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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Science Can’t Replace Religion [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)44. One at a time
Are we the top of the food chain?
This is a hierarchy error (pun not intended but still good). There is no "top" in a food chain, even on earth. Because, eventually, nematodes, bacteria and fungi will consume a human are they at the top?
What is love?
Which love are you talking about? Eros, agape, philos or one of the many other types of love? All can be examined as a part of brain chemistry. General statements can be made about the types of people you would find it possible to love and the purpose served by that love in the family, the community and for the person. The complexity of a question does not mean it cannot be examined. The wonder of feeling that emotion (eros, agape and philos as far as my sigoth is concerned) does not mean I cannot examine it.
Where does the inspiration to create come from?
From the interaction of education, experience, capability and desire. At its crudest creation is survival. Michaelangelo produced art because he had to eat and he was better at that than at ploughing or mining. Trevithick was an engineer because he was good at it due to family, education and living in Cornwall.
Why do so many belief systems developed in completely unconnected places have so much in common?
You really have no idea of how small the world is, do you? There are no completely unconnected places. Guess what? humans have always moved to the places where these belief systems developed.
What happens when you die?
Probably nothing, why should it? Or do you desire an eternal punishment, mindlessly singing the praises of an incompetent creator and being treated as a sheep?
Is there a spirit or soul that is separate from the physical self?
In the unlikely event that there is a spirit or soul, why should it not be examined? Why should even the possibility be forbidden from examination. If you mean to imply that the spirit or soul cannot be examined because it has no effect on the physical world and vice versa - then how does it have any effect on the body which you suppose it inhabits?
Science does not claim to have the answer to all questions and it never has done. That is the point of science, it is a journey not a destination. At no point have I claimed that "Science" provides all answers and only fools would assert that scientists make that claim. Essentially science provides the questions for which, at the time of formulation, there are no answers.
Religion on the other hand claims, with no evidence whatsoever, to be the destination and that all things should be subverted to arriving at that destination. Religion by definition, claims to be "THE ANSWER" and that all things are made clear when you meet the deity or the deities or achieve transcendence. Religion claims that, by modifying your behaviours, you will find all answers, but only after you die.
Now your last assertions
What religion gives to those that embrace it may not be something you want or need, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to those that do.
You assume that there are benefits to religion and, what is more, expect me to accept your assumption continuing by implying that I am be missing something. To be honest it confirms to me that your stated "agnosticism" is little more that a fig leaf concealing your absolute belief in the "eternal truth" of religion, you just don't know which one to pick. There is no point to the statement as you have formulated it, except to denigrate my non-belief as somehow less worthy than the belief of others.
It is possible for both to be real and for them to exist in absolute harmony.
As an unsupported, unevidenced and unargued statement it is a fine example of belief driven thinkingEdit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is this a fight between believers and non believers? People who are firm in their beliefs do not
upaloopa
Aug 2012
#1
Religion throughout history attempted to explain the unexplainable until science explained it.
Lint Head
Aug 2012
#10
Your link takes me to Discover Magazine, but I get: Error 404 - Not Found - once there.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#11
How does mathematics, neurology, population genetics and behavioral science explain morality?
rug
Aug 2012
#20
If it's simply behavioral, and the result of . . . whatever, then it's not morality.
rug
Aug 2012
#28
Of all the things that can be known, I would suggest that we know a minuscule amount.
cbayer
Aug 2012
#22
Because science doesn't promise you'll go to heaven if you believe in it and give it money?
truebrit71
Aug 2012
#27
"For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#37
No, belief in the Higgs boson is not the same as belief in Brunei or tsetse flies.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#85
Believing in the Higgs boson is fundamentally different than believing in electrons because ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#96
No, actually I didn't just make up the fact that just about anyone can run an equivalent ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#116
For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith *in science*.
enki23
Aug 2012
#78
The article suggests religion has been around for a long time, won't go away. It's like
dimbear
Aug 2012
#50
You can understand that religion has emotional power without believing any of the dumbshit tenets
Nay
Aug 2012
#53
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
SarahM32
Aug 2012
#73
Oh for fuck's sake. Science is constantly replacing religion as an understanding of the world
enki23
Aug 2012
#76
My position is that despite all that science has taught us, we know only the most
cbayer
Aug 2012
#79
Science is the process by which we encroach ever further into the former provinces of of the divine.
enki23
Aug 2012
#81
Well, it's great to know that someone around here has the definitive and final answers
cbayer
Aug 2012
#82
"rational explanation...can't match the feeling evoked by...religious symbolism"
PassingFair
Aug 2012
#90