AFFIRMATIVE Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Religion and belief go hand in hand except religion is referred to a community/group of people who share the same/similar beliefs so I dont see it as any different. Imo I feel that religion attempts to "fill in" what science cannot explain however it falls short because it fails to keep with the times but that is partly due to it's foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The "study" I was referring to was one which went semi viral a year (?) ago which was why I stated that I wasnt sure if we were referring to the same one and assumed it was since you didnt correct me on your initial reply. Religion and belief go hand in hand except religion is referred to a community/group of people who share the same/similar beliefs so I dont see it as any different. Imo I feel that religion attempts to "fill in" what science cannot explain however it falls short because it fails to keep with the times but that is partly due to it's foundation. there are overlaps sometimes in things which religion and science both offer explanations for but to reduce religion to simply those things is very very reductive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 there are overlaps sometimes in things which religion and science both offer explanations for but to reduce religion to simply those things is very very reductive I obviously am not going to dive into every religion and explain everything hence it's very watered down, science relied on evidence, proof and research, religion in general attempts to tackle very similar questions except uses a "imaginary" figure to explain which is why they are polar opposites. One relies completely on reasonable thought whilst the other doesnt. -Snip_ Neil Tyson i love that guy xD Think the most interesting attempt for christianity to try and "stay relevant" was taking everything which was said in the bible in a figurative way. (I cant remember who wrote it unfortunately) but their was a book which essentially "translated" the bible to explain many things which are often attacked by atheists. It was a very good read and Iw ould tell people to read it if i remembered what it was called =_= some examples in the book: - Jesus turned water to wine = He didnt turn water to wine but because his charisma is so strong he enabled everyone to have fun as if it was wine hence "water into wine" - Jesus healing blind man = The blind man was hopeless didnt see the point in his existence however jesus helped him "see". - Feeding ppl = He shared all food equally and empowered everyone though his speech that they no longer felt hungry that they were "full"...etc **from the top of my head i.e. will be inaccurate if you want to point out any technicalities on a forum post feel free :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I obviously am not going to dive into every religion and explain everything hence it's very watered down, science relied on evidence, proof and research, religion in general attempts to tackle very similar questions except uses a "imaginary" figure to explain which is why they are polar opposites. One relies completely on reasonable thought whilst the other doesnt. but you're still defining religion by its interaction with science which is a tiny part of it as a whole... it's not just watering down, it's actively ignoring many of the other functions and facets that religion has and involves its participants in. it is also not at all fundamentally irrational any more than any philosophy. nontheistic religions such as jainism and buddhism can be interpreted as simply positing ways of being that are beneficial to those who follow them and their communities. it's not scientific but that doesn't make it the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 hence it's very watered downThe problem isn't that it's very watered down - but the opposite: you boiled out all the water, and focus a single aspect of it. it's like in confusing mamels vs insects with anteaters & ants. Religion is a practical (like rituals, clergy, ...) application of a series of thoughts based upon core believes (axiomatic premisses) about morality, why we are here, etc ... The concept of science (determining causasian) might be the polar opposite of the concept of working with axiomatic premisses, but there's not a person alive that doesn't have axiomatic premisses (thinks we believe are true without a second thought). as long as these axiomatic premisses don't clash with the field of study, they are completely irrelevant to each other. Isaac Newton might have been a very devout christian (working on biblical chronography & stuff) it didn't interfear with him creating his laws of motion Father George Lamaitre might have believed Jesus Christ walked the earth, that didn't interfear with him creating the big bang theory Father Gregor Mendel might have believed Mosus split the sea, it didn't interfear with his works on genetics. etc ... in all those instances determining causasian is still opposiste of axiomatic premisses - yet their religion wasn't opposite their science. in fact, Lamaitre & Mendel are textbook examples of how religion benefitted science. dispited being based upon axiomatic premisses, it was the practical application (the church, in both cases) that created the environment of these people to studie & contribute to their field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.