Thinking of religions and science as world views hides their light and makes them harmful

[Jim]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

 

[Jim]

((I think that one of the reasons for the popularity of that way of thinking about religions and science, as belief systems and world views, is because of how it facilitates drawing lines of alienation between people.

I’m trusting that there is a part of each person that wants to do better than that. To that part of each person I say: Look! The emperor has no clothes!))

 

[Skwim]

.

Who is thinking of science as a belief system and world view?

.

 

[Jim]

Who is thinking of science as a belief system and world view?

Anyone who uses the words “science” and “scientific” in forum debating, or uses arguments from what media and faction stories say about reports of research.

 

[oldbadger]

I’m trusting that there is a part of each person that wants to do better than that. To that part of each person I say: Look! The emperor has no clothes!))

That's one of the problems, Jim.
A massive % of the whole world won't have a clue about what you mean if you say that.

Poor communication and lack of empathy is massively dangerous. And when folks don't think carefully enough about how to communicate, that shows a lack of empathy.

People should be left free to hold on to what they think, believe and say, as long as this does not harm anybody else. But religions that sell themselves as the best brand, better quality of world, more luxurious heaven (whatever).... those are the ones to sound the warning klaxons about, especially those controlling ones that insist how benign they are.

 

[oldbadger]

Anyone who uses the words “science” and “scientific” in forum debating, or uses arguments from what media and faction stories say about reports of research.

Science simply means 'knowledge'.
And so now we are banned from telling others about what we have learned?

Where is this going?

 

[Jim]

.

Who is thinking of science as a belief system and world view?

.

Anyone who thinks of science as saying things that can be used as arguments in a debate. Anyone that calls anything they say in forum debating “science” or “scientific.”

The emperor has no clothes!

 

[Dawnofhope]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

I personally see no problem with such thinking? Why is there a problem with identifying with a particular religion or science generally or both?

 

[Jim]

I personally see no problem with such thinking? Why is there a problem with identifying with a particular religion or science generally or both?

I’m not sure what you mean by “identifying.” How do you see what I’m saying conflicting with what you’re saying?

Part of an answer might be what I’ve said before: I’m opposed to calling any beliefs “Baha’i beliefs,” or “Christian beliefs,” or “Hindu beliefs,” or by the name of any other religion. I’m also opposed to people calling anything they say “science” or “scientific.”

 

[Aupmanyav]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

Science is not a belief system. It is the best that we know at any time with verifiable evidence. How does it harm people?

The harm is from religions which cannot provide evidence for what they believe, but still are ready to cut throats of those who have different belief.

I’m also opposed to people calling anything they say “science” or “scientific”.

And why are you against that? You have some strange views. Why were you not born in 7th Century or earlier?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If i understand you right Jim, you see all spirituality as one, no matter if one call it Baha`i or Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism.?

I can of course not say how you should see things or understand, but maybe it would be wise to just see religion as religion and science as science? Because both can be used to gain wisdom of the world and how things work.
There are different methods that are used, where religion often is based from within us, and science is based on facts that they can measure. that does not mean one is wrong and the other is right, Both can be right, but both can also be wrong from time to time.
So sometimes it looks like you take things to personal. Or maybe it would be better to only stick to one side of it, example the spiritual side.
Maybe i misunderstand your way of thinking

 

[Jim]

Maybe i misunderstand your way of thinking

Maybe you did. I’m glad for you to say what you’re thinking anyway, any time. It always helps, no matter if you understand what I’m thinking or not, and it always feels friendly to me. Also, it looks like a kind of community service to me. Thanks.

 

[ChristineM]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

Religion is a belief system, hence "faith"

Science is a discipline based on measurement, observation, experiment and verification. No belief involved after the early hypothesis stage?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Maybe you did. I’m glad for you to say what you’re thinking anyway, any time. It always helps, no matter if you understand what I’m thinking or not, and it always feels friendly to me. Also, it looks like a kind of community service to me. Thanks.

Very welcome Jim

 

[Jim]

If i understand you right Jim, you see all spirituality as one, no matter if one call it Baha`i or Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism.?

I don’t see everything that anyone calls “spirituality” as one. I think that the best possibilities in life are accessible to everyone, regardless of what they say they believe and don’t believe, and regardless of what religion they identify with. I think that there’s a true story about how to do that in all the religions that have been associated with thriving civilizations, and that it’s the same story in all of them, with different names..[/QUOTE]

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don’t see everything that anyone calls “spirituality” as one. I think that the best possibilities in life are accessible to everyone, regardless of what they say they believe and don’t believe, and regardless of what religion they identify with. I think that there’s a true story about how to do that in all the religions that have been associated with thriving civilizations, and that it’s the same story in all of them, with different names..

[/QUOTE]
That is because of the teachings in the different religious paths are a version of the truth, the example i normally use is the mountain with different paths from the bottom to the top, The top being the ultimate truth, and the paths are the different religion teaching, they lead toward the same but are told in different ways and different level of wisdom according to who it is for. (in my understanding)

 

[PureX]

Both religion and science are methodologies. They are not, in themselves, 'belief systems'. But because they are both often employed to serve one's 'belief system', they are often, then, confused with the belief system that they are being employed to serve.

 

[Jim]

Science is a discipline based on measurement, observation, experiment and verification. No belief involved after the early hypothesis stage?

That’s one kind of science, the kind that I think is beneficial. That is never what anyone means by “science” when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” in forum debates. If you disagree with that, see if you can find a counter example.

 

[Jim]

Both religion and science are methodologies. They are not, in themselves, 'belief systems'. But because they are both often employed to serve one's 'belief system', they are often, then, confused with the belief system that they are being employed to serve.

Only, it is not the methodologies themselves that are used to serve the belief systems. Only their names and reputations.

 

[Jim]

I personally see no problem with such thinking? Why is there a problem with identifying with a particular religion or science generally or both?

I’ll give you an example of the problems, in forum debating. I don’t know how much this is happening in the offline world around us. In forum debating, when people call something that they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” that means that it is not open to question in their minds. Also it stigmatizes anyone who disagrees with it, which might discourages some people from saying what they think. When people identify with a belief system that they label with the name of a religion, then none of those beliefs are open to question in their minds. Also it stigmatizes anyone in that religion who disagrees with those beliefs, again possibly discouraging some people from saying what they think. On all sides people have views that are not open to question, and contrary views are being stigmatized, discouraging some people, possibly most people, from saying honestly what they think.