Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[xi0]

If monotheism did come after polytheism, what inspired it? Was it because people didn't want to bother remembering the names of all the gods? Thought the Bible would be too big or take too long?

I think it's a fact that science explains life better than any religion could. There are lots of evidences for evolution, and a successful experiment was done to show or figure out how life was created. I honestly think those whose are stubbornly ignoring these facts and continuing to believe in God/Gods are doing so out of selfishness, because they don't want to risk Hell or think God will give them everything.q

There is a belief that many of the early Biblical stories of God were in fact different Gods of different faiths (El Elyon, Asherah, Baal, Yahweh, etc) hence explaining some contradiction that occurs in the Old Testament. When the stories were gathered together, it was unified as being the Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), when in fact it was other deities that predate Him or the concept of Him.

 

[Akainu]

If monotheism did come after polytheism, what inspired it? Was it because people didn't want to bother remembering the names of all the gods? Thought the Bible would be too big or take too long?

I think it's a fact that science explains life better than any religion could. There are lots of evidences for evolution, and a successful experiment was done to show or figure out how life was created. I honestly think those whose are stubbornly ignoring these facts and continuing to believe in God/Gods are doing so out of selfishness, because they don't want to risk Hell or think God will give them everything.q

Maybe there is a somewhat wrong understanding of Polytheism? I think in polytheistic religious systems not all people pray to all of those gods at the same time. Some of them might have a main - or even only - god they pray to. Going from there to monotheism is not such a big step anymore and there have been many examples in history. Now why it stuck around at a certain time is an interesting question there are many books on - here's a video that sums up some of them.
Oh and btw. there is more than one god in the bible, even in core parts like the commandments (having no other gods).

The other thing you mention reminds of Pascal's Wager. As you write, they risk hell for not believing, believing on the other hand has no negative outcome. Actually in some aspects it simplifies life. Is it selfish? Is anything humans do not? Why is the believe in god/s selfish, but believing in a certain scientific model is not? To some degree you do have to believe in scientific explanations until they can be proven.

 

[M3J]

There is a belief that many of the early Biblical stories of God were in fact different Gods of different faiths (El Elyon, Asherah, Baal, Yahweh, etc) hence explaining some contradiction that occurs in the Old Testament. When the stories were gathered together, it was unified as being the Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), when in fact it was other deities that predate Him or the concept of Him.

Oh, I see.

Well, one good thing about polytheism is that it has created a lot of great mythologies, like Egyptian and Greek mythologies. I could literally spend hours reading 'em.

Maybe there is a somewhat wrong understanding of Polytheism? I think in polytheistic religious systems not all people pray to all of those gods at the same time. Some of them might have a main - or even only - god they pray to. Going from there to monotheism is not such a big step anymore and there have been many examples in history. Now why it stuck around at a certain time is an interesting question there are many books on - here's a video that sums up some of them.
Oh and btw. there is more than one god in the bible, even in core parts like the commandments (having no other gods).

Not a wrong understanding, more like one point of view understanding. My religion tends to name all deities and sing hymns to or about them. I generalized it to all polytheistic religions.

I do kinda find it a big step though, but I guess as mentioned, there is one central God, like a Zeus.

True. I think almost all religions are polytheistic regardless of having one God, considering they worship other figures and consider them like Gods, like Mohammad and Jesus.

The other thing you mention reminds of Pascal's Wager. As you write, they risk hell for not believing, believing on the other hand has no negative outcome. Actually in some aspects it simplifies life. Is it selfish? Is anything humans do not? Why is the believe in god/s selfish, but believing in a certain scientific model is not? To some degree you do have to believe in scientific explanations until they can be proven.

Believing can have a negative outcome though, depending on how strongly you believe. There have been articles on parents refusing to get medical treatment for their offspring because they believe God could cure the offspring, or they don't believe in medicine/science at all.

I don't think believing in the theories of science is selfish because... what do you stand to benefit? I believe in evolution, but where do I benefit? HOw do I benefit from that? It's still a theory, so I can't say I believe in the right thing. But I think almost anything humans do is selfish. Like, I became an atheist/denounced my religion out of selfishness - because I didn't want to abide by the rules, wanted to eat meat, and didn't want to waste time or put any effort in praying or going to the temple or whatnot.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

The other thing you mention reminds of Pascal's Wager. As you write, they risk hell for not believing, believing on the other hand has no negative outcome. Actually in some aspects it simplifies life. Is it selfish? Is anything humans do not? Why is the believe in god/s selfish, but believing in a certain scientific model is not? To some degree you do have to believe in scientific explanations until they can be proven.

Pragmatically, subjectively and simply, I'd rather god exist. It would benefit me very much. I know it is selfish, but after much consideration, it makes perfect sense. Science has not matured enough at this point to be fully dependable If you compare it to monotheism that has been around for more than a thousand years. Even then, and objectively speaking, how much progress can science make in a thousand years ? Additionally, this obsession with empiricism is making the progress very slow. While we know that there is more to life than the natural, concrete world, science does not seem to be concerned with that. It is stuck in it's comfort zone, and will continue to dismiss anything intangible in my opinion. Mankind itself has not matured enough to practically do without religion.

 

[benelori]

The problem with Pascal's wager is in how it is framed/phrased...people should believe in any deity, because they agree with those teachings that come from their respective religions, and not because logically speaking it would outweigh the risks of not believing. It's hilarious to think that an almighty entity wouldn't know what your belief is based on.

 

[Akainu]

Not a wrong understanding, more like one point of view understanding. My religion tends to name all deities and sing hymns to or about them. I generalized it to all polytheistic religions.

I do kinda find it a big step though, but I guess as mentioned, there is one central God, like a Zeus.

True. I think almost all religions are polytheistic regardless of having one God, considering they worship other figures and consider them like Gods, like Mohammad and Jesus.

Oh, so you guys pray(ed) to many of them at the same time? How about the temples and celebrations? From what I gathered in history about greek and roman polytheism, there was in fact that one main guy - mostly the father figure to all of the others (even though he actually had parents and whatnot) - and said others, that work highly specialised, for example when they go to war, they sacrifice to Mars, or when they want a baby it's another godess again etc. pp.
That is something, that in christianity was taken over by saints in some way, they're specifically not gods though.

Believing can have a negative outcome though, depending on how strongly you believe. There have been articles on parents refusing to get medical treatment for their offspring because they believe God could cure the offspring, or they don't believe in medicine/science at all.

I don't think believing in the theories of science is selfish because... what do you stand to benefit? I believe in evolution, but where do I benefit? HOw do I benefit from that? It's still a theory, so I can't say I believe in the right thing. But I think almost anything humans do is selfish. Like, I became an atheist/denounced my religion out of selfishness - because I didn't want to abide by the rules, wanted to eat meat, and didn't want to waste time or put any effort in praying or going to the temple or whatnot.

That is a sad outcome of believe going (subjectively?) wrong. Praying for healing and then not accepting the help of a medcine (I guess it's mostly argued as counter, that medcines are humans, therefore creatures of god, therefore a way of god to heal). Also it is imposing the view of the parents on the children who have no way to escape that, like some other procedures. Not sure in how far a state should allow that if it threatens the childs wellbeing.

As for selfishness and benefit, I don't see how believing in god is selfish then. You still take a wager, might have to live without alcohol without ever knowing if there is a god and to what rules and conditions that comes. In the end you'd have to get scales and weigh it up.
Where's the benefit from believing in evolution? Well maybe you feel all high and mighty towards other species, idk. Evolutionists often have that view that's also made it to the T-shirts. Can feeling good be a benefit anyway? Might be an interesting question, how does your religion/service/community make you feel?
If I understand you right though, what you're saying is, science = theories = not necessarily right; and also that religions = claim to be right = capitalize on that. Is that it?

Pragmatically, subjectively and simply, I'd rather god exist. It would benefit me very much. I know it is selfish, but after much consideration, it makes perfect sense. Science has not matured enough at this point to be fully dependable If you compare it to monotheism that has been around for more than a thousand years. Even then, and objectively speaking, how much progress can science make in a thousand years ? Additionally, this obsession with empiricism is making the progress very slow. While we know that there is more to life than the natural, concrete world, science does not seem to be concerned with that. It is stuck in it's comfort zone, and will continue to dismiss anything intangible in my opinion. Mankind itself, has not matured enough to practically do without religion.

Well, actually science has been around for thousands of years as well, think of the greeks (hellenism btw, was a major influence in the region around the time when christianity came up. surely left it's marks on islam as well), babylonians and egyptians. The diffrence? Scientists learn and adapt according to new findings. Or rather science as a process itself, even when one or the other person does not. In whole, it seems to me rather progressive. Religion on the other hand remained unchanged for long periods of time, it's static or conservative, whatever you prefer. Both of these things are needed in societies since too much change at once troubles us humans, as it seems.

 

[Kaiten]

Oh, so you guys pray(ed) to many of them at the same time? How about the temples and celebrations? From what I gathered in history about greek and roman polytheism, there was in fact that one main guy - mostly the father figure to all of the others (even though he actually had parents and whatnot) - and said others, that work highly specialised, for example when they go to war, they sacrifice to Mars, or when they want a baby it's another godess again etc. pp.

It is inadvisable to draw any parallels between Western traditions, and the religious heritage of the subcontinent. It may seem like there are similarities, but these are merely superficial. Closer inspection will reveal that they have little, or nothing in common (cats and eagles both have claws, that does not mean they are the same). I know somewhat of Hinduism, but almost nothing of Milly's religion, beyond a few core beliefs. I do know that they have little in common with Greco-Roman belief. The very concept of what constitutes the divine, what they are, and how thy effects life on earth has nothing in common with their western kin, which developed in complete isolation from India.

While not entirely wrong, that is also a gross oversimplification of Greco-Roman belief. Mythology books have the unfortunate tendency to homogenize Classical belief, when in fat religion was highly localized, and quite varied. Greek religion reflected the fragmentary nature of Hellenic politics, with independent cities stretching from western Sicily to the Crimea. Most cities would have pulled from a common pool, but belief, custom, and worship would have varied greatly from city to city. Zeus was considered the supreme deity of the Greek pantheon. He was not actually a father god, per se. Hestia, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, and Hades were his older siblings. Together they accounted for about half the Olympians. The other half were usually ascribed as his children, though this is hardly uniform. Some legends claim Hephaestus and Ares were the sons of Hera alone. Despite his status as supreme deity, the worship of Zeus was hardly given primacy. Different cities venerated the worship of different gods above others. The Parthenon (Athens largest temple) was dedicated to the cult of Athena. Ares and Artemis were considered patrons of Sparta. Not all cities even accepted the twelve Olympians as civic patrons. Helios was considered the patron of Rhodes, and model for the Colossus, one of the wonders of the world. Ares was not widely invoked by soldiers before war. He was a god of carnage, reveling in violence for it's own sake. He was not a god who brought victory or glory, only bloodshed. Nike was the goddess of victory, an associate of Athena. She and Athena would have been more often venerated by soldiers than Ares. Most likely, soldiers would have invoked deities with deeper local connections, rather than war gods.

Even legends are often homogenized by history books, removed from the context of time and place. The epic of Jason and the Argonauts was Hellenistic, written after Alexander's death. Hellenic Athens might have known a variation of the story, the version that has survived, and is repeated in mythology books, is much more modern.

Rome was to large, and to diverse, to ascribe any single religion. The Greek pantheon may have been co-opted, but Greek and Roman worship had almost nothing else in common. Roman beliefs were much more Animist than Greek. Conquered peoples generally were allowed to maintain there own gods and worship, as long as they acknowledged Roman beliefs. By the time of Christ, traditional Roman religion had completely broken down. Religious practices from the hinterlands were coming into vogue even in Italy. Christianities rise can partly be attributed to this breakdown in tradition.

That is something, that in christianity was taken over by saints in some way, they're specifically not gods though.

Sainthood is Christianized ancestor worship, with no discernible relationship to polytheism. The honored dead acting as intermediaries on behalf of the living, acting to protect their descendents, helping to procure good fortune from the divine is a common belief of ancestor worship. Ascribing patronage to a Saint does not mean they have any sort of divine power, only that they act as intermediaries for that specific subject. The patron saint of sailors does not calm the waves, he or she instead invoke god to act on behalf of seafarers. Ascribing anything more to saints is usually a matter of superstition, not proper canon law.

 

[kkck]

Pragmatically, subjectively and simply, I'd rather god exist. It would benefit me very much. I know it is selfish, but after much consideration, it makes perfect sense. Science has not matured enough at this point to be fully dependable If you compare it to monotheism that has been around for more than a thousand years. Even then, and objectively speaking, how much progress can science make in a thousand years ? Additionally, this obsession with empiricism is making the progress very slow. While we know that there is more to life than the natural, concrete world, science does not seem to be concerned with that. It is stuck in it's comfort zone, and will continue to dismiss anything intangible in my opinion. Mankind itself has not matured enough to practically do without religion.

This actually confused me quite a bit.... What do you mean about science being fully dependable? are you implying it could reach a point where it could replace religion? Overall science and religion deal with things which at no point cross each other. Religion is overall about faith, spirituality and god if you will. Science is about models and testable predictions of the universe, the world, 42. There is no room for overlap there. If you are looking for religious answers in science or scientific answers in religion then by very definition you are doing both of them wrong. There is a reason for most large religions to have changed from a literal interpretation of whatever they believe in to interpretative ones and for fundamentalist groups to be minorities which people make a point of not listening to more and more as time goes on.

So of course science does not concern with non empiric things, its beyond its scope altogether. Nothing which can't be tested on in some form or another can ever be within the scope of science. So its more practical to just focus on the stuff which we can test so we get to a point where we can test on other cooler stuff. Of course no model would actually be able to test on morality or god hence why neither will ever be within the scope of science. Science is indeed rather rigid in its definition but that's what keeps it separate from superstition and altogether makes it as reliable as it is today. Of course 100 years from now most of the models we have will be changed, updated and perhaps altogether dropped but that does not take anything away from it. Its the opposite, it adds to its value.

 

[M3J]

Oh, so you guys pray(ed) to many of them at the same time? How about the temples and celebrations? From what I gathered in history about greek and roman polytheism, there was in fact that one main guy - mostly the father figure to all of the others (even though he actually had parents and whatnot) - and said others, that work highly specialised, for example when they go to war, they sacrifice to Mars, or when they want a baby it's another godess again etc. pp.
That is something, that in christianity was taken over by saints in some way, they're specifically not gods though.

Same time, in one prayer, multiple prayers in the same day or hour, whatever. We do honor many gods though and in temple go around praying to statues.

I'm not entirely sure about Hinduism, or Jainism, but based on what I read on Wiki, we have tons of Gods and Goddesses but pray more extensively to one or two of them. For many Hindus, Krishna is their main god, while for others Vishnu is their god of choice. Some, like the Thugees, worship Kali Maa. I think Hindus have primary god or goddess that they worship to the most, and worship others much less. However, I'm basin this on movies I've seen.

I really have no idea how we do it, but I know we worship more than one deity whenever we have prayers.

That is a sad outcome of believe going (subjectively?) wrong. Praying for healing and then not accepting the help of a medcine (I guess it's mostly argued as counter, that medcines are humans, therefore creatures of god, therefore a way of god to heal). Also it is imposing the view of the parents on the children who have no way to escape that, like some other procedures. Not sure in how far a state should allow that if it threatens the childs wellbeing.

I think a state should have the right to interfere if the parents are endangering a child.

As for selfishness and benefit, I don't see how believing in god is selfish then. You still take a wager, might have to live without alcohol without ever knowing if there is a god and to what rules and conditions that comes. In the end you'd have to get scales and weigh it up.
Where's the benefit from believing in evolution? Well maybe you feel all high and mighty towards other species, idk. Evolutionists often have that view that's also made it to the T-shirts. Can feeling good be a benefit anyway? Might be an interesting question, how does your religion/service/community make you feel?
If I understand you right though, what you're saying is, science = theories = not necessarily right; and also that religions = claim to be right = capitalize on that. Is that it?

Many people believe in God, from what I've read, because they'd rather be right and go to Heaven than be wrong and go to Hell for not believing in him. Many also believe in God because they want to be loved regardless and think God will love them and be there for them.

There's no benefit from believing in evolution, I think. Nor is it a way of saying "God doesn't exist!" Why can't the multiple choice also have "God created first form of life and let it evolve or left it alone, which then evolved into what it is now"? I don't feel high and mighty; I personally feel that humans are equal to animals, not better than them. Feeling good being beneficial depends on the person.

My religion/community makes me feel annoyed and restricted.

Somewhat. But you can't deny science is rife with theories and hypothesis, many that have been proven true but isn't a solid fact. Many religions do claim to be right and try to capitalize on it. Does Christianity not claim to be right about how the universe was created and capitalize on that by using God to control people and make money via donations?


I think you should watch OMG Oh My God. It's a Bollywood flick, yeah, but it has a great message. The main character is an atheist, but he says lot of brilliant stuff about religions that I agree with. Or you can skip to the courtroom parts and the end when the main character is in the hospital to the credits.

Pragmatically, subjectively and simply, I'd rather god exist. It would benefit me very much. I know it is selfish, but after much consideration, it makes perfect sense. Science has not matured enough at this point to be fully dependable If you compare it to monotheism that has been around for more than a thousand years. Even then, and objectively speaking, how much progress can science make in a thousand years ? Additionally, this obsession with empiricism is making the progress very slow. While we know that there is more to life than the natural, concrete world, science does not seem to be concerned with that. It is stuck in it's comfort zone, and will continue to dismiss anything intangible in my opinion. Mankind itself has not matured enough to practically do without religion.

But, why can't you place faith in science or believe that science is good while believing in God? There's no one OR the other, you can have one, you can have both, or you can have none. What stops you from saying God created the first life, which evolved?

Science can make and has made tons of progress in a thousand year. Astronomy, biology, chemistry... science has led to creation of technology that allows us to communicate with people halfway around the world, to create medicine that can cure us of diseases that had the potential to wipe out mass populations, and to help make our lives easier with tools.

Natural, concrete wall? I don't understand what you mean by this. But science doesn't dismiss anything intangible, otherwise it'd have dismiss the idea of alleles, atoms, Punnett square, and plenty of other stuff.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

This actually confused me quite a bit.... What do you mean about science being fully dependable? are you implying it could reach a point where it could replace religion? Overall science and religion deal with things which at no point cross each other. Religion is overall about faith, spirituality and god if you will. Science is about models and testable predictions of the universe, the world, 42. There is no room for overlap there. If you are looking for religious answers in science or scientific answers in religion then by very definition you are doing both of them wrong. There is a reason for most large religions to have changed from a literal interpretation of whatever they believe in to interpretative ones and for fundamentalist groups to be minorities which people make a point of not listening to more and more as time goes on.

So of course science does not concern with non empiric things, its beyond its scope altogether. Nothing which can't be tested on in some form or another can ever be within the scope of science. So its more practical to just focus on the stuff which we can test so we get to a point where we can test on other cooler stuff. Of course no model would actually be able to test on morality or god hence why neither will ever be within the scope of science. Science is indeed rather rigid in its definition but that's what keeps it separate from superstition and altogether makes it as reliable as it is today. Of course 100 years from now most of the models we have will be changed, updated and perhaps altogether dropped but that does not take anything away from it. Its the opposite, it adds to its value.

I will break down how I pragmatically see this in terms of pros, cons and risk management:

1.Pros of believing in science( the branch that is by definition opposed to religion):

Being objective.
Being open minded.
Being perceived as a progressive person.
Being rational.
Being scientific.
Being modern.
Acknowledging the scientific achievements that came about as a result of implementing this framework.

2.Cons of believing in science:

Paradox: claims uncertainty, but asks to be believed nevertheless, which makes it no different than religious dogma.
Does not offer practical solutions to problems such as death. (immortality/eternal life)
Does not explain everything about human beings and the universe. (the part of the mind that is highly unpredictible).
Forced to perceive and categorize people who believe otherwise in a certain way.
Having no practical and desirable bearings on my life. I mean I believe in evolution, so what ? Is it gonna make me happier or richer for example ? (this, ofcourse, is just a an illustration).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Pros of believing in Monotheism(namely Islam, because I'm talking about myself here):

Being moral by definition.
Promised an eternal life. (death is no longer an issue)
Promised happiness if I do good.
Practical explanations of ontological questions.
Makes highly practical and desirable promises.

2. Cons of believing in Monotheism:

Being called irrational
Being called backwarded
being called close-minded
Being subjective

Now let's weigh the benefits of each side and see which one is better in terms of avoiding risk. This is basically what I meant when I laid out the the three premises of my logic above( pragmatically, subjectively and simply). Objectively speaking, What you said in your post is not wrong at all and it makes sense.

 

[kkck]

I was under the impression that by intangible he meant spiritual stuff. So he would have been saying that science dismisses in itself things that are spiritual in nature. Or did I get that wrong? I would have to rewrite my previous post....

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

I will break down how I pragmatically see this in terms of pros, cons and risk management:

1.Pros of believing in science( the branch that is by definition opposed to religion):

Being objective.
Being open minded.
Being perceived as a progressive person.
Being rational.
Being scientific.
Being modern.
Acknowledging the scientific achievements that came about as a result of implementing this framework.

At least as far as I can tell "believing" in science is not about being modern... science is not a fad. Maybe I didn't get what you meant with that though.

2.Cons of believing in science:

Paradox: claims uncertainty, but asks to be believed nevertheless, which makes it no different than religious dogma.
Does not offer practical solutions to problems such as death. (immortality/eternal life)
Does not explain everything about human beings and the universe. (the part of the mind that is highly unpredictible).
Forced to perceive and categorize people who believe otherwise in a certain way.
Having no practical and desirable bearings on my life. I mean I believe in evolution, so what ? Is it gonna make me happier or richer for example ? (this, ofcourse, is just a an illustration).

Science is not about believing at all, no one is asking anyone to believe in science. Believing, faith, is for religion. Science deals with methodology, models and testable predictions which can be validated via controlled experiments. Is it perfect? Of course not and by the time we die most models we have of the universe and whatever else are likely to have been replaced with better ones but that does not mean you go by faith here.

Eerrh no, science does not offer a practical solution to something like death, immortality or eternal life.... Its beyond its scope and in fact it does not attempt to do something of this nature. Honestly, demanding something like this from science does not make sense in the least. It science did attempt to deal with the spiritual part of this it would stop being science altogether.

Well, there is plenty we don't know but so what? Science is something that we only begun to do right in the past couple hundred years or less. And the result is that today hundreds of terabytes of new data are being generated by the hour. And to be fair, its because we don't know that science has any validity whatsoever.

I am not sure about what you mean about categorizing people in a certain manner. Why would science make you do that? Or are you talking about fundamentalist religious being referred to as such?

Science is not supposed to make you happy or unhappy. Science is about pursuit of knowledge.... whether it makes you happy or not is kinda your deal, not a flaw or benefit of science.

1.Pros of believing in Monotheism(namely Islam, because I'm talking about myself here):

Being moral by definition.
Promised an eternal life. (death is no longer an issue)
Promised happiness if I do good.
Practical explanations of ontological questions.
Makes highly practical and desirable promises.

Moral by definition? Even as a catholic (less than now than before although that has nothing to do with science) I find that a tad weird. I never really got the impression islam says you were moral by definition on the merit of being muslim... Its a rather grand stance and in many ways an invitation for trouble (and intolerance). I think I get what you mean by I would phrase it differently at least.

2. Cons of believing in Monotheism:

Being called irrational
Being called backwarded
being called close-minded
Being subjective

Now let's weigh the benefits of each side and see which one is better in terms of avoiding risk. This is basically what I meant when I laid down the the three premises of my logic above( pragmatically, subjectively and simply). Objectively speaking, What you said in your post is not wrong at all and it makes sense.

So.... the drawbacks to being religious is what people think of you? I think you need to fix your religious priorities a tad . Being religious does not mean you are irrational, backwards or close minded. Well, believing the world is 6000 thousands years old in spite of the gargantuan amount of empirical evidence that the world and universe are significantly older than that would make you those things but overall most large religions are backing away from literal interpretations of their texts and instead taking an interpretative approach to them. Overall I do get the impression you put too much importance into what other people will call you even though it should not be a factor.

 

[M3J]

1.Pros of believing in science( the branch that is by definition opposed to religion):

Being objective.
Being open minded.
Being perceived as a progressive person.
Being rational.
Being scientific.
Being modern.
Acknowledging the scientific achievements that came about as a result of implementing this framework.

Believing in science does not automatically mean you're objective, open minded, progressive, ration, or scientific. Those are all stereotypes. I don't know what you mean by being modern considering science has existed since man could think, possibly with or before religion.

Many scientists, even famous ones, have believed in God.

2.Cons of believing in science:

Paradox: claims uncertainty, but asks to be believed nevertheless, which makes it no different than religious dogma.
Does not offer practical solutions to problems such as death. (immortality/eternal life)
Does not explain everything about human beings and the universe. (the part of the mind that is highly unpredictible).
Forced to perceive and categorize people who believe otherwise in a certain way.
Having no practical and desirable bearings on my life. I mean I believe in evolution, so what ? Is it gonna make me happier or richer for example ? (this, ofcourse, is just a an illustration).

No, scientists don't ask you to believe anything. If they can't prove it, or if it sounds ludicrous, they will be laughed at or not be taken seriously. Look at the reaction Darwin got when he proposed the theory of evolution. Scientists have journals where they share findings and how they got it so other scientists can replicate the same experiments and see if they got hte same results.

What kind of practical solution? It's a natural part of life, people die. And it kinda does - science prolongs or saves lives. Immortality and eternal life are being researched, methinks, but not as much as they used to be. Didn't alchemy also consist of finding ways to attain immortality?

... but that's what science is about - finding explanations to life and the universe. It's a work in progress.

No, science does not do that nor did it start, that was all religion. People who want to be right are the ones who do it, whether people who think science is FTW or people who kiss God's ass.

Science has nothin to do with making people happy. It's about gathering and gaining knowledge, finding out how this or that happens. If you want science to make you happy, you're doing it wrong. But, science has made people happy by prolonging their lives or lives of people they loved.

1.Pros of believing in Monotheism(namely Islam, because I'm talking about myself here):

Being moral by definition.
Promised an eternal life. (death is no longer an issue)
Promised happiness if I do good.
Practical explanations of ontological questions.
Makes highly practical and desirable promises.

[/quote]
Moral by definition? NOt necessarily.

Is the whole eternal life thing even true?

Doing good doesn't necessarily mean happiness.

Not practical at all.

Selfishness. And those promises may not end up being true at all. What if God or whoever was lying to you?

2. Cons of believing in Monotheism:

Being called irrational
Being called backwarded
being called close-minded
Being subjective

Now let's weigh the benefits of each side and see which one is better in terms of avoiding risk. This is basically what I meant when I laid down the the three premises of my logic above( pragmatically, subjectively and simply). Objectively speaking, What you said in your post is not wrong at all and it makes sense.

That's all based on the person, once again.




In any case, I think your list is too full of bias, and that it's hard to take the post seriously.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Believing in science does not automatically mean you're objective, open minded, progressive, ration, or scientific. Those are all stereotypes. I don't know what you mean by being modern considering science has existed since man could think, possibly with or before religion.

Many scientists, even famous ones, have believed in God.


No, scientists don't ask you to believe anything. If they can't prove it, or if it sounds ludicrous, they will be laughed at or not be taken seriously. Look at the reaction Darwin got when he proposed the theory of evolution. Scientists have journals where they share findings and how they got it so other scientists can replicate the same experiments and see if they got hte same results.

What kind of practical solution? It's a natural part of life, people die. And it kinda does - science prolongs or saves lives. Immortality and eternal life are being researched, methinks, but not as much as they used to be. Didn't alchemy also consist of finding ways to attain immortality?

... but that's what science is about - finding explanations to life and the universe. It's a work in progress.

No, science does not do that nor did it start, that was all religion. People who want to be right are the ones who do it, whether people who think science is FTW or people who kiss God's ass.

Science has nothin to do with making people happy. It's about gathering and gaining knowledge, finding out how this or that happens. If you want science to make you happy, you're doing it wrong. But, science has made people happy by prolonging their lives or lives of people they loved.




Moral by definition? NOt necessarily.

Is the whole eternal life thing even true?

Doing good doesn't necessarily mean happiness.

Not practical at all.

Selfishness. And those promises may not end up being true at all. What if God or whoever was lying to you?



That's all based on the person, once again.
In any case, I think your list is too full of bias, and that it's hard to take the post seriously.

I was under the impression that by intangible he meant spiritual stuff. So he would have been saying that science dismisses in itself things that are spiritual in nature. Or did I get that wrong? I would have to rewrite my previous post....

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------
At least as far as I can tell "believing" in science is not about being modern... science is not a fad. Maybe I didn't get what you meant with that though.

Science is not about believing at all, no one is asking anyone to believe in science. Believing, faith, is for religion. Science deals with methodology, models and testable predictions which can be validated via controlled experiments. Is it perfect? Of course not and by the time we die most models we have of the universe and whatever else are likely to have been replaced with better ones but that does not mean you go by faith here.

Eerrh no, science does not offer a practical solution to something like death, immortality or eternal life.... Its beyond its scope and in fact it does not attempt to do something of this nature. Honestly, demanding something like this from science does not make sense in the least. It science did attempt to deal with the spiritual part of this it would stop being science altogether.

Well, there is plenty we don't know but so what? Science is something that we only begun to do right in the past couple hundred years or less. And the result is that today hundreds of terabytes of new data are being generated by the hour. And to be fair, its because we don't know that science has any validity whatsoever.

I am not sure about what you mean about categorizing people in a certain manner. Why would science make you do that? Or are you talking about fundamentalist religious being referred to as such?

Science is not supposed to make you happy or unhappy. Science is about pursuit of knowledge.... whether it makes you happy or not is kinda your deal, not a flaw or benefit of science.

Moral by definition? Even as a catholic (less than now than before although that has nothing to do with science) I find that a tad weird. I never really got the impression islam says you were moral by definition on the merit of being muslim... Its a rather grand stance and in many ways an invitation for trouble (and intolerance). I think I get what you mean by I would phrase it differently at least.

So.... the drawbacks to being religious is what people think of you? I think you need to fix your religious priorities a tad . Being religious does not mean you are irrational, backwards or close minded. Well, believing the world is 6000 thousands years old in spite of the gargantuan amount of empirical evidence that the world and universe are significantly older than that would make you those things but overall most large religions are backing away from literal interpretations of their texts and instead taking an interpretative approach to them. Overall I do get the impression you put too much importance into what other people will call you even though it should not be a factor.

It is worthy of note that I said in the beginning of my post that my logic was based on 3 premises:
Pargmatism:please visit this wikipedia page.
Subjectivity:please visit this wikipedia page.
Simplicity:please visit this wikipedia page.

The model I suggested above is just an illustration, meaning the ideas themselves are not there to be tested or validated. And it is possible to imagine a million hypothetical situations and categorize them in their correspondent pros and cons. That is not my concern however. I merely presented a model of risk management that I based my decision on. And whether one agrees with it or not isn't the objective here.

 

[M3J]

Either way though, religion vs. science is extremely stupid and a waste of time, used by atheists to sound smart and by religious people to herd sheep. There is absolutely no reason why it can't be religion and science working together side by side. Despite what many religious people believe, science is not and was never about disproving God, considering many scientists believed in God in the first place. Contrary to what atheists think, science is to explain, not disprove. Both sides are equally as annoying with their schtick.

 

[xi0]

Either way though, religion vs. science is extremely stupid and a waste of time, used by atheists to sound smart and by religious people to herd sheep. There is absolutely no reason why it can't be religion and science working together side by side. Despite what many religious people believe, science is not and was never about disproving God, considering many scientists believed in God in the first place. Contrary to what atheists think, science is to explain, not disprove. Both sides are equally as annoying with their schtick.

Uh, not really. It completely depends upon how militant they are with their beliefs.

 

[M3J]

That's a better way to put it. I'm not saying all are the same either.

 

[naruto the best]

Science is the best manifestation of God's creation..

 

[Kaiten]

Uh, not really. It completely depends upon how militant they are with their beliefs.

No one has ever tried to convert me to science. I guess PBS also has donation drives, but they're not quite as pushy as the church. Big Bird's a boss, I'd much rather give money to him than the Pope.

 

[kkck]

Well, to be fair science is not about being converted to. People who take the stance of one or the other or think of science as something you need faith or need to be converted to don't generally understand what science actually is nor what its scope is supposed to be. Religion on the other hand is about being converted to, it is about faith, you can't really prove yours is the one that is true, you need to convince people that the alternative you go for is the better one among a number of other equally unproven and equally unprovable religions. Within science you might have people vouching for different theories however there aren't different schools of science to speak off at large that would be actual science as what it is supposed to be and do.

 

[M3J]

Converting a religious person to science is pretty dumb. You either convert him to another religion or atheism, not science. Science in no way conflicts with religion or vice versa, nor is it about beliefs or god.