What is religion

[zyzygy]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that science deals with things that can be demonstrated, with experiences that can be shared among different individuals. If a scientist claims that the earth goes around the sun, he has to find a way to prove it, to demonstrate it to other scientists. Science is, supposedly, not based on authority. That is how science and the Catholic church parted ways.

Religion doesn't have to be based on authority either. The mystical truths that underly all religion can be experienced by everyone.

Religion and science do not have to be in conflict. The original conflict was between the empiricism of the scientists and the authority of the church. It was NOT between science and spiritual beliefs.

What are these truths? What evidence is there that they are truths?

 

[marke]

Just because SCOTUS decided something doesn't mean it's true. Secular humanism is not a religion, because it denies super-physical realities.

Secular Humanism, atheism and evolutionism are all ungodly irreligious barbaric philosophies, not religions. Like you, I don't give a flip what the SCOTUS has said to the contrary.

 

[Good4Nothin]

What are these truths? What evidence is there that they are truths?

Can't help you with that. You would have to become a seeker in order to find out.

 

[zyzygy]

Can't help you with that. You would have to become a seeker in order to find out.

I am a seeker. Don't put on airs. These 'mystical truths" appear to be fantasies.

 

[zyzygy]

Secular Humanism, atheism and evolutionism are all ungodly irreligious barbaric philosophies, not religions. Like you, I don't give a flip what the SCOTUS has said to the contrary.

Time for a long list of barbaric Christian atrocities.

 

[Angel]

I am a seeker. Don't put on airs. These 'mystical truths" appear to be fantasies.

A seeker doesn't dismiss what he doesn't understand; a seeker remains open-minded and receptive to inobvious truths.
A seeker of confirmation for his biases is a "seeker" in scare quotes putting on airs of being a seeker sans scare quotes.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Time for a long list of barbaric Christian atrocities.

You can easily find long lists of atrocities for any establishment that had political power. Going through history and making these lists tells us nothing about religion. It's just a fun task for people who hate religion, of no use to anyone else.

 

[Good4Nothin]

A seeker doesn't dismiss what he doesn't understand; a seeker remains open-minded and receptive to inobvious truths.
A seeker of confirmation for his biases is a "seeker" in scare quotes putting on airs of being a seeker sans scare quotes.

And seekers don't feel superior because of what they found. We just feel grateful.

 

[gfm7175]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that science deals with things that can be demonstrated, with experiences that can be shared among different individuals.

Another way of thinking about it is that science deals with (makes use of) conflicting evidence while religion deals with (makes use of) supporting evidence.

If a scientist claims that the earth goes around the sun, he has to find a way to prove it, to demonstrate it to other scientists.

The general idea is correct, but the wording is problematic, specifically the word 'prove'... Science doesn't make use of proofs (it doesn't prove anything). This is because Science is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems (such as Logic and Mathematics) can make use of proofs. Proofs, by definition, are extensions of foundational axioms. Foundational axioms only exist in closed functional systems.

Science takes a theory and tests it against a null hypothesis. If the theory survives null hypothesis testing, then it becomes a theory of science. So long as it continues surviving null hypothesis testing, it remains as a theory of science. A theory of science is not proven in any way, so it could very well be incorrect, but we still take it to be correct (so long as it remains standing) since that falsifiable theory has yet to be falsified in any way...

Science is, supposedly, not based on authority. That is how science and the Catholic church parted ways.

Correct in that science is not based on authority. No authority can, in any way, 'legitimize' science.

Religion doesn't have to be based on authority either. The mystical truths that underly all religion can be experienced by everyone.

True.

Religion and science do not have to be in conflict.

Very true.

The original conflict was between the empiricism of the scientists and the authority of the church. It was NOT between science and spiritual beliefs.

Yup, and now it seems to be more-so between (sometimes merely perceived) science and spiritual beliefs (which isn't even a 'complete' definition of religion, as I described earlier).

While Science and Religion are two completely different things, they can and do work very well together. They are both 'methods of reasoning' defined by Philosophy...

 

[zyzygy]

You can easily find long lists of atrocities for any establishment that had political power. Going through history and making these lists tells us nothing about religion. It's just a fun task for people who hate religion, of no use to anyone else.

That was the point. Marke hates atheism. I don't hate religion.

 

[zyzygy]

And seekers don't feel superior because of what they found. We just feel grateful.

I am open minded to evidence.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Another way of thinking about it is that science deals with (makes use of) conflicting evidence while religion deals with (makes use of) supporting evidence.


The general idea is correct, but the wording is problematic, specifically the word 'prove'... Science doesn't make use of proofs (it doesn't prove anything). This is because Science is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems (such as Logic and Mathematics) can make use of proofs. Proofs, by definition, are extensions of foundational axioms. Foundational axioms only exist in closed functional systems.

Ok I know, but I just meant "prove" in the informal way that we use it in everyday language. Science proved that the earth goes around the sun by demonstrating it as a fact that everyone can observe.

Science takes a theory and tests it against a null hypothesis. If the theory survives null hypothesis testing, then it becomes a theory of science. So long as it continues surviving null hypothesis testing, it remains as a theory of science. A theory of science is not proven in any way, so it could very well be incorrect, but we still take it to be correct (so long as it remains standing) since that falsifiable theory has yet to be falsified in any way...



Correct in that science is not based on authority. No authority can, in any way, 'legitimize' science.


True.


Very true.


Yup, and now it seems to be more-so between (sometimes merely perceived) science and spiritual beliefs (which isn't even a 'complete' definition of religion, as I described earlier).

While Science and Religion are two completely different things, they can and do work very well together. They are both 'methods of reasoning' defined by Philosophy...

Science can contribute to our understanding of the super-physical. For example, physicists believe there are dimensions higher than the ones we are aware of. They have also found that matter is not made out of anything material.

 

[jet57]

Said by Karl Marx, and we know how good his ideas were.

Nope: there's a difference between God and religion.

 

[marke]

Time for a long list of barbaric Christian atrocities.

Word from the devil and his crowd of barbarian dupes: Ugh. God bad. Christians bad. Devil good. Pleasure at any cost is to be enjoyed, protected and promoted, not banned.

 

[Dragonfly]

Word from the devil and his crowd of barbarian dupes: Ugh. God bad. Christians bad. Devil good. Pleasure at any cost is to be enjoyed, protected and promoted, not banned.

Just for fun, if you were appointed by your "god" to be King-ruler and Dictator of the USofA so that you could get the country "right" with your "god", what kinds of "pleasures" would you ban?

 

[Angel]

Just for fun, if you were appointed by your "god" to be King-ruler and Dictator of the USofA so that you could get the country "right" with your "god", what kinds of "pleasures" would you ban?

The first ban, I would hope, assuming bans for argument's sake, is a ban on the kind of pleasure people like you derive from mockery of theism.

 

[zyzygy]

Word from the devil and his crowd of barbarian dupes: Ugh. God bad. Christians bad. Devil good. Pleasure at any cost is to be enjoyed, protected and promoted, not banned.

Nonsense. The devil is an imaginary being.

 

[Irwin Corey]

What is religion

Crowd control.

 

[zyzygy]

Just for fun, if you were appointed by your "god" to be King-ruler and Dictator of the USofA so that you could get the country "right" with your "god", what kinds of "pleasures" would you ban?

Everything.

 

[Angel]

Nonsense. The devil is an imaginary being.

You apparently know precious little about the world.

 

[Angel]

Everything.

Smug cynicism like yours would be enough.

 

[Angel]

Crowd control.

You bet.
Take away religion and your crowd becomes a mob.

 

[Irwin Corey]

You bet.
Take away religion and your crowd becomes a mob.

Taint necessarily so.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Just for fun, if you were appointed by your "god" to be King-ruler and Dictator of the USofA so that you could get the country "right" with your "god", what kinds of "pleasures" would you ban?

Human rulers are not qualified to decide what the infinite Universe wants from us. If I were president of the USA I would continue our democratic policies, and our laws that try to prevent people from harming each other.

Maybe you are thinking of fundamentalist Christians, who think everything written by humans in their bible is absolutely true. They are not much wiser than the atheists.

 

[RAMOSS]

Religions world wide that teach false doctrines people buy into shows there are many gullible people everywhere...

Such as?