Do We Need Faith?

[nPeace]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

 

[Rival]

The phony conflict between religion and science needs to die.

 

[exchemist]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

Getting rid of religion is fairly obviously a ridiculous notion. People have always had religious impulses and it seems probable that they always will.

But please don't set up yet another of these tedious false antitheses between science on the one hand and religion on the other. That's a recipe for hatred and the entrenchment of stupidity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

Hobbies are a good thing, generally. I'm not sure there's necessarily anything wrong with a religion when it's approached through the lens of a hobby.

There are unscientific ideas in religion, but there are also unscientific ideas in, say, gardening and fitness. As nothing's being imposed on people against their will and nobody's being defrauded, it's not the worst problem in the world.

So no: there's no need for faith or religion, but there is a problem with denying people the opportunity to practice their passion... and some people's passion is religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The phony conflict between religion and science needs to die.

The conflict is real; it's just not universal to all religion.

It's a major problem with some of the mainstream religions, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.

Out of curiosity: does this anonymous atheist live in the real world or just in your head?

And was this a direct quote?

 

[Revoltingest]

Religion in general isn't a force for either good or bad.
It's a force for what the religion is, ie, what adherents do.
Sometimes it does good.
Other times it tries to murder authors or doctors.

 

[Rival]

The conflict is real; it's just not universal to all religion.

It's a major problem with some of the mainstream religions, though.

Really, which? I've not come across it where I live apart from Jehovah's Witnesses. All the European Christians I know are on-board with modern scientific discovery. Most Jews I know don't care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, this so-called conflict is not a very European phenomenon. There are some, but they're few and far between.

 

[Audie]

The phony conflict between religion and science needs to die.

Religious beliefs are gonna have to change a
LOT before that happens.

 

[Rival]

Religious beliefs are gonna have to change a
LOT before that happens.

Such as? Religion and science aren't trying to do the same thing. Folks who think they are in conflict either don't understand this or tend to be ardent physicalists who won't be content until miracles and spirit have been completely taken away, morality deemed completely relative and so on, and the purpose of religion nullified. It is ignorance of the purposes of both religion and science that leads folks to believe the two are at odds. This is like saying mathematics and literature are at odds; they're not trying to do the same thing at all.

 

[Audie]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

For flawed thinking you can't beat
religion, and, ftm, your post is full of it.

 

[Audie]

Such as? Religion and science aren't trying to do the same thing. Folks who think they are in conflict either don't understand this or tend to be ardent physicalists who won't be content until miracles and spirit have been completely taken away, morality deemed completely relative and son on, and the purpose of religion nullified. It is ignorance of the purposes of both religion and science that leads folks to believe the two are at odds. This is like saying mathematics and literature are at odds; they're not trying to do the same thing at all.

Could you identify which religion does nothave a magical origin myth?
I fail to see the merit of false information.

Or let's take " faith", bitterly clinging often enough, to false ideas because it is meritorious to be pigheaded. Emotion uber reason!

Must I go on?

The ardent unsatisfied physicist you
speak of is more of a chimera than the "atheist quote" from op.

 

[cladking]

Everyone needs faith just to get out of bed in the morning.

Many people need more and turn to religion or science. The former provides solace and the latter comfort. The former allows introspection and is one means of seeking answers and the big picture the other allows one to look at bits and pieces of reality itself in order to model beliefs and even to invent technology. The former is necessary for some people to create more than they destroy and the latter leads people with the ability to create much more but often with no compunctions about the destruction of all things.

I doubt that a blending of science and religion is the solution even if those who believed in or practiced science could change. I believe we need much improved communication within science and additionally more dialog with both religion and especially philosophy. We need a language for science that is more precise and less parseable. We need more study of metaphysics by all people and more applied science and history of science.

Yes, most of today's problem lies not with the religious but with believers in science. Nothing will shake their faith in the omniscience of science so it will be necessary to accomplish such changes one funeral at a time.

I further believe that the systematic and methodical application of modern science, knowledge, and technology to understanding our most ancient ancestors (pre-2000 BC) would facilitate such changes as must be made to avoid calamity which is arising because of the misunderstanding and misapplication of science. Obviously the only place in the world with sufficient evidence which has survived to make such determinations is in Egypt and especially at Giza.

People need faith in more than that the sun will come up in the morning and this specific faith is probably misplaced. We need faith in ourselves, each other, and in the magnificence of reality and all that entails and is possible.

 

[Audie]

The conflict is real; it's just not universal to all religion.

It's a major problem with some of the mainstream religions, though.

What research is done in science against religion?
There's an awful lot of effort by religions
to rail against science. Why, you even see it in
this very forum!

 

[Rival]

Could you identify which religion does nothave a magical origin myth?
I fail to see the merit of false information.

Or let's take " faith", bitterly clinging often enough, to false ideas because it is meritorious to be pigheaded. Emotion uber reason!

Must I go on?

The ardent unsatisfied physicist you
speak of is more of a chimera than the "atheist quote" from op.

Because myth makes sense of the human experience. It uses archetypes to tell stories meaningful to human beings; myth explains, in a narrative way, why we are the way we are and why the world is the way it is, how we should respond to it and why. Myths are precious stories about human traumas, loves, losses, and so on. They help us come to terms with the aspects of being human that are beyond our ability to comprehend. They give us reasons to be here. Myth also helps keep societies stable; they provide a foundation for why societies are the way they are, what values they have, where they come from, who should rule them. Every culture has a national myth that tells them who they are as a people, that gives them an identity.

Stories are found in every human culture. It would be senseless to throw them out. You cannot replace human experience with a textbook.

I also spoke of 'physicalists', not physicists, who think the world is only made up of material things that can be measured.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, which? I've not come across it where I live apart from Jehovah's Witnesses. All the European Christians I know are on-board with modern scientific discovery.

Because you don't know any of the European Christians in Vatican City? There are anti-scientific beliefs at the core of Catholic theology.

What about other religions, though? For instance, homeopathy - as part of Ayurvedic medicine - is popular among Hindus here.

Most Jews I know don't care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, this so-called conflict is not a very European phenomenon. There are some, but they're few and far between.

Because religion's ability to influence European society and government is pretty diminished.

Over on this side of the pond, churches are at the forefront of evolution denialism, COVID denialism, climate change denialism, spreading anti-vax misinformation, etc.

 

[Rival]

Because you don't know any of the European Christians in Vatican City? There are anti-scientific beliefs at the core of Catholic theology.

Such as?

What about other religions, though? For instance, homeopathy - as part of Ayurvedic medicine - is popular among Hindus here.

I wouldn't call that 'anti-science', though. I also haven't come across it a great deal. Hindu/Dharmic groups tend to be localised here and ironically many of our medical staff are from India.

Because religion's ability to influence European society and government is pretty diminished.

Right, so what you're talking about isn't Europe's problem.

Over on this side of the pond, churches are at the forefront of evolution denialism, COVID denialism, climate change denialism, spreading anti-vax misinformation, etc.

Again, not our problem.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are we talking about faith or are we talking about religion? The OP title question mentions faith, but the OP makes no mention of it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The conflict is real; it's just not universal to all religion.

It's a major problem with some of the mainstream religions, though.

The only mainstream religions that are a “major problem” in are those who proselytize.