• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your post is as follows "To begin with science does not claim: (1) It is the tools to create a paradise. (2) Science cannot predict the future. Thou some individuals make foolish claims with crystal balls and test tubes. (3) Science does not offer salvation to anybody nor anything. (4) Science does not claim to be the truth. (5) Science does not calim claim to solve all our problems, nor journey to the stars (good stories for science fiction.)"

Change the word "science" to "religion" and it's equally says the same.

I am not willing to go there to generalize about religions, because of the diversity of beliefs. For example not all religions promise salvation.

That is why I limited my post to science. I excluded the individual beliefs and views in either science and religion, because individuals are unpredictable and can assert and believe virtually anything.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I am not willing to go there to generalize about religions, because of the diversity of beliefs. For example not all religions promise salvation.

That is why I limited my post to science. I excluded the individual beliefs and views in either science and religion, because individuals are unpredictable and can assert and believe virtually anything.

I understand that. However salvation isn't dependent on religion, it's dependent on the person.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I understand that. However salvation isn't dependent on religion, it's dependent on the person.

That is one of many different contradictory beliefs in different religions, which is the problem why I avoided generalizing about religions. Some religions like some of the divisions of Buddhism teach there is no such thing is salvation. Of course, some believe that salvation is dependent on the God of their religion and not the individual, or their particular division of the religion.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
That is one of many different contradictory beliefs in different religions, which is the problem why I avoided generalizIIing about religions. Some religions like some of the divisions of Buddhism teach there is no such thing is salvation.

Imaginary mythical gods aren't responsible for anything and can't cause anything. It's that simple.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's not arrogant to discuss the kind of eugenics and forced sterilization/abortions you suggest

Yes it is.

It's also immoral. It's a smear job.

it's arrogant to play God

No it's not.

Somebody has to do it.

how can we measure the aid that religion has produced by helping to resolve our inner existential dilemmas and freeing us to think of others?

By seeing how many people have solved these moral and intellectual problems without them. If it can be done without religion, what does that say about the value of religion in any life?

It's my opinion that, just like cigarettes, religion is responsible for the need it fulfills. Sure, if you've sixty years with a comforting religion, you probably can't leave religion without devastating consequences, like any late-in-life divorce. It would be disorienting, painful, and possibly socially devastating, especially with family.

But if one grows up without religion, one learns to live without it, and has no such need unless their lives are falling apart.

It is good to respect the believer, as long as they do not show they are unworthy of respect.

Sure, be polite to the believer, but there is no duty to respect his beliefs, nor to praise faith-based thinking.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Hasn't science enabled great evil? Think of the history of the development of weaponry or the impact to ecosystems across the globe.


Science produces knowledge and knowledge is power. The question of what you do with that power is a separate question.

But science has also enabled great good: the elimination of smallpox, the increased ability to travel and communicate, much better medicines, better crops, indoor heating and cooling, etc. Again, the knowledge is power, but what you do with it is a separate question.

Overall, I think that knowledge is a good thing. But it is a dangerous good. It allows those inclined to do evil much more ability to do so, just as it allows those inclined to do good much more ability to do so.

But science isn't dictating who we should help and who we should kill. It isn't deciding who we should feed and who we leave to starve. It isn't choosing who we make peace with and who we make war with. Science gives us the power to do all of these things.

But we decide which to do.

In contrast, religion often, and as a matter of course, condemns those who don't accept it. It tells us to go convert those who disagree and kill those who refuse to convert. It labels people as evil and thereby necessary to kill.

Now, religion certainly isn't the only belief system that condemns. It isn't the only system that calls us to eliminate those who disagree. But, historically, it has been the banner under which those wanting to do evil have motivated others to do evil also.

So, while science (and knowledge) give us the power to do good or evil, it is often religion that motivates us to choose evil.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

I think arrogance is in the individual, not the world view. I've met humble scientists, and humble religious people. Similarly, no world view has barred arrogant people from participating.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
If I were playing God then as you know God has no objection to abortion or infanticide at all. Not only does he approve those things when done by his followers, [he] makes abortion / miscarriage a routine part of nature for all placentals.

Stop telling women what they can and can't do. Stop treating them like breeding cows, who have no choice either. Roe v Wade has set the correct balance.

There's a correct balance for preying on the weakest members of society, killing them, and creating "rights" that are the only "rights" in our Constitution/governance predicated on killing another to maintain our "rights"?

Sounds (mentally, morally) imbalanced. Think about it.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What do you mean? I always respect the believer, I do not respect the belief. Since you do the same with sinners/sins, I am not sure why the double standard.

And how could I possibly respect the belief? If you think rationally one second about that, you would realize immediately that Jesus sacrifice either never happened or it was lame.

Your call, really

Ciao

- viole

I need to think that Jesus's sacrifice never happened? Funny, I was reading one of the several dozen ancient documents today that said it did occur. Were you there 2,000 years before or are you an armchair critic?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
My apologies to you or anyone whom I appear to have misrepresented. These sorts of discussions are always multi-faceted and require a great deal of time, more time than I am giving them today.

I will return to this topic with my own thread to help ground some of the loose use of terms and context that happens when comparing and contrasting science and religion.


"Appear to have misrepresented" is no apology at all.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I need to think that Jesus's sacrifice never happened? Funny, I was reading one of the several dozen ancient documents today that said it did occur. Were you there 2,000 years before or are you an armchair critic?

Well, even if the narrative was true, it was not a sacrifice. Or it was lame. I mean, staying dead for a mere three days? You call that a sacrifice?

Everybody would die for a cause knowing that he will come back alive and kicking after the weekend. Big deal. What is mind boggling is that you find it so awesome, even if true.

Ciao

- viole
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well, even if the narrative was true, it was not a sacrifice. Or it was lame. I mean, staying dead for a mere three days? You call that a sacrifice?

Everybody would die for a cause knowing that he will come back alive and kicking after the weekend. Big deal. What is mind boggling is that you find it so awesome, even if true.

Ciao

- viole

Relatively few of us would volunteer for torture
of course, but nobody goes to war without the
understanding that they may suffer far worse
than a crucifixion.

Regardless of the level of sacrifice, it is the
logic that escapes me.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Relatively few of us would volunteer for torture
of course, but nobody goes to war without the
understanding that they may suffer far worse
than a crucifixion.

Regardless of the level of sacrifice, it is the
logic that escapes me.

What logic?

Ciao

- viole
 

Audie

Veteran Member
What logic?

Ciao

- viole

Ah, logic. None. Explanation is what I should have
said.
Like, "I will let you torture part of myself to pay myself
for my creations doing something I invented
but do not like, coz it offends me. Now that I have
been paid, I wont torture you forever if you say
you are sorry and I believe you."

is that it? It may be logic, to a psycho.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There's a correct balance for preying on the weakest members of society, killing them, and creating "rights" that are the only "rights" in our Constitution/governance predicated on killing another to maintain our "rights"?
Roe v, Wade gives the fetus more rights, the closer it gets to becoming an independent sentient life. Meanwhile it gives the woman choice.

You want to take away the right of choice ─ that breeding cow mentality again.
 
Top