Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. What you gain from religion is an evolutionary advantage. Remember the only reason religion exists is because those who believed in religion where able to survive and have children. In the past, religion was able to give people something that they needed to survive. I think we need to control and change religion to better meet the needs of the modern world.
"You can believe whatever you want, as long as I say it's okay."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. What you gain from religion is an evolutionary advantage. Remember the only reason religion exists is because those who believed in religion where able to survive and have children. In the past, religion was able to give people something that they needed to survive. I think we need to control and change religion to better meet the needs of the modern world.
When I said there wasn't a good reason to believe, I was talking about from a logical perspective of belief vs. non-belief. A strictly academic analysis of it, speaking to the utter lack of evidence for it. But if we begin to include societal affects of such beliefs, there probably IS an advantage to being theistic (and Christian) in general. An unfortunate, but unavoidable, fact of our world. So sure, we're in agreement there. I should've been more specific.
As for the specific belief of demons intervening in our lives, there's no good reason to believe in them for ANY reason: societal, logical, or otherwise.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
wow... may i continue live by your grace?........ 🙂
It was in quotations....thus, a quote instead of a personal opinion. Probably sarcastic too.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it's a single belief. It has no effect on your other beliefs or thought processes.
I didn't say it did. I said that placing a belief in something with no evidence to support it is a putting aside of one's rational faculties (as I put before, "the ability to discern probable conclusions from conjecture through critical thinking"😉. But it doesn't mean the same trend will follow for other beliefs, though in practice it likely would for most people.
Originally posted by DigiSaying that there's a lot science can't explain doesn't really cut it either. The amount of material where that saying still applies is actually rather small, and dwindling yearly. And saying that it can't explain everything doesn't make an alternative opinion true simply because it's different.
That's a bold statement. And you would know the percentage of those things science can explain vs those it can't? I look at science as a means to better our functionality in this universe. Looking at the overwhelming cycle of life and existence as we perceive it, there is much that our science doesn't define.
For one: to break down life, its purpose, its nature. The wonder of consciousness itself, outside of the basic bare bones mundane observable processes.
I don't know how broadly you're looking at this. These are things bread-and-butter factual science doesn't explain or can't without addressing larger than life concepts. But meh!
To me Science is the observance of the mundane world, it doesn't address the question "why?".
For me religion has its place in as much as it relates to mortality, morality, clarity of mind and motivation for life. At least as far as Christian doctrine is concerned there's a very strict code that affects the care with which we handle or own lives and a bigger sense how we handle our thought life. Christianity deals with the "why?", it goes beyond social type systems and their needs.
Originally posted by DigiIt may be more accurate to say that some people put aside their rational faculties because they don't know how to use them, ie, they're not versed in critical observation and thinking. Therefore, in building a reality map, it's easier to believe in the absence of empirical evidence.
I said that placing a belief in something with no evidence to support it is a putting aside of one's rational faculties
Originally posted by DigiI like to point out the flaw in this statement.
h
Saying that there's a lot science can't explain doesn't really cut it either. The amount of material where that saying still applies is actually rather small, and dwindling yearly. And saying that it can't explain everything doesn't make an alternative opinion true simply because it's different.
The amount we like to think science can explain is large but what science can actually prove is rather small at the moment.
I mean once you get to astrological sciences it's all based on nominal observations mixed with very, very finite data. From there we make many observations based on that. Astronomy itself is based on the Copernican Theory that we must assume that Universe is a on a macro level uniform. Which as science often points out is a very bad way to go into something or draw conclusions from.
As to what it can not explain dwindling quickly. I'd point out to the old saying for every question answered a thousand more questions are introduced. Which is true because on a daily basis things we think we know are being overturned for new information and data being recorded which in turn raises a hundred more missing pieces to the puzzle we didn't see before.
Originally posted by DigiAnd what exactly is the point in this?
I didn't say it did. I said that placing a belief in something with no evidence to support it is a putting aside of one's rational faculties (as I put before, "the ability to discern probable conclusions from conjecture through critical thinking"😉. But it doesn't mean the same trend will follow for other beliefs, though in practice it likely would for most people.
It isn't like I care if I choose not to engage in a realistic, "rational" look on everything in my life. Neither does it in anyway take away from my ability to be rational, nor should it be held against me.
So again, what is the point of pointing it out?
Originally posted by Digi
When I said there wasn't a good reason to believe, I was talking about from a logical perspective of belief vs. non-belief. A strictly academic analysis of it, speaking to the utter lack of evidence for it. But if we begin to include societal affects of such beliefs, there probably IS an advantage to being theistic (and Christian) in general. An unfortunate, but unavoidable, fact of our world. So sure, we're in agreement there. I should've been more specific...
No, thank you for giving me the opportunity to rant on my fav subject.
😄
Originally posted by Newjak
What do you mean by hardly surprising?
people critical of "scientific worldviews" rarely understand the scientific method or natural philosophy very well. I don't mean this in an insulting way, just that I was correct in my assumption, go me
Originally posted by Newjak
And what do you mean by proves things to begin with?
is the purpose of science to prove what is true? does science know truth? does it get us closer to truth?
what is the purpose of the scientific method?