Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

Can there be an explanation with no-one there to explain nor listen?

How would the explanation be phrased? What would it explain?

If every scientific question were answered, and made into a very tidy grand unified explanation for everything which fit in a human brain, would it satisfy the human quest for knowledge, or would we mould it into a purpose, a reason for being, a story of who we are?

What's lacking in this debate is definition of terms. For myself, I think that world-views are religions, where 'religion' means 'binding together' or 'generalising'.

Therefore I must agree with Gross that a 'scientific explanation' is just another kind of chimpanze story-telling.

That said, the traditional mode of resolution in these matters is to see which god rains fire from the heavens on command... Science wins.

 

Substitute "everything has a scientific explanation" with "everything has a scientific reason/cause/background" and call it a day.

 

I think the whole religion versus science fiasco is all about semantics: the confusion of symbols with the reality they're intended to represent.

Let the record show that what you call "science" is totally the most awesome fire from the sky chimpanze storytelling magic evar, and call it a day.

 

I think that it is not.

 

But... Science is not religion. Religion is basically the idea of truth based on faith, whereas science is the idea of truth based on reason and observation. I think science and religion are two very distinct, separate things.

 

Nah.

 

I'd agree, for a given value of religion as 'the distillation of an obsolete search for truth fed to stupid children over thousands of years'. But I still reckon most scientific factoids filtered through media and schools will be indistinguishable from myths in two thousand years.

Today, for a given value of science as 'definitely not religion because that's just stupid' then of course science = objective knowledge and religion = subjective opinion.

However, ultimately, they're both the search for truth and they're both weighed down by the vast majority of humans being morons. Science just doesn't carry as much baggage... yet.

 

The only difference being that religious texts are fairytales that people put actual stock in? Why don't people seriously believe in Alice in Wonderland when they're perfectly ready to believe in the story of a book written by people who were alive 2000 years ago? Because we've labeled these fairytales as "serious business", and you can't laugh about serious business.

Science has a ton of baggage already, with everything from Bedlam experiments to animal testing. The thing is, science tends to work towards correcting itself whilst religion remains stuck in time because of the simple pretext that the ideas of old are preferable to new ones.

Seriously, Christianity is very much responsible for having prohibited our cultural and scientifical progress for hundreds of years.

 

What I want to know is why is that it's always threads on religion that mount to 6 pages in less than a month? People often say they're not interested but in the end another one will just sprout up after this one's finished in a couple of months time.

 

Because everyone can have an opinion in the matter, without having any real knowledge. Easiest topic there is.

 

True, but lack of knowledge doesn't typically stop most people posting an opinion on a subject anyway.

 

I agree Christianity retarded Europe, but it's not the only religion in the world. When Christians were rotting in their own diseases, Islam was refining maths and chemistry.

Similarly, Judaism is the folklore of an especially bloodthirsty and xenophobic tribe, while Hinduism is the folklore of an especially old and complex civilisation.

Religions ain't religions, and sometimes they really are the social expression of a sincere search for truth.

 

Every religions is fucked up in one way or another. Doesn't mean every religion is bad all the way through.

 

I'm very interested, and that's why I keep contributing posts

 

Says a follower of the Religion of Science.

Religion is based on the experience of spiritual leaders. Science is based on the experience of the scientific leaders. Experience is understood by the reason of the person experiencing it and is communicated in a limited fashion to those that lack that experience. Those that believe the knowledge acquired by others require faith in them -- regardless of whether that person is giving religious or scientific knowledge. Therefore, to criticize religion for its emphasis on faith is to be near-sighted to the faith required to believe science.
Granted, science says that others can repeat the experiments to prove that their knowledge is correct, but who can afford a particle accelerator? In like manner, there are repeatable religious events, but who is willing to pay the spiritual cost required? Only those that believe that the prize is worth the cost. Because spiritual things have a cost that affects the soul instead of the body, fewer people are willing to pay any cost that impacts their ability to be selfish.

Here's the experiment that religion presents to everyone: All moral religions require that we love. In order to love we must lay aside our selfishness and treat others in the same manner that we treat ourselves. We eat to satisfy our hunger; therefore, we must feed others in order to love them. We are not required to provide their every meal, instead we are required to aid them so that they may provide their own meals. A word that convinces someone else to hire them; aid in filling out applications for those that don't understand them -- it doesn't matter how we help others, only that we do.
Now, what kind of world would we live in if everyone lived according to this mandate? An ideal world, yes? And what kind of person would we be if we did while in a world that did not? The term "doormat" comes to mind. When we live in a world filled with selfishness, selflessness has a cost that fewer are willing to bear. Therefore, the experiment of love has a cost that few are willing to pay in order to acquire the experience to prove or disprove the theories that religion teaches about love. If one is unwilling to pay the costs necessary in order to experience the basic tenants of religion, how much more unwilling are they to pay the costs necessary to experience the exceptional things that the religious leaders experienced when they forged the events that created their religions?

 

Except your entire argument of religion and science both requiring faith is fallacious. You don't need faith in science. If there is a scientific theory you do not agree with you can go out and experiment and observe and prove it based on physical evidence. You cannot do the same with religion since there is no physical evidence. There is no such thing as a religion of science, to claim there is is profoundly ignorant.

As to the type of world we live in if everyone was selfless - a dead one. To be truly selfless and fully abnegate your desires to others would be monstrous. Altruism is an evil code that demands sacrifice, demands death.

 

Xyle, what is your point? Really...

Your claim that the faith required for a person to believe the claims made by scientists are rooted in the same type of faith that a person needs to believe the claims of a religious figurehead is valid, but speak nothing about the science or the religion themselves.
Science is founded on observation and it backs these observations with the scientific method so that observations can be repeated.
I honestly do not understand what religion is founded on, but I am unaware of any similar method by which religious experience can be repeated and verified by other people.

This sounds like absolute hogwash. If you're going to make claims like this, please be prepared to provide some examples. It seems to me like you're trying to turn religion into science. I don't know why you'd try to do this because I am not aware of anybody asking you to.

Is this religious experiment the "repeatable religious event" that you mention? It seems more like a fun hypothetical to pose and unlike Magikot, I'll bite and say that the completely selfless world would be the perfect world. If each individual looks out for every other individual's needs, then everybody's needs would be met and there would be no conflict. This is adorable Xyle, but it isn't practical for the real world in which we live. It takes only one selfish person to throw this balance off and I think you and I would agree that there is at least one imperfect person in the world.
On the other hand, science is equipt to handle the reality of life.

Furthermore, what does this even have to do with religion? I don't even think this has to do with spiritualism. This experiment is just more of a sociological theory or an attempt at a dogmatic philosophy. Sociology is a science.

If I have a point, it is this: religion is not science and one is not better than the other. They each have their purpose and I find that more often than not their applications are mutually exclusive.

If you're trying to turn you religion into science, then it seems to me that there is some flaw in your religion for which you are trying to compensate. Stop. It's stupid.

Xyle, what is your point? Really...

 

Science isn't a religion in itself, though dogmatic atheism is structurally identical to a religion.

Science is a school of thought based on study and evidence, while religion is faith and atheism is faith in science. You do indeed need faith to believe questions will be answered scientifically. I have yet to see anyone describe quantum physics in a way that doesn't involve "Our known laws of physics don't apply at this scale," which is a fancy way of saying "Things we can't comprehend happen but we're scientists."

 

I say I say I say, is communism a religion?

Not really, but traditionally it is meant to replace religion so, in a breakdown of who believes which religion, communism is listed, or used to be.

Science isn't a religion either but, it keeps being held up as an alternative, something meant to replace religion in our minds.

Arthur C Clarke *spits* and Richard Dawkins *spit* are particularly guilty of this dogmatic exclusivity, presuming that anyone who really understands biology or physics must necessarily worship Oxford dons instead.

The only thing wrong with religions, I mean the one thing that keeps causing war and strife, is the exclusivity of the claim to absolute truth, and post-modern scientific rationalism is as guilty as the rest.

Furthermore, it's not the statistics and the results that make it a world-view in competition with every religion, it is an unspoken story which goes hand-in-hand with it, as biased and prejudiced a creation myth as any of those which came before.

Once upon a time an imbalance in the protovacuum caused the universe to expand into being. (So far so standard mysterious first mover.)

Then suns formed and exploded and formed again, with mineral rich planets in temperate orbits, especially Earth. Life evolved as single cells then multicelled forms. Eventually mammals, apes and humans appeared. (Surprise, surprise, it's all about us!)

We have advanced intelligence, allowing tool-use, fire, domestication and the ability to alter our very environment to suit us. (We rule, we totally kick arse! Other species can suck it!)

With increasing technological advances and economic development (o god humans are awesome!) we will be able to expand outward through the infinite vastness of outer space and populate the galaxy and then the universe. (Burn the earth all you like, we can get plenty more planets, as long as we burn it faster!)

Finally, of course, infinite resources for infinite technology equals ultimate power and immortality for everyone.

It's not the science which bothers me, or the religions, it's the stupid bloody people involved, and what it makes them do.