The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

[shunyadragon]

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.

Sounds like how Christianity treated those who believed differently in history.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sounds like how Christianity treated those who believed differently in history.

There's a mouthful. When we see a fringe cult group, like Westboro Baptist, send 5 people to make a stink, it gets worldwide coverage because everyone knows that is not how the hundreds of millions of Christians EVER behave.

Followers of Christ imitate Him. He never treated anyone inappropriately.

I understand why you might be frustrated by say, the Inquisition--as a Jew, I had to come to understand that the Inquisitors were religious in name only, not lovers of Jesus, who said "He who lives by the sword dies by it".

 

[shunyadragon]

There's a mouthful. When we see a fringe cult group, like Westboro Baptist, send 5 people to make a stink, it gets worldwide coverage because everyone knows that is not how the hundreds of millions of Christians EVER behave.

Followers of Christ imitate Him. He never treated anyone inappropriately.

I understand why you might be frustrated by say, the Inquisition--as a Jew, I had to come to understand that the Inquisitors were religious in name only, not lovers of Jesus, who said "He who lives by the sword dies by it".

Part of the problem is Christianity is terribly inconsistent i history.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I agree. You are right. I would die for a few days, I would not choose to be stripped naked, spat upon, beaten all night, scourged, crucified. Neither would you. Nor would I be able to handle the full measure of God's wrath for all human sin.

Please actually read the scriptures before you debate their 101 basic doctrines. Thanks!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Part of the problem is Christianity is terribly inconsistent i history.

History has a terrible reputation of being inconsistent

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Huh? Roe v. Wade gives the foetus the right to be terminated. What nonsense is this? Did you mean, "Once it is more obvious the baby is a living being, we are less likely to kill it."

 

[viole]

I agree. You are right. I would die for a few days, I would not choose to be stripped naked, spat upon, beaten all night, scourged, crucified. Neither would you. Nor would I be able to handle the full measure of God's wrath for all human sin.

Please actually read the scriptures before you debate their 101 basic doctrines. Thanks!

I did. i was a Christian, you see.

Still, that is totally unimpressive. Normal people went through much worse ordeals without any assurance to come back alive and kicking as masters of the Universe.

Really? Do you really believe that is something really awesome?

Well, sins cannot be such a big deal if paying for them was so cheap.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Science is not a philosphy. It's an information gathering tool.
I don't know of anybody who says science promises paradise (whatever that means).

At best, science is a tool that can be used to make the world a better place.
This is demonstrably the case, as that has already happened.

Medical science alone, made the world a better place. This is objectively the case.
A world where live expectancy is around 80 (thanks to medical science) is objectively better then a world where life expectancy is around 30 (without science).

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.

Science doesn't "claim" or "promise" anything. As said: it is just a tool, a method of study.
You can USE science to GAIN a better understand of our nature, of the universe, of reality in general.

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.

Science doesn't deal in "Truth" (capital T) either.
Science is always tentative. A scientific theory isn't absolute, nore is it ever considered 100% correct.

It's religion that claims to know the Truth (and that, before even asking the question - or even knowing what the proper question is).

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation"

Again, science promises no such thing.
Neither is it a "philosophy".

, people who put their faith in the science community

I don't require "faith" in the scientific method. I have more then enough EVIDENCE to rationally conclude that the scientific method is a very robust and valid method to find answers to question concerning reality.

Like this discussion we are having right now. We communicate at light speed from opposite sides of the globe, using landlines, satellites and what-not.

I don't require "faith" to accept that science works.
I see it working every single day. I see it working right now, as I'm typing this message.

Prayer didn't make my pc possible. Science did.

believe that someday science will solve all our problems

I don't believe that. I KNOW that science WILL solve (and HAS already solved) quite a few of our problems. I don't know about that "all" though. Sounds a little to ambitious.

Religion on the other hand.... These days it seems that religion is only causing problems (and inventing new problems). I also don't know of a single problem that got solved by religion. Do you?

and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars

I honestly remain unvoncined that interstellar travel is actually possible, at least in practical terms.
I don't see much practical use in having to travel for +10.000 years through space to reach another star.

Anyhow, IF one day we manage to build a spaceship capable of reaching another star.... I'll bet you everything that I have (and that my off spring will have) that the technology for it will ultimately be provided through science.

I'll bet you 10-fold of everything I have that prayer will not provide us with such technology.

while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

The difference is that "another star" is an actual physical place in the universe. A place that you can actually observe right now by pointing a telescope in that direction.

Whereas the "Heavens" in religion, are indistinguishable from imaginary places like Middle Earth, Whalhalla and other such nonsense.

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

Really?
To me, they couldn't be more different if they tried.
They are like polar opposits.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did. i was a Christian, you see.

Still, that is totally unimpressive. Normal people went through much worse ordeals without any assurance to come back alive and kicking as masters of the Universe.

Really? Do you really believe that is something really awesome?

Well, sins cannot be such a big deal if paying for them was so cheap.

Ciao

- viole

Which other person took the full weight of the sin of the entire world, when God made the sky dark, sent a massive earthquake, and poured the full measure of His wrath on them?

And you and I wouldn't even willingly be beaten, scourged and crucified. Be more honest!

 

[viole]

Which other person took the full weight of the sin of the entire world, when God made the sky dark, sent a massive earthquake, and poured the full measure of His wrath on them?

And you and I wouldn't even willingly be beaten, scourged and crucified. Be more honest!

C’mon. I am sure you also deep inside know that it was lame. A normal foot soldier in any war had probably vastly more courage than your Jesus, with His free from death ticket known from the beginning of time.

Not to talk of people ready to give their lives for their country, or family, without a daddy who created the whole Universe.

Your Jesus looks to me like those magnanimous sons of a rich father who pay your debt knowing that he will get his money back from dad almost immediately. Big deal. Everybody can be as magnanimous.

Where is the awesome sacrifice, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Science is not a philosphy.

Yes it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it is.

It's not.

It's a method of inquiry.
A tool.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes it is.

It depends on how you consider science in relationship to philosophy, and 'What is philosophy?' I believe that it is too simplistic to say science is philosophy. Yes at the foundation of science there is the philosophy of scientific methodology. The 'Philosophy of Science' proposed by Popper is at present the contemporary standard for Methodological Naturalism. Science itself works on different limited philosophical assumptions than the rest of philosophy. There are two foundation assumptions of science: (1) The nature of our physical existence is universally consistent in the past present and future in our universe. This assumption is tested when every proposed theory and hypothesis is tested as being predictable based on the consistency of nature. (2) The scientific methods are limited to what can be falsified by the scientific methods based on objectively verified physical evidence that can be the foundation of predictions that can be verified. Subjective philosophies of the mind only cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

Math is a form of logical philosophy that is part of the 'tool box' of science and everyday life. The value of math is judged by how functional it is as a tool. Math can be formulated logically that is not useful to science.

In the broad sense philosophy is the discipline of 'thinking' and logic in search of the fundamental nature of knowledge, experience, and subjective wisdom beyond the objective nature of science. Many logical assumptions of philosophy are not objective based.


.

 

[BilliardsBall]

C’mon. I am sure you also deep inside know that it was lame. A normal foot soldier in any war had probably vastly more courage than your Jesus, with His free from death ticket known from the beginning of time.

Not to talk of people ready to give their lives for their country, or family, without a daddy who created the whole Universe.

Your Jesus looks to me like those magnanimous sons of a rich father who pay your debt knowing that he will get his money back from dad almost immediately. Big deal. Everybody can be as magnanimous.

Where is the awesome sacrifice, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

Perhaps you would be willing to undergo crucifixion and scourging to show us how "small" it was.

 

[viole]

Perhaps you would be willing to undergo crucifixion and scourging to show us how "small" it was.

So, He did not really die for our sins. He got tortured for our sins, right?

And again, there are humans that probably went through much bigger ordeals than that without a big daddy in heaven.

Anyway, if I can walk on water and turn water into wine, I would magically deactivate my nervous system and simulate some pain, in order to achieve the required objective. Maybe He did, how can we say?

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

Perhaps you would be willing to undergo crucifixion and scourging to show us how "small" it was.

It's small compared to a sacrifice where someone is killed forever.

There is no getting around the fact that the dying/rising demi-god mythology doesn't merge well with the Jewish "god needs a sacrifice to forgive sins" model. It works with Passover and Yom-Kippur and the annual temple sacrifice, anything with animal sacrifice. But once you use a demi-god as a sacrifice it doesn't make sense? He comes back to life for one which is a great way to "defeat death" and give followers a place in the afterlife and all that.
But there isn't really any sacrifice? It's just being tortured.

But Christians never say Jesus was tortured for our sins, they are very specific about "he died so we could live" and all that.

 

[joelr]

There's a mouthful. When we see a fringe cult group, like Westboro Baptist, send 5 people to make a stink, it gets worldwide coverage because everyone knows that is not how the hundreds of millions of Christians EVER behave.

Followers of Christ imitate Him. He never treated anyone inappropriately.

I understand why you might be frustrated by say, the Inquisition--as a Jew, I had to come to understand that the Inquisitors were religious in name only, not lovers of Jesus, who said "He who lives by the sword dies by it".

No there is name calling, beatings with a rod and a variety of somewhat inappropriate things. In Revelations things get dark.

 

[KelseyR]

There's a huge difference between religion and science.

Religions are end products, as are non-religions that also address the question of what happens when we die. Science is not an end product. It is strictly relegated to the provision of facts which each belief can either accept or ignore.

If we're going to discuss similarities between antagonistic camps we should focus on theism versus skepticism. My studies indicate that although they're perfectly antithetical with regards to proposed cause and effect they are also highly symbiotic.

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps you would be willing to undergo crucifixion and scourging to show us how "small" it was.

Well, the carrot of eternal rewards has inspired many a population to endure any number of hardships. So for Jesus, a done deal does somewhat undercut the severity of his torture. It is temporary, after all. Heaven is forever.
During history a lot of people were crucified. Spat upon, beaten and tortured. Some were even massacred. Some have lived in horrific circumstances in various slavery enterprises through the centuries. The horrors of various wars left people wishing for death. None had a guarantee that they would be resurrected like Jesus. Just a faint hope for a reward from a grateful deity, which various persecuted peoples have clung to in order to survive any number of hardships. Which I suppose is why Jesus has resonated with many people through the years. Even inspired them to face violence with a "stiff upper lip." But the guarantee still takes a little wind out of the sails of the "Mel Gibson" interpretation of Jesus' sacrifice all the same.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps you would be willing to undergo crucifixion and scourging to show us how "small" it was.

If I knew I was going to be alive at the end (after dying, mind you) and that it would make the world a better place, why not?

Many people have endured far more torture for much more minor causes and have accepted that as part of how things work. Think of someone like Nelson Mandela. Or any number of people in China today, or in Russia. There are very devoted activists that want to see a better world and are willing to be tortured for far longer than a day or two to get that better world. And they don't have the promise of actually living through the experience.