Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:09 PM Jun 2013

Why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal?

The question was asked in another thread that I think deserves further discussion. The entire question is as follows...

Why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal on the search for meaning?


For me, the answer is simple; Science is a search for knowledge, not a search for meaning. Science produces knowledge that is true for everyone. Science is self correcting. Religion does none of that and fails at every attempt to produce knowledge that is true for everyone.

And you?
95 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal? (Original Post) cleanhippie Jun 2013 OP
I have never had a problem with separating both. In fact I think the catholic church southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #1
That really doesn't answer the question. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #5
For me they are equal. But honestly I think people go bonkers over this issue. But you southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #8
If one produces knowledge that is true for all and the other doesn't, how can they be equal? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #10
Your getting way to heavy for me. You tell me what you think. southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #12
I already did in the OP. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #15
Well you take care. Maybe the big thinkers can get more into then I. I'm not an expert in southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #20
religion and science are not equals DonCoquixote Jun 2013 #78
to explain DonCoquixote Jun 2013 #79
So should we take seriously those who claim they are equal? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #90
no DonCoquixote Jun 2013 #95
One popular answer is skepticscott Jun 2013 #2
And yet religion cannot even answer the "why" at all. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #9
They have nothing to do with each other and should never be compared, contrasted or equated. truebluegreen Jun 2013 #3
Great answer. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #6
Unfortunately that is not true. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #24
I get that it happens, truebluegreen Jun 2013 #42
I don't think "equal" is a relevant metric here. TygrBright Jun 2013 #4
I would agree. So should we take seriously those who assert their equality? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #7
I imagine if they are serious, and you want to engage them fruitfully and respectfully... TygrBright Jun 2013 #11
If their entire premise is false yet they assert the opposite, how can try be taken seriously? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #14
Perhaps we could class religion with patriotism? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #17
agree... madrchsod Jun 2013 #13
Hard for me to marry the two subjects. janlyn Jun 2013 #16
I believe in both very much! hrmjustin Jun 2013 #18
And? skepticscott Jun 2013 #19
Just a statement my friend! hrmjustin Jun 2013 #23
Are they equal? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #31
Interesting question to with I do not know exactly how to respond. Science tells us how things work hrmjustin Jun 2013 #48
With respect, you are dodging the question with nonsense. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #53
For me yes. In the end yes. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #54
Then as the original question posed, why should you be taken seriously? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #55
People can take me how they want. I don't claim to be an expert on anything. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #57
Nope WovenGems Jun 2013 #21
Which is liquid and which is static? LTX Jun 2013 #32
Defined WovenGems Jun 2013 #33
Oh. Ok. LTX Jun 2013 #34
Truth WovenGems Jun 2013 #35
I think your reference points may be a bit too narrow. LTX Jun 2013 #37
Oxford Group WovenGems Jun 2013 #39
Now I know that your reference points are too narrow. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #40
And how does one expand the reference points? WovenGems Jun 2013 #41
Well, a start would be questioning your own LTX Jun 2013 #43
Religion hasn't changed for hundreds of years?? Thats my opinion Jun 2013 #69
I think you responded to the wrong post. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #70
So tell us then, what IS religion all about? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #74
Religion has indeed changed. trotsky Jun 2013 #45
They're different things entirely. rug Jun 2013 #22
He didn't ask whether they were the same thing... Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #25
I didn't expect any straightforward answers to this. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #51
It's an appropriate answer to a poor question. rug Jun 2013 #59
He asked if they were equal. Period. rug Jun 2013 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Jun 2013 #61
Of course you didn't. rug Jun 2013 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Jun 2013 #64
That's exactly what you wrote. rug Jun 2013 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Jun 2013 #71
He also wrote half a dozen other sentences... Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #65
I did read the entire OP. rug Jun 2013 #67
Then you didn't read it very carefully Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #75
Apparently I read it more clearly than you. rug Jun 2013 #76
He does not have an answer. He never does. Its always the same, day after day, post after post. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #81
Some are simply unable to accept that they may be wrong. This is an example. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #72
Lol. rug Jun 2013 #77
See what I mean? More nonsensical bullshit. Always the same. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #60
Outside of mathematics, is anything really equal? ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #26
They really have completely different functions. Deep13 Jun 2013 #27
They might be equivalent forces in some lives Warpy Jun 2013 #28
Why not? Because that would be silly. bowens43 Jun 2013 #29
They ARE equal but their individual strengths are not Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #30
I would strongly disagree with this: trotsky Jun 2013 #36
"Religion/philosophy tells us" - religion "tells", philosophy "discusses". Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #38
Good distinction. trotsky Jun 2013 #44
Philosophy does not research Bad Thoughts Jun 2013 #46
talk to the theory of consciousness people about their lack of field research. nt. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #47
i think that definition of 'philosophy' is both overly restrictive.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #50
I don't suppose you have done any research into what philophsers actually do. Thats my opinion Jun 2013 #68
That is YOUR question up there, TMO. Why won't you respond to it? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #73
I guess the tough questions frighten you. And I can understand why. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #89
Phelps actually doesn't do that Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #82
You judge him,and he judges you. trotsky Jun 2013 #83
Morality is all about value judgements Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #84
How can you possibly know whether or not Phelps ALSO thinks his faith is based on trotsky Jun 2013 #85
No, but I can listen to his sermons Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #86
Again, how do you know? trotsky Jun 2013 #87
In order... Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #91
As long as you think you can read Phelps' mind... trotsky Jun 2013 #92
*sigh* I give up Prophet 451 Jun 2013 #93
Yeah, I know. trotsky Jun 2013 #94
Umm... gcomeau Jun 2013 #88
I've thought for some time now that moobu2 Jun 2013 #49
I think you nailed it. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #52
^^^^^ mike_c Jun 2013 #56
Like the rough sketch that led to an important painting, worth the attention dimbear Jun 2013 #62
Science is the application of physical processes to determine physical outcomes. Religion is the ladjf Jun 2013 #80
 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
1. I have never had a problem with separating both. In fact I think the catholic church
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:11 PM
Jun 2013

would agree with you. I know they believe in evolution.

 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
8. For me they are equal. But honestly I think people go bonkers over this issue. But you
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:24 PM
Jun 2013

are 100% right they are equal and I have no problem seeing them stand alone because both makes sense. I hope it answers your questions. To me it's simple but others will disagree.

 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
20. Well you take care. Maybe the big thinkers can get more into then I. I'm not an expert in
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 09:33 PM
Jun 2013

either but the basics.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
78. religion and science are not equals
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:47 PM
Jun 2013

but art is, which is what religion would be without the claims of literal truth and political nonsense.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
79. to explain
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:49 PM
Jun 2013

Art can make things that are not literally true, but nonetheless true for those that see them. To some Mozart is beautiful, to some Chinese opera is. To insist that the onyl things that are real are things that are emasured is also a flasehood, as people live and die for culture every day.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
95. no
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:51 PM
Jun 2013

it means that while we are railing against the religions, we do not smash the art and poetry in them, nor do we assume that all the knowledge we need is going to roll out into nice empirical data. I am not saying you did, but others like Dawkins do.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
2. One popular answer is
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:15 PM
Jun 2013

"Science answers the how questions and religion answers the why questions"

Leaving aside the idiocy of even assuming that "questions" can be divided so neatly into two types, and assuming that each type is only addressed by one of science and religion, religion does a really sucky job of answering even the questions it is claimed to have hegemony over, by comparison to science.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
24. Unfortunately that is not true.
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:59 PM
Jun 2013

Religiosity intrudes into the scientific realm all over the place, and worse, in the political sphere religion based moral theories are used to push for repressive prejudicial and irrational legislation and the theoretical basis for those theories is held to be above questioning because it is "god's will". We as a society are hobbled by the intrusion of irrational magical thinking and theorizing, a morality based on flawed contradictory and nonsnsical Bronze and Iron Age sacred texts. We are diminshed by religion. Separate Magesteria is nonsense.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
42. I get that it happens,
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:33 AM
Jun 2013

what I was saying was that it shouldn't. I agree with you completely regarding the detrimental results.

TygrBright

(20,726 posts)
4. I don't think "equal" is a relevant metric here.
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:18 PM
Jun 2013

It's like saying "we need to treat fruit as equal to cats."

They're different things. You can say "peaches are fuzzy and so are most cat breeds," but...

confusedly,
Bright

TygrBright

(20,726 posts)
11. I imagine if they are serious, and you want to engage them fruitfully and respectfully...
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:27 PM
Jun 2013

... you have only two choices:

One would be to ask them to clarify what they mean by "equal" and the other would be to explain politely that you don't feel you can discuss the topics on that basis, and suggest a different and presumably neutral and respectful conceptual matrix for the discussion.

On the other hand, if you just want to point out how wrong they are, or validate your own point of view, you can expose them to ridicule.

Your time & effort, your choice.

helpfully,
Bright

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
14. If their entire premise is false yet they assert the opposite, how can try be taken seriously?
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:31 PM
Jun 2013

Science and religion are not equal. There is no dispute over that.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,082 posts)
17. Perhaps we could class religion with patriotism?
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:43 PM
Jun 2013

If people take part in it with good intentions, then it can produce good outcomes. But it can be misdirected and abused.

Neither do anything like producing 'truth' or 'meaning'. They both give you a fairly arbitrary outlook on life.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
13. agree...
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:30 PM
Jun 2013

what i do find interesting in this so called debate is science is used to confirm or deny such things as the writings in the dead sea scrolls. i just read where they discovered new meaning of a very important text of the old testament using the latest imaging techology. i could go on but you get my drift.

janlyn

(735 posts)
16. Hard for me to marry the two subjects.
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 08:34 PM
Jun 2013

However, the belief in life after death fascinates me. I am not talking about the standard belief in a heaven so much, as the belief that something of us lives on where we cannot percieve.
I remember the first time I read about string theory that I thought that science might in the end provide proof of life after death.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
48. Interesting question to with I do not know exactly how to respond. Science tells us how things work
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:32 PM
Jun 2013

and why. For me that is not against religion. If you are set in your ways and believe everything you have been taught and there is no wiggle room than science can be scary to you. But that is not the case for me. Science is what it is, and religion is what it is.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
53. With respect, you are dodging the question with nonsense.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:15 PM
Jun 2013

While I understand what you are saying, it has nothing to do with the question being asked.

Are science and religion equal? Why or why not?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
55. Then as the original question posed, why should you be taken seriously?
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:48 PM
Jun 2013

If for you, science and religion are equal, why should you be taken seriously?

WovenGems

(776 posts)
33. Defined
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:13 AM
Jun 2013

static doesn't move while liquid flows. Religion has remained unchanged for hundreds of years while knowledge has expanded at an incredible rate. 60 years after the first human flies we land on the moon. We have discovered DNA, the Lego block of life.

LTX

(1,020 posts)
34. Oh. Ok.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:29 AM
Jun 2013

It is kind of odd, though, how an illiquid thing like religion can give rise to such an abundance of disparate beliefs. And how a liquid thing like science can be so difficult to budge at times.

WovenGems

(776 posts)
35. Truth
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:42 AM
Jun 2013

Religion hasn't spawned a multitude of beliefs it has spawned a multitude of rituals. Science is driven by facts so as new facts are revealed more questions come into being based on the new facts. If it seems that a particular segment of science has stalled it is waiting for a new fact to be revealed.

LTX

(1,020 posts)
37. I think your reference points may be a bit too narrow.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jun 2013

You may find the Oxford project of interest. http://evolution-of-religion.com/

Science and religion are both evolving products of an evolving human consciousness. As for science in particular, it evolves in ways much more complicated than mere fact-accumulation.

WovenGems

(776 posts)
39. Oxford Group
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:16 AM
Jun 2013

They seem to be trying to prove that religion is tied to our DNA. I wish them luck in that. All ancient religions were a plea to the natural world to cut them some slack. And that is quite understandable. But to try and say that the God of the Gaps is in our DNA is bit of a stretch.

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
69. Religion hasn't changed for hundreds of years??
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:33 PM
Jun 2013

It must change hour by hour!
"No one should put a period, where God has put a comma."
With every new thing science reveals, religion must celebrate it and adapt to this form of revelation.

Example, "Jesus said, 'You have heard it said of old......, but I now say to you......'"

The only way you could have made that statement is just not eohave the slightest knowledge of what religion is all about.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
74. So tell us then, what IS religion all about?
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 06:04 PM
Jun 2013

You spend a lot of time telling people that, but refuse to explain yourself. Perhaps that conversation you want to have can begin here.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
45. Religion has indeed changed.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:12 PM
Jun 2013

But generally those changes have been the result of either scientific discovery (abandonment of special creation, the heliocentric model, etc.) or secular ethical progress. Not so much of this "change from within" stuff a lot of people think goes on. It changes very slowly, and there are sizable groups that will oppose the change for as long as they can, but it happens.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
22. They're different things entirely.
Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:52 PM
Jun 2013

Would you say chemistry and physics are equal?

How about astronomy and music?

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
25. He didn't ask whether they were the same thing...
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:01 AM
Jun 2013

...he asked whether they were equally valid methodologies for understanding.

In that respect, I think we would all agree chemistry, physics, and astronomy stand on equal footing.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
51. I didn't expect any straightforward answers to this.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:11 PM
Jun 2013

That response is a perfect example of the obfuscation usually seen when questions like this are asked.

Response to rug (Reply #58)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
63. Of course you didn't.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:25 PM
Jun 2013
Why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal?


You used a question mark.

Response to rug (Reply #63)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
66. That's exactly what you wrote.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:59 AM
Jun 2013

You then highlighted another poster's, more complete, question.

Response to rug (Reply #66)

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
65. He also wrote half a dozen other sentences...
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jun 2013

...one of which was this:

Why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal on the search for meaning?


Far be it from me to judge, but you should consider reading the OP in its entirety before electing to respond. Just a thought.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
75. Then you didn't read it very carefully
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:05 PM
Jun 2013

Because the context of the question was rather clearly presented.

But let's, for the sake of argument, just say you're correct. The question was worded poorly. Cleanhippie has since clarified specifically what was meant by the question. Do you have an answer, or is it your intent to prattle on about his skill at composition (or lack thereof)?

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
27. They really have completely different functions.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:26 AM
Jun 2013

Religion is traditionally the lens by which people construct themselves, their culture, and their place in the world. Having said that, religion promises what it cannot deliver, frightens with powers it does not have, and falsely represents the universe as being divinely ordered, which it is not. It is far better to find "meaning" in the real world based on what we actually know than it is to continue to live according to pre-modern fantasies.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
30. They ARE equal but their individual strengths are not
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 06:54 AM
Jun 2013

I'm a man of faith (an unusual faith but faith all the same) and the fact is that science and religion don't use the same tools or address the same questions. Science tells us what a human is, how we move, breathe, reproduce and, soon, how we think. Religion/philosophy tells us what it means to be human, what we should cherish and strive toward. Science, as you say, produces answers which are true for everyone, reproducable and reliable. Religion/philosophy is inherently personal and subjective and, to some extent, irrational. Science is about how, religion/philosophy is about why. Science looks for facts, religion/philosophy looks for truth.

They are equal as forces in the world and, in some cases, in a person's life but their individual strengths are not equal. Science should be taught in schools and universities. Religion should be taught in the home or the church or coven (or maybe a Comparative Religions class). When I commune with my chosen deity, I'm not engaging my science-brain and when I construct a correlational study or analyze a case report, I'm not engaging my faith-brain. While the two are equally strong forces in my life, they look at different questions in different ways and shouldn't be confused. In my life, science and faith are like a pair of shoes: You get further on both than you do hopping.

Quick note: That's not to disparage those who find meaning outside of faith. We each have our own path to walk.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
36. I would strongly disagree with this:
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:02 AM
Jun 2013
Religion/philosophy tells us what it means to be human, what we should cherish and strive toward.

Religion "tells" us nothing of the sort. It provides guesses. "Tell" implies some kind of authority or reliability, whereas religion ultimately has neither.

After all, Fred Phelps' religion "tells" him that homosexuality is evil and will bring his god's judgment down on our country. He therefore strives for its demonization and elimination. Is his just another "path to walk"?
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
38. "Religion/philosophy tells us" - religion "tells", philosophy "discusses".
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:12 AM
Jun 2013

Almost all religions provide revealed wisdom that is beyond rational discussion: it in fact "tells" us what it is to be human and that is that. Philosophy, on the other hand is all about rational discussion and arriving at some understanding of what it is to be human, but in general everything in philosophy is up for debate.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
44. Good distinction.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:00 PM
Jun 2013

Or as the old joke goes, if you took all the philosophers in the world and laid them end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion!

Bad Thoughts

(2,513 posts)
46. Philosophy does not research
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:13 PM
Jun 2013

Philosophy does not go out into the field. Philosophy does not encounter humanity as it exists and acts. It's all well to compare what religion and philosophy provide, but philosophy is itself a limited endeavor because it fails to gather evidence about what real human do.

 

Phillip McCleod

(1,837 posts)
50. i think that definition of 'philosophy' is both overly restrictive..
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:09 PM
Jun 2013

..and inaccurate. there are philosophies.. formal and informal (ie, philosophies of life).. which are entirely concerned with humanity as it exists and acts, and which choose to ground their ideas in empirical analysis of behavior both gross and individual.

secular humanism springs to mind.

don't forget.. 'philosophy' includes 'ethics'

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
73. That is YOUR question up there, TMO. Why won't you respond to it?
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 06:01 PM
Jun 2013


Why SHOULD those who believe science and religion are equal in the search for meaning be taken seriously. Since it was YOU who asked that to begin with, will you explain why anyone should take you seriously?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
89. I guess the tough questions frighten you. And I can understand why.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:41 AM
Jun 2013

Having one's beliefs and reasoning questioned is a brave, but difficult, test. Not all are up to the challenge.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
82. Phelps actually doesn't do that
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:43 AM
Jun 2013

As far as he has any coherent theology, it's some kind of hyper-Calvinism that supposes that the saved have already been selected, everyone else is damned and he's just pointing that out. Essentially, he's a scumbag gloating at the condemned. His path is one of hatred and bigotry that ignores the most basic principles of human compassion.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
83. You judge him,and he judges you.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:50 AM
Jun 2013

If someone honestly believes that certain behavior is disapproved by their god, is it not moral to try and prevent that behavior?

Liberal believers think that poverty and discrimination are opposed by god, so they work to eliminate them. We're supposed to praise and encourage that, yet the justification and reasoning are exactly the same in Phelps' case.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
84. Morality is all about value judgements
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:02 AM
Jun 2013

Phelps can attack me because my reasoning is different to his and you can criticise me because I think my chosen deity opposes prejudice and discrimination (although, as an experiential faith, mine is based on personal gnosis rather than revelation) but let's be honest here, there is no scientific reason to oppose Phelps because science doesn't make value judgements at all. Presuming you're an atheist, you base your morality on compassion and human empathy. So why the fuss when I say that my chosen deity encourages me to base my morality on the same thing?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
85. How can you possibly know whether or not Phelps ALSO thinks his faith is based on
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:17 AM
Jun 2013

"personal gnosis"? Are you able to read his mind?

You judge him based on your faith, he judges you based on his. Same thing. You haven't said anything to distinguish between them. There is an inherent problem in basing any kind of morals on religious faith - do you see it yet?

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
86. No, but I can listen to his sermons
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:31 AM
Jun 2013

He posts them online. He's basing his theology on a (highly selective) reading on the Bible. Here's one major difference between us: My morality and theology encourage me to help people and show compassion to others, Phelps' encourages the exact opposite. By their fruit, shall ye judge them (to slightly mangle a scripture).

You also haven't said anything to distinguish between morality based on empathy and compassion and morality also based on empathy and compassion which happens to be encouraged by a deity.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
87. Again, how do you know?
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:56 AM
Jun 2013

If god really does oppose homosexuality, and will judge our nation if we allow it, and Phelps learned this through "personal gnosis," is he wrong to be doing what he does? In his own way, he is showing compassion to everyone in the country in order to spare us the wrath of god.

You are judging him based on your faith, he is judging you based on his. You've gotten nowhere.

Or perhaps are you claiming that YOUR "personal gnosis" give you the ability to tell everyone else what god wants us to do? That your faith is superior to everyone else's?

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
91. In order...
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:03 PM
Jun 2013
If god really does oppose homosexuality

Oh, I think he does oppose homosexuality. That's because god is an asshole looking for reasons to condemn people. Phelps and god think much the same way. That's why god is utterly unworthy of worship.

In his own way, he is showing compassion to everyone in the country in order to spare us the wrath of god.

Again, that's not why he does it. He does it to rub everyone's nose in them being condemned. He is, in effect, trolling everyone. We know this because he posts his sermons online.

You are judging him based on your faith, he is judging you based on his. You've gotten nowhere.

And you judge him based on your own morality so you've gotten nowhere as well. Your morality doesn't automatically become superior to mine just because your's doesn't have a deity in it.

Or perhaps are you claiming that YOUR "personal gnosis" give you the ability to tell everyone else what god wants us to do? That your faith is superior to everyone else's?

Nice try but I didn't say that or anything like it.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
92. As long as you think you can read Phelps' mind...
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:02 PM
Jun 2013

(you claim to know his true motivations and thoughts, after all) and that you know god better than Phelps (or anyone else, apparently - your "personal gnosis" factor), the trap you have fallen into is one that you will never get out of.

What everyone needs to realize - you and Phelps - is that there is no way this dilemma will be resolved through religion or religious faith. NO ONE has a hotline to god. NO ONE truly knows what a god (if it exists) wants from us. You don't know any more than Phelps does. But you both sure think you do.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
93. *sigh* I give up
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 05:57 PM
Jun 2013

I have explained how I know Phelp's motivations three times now. You don't want to understand it and I lack teh patience to keep explaining it to you. Peace with you.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
94. Yeah, I know.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:33 PM
Jun 2013

You read some of his sermons online and decided that you know what his motivations are. An impressive skill, to be sure.

But you and he are still in the same spot, and neither of you knows any better than the other what your gods want.

I can understand why you'd rather give up than seriously analyze the problem here. Much easier to just go on being certain that you know better than anyone else what god wants. Just like Phelps.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
88. Umm...
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013
"Religion/philosophy tells us what it means to be human, what we should cherish and strive toward."

...

Science looks for facts, religion/philosophy looks for truth.



...no it does not.

Religion makes unsubstantiated and unsupported claims to that effect, but anyone can do that. My 5 year old nephew can do that. That is entirely different than telling us "what it means to be human" or telling us what "the truth" is. The only thing religion has ever told anyone is what religion wants them to think.

For some people that's enough. Those people make me depressed.

moobu2

(4,822 posts)
49. I've thought for some time now that
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:05 PM
Jun 2013

religion functioned as a form of science for most of human civilization. I mean, for most of our existence as a species, anytime someone wanted to know why something was happening, like seasons changing, earthquakes shaking everything or rain falling or whatever, they always asked a priest. I think of religion in terms of a type of protoscience. Early people just didn't know what caused almost anything around them. They didn't know about plate tectonics for instance or planetary motion and Solar system physics, evolutionary biology or what caused anything really. People just made stuff up the best they could to explain physical phenomena and religion served that purpose and out of a very strong human need to have an explanation for everything it developed and evolved into what it is today.

To me religion is to science what alchemy was to chemistry or astrology was to astronomy.

mike_c

(36,191 posts)
56. ^^^^^
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jun 2013

I agree. Religion is to science as witch doctoring is to medicine. The parallels could not be starker.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
62. Like the rough sketch that led to an important painting, worth the attention
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 05:23 PM
Jun 2013

of a few experts, kept in museums.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
80. Science is the application of physical processes to determine physical outcomes. Religion is the
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:12 PM
Jun 2013

application of superstitious notions to fill in answers about existence without the need of any concrete evidence. Science and Religion have notion in common are totally different sets of actions.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Why not deal seriously wi...