and friends of mindsets diametrically opposed to mine, i find myself spending more time biting my tongue, than wagging it.

sincerely,
evan

[Gary]

Evan wrote: "hello gary. please pardon my use of lower case letters only. just having returned from the hospital following shoulder surgery, i am reduced to typing with one hand. four weeks in a sling is feeling a bit daunting at the moment."

Ouch! Well congratulations for what you have written then.

Evan wrote: "i'm sure you've heard the term bible belt used. well, apparently i live in the buckle. it's impossible to throw a stone in any direction without hitting a church."

Again ouch! Though I'd have to say I am in two minds what is worse. The religious excesses of those states with Creationism, biblical literalism and other such nonsense is at least obvious and in the face. I find that over the pond the indoctrination and the slipping of religious bias into everyday life is insidious and sneaky.

Then again, I would hate to be female or gay over there... I find it distinctly ironic that the apprehension that many from that region feel about Muslims (or "Moslems" as they seem to insist on writing it) is not reflected in their shared goals on the roles of religious law, science, women and homosexuals in their society. Take a few random sentences from Jerry Falwell and Osama Bin Laden and then try to find the difference. In fact they habitually do not translate "Allah" from the Arabic I think just to maintain a comfortable distinction between "their god" and "our god".

Evan wrote: "i didn't intend to insult anyone in the scientific community by refering to science as a religion. oh, the many nuancees of the english language. "

I don't think it was insulting as much as just mistaken.

I find that the English tends to be specific but peoples interpretations are often not.

For example, "religion" is something that is "believed" in.

"Belief" in something is something that is held to be true, often without or in spite of evidence.

"Faith" is the maintenance of beliefs despite the changing of circumstance or information.

"Love" describes a wide set of human social bonds.

Evan wrote: "however, i do assert that everyone has a personal belief system, no matter how amorphous it may be, nor how conscious one is of it."

That would be more credibly "philosophy". Everyone certainly maintains a selection of opinions, ideas and accepted truths. However, belief would require the reinforcement of these ideas even in the face of challenges.

My philosophy is that belief and faith are bad because it stagnates the mind and freezes the intellect at one point in time. I certainly have opinions on what is true, or what isn't however the difference is that I choose to recognise the difference between opinion and fact, and if I ever have to change opinion I do not need to undergo a crisis of faith to do so.

Evan wrote: "i would love to communicate with you further, but i am more than slightly incapacitated. i greatly respect the sincerity you exhibit in your well-thought-out opinions."

Thank you for your input, and I hope you heal quickly.

Evan wrote: "with relatives and friends of mindsets diametrically opposed to mine, i find myself spending more time biting my tongue, than wagging it."

Amen (if you'll forgive me) to that!

[Hazel]

Evan wrote: "it's impossible to throw a stone in any direction without hitting a church."

I know that feeling, I live in York, the city itself is about 5 miles across, give or take (theres pretty much nowhere in York itself that isn't within walking distance), plus a few peripheral villages. We have 33 active Anglican churches, 8 RC churches, several catholic religious orders, at least 4 friends meeting houses for the Quaker church, a fair number of Methodist churches, the unitarians are represented, and we have one mosque. Buddhism (of various traditions) is pretty well represented as well. I get asked to shout gouranga on occasion. And we have the archbishop of York, in his palace, who is the second highest ranking Anglican priest in the country.

Luckily, we also have, in that same area, more pubs than there are days in the year...

[Gareth]

For me no question. A world without religion.
Then again its not really religion or science that actually causes most of human kinds problems. That is mainly down to GREED. Pure and simple.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Evan wrote: "it's impossible to throw a stone in any direction without hitting a church."

I know that feeling, I live in York, the city itself is about 5 miles across, give or take (theres pretty ..."

Does amuse me when religious groups over here in the USA cry oppression, when you can randomly throw a rock and odds are you'll hit a church.

[[deleted user]]

Evan wrote: "Vishal wrote: "The great way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,..."

It is the poem of 'Sosan' from Hsin Hsin Ming.

[Hazel]

For Shannon (and Travis), because its been a while:

[image error]

[Gary]

Gareth wrote: "For me no question. A world without religion.
Then again its not really religion or science that actually causes most of human kinds problems. That is mainly down to GREED. Pure and simple."

Actually I think fear has a lot to do with it too, even greed. Quite often greed isn't motivated by a desire to have more than our fair share, but by a fear that if we don't get ourselves a share we will lose out to other people.

A recent poll found that one of the groups most likely to object to a rise in the minimum wage are surprisingly those that earn just a bit more than the minimum wage. This doesn't amount to greed as much as fear that this will diminish their status to that of the lowest of the heap.

Bigotry, hatred, intolerance, racism, religion, all are generally motivated by fear, especially fear of difference or fear of the unknown.

[Hazel]

Eyad wrote: "this world can't be with out both of science and religion"

why?

[Eyados]

this world can't be with out the both of religion and science

[Hazel]

Eyad wrote: "this world can't be with out the both of religion and science"

why?

[Eyados]

Hazel wrote: "Eyad wrote: "this world can't be with out both of science and religion"

why?"

what did u not understand it ??

[Hazel]

Eyad wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Eyad wrote: "this world can't be with out both of science and religion"

why?"

what did u not understand it ??"

No, I want you to explain why you think the world cannot be without either. Do you think that if the human race were wiped out, and science and religion disappeared with us, that the world would cease to exist? Do you think that religion does anything that cannot be achieved without it, so the world cannot be without it? Why do you think that the world cannot be without both religion and science?

[Eyados]

Hazel wrote: "Eyad wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Eyad wrote: "this world can't be with out both of science and religion"

why?"

what did u not understand it ??"

No, I want you to explain why you think the world cannot..."

first of all when i said " the world " i meant the world of human not the nature or the universe or something like that, still even animals have some kind of religion and it appears in the rituals of the animals behavior which din't change over the times

now about the religion
for me religion is not only some certain ceremonies in certain times .... it's more than that ... it's about morals and manners .... about helping others and thinking and trying to make a better world .. a better life
so basically i think that science is a branch of the religion
the pure science with no morals is destructive and humans proof it that they will screw it up when they have the power of knowledge with out having something to direct this power in the right way, this thing in our case is the religion

[Hazel]

science is a tool, you can't judge it as a moral or immoral thing, it is simply a tool.

Science is in no way a religion, if you'd taken the time to read the last 2 or 3 pages, you'll have seen this assertion of science being religion refuted several times. Science makes observations and carries out experiments etc, and tells as closely as possible what the facts are, and it alters its claims according to the evidence, religion is based on faith which is the act of holding a belief without evidence or even in direct contradiction tot he evidence. Science is not religion.

And to claim that religion creates morals is ridiculous, what do you base that statement on. Are you saying that someone who has no religion is immoral? 7 billion people in the world, 1.5 billion of them are atheist, and hold no religion whatsoever, thats 21% of the worlds population, yet, only 1% of the population of prisons consists of atheists, the other 99% being believers, so remind me, how does religion make you more moral?

And just out of interest which religion do you mean? Of the many, many contradictory religions with contradictory claims, which one is it that provides the correct morals and manners, in your opinion?

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "For Shannon (and Travis), because its been a while:

"

Very cute.

Though, Shannon's gonna be upset with you when she gets to the last picture.

[Gary]

Eyad wrote: "ven animals have some kind of religion and it appears in the rituals of the animals behavior which din't change over the times"

Really? That is incredible news. What proof do you have of this? How can you tell that the animal does this ritual out of religious belief rather than out of habit? Many animals lick their genitals clean, is this a religious observance of some kind?

Eyad wrote: religion is not only some certain ceremonies in certain times .... it's more than that ... it's about morals and manners .... about helping others and thinking and trying to make a better world .. a better life"

Many people repeatedly claim that is what religion is about, and yet none have provided any proof that this is exclusive to religion. For a start different religions claim different things for morality, which religion is correct?

Eyad wrote: so basically i think that science is a branch of the religion"

Well you'd be wrong by the definitions of the words. Religion requires a 'belief', scientific methodology specifically requires beliefs to be met with scepticism, tested and only accepted as a theory if they pass.

Eyad wrote: the pure science with no morals is destructive and humans proof it that they will screw it up when they have the power of knowledge with out having something to direct this power in the right way, this thing in our case is the religion "

In the same manner that science allowed us to design airplanes to transport people safely and rapidly from place to place and religion subverted this use to slam planes into buildings to kill people who 'defied god'. What about the guns designed using science and then pointed at non-believers?

You can only claim that science encourages immorality when science is actually employed for making moral decisions. However, evidence would suggest that a society based on reason instead of superstition is actually more moral than one based on religion. This can easily be seen by comparing the increasing social liberation and equality of modern secular democracies compared to governments dominated by ideology, religious or political.