Why does religion exist.

Post Reply New Topic

You definitely put faith in science given that you're sure science will find the answers not yet found. I think some questions will never be answered, and I believe some of the most amazing advances in science will have some form of spiritual motivation by the people involved. I stress the word "some", not all scientists are religious or spiritual..... I feel like I'm being intellectually honest in this belief.

I think religion existed, because thinks that you cannot explain and predict, make you afraid. Simply try to imagine, that in your life, strange thing would happen, that you cannot exaplain in any way and seem totally weird and unpossible to you. It would make you afraid.

Now imagine living in a world, where each day without any explanation, light and darkness changes, the sky upon you is filled with moving lights, or suddenly earthquakes or volcano eruptions happens, that you never knew before. We know about earthquakes, sleeping volcanoes, tsunamis, ... because of us having learned of it in books and school and seeing it in the news, when it happens somewhere else in the world. But in a world without any television, where news from the village 1 week from here by horse are already news from the end of the local world, such things happening simply scare the s**t out of you, and you seek explanations and causes for it. Because as long as you dont have that, it makes you afraid. Just like lightning. Today lightning is easy. There are positive and negative charges, and they want to balance themselves and to that with lightning. Now turn away from that knowledge and lightning becomes an really scary bang, a scar in the heaven, bringing deadly punishment and fire storms when hitting in the wrong place. It sounds pretty reasonable to me, that it feels more comfortable to you, when believing that you can have an influence on that, by praying to an being controlling that. Just like the knowledge to have an lightning-security device on your roof, should make you more comfortable, because of giving you the feeling of safety.

Additional religion often was used by institutions to convince people of good and bad stuff, that was useful for the
authorities. If you say you want people to do something, because of humans want that, they will argue with you. While gods wishes you dont argue. As example during the time of the first crusades, there was an certain period without conflicts. That caused royals to have lots if kids that normally died while battling in these conflicts, but now where without an job to do within their area and as well without inheritage. So before they start doing troubles in their home areas... lets do a crucade and send them to the end of the world. ^^ Just like the forbidance of eating pig seems to be based, to stabilize cultures. When people are hungry, they revolt. So you have to feed them. If you are a king you either can get your society to feed them or you have to do that yourself, paying for it yourself. Because of pigs having similar eating habbits then humans, in societies where pigs exist, leftovers of a family are often given to the pigs of that family, because in the end, when eating the pig, you benefit from it. While if you forbid pigs, it is much more reasonable that families will be willing to share leftovers with others.

So its fully understandable to me, why religions where born. With the increasing knowledge of science, they now turned more and more. So nowadays its less about explaining phenomenons, but mostly about rules of living with each other as society, which will always be an important matter for us, because of it affecting us all, anyway if believing in a god or not.

Well so far it has done a bloody good job of moving understanding from the supernatural to the natural. When a shred of evidence for anything supernatural presents itself I will take notice.

Yep, that pretty much nails it.



Considering the relative achievements of science and religion, I too would rather put my faith in the former - especially in terms of modern relevance. And let my be very clear - by faith I mean 'trust' rather than some unfounded, self-delusional epiphany that I experienced in a high school biology class.



Not to mention the fact that science is progressive by nature whereas religion tends to be quite the opposite. Religious teaching clings to the view that a bunch of old storytellers who lived in a primitive time can answer important questions about our existence better than anyone living today.

Oh, before I'm accused of generalisation, please understand that I'm talking about religion rather than individual people of faith. There are some well-educated, scientific-minded people of faith who I have a deep respect for, however much I disagree with their personal views on deities.

I don't think you guys understand what religion is..... what about intelligent design, would you accept that, or do you know that it's a myth? What would be your evidence and what are your facts that you can check against to support your evidence in your theory? Would you guys accept a cure for a disease if the people involved had some sort of religious motivation? Or would you still believe that religion plays no part in science.

As with deities, you can believe what you want. It doesn't make you right.



Do you want me to argue semantics here, or address what you meant to ask? ID exists, it is therefore not a myth. ID is, however, not science.



What theory? Did someone submit a journal for peer review somewhere in the thread? I'm sure I would have spotted that.



What? Are you referring to something specific here?



Again you're missing the point. Religion does not belong in science because it is irrefutably unscientific.

Faith is the belief in unprovable things. Religion is the politics of faith.

Faith proves nothing. Religion says otherwise.

Simple give me once piece of supporting evidence for Intelligent design.

I care not about peoples motivation, if someone who believes in the Great Green Arkleseizure finds a a way to halt my partners MS in the hope that it will also prevent "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief" who cares, thanks for the discovery. But you are being ridiculously pedantic, of course religious people are involved in science, you know full well or maybe you don't, that my point is in regard to religious dogma stifling scientific research or worse deliberately undermining it, as is the case with ID

and with regard to the Darwin fish if the changes made to the religious fish symbol offend people, good. Maybe they might reflect on why we have subverted it, maybe they might see the offence we take at kids being taught that a scientific theory is just some idea, and that any other idea has equal merit.

Tolerance is your name.

That actually answers a lot....you're focused on I can see where you'd think I'm being pedantic, and I think you agree with my point, you just don't see it as an important point while do see it as an important point. I like things to be specific, not leave any stone unturned.... all the T's have to be crossed and the I's dotted.

So your point is more specific, it's not that religion has no part in science, it's that religious dogma having a negative effect on science. Like a Christian congressman not wanting evolution to be taught in schools. This is a different point than saying "religion has no part in science. And I'm trying to say that a scientist might be positively motivated by religion, god, spirituality, religious morality and ethics to prove that religion does play a part in science. My potential "pedantics" helped you clarify your point. You're welcome

I'm using religion in this argument more as a person's daily motivation to do work as a scientist to show that religion does play a part in science, and it should play a part in science. I would say right now, the worst offenders of using religious dogma to prevent scientific discovery are our friends in the middle east. Not to shift the argument over to them, but it's good for comparing and contrasting.

Lets be clear about this, my point only needed to be clarified in your mind only and even then you were quite clear as to my meaning within the context of my statement, All you had to do was ask if I meant that no person with a religious belief should have a part in science or was I instead referring to religious dogma being used to subvert and manipulate results of good science so that it coud be presented as fitting religous belief. instead you chose to play your silly games, and I see you are continuing to do so in the other thread.

I'm not doing what you think I'm doing. " instead you chose to play your silly games....." no games here, and this will shock you, I didn't know that that was your point. Which is why I said what I said.

Ok. Sometimes we forget that the majority of us here have an ASD.

May I respectfully give you some advice, since discovering my ASD I have tried to teach myself to ask questions when I am unsure about what a person is saying or if they give me a look I do not understand. I am not always successful in this but I do have this as a goal. Like I said above it would have been useful had you asked me from the start whether I was referring to all people with a religious belief or to what I see as interfering religious dogma.

I am assuming this is where your confusion lay, as you were understandably taking my words literally. Hmmmm maybe I have done this once or twice in my life

Lastly please accept my apologies for calling you a pedant.

Regards Dent

I did laser focus on your statement and I could of tried to clarify first. It's the non face to face internet factor. No worries in the end:) It's honorable of you to bring peace;) We're all intense people!!

The muslum dude is freaking me out by his arrogance. In the final battle the Church wins; and in your heart you know it.