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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.Who is thinking of science as a belief system and world view?
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!))
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.
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.”.
Who is thinking of science as a belief system and world view?
.
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’m not sure what you mean by “identifying.” How do you see what I’m saying conflicting with what you’re saying?I personally see no problem with such thinking? Why is there a problem with identifying with a particular religion or science generally or both?
Science is not a belief system. It is the best that we know at any time with verifiable evidence. How does it harm people?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.
And why are you against that? You have some strange views. Why were you not born in 7th Century or earlier?I’m also opposed to people calling anything they say “science” or “scientific”.
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.Maybe i misunderstand your way of thinking
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.
Very welcome JimMaybe 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.
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]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.?
[/QUOTE]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..
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.Science is a discipline based on measurement, observation, experiment and verification. No belief involved after the early hypothesis stage?
Only, it is not the methodologies themselves that are used to serve the belief systems. Only their names and reputations.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.
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.I personally see no problem with such thinking? Why is there a problem with identifying with a particular religion or science generally or both?