A comparison that's on my mind tonight...

I've actually been thinking about this for a long time but it's on my mind tonight.

Science has indisputably made advancements by leaps and bounds over hundreds of years. Science is not always right but generally challenges itself to grow with the addition of new data.

Religion is the opposite. I have friends who claim to be progressives and religious but the only way religion has changed or evolved over the years is by walking away from it's own teachings. By shedding what is now considered archaic. Of course those old words don't count in today's society....it was wrote at a different time. Those strict rules don't apply today! I think some people have evolved socially but that is more addition-by-subtraction. They walk away from religion and then want to feel progressive...which they are, in fact, but not for the reasons they'd like to think. Religion never adds anything to the "word of god" but only walks away from it to progress.

Does that make sense? Or maybe I'm just fucked up and babbling which is completely possible. I mean no offense to religious people.

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. That sounds like a pretty complicated thought to put into words. Are you saying that as times change people realize that a lot outdated religious dogma is useless and walk away from it to progress? Or are you saying that as religions try to keep up with the times, they are getting away from the true teachings? Or are you stating neither? Some things bounce off of my hard head.

 

Science has enslaved humanity every bit as much as religion has over time. The people who think science holds all the answers are just as wrong and brainwashed as those who think religion holds all the answers. Like religion, science can be, and often is, used by powerful people with an agenda as well. In fact, science is very much a religion itself.

 

It does make some sense. But I've seen this same comparison many times before (even on this site) and I find it to be a little too black and white. Religion and science are both ways in gaining wisdom and understanding. They are mostly opposites on the focus how to gain that. In science that focus is mainly evidential proof and in religion it is faith or spirituality.

Also, we see a lot of people dividing others (most often christians and atheists it seems) into 2 camps: science and religion. While in reality it appears to me most people, especially religious, do not make such a pointless division at all anymore. They seem to accept and incorporate both scienctific and religious/spiritual knowledge as useful and valid teachings in their life. To me this makes the most sense. It seems the consensus these days to accept that they are opposites or unreconcilable but really, they are not.

 

Can you expand on that a bit? In what way is science a religion?

 

yes, please explain, rat.

how exactly does the "religion" of science enslave humanity? (other than the fact that i have to go to work this morning in order to pay my bills)

 

Yes, do explain Rat.

Science in itself is nothing more than measuring things and getting the same result when it's tested over and over again.

 

That is the purpose definition. Just like with the original need for and definition of religion it doesn't mean it can be (ab)used otherwise. But to me it seems science resembles religion in the way how a lot of it's sympathisants blindly believe in anything called science, even though it also needed its rebel rousers to get rid of utterly false (but commonly accepted) truths.

 

I do believe that we are able to use the internet and drive cars.

 

You also believe in churches and tv preachers But that is not the point. We all know both religion and science are real things. So kind of lame, birdie.

 

the people who disprove false scientific data are other scientists.

you don't gain wisdom from faith.

 

Well yeah, that's kinda what science does.

Edit: and religion doesn't

 

:rofl:

 

I know, I edited too because religion isn't about proof of course. What i ment with that is you are stating some evident things about science, but that doesn't make religion less evident. Perhaps I should have named 2 beneficial things about religion instead to counter your 2 beneficial things from science? What's the point, it was not about that...

 

I'm not saying that there are no (potentially) beneficial things about religion. Now you are changing the point....

 

So? Does that mean people can trust anything as long as it has a scientific origin?

Perhaps YOU don't But I didn't say that. I was talking about religion. I know many people who have gained wisdom and understanding from their interests in religion. Faith helps. I think I gained both (a bit ) wisdom and understanding from my faith. It can help your insights.

I think you changed the point when you were talking about your belief in internet and cars. Because that was not the kind of belief I ment and you know it

 

no, i was trying to say that you don't need religion or any other form of "anti-science" to disprove untrue facts. that is done within science. it's a crucial part of science.

i see how faith can result in understanding...but wisdom? i think we have different ideas of what that is.

 

Like I said, I wasn't saying that you gain the wisdom primarily from the faith at all I was hoping I clarified that in my former response.

And yes, I agree that mostly other scientists correct scientific errors and malpractices. But that still doesn't make it smart to blindly accept all science related things because they happen to be in the science department. Not all scientific ideas are proven yet but some are commonly accepted for instance. Some have been proven wrong in the past by other scientist, true, but before they were defended by the ruling scientific elite. See what I'm saying. That's how I feel its sympathisants sometimes resembles (a certain kind of) religious followers. They really seem to have some kind of faith in science. Well, I do too (don't worry), but not blind faith naturally.

 

The entire point of scientific advancement is to be a rebel rouser and challenge what we think we know. We use scientific method to information add to our body of knowledge.

If a religion believes that their specific book is the word of God, then the rebel rousers are at a loss to add to it. The only change they can bring is to reinterpret it or subtract from it. To add something to it would mean that it is now the word of man which is kind of interesting considering that most Christians I know have no idea what the Council Of Nicea was.

 

Not all religions claim their scriptures are divine? And (even christian) religion has it's rebel rousers as well, what about protestantism for instance.

I found that interesting as well, until I realized I had more interest in the actual religion than most people that we call christians. Does that say something about the religion? No, it says something about a lot of the people we call christians. Most of them are called like that because they are born into a family and country that grew up with christian values and religion, not because they emerged themselves into the matter