The union between science and religion will destroy unbelief.
I could not agree more. Of course, for that to happen would require something like the Nazi total state control, only more controlling.
To evolve religion would have to be equal to science.Flacus, how do you figure that?
The union between science and religion will destroy unbelief.How can there ever be an union between science and religion. The two are totally different beings, even if they spring from the same human mind.
Flacus, you confuse me, so I’m wonder could you take a moment to define science?
Flautus,
Your profound and mysterious one-liners are a nice touch. Now if you could just get them to say something accurate and meaningful.
You’d need to his book(s) or at least a few studies, but he’s a summary of Scott Atran’s work.
Evolved elements of cognition that favour religion include the inherent susceptibility of religious beliefs to modularised (innate, universal, domain-specific) conceptual processing systems. Cross-cultural experiments in developmental and cognitive psychology point to a universal "theory of mind", or folkpsychology, that favours survival and recurrence of notions of a spiritual soul and the supernatural within and across minds and societies. Historical conditions for religion concern the problem of forming large-scale groups of genetic strangers able to compete with other predatory human groups. A quantitative cross-cultural analysis of 186 societies found that the larger the group, the more likely it culturally sanctioned deities who are directly concerned about human morality. Such moral concern also translates into greater propensity for conflict and warfare with other groups, although experiments in western societies show that activation of God concepts leads to reduced cheating and greater generosity between anonymous strangers.
Religion is not based on empirical evidence, but I believe that in the future religion will be based on empirical evidence, then I will explain how it will happen!
Will you explain using your profound sounding one liners? Never mind. Just explain how it will happen in plain straightforward English.
If religion, appropriate at first to the limited knowledge of men, had always followed the progressive movement of the human spirit, there would be no unbelievers, because it is in the nature of man to need to believe, and he will if he gives spiritual food in harmony with the your intellectual needs. He wants to know where he came from and where he is going; if you are shown a goal that responds neither to your aspirations nor to his idea of God, nor to the positive data that science gives you; moreover, if conditions are required of him that his reason does not prove useful to him, he repels the whole; materialism and pantheism seem even more rational to him, because they argue and reason in them; false reasoning, it is true, but he still likes to reason false more than not at all.
Oh boy. That is clear as mud. You were supposed to be explaining how your assertion that “future religion will be based on empirical evidence” will happen. Maybe just explain what it will look like.
This will happen with the evolution of the scientific method. The scientific method of the future will unite science and religion! I just can’t explain how to explain it!
Can you at least say how you know this will happen?
If religion, appropriate at first to the limited knowledge of men, had always followed the progressive movement of the human spirit, there would be no unbelievers.Any religion in particular?
Lets not forget about the sense of communities and belonging that religions anchor.This is one of the things they have done well. And I think gatherings and ceremonies to celebrate joy, loss and life transitions have been very, very important in the development of culture. They still are. There are lots of good things that have come out of religious faith.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for science and religion to be combined. Moreover, there is no reason to do that. They are two very different things, not even remotely related. It is the religious who always want to combine the two because they want to steal the credibility that science has. But science has no use for religion because the goals of science, to explain the natural world based on evidence and experimentation, are exactly the opposite the goals of religion, to simply make up supernatural explanations.
So while religion wants something from science, science has no use for religion. While combining the two would be great for religion it would make science useless. The moment religion seeped into science it would start to immediately lose the credibility that religion wants to steal from it. Essentially, science + religion = only religion with no real science. For the intellects among us to allow that to happen would require a total collapse of society and a return to our hunter/gatherer roots as we fought for our very survival and real knowledge was lost. THEN it might be replaced with whatever “some guy” says reality is. Otherwise science will always be about what it is now and religion will never be that.
But I don’t know why I bothered with all that since you’re just screwing with us anyway with your mystical Steven Seagal nonsense. To your credit I am still entertaining the possibility that you actually are nuts, but I’m pretty sure you’re just screwing with us.
Any religion in particular? Christianity!
But I don’t know why I bothered with all that since you’re just screwing with us anyway with your mystical Steven Seagal nonsense. To your credit I am still entertaining the possibility that you actually are nuts, but I’m pretty sure you’re just screwing with us.
@widdershins: just my opinion! maybe i’m wrong or my ignorance. It’s not crazy!
Believing you “know” something which is fundamentally unknowable isn’t exactly a sound mindset.
I had to read Widdershins’ full post to understand what Flacus was saying (I didn’t realize he was quoting). The characterization of his mental state is a bit over the top, but let’s move on for now.
I agree that religion and science can’t be combined in any way that we could be left a recognizable version of both of them. And I don’t think there is some third thing that could made out of the two, but that could be a failure of my imagination. What I can imagine is better narratives of science being spoken in a manner that looks more religiony. The best examples would be children’s stories that stay true to scientific accuracy but tell a story that didn’t really happen or maybe personify things a bit. A more adult version would be something like a TED talk by Brian Greene. In between, a high school education could include a more complete story of science, showing the history of how it came to be, how it effected culture, or how people like Darwin’s wife dealt with the changes. That’s not religion, but it’s taking the idea of narrative and applying it to the dry teaching of facts and dates and names.
I would like to not that I did not understand what he was saying in the longest post. My post was based on my understanding of what he was saying from all of his posts combined. So if you got some understanding of what he was saying from what I said that was purely coincidental.
And “nuts” wasn’t the right word and not the one I actually intended to use, but as of late if a word eludes me it is very difficult for me to bring up, so I used the tools at hand. It was lazy of me, but I was pressed for time. I believe delusional would be a better fit, though it’s pretty much impossible to express my sincere opinion without some level of necessary insult. I should have, however, minimized that necessary insult.
To believe that science and religion can be combined is a uniquely religious delusion. They are incompatible. Most Christians who have a problem with science see this incompatibility as a threat to their beliefs when, in reality, science is simply not equipped to address religious issues. The only way science could address the issue of gods is if gods made themselves available for scientific examination. And even that would not “combine” religion and science, merely give science an avenue of understanding what is currently “supernatural”, but would then be “natural” once empirical evidence was available.
Why does skepticism despise religion? why is skepticism against religion?