Will science destroy religion

#76
#76
zeppelin128 said:
I was a doubtful,liberal Catholic in a liberal Church. Left the Church a few years ago.

I describe myself as a Buddhist atheist now. It makes sense to me, but confuses others. Lol
Click to expand...

Well, as buddhism denies a supreme deity, then this actually should not be confusing, to anyone.

A big, big difference, it seems, between buddhism and Christianity, is the idea of "belief." It seems, for discples of buddhism, in order to "let go" of "one's self" they must also let go of "belief"?

Whereas, Jesus said: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (in either case -- whether one actually/physically touched his hands and side, or whether one simply hears about it years later -- belief is required and relished / something to obtain (a "something" greater than material goods -- and if a buddist can possess knowledge, then why must he relinquish himself of all "belief"?).

It's almost as if, a disciple of buddhism can have belief in science, but cannot have belief in God.

I don't know -- maybe you (also) don't belief in science? As a Christian, I believe is "science" (testing/test-tubes, ingredients, measurements, etc).
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
UT-Rex said:
Well, as buddhism denies a supreme deity, then this actually should not be confusing, to anyone.

A big, big difference, it seems, between buddhism and Christianity, is the idea of "belief." It seems, for discples of buddhism, in order to "let go" of "one's self" they must also let go of "belief"?

Whereas, Jesus said: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (in either case -- whether one actually/physically touched his hands and side, or whether one simply hears about it years later -- belief is required and relished / something to obtain (a "something" greater than material goods -- and if a buddist can possess knowledge, then why must he relinquish himself of all "belief"?).

It's almost as if, a disciple of buddhism can have belief in science, but cannot have belief in God.

I don't know -- maybe you (also) don't belief in science? As a Christian, I believe is "science" (testing/test-tubes, ingredients, measurements, etc).
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of belief. Science exists because it is existence. Belief is a human construct that contributes to suffering. Belief involves desire and want, which leads to suffering, which is the basic human condition. Relinquishing belief is one step in attaining peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
luthervol said:
To me it's kind of like asking someone why they are a good parent. Do they expect reward or fear punishment? Or do they do it out of some innate essence of humanity?
Click to expand...

Judaism teaches G-d wrote the need for him on each of us with a base desire to do what is right with the free will to reject that and go our own way (waaaaayyyyyy oversimplification).
Science says we all have a God gene that causes those with a stronger presence of this gene to be religious.
It would seem that my version and religion and science agree with you that the desire to be "good" is innate
 
#80
#80
luthervol said:
Then ask an adoptive parent.
Click to expand...

A solid point, and shows that we are not entirely driven exclusively by biological principles. These may be the best case for altruism, especially in those that can have biological children as well and also adopt.
 
#81
#81
MaxamusXIII said:
Judaism teaches G-d wrote the need for him on each of us with a base desire to do what is right with the free will to reject that and go our own way (waaaaayyyyyy oversimplification).
Science says we all have a God gene that causes those with a stronger presence of this gene to be religious.
It would seem that my version and religion and science agree with you that the desire to be "good" is innate
Click to expand...

Then that seems to at least partially be the answer to the question which you and Septic were discussing....it's just innate. I have always found that the people willing to foster rather than suppress this innate goodness (often at the expense of more tangible motivators) with no sense of reward or punishment to be the most admirable; not that all goodness is not admirable.
 
#82
#82
zeppelin128 said:
It isn't a matter of belief. Science exists because it is existence. Belief is a human construct that contributes to suffering. Belief involves desire and want, which leads to suffering, which is the basic human condition. Relinquishing belief is one step in attaining peace.
Click to expand...

lol. what the actual fuq. Science hasn't been all rainbows and sunshine. belief, science, anything is what ever humans do with it. none of it is inherently bad or inherently leads to bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
armchair said:
Until it can be proven that there is a higher power, there is no higher power--meaning there is no "god," which of course is quite obvious. You are suggesting that because no one has proven that "god" doesn't exist, that we can't know whether there is a "god" or not. No, we do know--there isn't, because there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is and, of course, there never will be. \

It is like saying that we don't know whether there is a purple elephant in our back yard because nobody can prove that there isn't. Uh, no: the burden of proof lies with the person who claims--against all evidence--that there is. If you look and do not see a purple elephant, //there is no purple elephant./// If you want to believe anyway that there is a purple elephant in your backyard because you have some sort of need to believe that, that is your prerogative---but it doesn't change the fact that there is no purple elephant.
Click to expand...


May God have mercy on your soul.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
hog88 said:
Myself, I'm a firm believer but will not participate in organized religion and I do not believe the bible is the literal word of God (it was written by men with agendas).
Click to expand...

Does that mean it is fallible and should be open to changing interpretations?
 
#85
#85
I personally think several years after every one of us are dead religion will be extinct and looked at as being mind blowing people at one point in time actually believed in it. Just my opinion
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#86
#86
LouderVol said:
lol. what the actual fuq. Science hasn't been all rainbows and sunshine. belief, science, anything is what ever humans do with it. none of it is inherently bad or inherently leads to bad.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding me. Suffering isn't bad, it is just the nature of existence. Science isn't bad, belief isn't bad. Science is just the explanation of existence. Belief is a construct of desire, which leads to suffering. I never said anything was bad.

Also, I've been respectful in this thread. No need to be rude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#89
#89
Berry4Heisman14 said:
I personally think several years after every one of us are dead religion will be extinct and looked at as being mind blowing people at one point in time actually believed in it. Just my opinion
Click to expand...

Only if they have zero grasp on anthropology and history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#93
#93
Simply put science won't destroy religion. As long as there are things that science can't explain there will always be a "mystical" component to life.

I never lost power during Hurricane Irma. Everyone else in my neighborhood did. Science? Sure. Luck? Oh yeah. Where did that luck come from? Baby Jesus? Baphomet? Thor? The Ghost of Stonewall Jackson? Who knows?


And not to mention most human beings would struggle with why they should continue to exist if they solely rely on science to guide their lives.
 
#96
#96
LouderVol said:
Even though I belong to and practice a formal religion I don't consider myself religious. I see myself driven more by my faith (relationship with God) than my religion (dogma).

I don't think science will ever effect an individual like me.
Click to expand...

.
 
#97
#97
Louder does make an interesting argument.
Science will never destroy religion. It may do away with some dogmas that are in conflict with reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#98
#98
Science SHOULD destroy religion--but of course it won't because science and religion are completely contradictory concepts. Science is fact, evidence, logic. Religion and belief in "god" is completely the opposite. There is no evidence of "god" (and there won't ever be), and so people are told to have "faith." It's pretty absurd if you you think about it. The point is, people want to believe--and that's fine except when christians want to turn some of their nonsense into public policy. Noah's Ark? I mean, c'mon--the Bible is childish story-telling.

Science and secularism do seriously frighten christian groups--there is no question about that. That is why they fight evolution so much--and so stupidly. That is why christian groups rather lamely hatched some transparent scheme to give creationism a pseudo-scientific veneer that they called "intelligent design." That was--is--a very telling window into how science scares religious zealots.
 
#99
#99
armchair said:
Science SHOULD destroy religion--but of course it won't because science and religion are completely contradictory concepts.
Click to expand...

This is where I stopped reading.
I'm sure the post went on to make great points about southerners and conservatives.
 
#100
#100
MaxamusXIII said:
This is where I stopped reading.
I'm sure the post went on to make great points about southerners and conservatives.
Click to expand...

He'd be shocked to consider how many of us religious types there are that actually consider the science and the order of the universe to be a comfort and not a threat and are perfectly fine with nonliteral interpretations.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top