Religion (proper) and science (proper) both must be devoid of superstition?

[paarsurrey]

Deeply rooted ay? What's your definition of religion?

One agree with me, if I have correctly understood the post.
Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Q. Religion (proper) and science (proper) both must be devoid of superstition?
A. No. Religion can have all the superstition it needs. In fact, the more it has the more interesting it is.
.

Proper religion never ever has any superstition in it. The superstition part belongs to Agnosticism and the like. Please
Regards

 

[Kirran]

When neither view can be proved, we must turn to what is most logic al. IMO, it is not logical for a creation not only to have a Creator, since all of the processes we have work perfectly the same way all the time, we also need an Intelligent designer.


Christian faith is not blind---Faith is the assurance of things hope for, the conviction of things not seen---Heb 11:1.

Well I am a theist and believe in evolution much as I believe in any other process which is observable and scientifically describable. In my view it requires a certain set of mythological constructs to reject these kinds of evidences, rather than genuine faith which is something deeper than adherence to doctrines.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ok, let take the premise that religion is a fiction at best and opiate to the masses at worse. The only thing then is erradicate it as quickly as possible and create a society where this so called religious stupidity and corruption is not tolerated. This of course was Marxism initially adopted by Russia and then spread over 1/3 of the worlds population. How did that experiment work for humanity? It created some of the worst atrocities, that are unparalleled in human history.

Enough for the human society's experience. No more non-religion utopia is required by the humans.
I agree with one.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

A creationist could well hold the belief that God has created everything in its current forms in just such a way that it appears as if they have evolved through the processes of natural selection etc. That isn't unprovable, although that means it's not provable either. So that's where blind faith comes in.

The truthful religion is not based on blind-faith. The blind-faith is on the side of Atheism and the like. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The OP is heavily flawed due to the reality that religion is deeply rooted in superstition.

And that post is even more badly flawed because it gives no reason for its position nor even examples;
and is thus the epitome of a superstitious belief:
A Reason-less claim that does not even attempt to substantiate itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

If religions got rid of superstition, what would be left?

 

[Kirran]

The truthful religion is not based on blind-faith. The blind-faith is on the side of Atheism and the like. Right? Please
Regards

Nah dude. You've only made a statement with nothing to back it up.

 

[omega2xx]

Unfortunately for theists, yes.
Do we really have to go down that rabbit hole? Seriously?

This is an interesting post and especially interesting to hear these ideas from the perspective of a Muslim. Islam made a great contribution to civilisation through the Islamic golden age. Bagdad was properly the greatest centre of learning of sciences and the arts and its influence greatly contributed to the progress of Europe beyond the Middle ages. On the other hand I am aware that many Muslim countries shunned the learning in the West that eclipsed that of the Orient and the Ottoman empire for example went into a long slow decline.

Many feel that religion is not necessary but historically it has been the most potent force for the spiritual and moral advancement of humanity, both positive and negative.

Relying is not necessary if it is not true. If Christianity is true, it is extreemly necessary.

 

[omega2xx]

If religions got rid of superstition, what would be left?

The truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The truth.

By what method do they distinguish between that & superstition?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

As they both are truthful.
Religion is higher in status. It covers the whole human life while science is confined in its limits. Religion supports science as it is useful for the human beings. Please
Regards

Well religion is useful because it provides an ethical blueprint that has stood the test of time;
more than this it shows that those who believe in life after death present a philosophy
that reaches beyond the immediate empirical world; and that this belief survives down the ages
more substantially and culturally than its counterparts.

So science without religious ethics, results in ideas like 'survival of the fittest' being used
as excuses for genocide: eugenics. With a purely material perspective the result is Marxism/Communism/Nazism/Fascism.
Those ideologies spring up but seldom last for significantly longer than a generation because they result in
in-fighting between their members; whereas a transcendental ethic sustains members within its group most effectively.

 

[David T]

As they both are truthful.
Religion is higher in status. It covers the whole human life while science is confined in its limits. Religion supports science as it is useful for the human beings. Please
Regards

Both domains have identical internal disagreements, both domains are phenomena of neurology thus neither is literally objective. Both tend to be heavy on mechanicalism light on wholism. Both tend to be extremely imtellecualized narratives about experience both tend to be weak at splitting narrative from experience. I am only talking Christianity here. So other. Traditions may be different. ContemporAry Christian theology is as hyper "nature as machine" as much as science and thus a totally worthless explanatory methodogy for the new testament. Both tend to be accedemic in their approach to nature and the individual and not really all that healthy because they both try and shrink wrap reality and fit it into the cranium. Both have an identical view that PhDs are really important in giving expert views at fundemental levels. A kind of priest class in the know which is exactly the history of the university. . Its bs.

 

[paarsurrey]

As they both are truthful.
Religion is higher in status. It covers the whole human life while science is confined in its limits. Religion supports science as it is useful for the human beings. Please
Regards

Funny x 3
psychoslice
YmirGF
hififish

So, the above respected members like my post. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

So science without religious ethics, results in ideas like 'survival of the fittest' being used
as excuses for genocide: eugenics. With a purely material perspective the result is Marxism/Communism/Nazism/Fascism.
Those ideologies spring up but seldom last for significantly longer than a generation because they result in
in-fighting between their members; whereas a transcendental ethic sustains members within its group most effectively.

None of that is supportable by reason or observation.
I present myself as an example (one of a great many) of materialists who reject communism & its ilk as oppressive.
And I offer Hitler (winning the Godwin Prize) as a Xian socialist who disproves the utility of religious ethics in preventing horrors.
Without giving further examples, we see enduring religions which perpetuate injustices.

Things are not so simple as identifying this or that religious orientation which makes humanity safe from misery.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Religion must be about what we do first. Beliefs are easily changed by a bonk on the head. A person who behaves morally, generously, compassionately is religious, even if you cannot identify their religion. Focusing upon beliefs lets you be lazy, ungenerous and dispassionate. You start to think your beliefs are an accomplishment, but they aren't.

 

[omega2xx]

By what method do they distinguish between that & superstition?

Most superstitions are obviously silly, but everyone gets to make up their own mind about what is silly. Every time I see a ladder leaning against a wall, I walk under it. Nothing bad has happened yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most superstitions are obviously silly, but everyone gets to make up their own mind about what is silly.

Imagine how silly all religions appear to someone who has never believed in one.
Is avoiding the use of electrical devices on Saturday or eating fish on Friday any
more cromulent than avoiding the underside of ladders or upper side of cracks?

 

[McBell]

If Christianity is true, it is extreemly necessary.

Necessary for what?

 

[Shad]

Your response is heavily flawed unless you can point to the superstitions in Christianity. There may be some in other religions.

Magic, witches, sorcerers. Read your Bible.