Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Insults, belittling and scorn are the first place people flee when they do not have a valid argument."Not that I really want to open this can of worms, but ....
Does the above mean ..."
They would be less believable.
I wouldn't live without either of them because they both play an important part in our livesWithout science, we wouldn't have technology, we wouldn't be able to save anyone and we wouldn't understand the early and sun and other planets
Without religion, we wouldn't know what path to choose, we wouldn't have faith, we wouldn't know some right or wrongs
We need both to guide us in life not to mention help!
ah, so you think that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a good explanation for religious belief then?You do realise that the ethics boards for science are run by scientists, yes? Religion doesn't really get a say. Its scientists who keep check on one another.
Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Actually, I started this discussion. Interesting to see how it evolved. I have to say though Travis, a little food for thought:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without s..."
My apologies for not reading all the posts :)
Well, one thing I can say about Einstein quotes ....
When the quote Colleen noted has been brought up before and when Hazel posts the one she just posted in response to their quotes, I did some research and learned something. This was several, several times ago.
If what I read was correct, Einstein did not, in any way, shape or form, want his words used by believers or non-believers to prove or disprove spiritual beliefs.
Learning is a good thing.
As a side-note, while some of us have been here awhile and know and remember what has been said, some might be knew to this thread and might not be aware that certain ground has been covered.
When the quote Colleen noted has been brought up before and when Hazel posts the one she just posted in response to their quotes, I did some research and learned something. This was several, several times ago.
If what I read was correct, Einstein did not, in any way, shape or form, want his words used by believers or non-believers to prove or disprove spiritual beliefs.
Learning is a good thing.
As a side-note, while some of us have been here awhile and know and remember what has been said, some might be knew to this thread and might not be aware that certain ground has been covered.
Shannon wrote: "Well, one thing I can say about Einstein quotes ....When the quote Colleen noted has been brought up before and when Hazel posts the one she just posted in response to their quotes, I did some re..."
No one has control over what another believes or says. Once something is said in public, it is open to debate. Even Einstein's words alone prove nothing, but an opinion is just an opinion.
Shannon wrote: "Well, one thing I can say about Einstein quotes ....When the quote Colleen noted has been brought up before and when Hazel posts the one she just posted in response to their quotes, I did some re..."
Thankyou for discovering that :)
Colleen wrote: "BTW how do posts get "stars""what do you mean? The only mention of stars I see in these discussions (beyond people talking about stars in posts) is the "rated it x stars" bit, which refers to how many stars people gave the book the discussion is linked to. Am I missing something?
Hazel wrote: "Colleen wrote: "BTW how do posts get "stars""what do you mean? The only mention of stars I see in these discussions (beyond people talking about stars in posts) is the "rated it x stars" bit, whi..."
No, I was missing something! I'm a fast learner tho! Embarrassment will do that.
Colleen wrote: "No one has control over what another believes or says. Once something is said in public, it is open to debate. Even Einstein's words alone prove nothing, but an opinion is just an opinion. "
Oh, I totally agree. Things become part of the public domain once they're said and written. People can do as they choose. My point .... Einstein himself, if what I read was accurate, wouldn't approve of your use of his quote or Hazel's. He'd not have been pleased with either. But, as you say, once it's out there ...
Oh, I totally agree. Things become part of the public domain once they're said and written. People can do as they choose. My point .... Einstein himself, if what I read was accurate, wouldn't approve of your use of his quote or Hazel's. He'd not have been pleased with either. But, as you say, once it's out there ...
Colleen wrote: "No, I was missing something! I'm a fast learner tho! Embarrassment will do that. "
Are you knew to GR?
Interesting thread to start with, if you are. It can be rough and rumbling here sometimes, by comparison to some of the threads I've seen. However, it can also be very thought-provoking and lead to new knowledge. In my experience, at least.
Are you knew to GR?
Interesting thread to start with, if you are. It can be rough and rumbling here sometimes, by comparison to some of the threads I've seen. However, it can also be very thought-provoking and lead to new knowledge. In my experience, at least.
Shannon wrote: "Colleen wrote: "No one has control over what another believes or says. Once something is said in public, it is open to debate. Even Einstein's words alone prove nothing, but an opinion is just an o..."Ah, but he would have been pleased at that the spirited debate! No quote to follow!
Colleen wrote: "No quote to follow!"
;)
Ha! He would be pleased at that.
;)
Ha! He would be pleased at that.
Colleen said: "Actually, I started this discussion."Actually on my computer it says:
"message 1: by Sai Thein Than - rated it 4 stars Mar 01, 2008 08:30pm" started this discussion.
Where did it start if not there?
Colleen wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Colleen wrote: "No one has control over what another believes or says. Once something is said in public, it is open to debate. Even Einstein's words alone prove nothing, but an opin..."Yes, I am new Shannon. This subject has been near and dear to my heart for a long time. Especially after reading John Shelby Spong Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture
My luck, someone has already covered him :)
anybody else get nervous whenever some version of the 'our morals come from god' argument comes up?I feel like 'Well, if that's all that's keeping them from going on a big kill, rape, pillage, kick a puppy spree', maybe I shouldn't be arguing so much with them.
It's like the scene in 'Aliens' when the marines realize they are surrounded by the monsters.
Maria wrote: "Colleen said: "Actually, I started this discussion."Actually on my computer it says:
"message 1: by Sai Thein Than - rated it 4 stars Mar 01, 2008 08:30pm" started this discussion.
Where di..."
Ok, I retract. I replied to a post, and it appeared that it had been a long time since someone had posted, when I replied to Wissam
I generally go with the "well, stay in church then, please" line with people who claim morals come from their religion, and can't exist without it.
Hazel wrote: "I generally go with the "well, stay in church then, please" line with people who claim morals come from their religion, and can't exist without it."and then we build a high wall around the church and string it with barbed wire?
I figure, if it works in zombie movies...
Travis wrote: "anybody else get nervous whenever some version of the 'our morals come from god' argument comes up?I feel like 'Well, if that's all that's keeping them from going on a big kill, rape, pillage, ki..."
Where did that come from? Seems like left field
I was more thinking taking away anything sharp or rope like, putting padding on all the corners, you know, so they can't hurt themselves or anyone else. ;P
Hazel wrote: "I was more thinking taking away anything sharp or rope like, putting padding on all the corners, you know, so they can't hurt themselves or anyone else. ;P"LOL, Hazel :)
yeah, its funny, but I've actually been told by some theists that if it weren't for religion they would have no problem with killing, raping, stealing, hiding everyones left slipper...
AH, so that's where the sociopaths gather ...
Colleen wrote: "Travis wrote: "anybody else get nervous whenever some version of the 'our morals come from god' argument comes up?I feel like 'Well, if that's all that's keeping them from going on a big kill, ra..."
Along with the Einstein quote, every couple pages some variation on the 'morals come from god' idea pops up and I've heard it so many times, that it's starting to make me nervous about religious folk.
Like, at any time someone could make a really good argument against religion and all that pent up bad behavior they'd been holding in because of the man in the sky would come rushing out and then I'm living in a Simon Pegg movie.
which one, shaun of the dead or hot fuzz? I think hot fuzz, that way we get to leap sideways while shooting at psychos...
Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Travis wrote: "anybody else get nervous whenever some version of the 'our morals come from god' argument comes up?I feel like 'Well, if that's all that's keeping them from going o..."
You accusing me? ;) I am not religious at all
Actually, I get it Travis, but I majored in anthropology in college, and it kind of stuck. I have lived by religion was invented because man couldn't control the weather...just my take
Colleen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Travis wrote: "anybody else get nervous whenever some version of the 'our morals come from god' argument comes up?I feel like 'Well, if that's all that's keeping th..."
Not you specifically, you are just the latest person to reference a variation on that bit and it got me thinking.
I'm sure you are a fine, upstanding person and will not freak out when the church goers all snap.
cHriS wrote: "Religion has sometimes been used as a justification for war, but very few wars are fought over religion, if any, it is territorial possession because of trade or land that is the main cause. "If religion is used as a justification for war, then it is one of the causes of that war, otherwise it would be pointless using it as a justification.
Devout Muslims, Christians and other religions have all went to war in the past because they felt it was a religious duty. The general public condones war when they feel that it is a 'just' war against people who believe 'wrong'.
Therefore religion has been a cause of wars, and sometimes remains the main cause of some wars.
cHriS wrote: "You wanted to pre-empt my reply…. So that you could add ‘follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture etc."
No. I pre-empted the answer because I knew the situation in Ireland was actually less clear cut than the other examples. However, I also did acknowledge the underlying religious conflict which still persists.
Since you're so fond of treating personal anecdotes as evidence, I come from a Sectarian city, one which violence occasionally flares up from the different sects which are often based around opposite local football teams, however the main difference between them was pretty uniform with the catholic and protestant Churches and associated communities. Certainly many of the hooligans didn't go to church, but their families and communities were based around them.
They were generations separated from the Irish troubles, but the religious differences slowed the communities from integrating.
cHriS wrote: "A poke at religion, rather than acknowledge why the Irish troubles started."
The reason the Irish troubles started is generally acknowledged as the Protestant English and Scottish migrants settling in Ireland and cultivating the land which was then resisted by the Catholic locals, resulting in the Confederate and Williamite wars and the victory of William of Orange over the "papist" loyalist forces, a victory which is repeatedly celebrated/rubbed in the face of Catholics with the Orange Order marches.
As a protestant organisation non-protestants and particularly Catholics are banned from joining the order.
"An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father, a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man. .... he should love, uphold, and defend the Protestant religion..." - Royal York Loyal Orange Lodge "Qualifications of an Orangeman"
cHriS wrote: "Yes one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, but most Irish just wanted peace. Religion played a big part in northern Ireland because Catholics at one time were treated as second class citizens. Just as not all Muslims are bombers, nor were all Catholics."
So therefore you now admit that prejudice against Catholicism by Protestants was one of the causes of this conflict.
Most Irish wanted peace, that's fine, what was the motivation for the ones that valued something else above peace? Loyalty, Nationalism, Vengeance and National and Religious identity.
cHriS wrote: "Just as China wanted Hong Kong back, Argentina wants the Falkland Islands, the Ira were fighting for an Island of Ireland, but it was not Eire wanting it."
Those comparisons are completely spurious. China wanted Hong Kong back because of the amount of Chinese people there who were being ruled from afar, Argentina wants the Falklands through the usual reason - access to oil. Just because this did not involve religion does not mean religion is never involved with conflict.
cHriS wrote: "Land was the cause not religion."
Because wars only ever have one specific cause? That is either naive or wilfully ignorant. Many factors cause wars, some factors are bigger than others in specific wars.
Religious differences are a known cause of conflict, religious differences are also one of the hardest things to resolve when trying to achieve peace between to groups as they are usually non-negotiable.
"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens." (Kill them all; for God knoweth them that are His.) -
- Arnaud-Amaury, when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars
"The Christian glories in the death of a pagan because thereby Christ himself is glorified." - Saint Bernard (1090-1153)
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” Ann Coulter).
Of course, I also find it strange that you repeatedly try to posit the claim that religion is the source of morality yet now you are claiming that on the huge moral issue of whether to go to war or not, religion almost always has zero influence?
Shannon wrote: "Perhaps the non-believers who go there don't have an argument and perhaps they have an "excuse". "Perhaps so. However, technically speaking an excuse would be an argument of sorts, I suppose we should say a "valid" argument.
My comments in reply to this was mainly because I criticised cs for responding to my points with insults and derision without actually addressing them. I never said that it was the usual refuge of "religious" people in particular. Then you posted with your response to me and made it partisan.
I would have thought that from previous statements you would be in agreement about using such petty tactics from either side, before you turned it into a partisan argument just because I said it rather than a theist?
Hence why I am agreeing with you that in general if either "side" goes to scorn or petty words before reasoned debate then that is a weakness in their argument. However, I am not going to blanket declare any statement that seems insulting is automatically weaker as sometimes this can be quite subjective, depending on the nature of the point made and the response.
Colleen wrote: "I know you aren't stupid, but hear me out."Certainly, I will also try to answer intelligently and seriously. :-)
Colleen wrote: "In ancient times people were hunter/gatherers. They depended on the hunt and the crops to survive."
Actually "crops" would be cultivation, which would be the first steps of technology so to speak, hunter/gatherers collected plants but did not cultivate crops.
However I understand your point.
Colleen wrote: "Then along came something- a flood maybe and wiped them out, maybe just the crops, or the whole tribe. But eventually, early man started realizing a correlation between some ritual and survival. Hence the early beginnings of religion (there must be a being doing this so we must have a way to appease it, and we live,) and science (the correlation between cause and effect, but without the scientific method.) "
I understand your point, however if I may present an alternative interpretation.
Early man developed with some basic features seen in other ape populations. The ability to model their environment mentally which allows them to make simple predictions (where food will be, where places are dangerous etc.), they also had the ability of rudimentary communication as seen in primates, the impetus to form co-operative social groups and enforce its cohesion through simple aspects of morality (fairness, leadership, justice), finally they had the basic ability to learn patterns and make associations.
There is no real need for a disaster in this scenario to explain the development of man. Practically all mammals start with the rudimentary idea of co-operation and duty thanks to milk and caring for the young. Social animals like apes have more advanced features of co-operation.
Meanwhile as brains get larger, the number of potential interconnections goes up exponentially. Now the evolution of a large brain didn't actually need to be initially caused by a need for intelligence, the best current hypothesis is that one branch of early hominids took to scavenging or hunting for meat. Meat is a rich food that made it easier to provide the nutrition for a large brain, having a large brain actually helps in "endurance hunting" were a pack of individually weak hominids can harass and chase down an animal until overheating causes exhaustion, while the hominids had the excess neural tissue to endure a bit of heat damage.
As brain size goes up, complexity goes up and at some point the new potential for increased cognition would take over as a selected trait which allowed for improved communication, comprehension and prediction.
Now we get to the origins of science and religion, which is basically the ability conceptualise abstract thought.
So the early humans start to recognise certain patterns and allocate an explanation that allows them to predict events and perhaps anticipate or avoid them. They learn that putting seeds in the ground at a particular time of year leads to food being easily found long after. They learn that tribe members disappearing along with snarling in the night means that they may have to band together to frighten away or kill a predator.
Eventually they start to build what we would now call hypotheses to explain various happenings. Because man has evolved to attribute events to conscious choice (a theory of mind) they apply this to natural events and assume that they also have a deliberate cause.
Now obviously it took a long time to develop the scientific method and distinguish it from other sources, but the basics were in place by early Greece at least.
What is the difference then between science and religion? One is not the opposite of the other, nor is either dependent on the other, however they are of "common descent".
Science and religion both tend to start with
(1) the observation of a phenomena ("Lightening")
(2) the postulation of an hypothesis to explain it ("lightening reminds us of anger, so perhaps it is sent by an angry being who must be powerful to do such a thing.")
This is not yet religion or science. It is just a hypothesis.
It becomes religion when you tell others that this hypothesis is truth. It becomes science when you try to find out if the hypothesis is truth.
So religion and science certainly share a heritage, but they are not reliant on each other. Just as if the Chimpanzee went extinct it would not mean we would also automatically go extinct.
The real difference would be what would happen if either went extinct. If science went extinct and was replaced with nothing but blind faith and dogma, what would that mean to our modern world? If religion went extinct and was replaced by nothing but reason, what would that mean?
Colleen wrote: "But without the religious sector, there may not be any limits to what man would do with science. Read a few Robin Cook novels. We are also capable of inherent evil, without controls. "
Yet again this is the assumption that somehow morals derive from religion while evidence shows us that different religions have different and conflicting moralities while it has also been shown that a lack of religion does not lead to a lack of morality, just as a surplus of religion does not lead to a surplus of morality (in fact most highly religious societies tend to be the ones with the most condemnation for abuse of human rights). It has also been shown other animals have morality while being fairly clearly bereft of any indication of a religion.
You worry about what man would do with science without the limits of religion, if I were you I would be far more worried about what the religious would want to do with science.
An Ipsos survey recently found that more secular countries believed in an impending Armageddon in their lifetime (France 6%, UK 8%) while more religious countries (Turkey & USA 22%) believed in an impending apocalypse in their lifetime. This is particularly worrying in a country with the capability to make its beliefs come true like the USA. In fact a Pew survey in 2011 found that up to 41% of Americans believe the Rapture is coming soon, and since that they generally believe that this is a good thing and that it will be associated with a terrible disaster or war, it makes me rather nervous about who gets voted into the position of having their finger on that button.
If religion is a "limit" to what we can do with science, then which is the "right" religion to ethically guide science? Why is it the right one? What proof do we have? How is obedience to religious edict a better guide to morality than actually having a conscience and understanding what is right and wrong?
Colleen wrote: "Actually, I get it Travis, but I majored in anthropology in college, and it kind of stuck. I have lived by religion was invented because man couldn't control the weather...just my take"
I prefer to think of religion as a incomplete form of science coupled with hubris.
Religion observes phenomena, postulates an explanation and then teaches that explanation to successive generations as the "truth" and becomes hostile to any ideas that would redefine or oppose it. So "incomplete" because it does not try to find tests to falsify or confirm its ideas and actively refutes refinements or new evidence. And "hubris" because it always contains the assumption that we already know the ultimate truth, or that if we don't know it now then it is impossible to know, whereas science will accept that our knowledge has its limits but that does not mean those limits will remain static in the future.
Of course there is also a very good memetic theory of religion that not only explains how religions develop in a manner analogous to a virus, modifying the mental process of its host's cell entities (people) to propagate itself, while mutating and gradually changing generation to generation to form different strains, some of which rapidly die out to its competitors, while others adapt to changing environment and suddenly become virulent.
Gary wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Actually, I get it Travis, but I majored in anthropology in college, and it kind of stuck. I have lived by religion was invented because man couldn't control the weather...just my ..."
Interesting analogy. And no arguement from me, because all you did was extrapolate on a kernal of belief that I have expressed. It's another opinion.
Religion observes phenonoma? Well, people observe phenomena, and then make decisions based on obsevation and emotion.
Colleen wrote: "Gary wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Actually, I get it Travis, but I majored in anthropology in college, and it kind of stuck. I have lived by religion was invented because man couldn't control the weath..."
My worry is that people today are using the same ideas/observations from back when we were in caves to make their informed decisions.
That's when I think we run into problems.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote:Gary wrote: My comments in reply to this was mainly because I criticised cs for responding to my points with insults and derision without actually addressing them. I never said that it was the usual refuge of "religious" people in particular. Then you posted with your response to me and made it partisan. "I responded to your point the way I did because you were pre empting (to the point of ridicule) what you thought my response would be. And not only that but you insist on referring to me as cs, because you think in some way that it is derisive, but I'm not bothered. (I changed my initials because most folks here were using first names).
You used the words 'insults and derision' but I guess that was more for effect than anything.
Gary wrote: Because wars only ever have one specific cause? That is either naive or wilfully ignorant. Many factors cause wars, some factors are bigger than others in specific wars. "
The question was 'the cause of wars'.
The cause rather than other factors.
Most of what you have written above is a smoke screen to hide the fact that your point about how the Ireland conflict started 'the cause' was not correct. And my point is, if you are doing this with the Irish topic, you may also be doing this with other subjects.
The English invasion resulting in seizure of property, land, and wealth in the 17th Century was the cause.
Yes the English were Protestant, and the Irish were Catholic. They could have been black and white or little and large, but what they were was NOT the cause.
Travis: I have made it into the 21st century. A comment I made has been the source of some spirited debate. It's neither right nor wrong. And, yeah, our education does make us who we are today. I happened to study anthropology, so I love the study of man. I can reference where I feel something may have it's origins. But as a successful HR manager of a major retilor, I was a very good boss and leader because it is in my nature to study people "as a group."
Though I consider myself a person of faith, I would elect to live without religion. Religion often interfers with a spiritual life because it thinks in black and white. Those who take this B & W to the extreme have brought hatred and war to the world. Life is way more grey and our moral conscience needs a broader base for adequate formation.
Does religion think in black and white, and always?
Colleen wrote: "Does religion think in black and white, and always?"Traditional religions claim to have moral absolutes, and "ownership" of the correct ways to live, so I think the arguement could be made...
Colleen wrote: "Travis: I have made it into the 21st century. A comment I made has been the source of some spirited debate. It's neither right nor wrong. And, yeah, our education does make us who we are today. I h..."Sorry, don't mean to make you feel on the spot. I was more responding to the general idea than you specifically.
After I read a bunch of comments, I tend to just be pondering what was said and forget who said it and occasionally forget who I'm responding to.
I will duck in here and mention a book;
This is a nice little book which looks at aspects of science as we know it in the Western world. After reading it I think most people will see quite clearly that our science has developed in the way that it has because of the predominant christian culture within which it developed.
Scientific ethics are there to reflect social consensus about what is 'right' or 'wrong' but the social consensus has in the past been derived from religious beliefs.
So in fact, asking to choose between science and religion, is impossible they are pretty much entwined.
The most overused and erroneous words in the dictionary: always and never!
Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Travis: I have made it into the 21st century. A comment I made has been the source of some spirited debate. It's neither right nor wrong. And, yeah, our education does make us who w..."No offense intended or taken. I know that sometimes people in thought-provoking discussion, especially one of the two hot topics, religion and politics, can feel attacked personally. I don't say anything that is mean- spirited. If a comment can be interpreted two ways, I take no offense unless it is made clear I should do so. I would hope others take my comments or views as such.
I apologize. I am in the wrong place. Forgive me.
cHriS wrote: "I responded to your point the way I did because you were pre empting (to the point of ridicule) what you thought my response would be."A common feature of every debate you take part in, hypocrisy. You complain about me pre-empting and assuming what you meant or would say by making assumptions about my motivations for what I said.
If you had read the response I was actually saying that I hadn't used the Irish troubles example as it wasn't as clear cut as others and therefore you would have disagreed because of this, which you did. I also said you'd deny the religious factor, which you did.
If you thought my implying that you'd outright deny it was ridicule, then you deny it, then who is accusing whom of being ridiculous? (Hint: It wasn't me!)
cHriS wrote: "And not only that but you insist on referring to me as cs, because you think in some way that it is derisive, but I'm not bothered. (I changed my initials because most folks here were using first names)."
Again assumption of what I mean and more hypocrisy. I used "cs" to refer back to the previous arguments you have made of exactly this type previously.
If you find the name you used somehow offensive I will discontinue using it, albeit with a modicum of bafflement.
cHriS wrote: "You used the words 'insults and derision' but I guess that was more for effect than anything. "
Yes I used the words "insults and derision" while you used the tactics of insults and derision.
cHriS wrote: "The cause rather than other factors."So a factor is not a cause? :-D
Factor
noun
one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation:
Cause
noun
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result;
Ever heard of the phrase "causative factors".
cHriS wrote: "Most of what you have written above is a smoke screen"
Hypocrisy again. You just tried to use a poor attempt at word games to try to imply I was wrong. I am going to give you due respect that your grasp of English isn't that bad.
cHriS wrote: "to hide the fact that your point about how the Ireland conflict started 'the cause' was not correct. And my point is, if you are doing this with the Irish topic, you may also be doing this with other subjects."
One of the "factors" that "caused" the conflict that resulted in the wars was the fact that Protestants had migrated and claimed the land of Catholics.
It wasn't the only cause but it was a cause.
You are trying to deliberately mislead using word games, you may also be doing this with other subjects.
As for your implication that religion was an irrelevant factor, one of the first things the English did was to introduce the "Na Péindlíthe" (Penal Laws) which was a series of laws imposed in an attempt to force Irish Catholics and Protestant dissenters (such as Presbyterians) to accept the reformed Christian faith as defined by the English state established Anglican Church and practised by members of the Irish state established Church of Ireland.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Why? How does science depend on religion? The whole point of science is to not believe but instead show due sc..."
I know you aren't stupid, but hear me out.
In ancient times people were hunter/gatherers. They depended on the hunt and the crops to survive. Then along came something- a flood maybe and wiped them out, maybe just the crops, or the whole tribe. But eventually, early man started realizing a correlation between some ritual and survival. Hence the early beginnings of religion (there must be a being doing this so we must have a way to appease it, and we live,) and science (the correlation between cause and effect, but without the scientific method.)
I will quote, again with Albert Einstein:
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
I personally believe that the Christian bible is mythology based on some truth. I also believe that religion in itself, organized, can be, has been, harmful. But without the religious sector, there may not be any limits to what man would do with science. Read a few Robin Cook novels. We are also capable of inherent evil, without controls.