@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt would seem that my in-good-faith reprimand has wounded you in some way.
Can you put that apology on your profile? It might aid you in your quest for humility.
3 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHumans have an instinct to question (curiosity)
Religion is not a mental illness, but a fulfillment of the human need for answers, hope and comfort.
These answers however are false, and hinder the search for genuine answers.
and a desire, masquerading as a need, for answers. Some questions do not have answers, and acceptance of that is what zen consists in.
@moonbus saidAnswers provided by religion though are often more dangerous as they become cemented in and resistant to alternative/advanced answers. It has otherwise intellectual minds defending the Adam and Eve narrative and covering their ears to evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence.
Humans have an instinct to question (curiosity)
and a desire, masquerading as a need, for answers. Some questions do not have answers, and acceptance of that is what zen consists in.
4 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThat depends … on whether one commands a clear understanding of truths about nature and what kind of truths science can deliver, and a clear understanding of truths of human nature and how to distinguish them from the former. The danger comes not from religion per se, but from people who do not understand what kind of truths religion can deliver and/or confuse them for truths about nature.
Answers provided by religion though are often more dangerous as they become cemented in and resistant to alternative/advanced answers. It has otherwise intellectual minds defending the Adam and Eve narrative and covering their ears to evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence.
To give a crude example, in arithmetic, two negatives make a positive. But it would be incorrect to conclude from this that in ethics, two wrongs make a right. Nonetheless, as we have seen in both this and the science forum, some people can’t keep their categories straight and make crude logical blunders, confusing different kinds of truths.
1 edit
@caissad4 saidScience only negates religion in the very way that it defines itself. Science depends on establishing proof. There is no proof that religion is 100% right, but this is how religion is defined, by faith. So neither can be defined by the other in the way that that other defines itself. Holding religion to science's reason for being is as successful as holding science to religion's reason for being. This is the conflict.
Well good
I am a Christian, and yet I do not hold my religion to science's standards. I neither hold science to religion's standards. I believe that both have a place in explaining the existence we find ourselves in. I've always said that Science only explains the "how" and Religion only explains the "why". You cannot use a hammer to drive a screw (unless it's a claw hammer, but I digress).
@suzianne saidAs she speaks out of both sides of her mouth each day. Wow! look at you such a strong proud Christian you are. Such wisdom and love only for those like you and falsely judge the rest.. I wouldn’t let you witness to my goat snowball Susie 😀.
Science only negates religion in the very way that it defines itself. Science depends on establishing proof. There is no proof that religion is 100% right, but this is how religion is defined, by faith. So neither can be defined by the other in the way that that other defines itself. Holding religion to science's reason for being is as successful as holding science to re ...[text shortened]... ins the "why". You cannot use a hammer to drive a screw (unless it's a claw hammer, but I digress).
@suzianne saidIf I may be so bold: one can use a hammer to pound a screw in, but it’ll be mess.
Science only negates religion in the very way that it defines itself. Science depends on establishing proof. There is no proof that religion is 100% right, but this is how religion is defined, by faith. So neither can be defined by the other in the way that that other defines itself. Holding religion to science's reason for being is as successful as holding science to re ...[text shortened]... ins the "why". You cannot use a hammer to drive a screw (unless it's a claw hammer, but I digress).
If you want the job done right, then use the right tool for the job.
Otherwise, I fully agree: science is about “how” questions and delivers causal answers. Religion, philosophy, spirituality are about “why” questions and they deliver a different kind of answer (non-causal). Confusing them leads to nonsense.
@moonbus saidAnd yet scripture makes this mistake. Take for example 'an eye for an eye.'
To give a crude example, in arithmetic, two negatives make a positive. But it would be incorrect to conclude from this that in ethics, two wrongs make a right. .
Reciprocal justice has 2 negatives make a positive.
@suzianne saidIt's always good to see a theist try to balance science with religion and not view the two as necessarily combative.
Science only negates religion in the very way that it defines itself. Science depends on establishing proof. There is no proof that religion is 100% right, but this is how religion is defined, by faith. So neither can be defined by the other in the way that that other defines itself. Holding religion to science's reason for being is as successful as holding science to re ...[text shortened]... ins the "why". You cannot use a hammer to drive a screw (unless it's a claw hammer, but I digress).
From my viewpoint however, science provides the 'how' but not the 'why,' primarily because there probably isn't a 'why.' - This is where religion comes in. Evolved as we are, intellectually, humans struggle to live in a universe where there isn't a 'why'. Hence the need to invent one.
@mike69 said'We have to deseige from mocking others but be humble and condole them with words of hope to keep them at that time rather than mocking them.'
As she speaks out of both sides of her mouth each day. Wow! look at you such a strong proud Christian you are. Such wisdom and love only for those like you and falsely judge the rest.. I wouldn’t let you witness to my goat snowball Susie 😀.
Psalm 143:2
@ghost-of-a-duke said😂
'We have to deseige from mocking others but be humble and condole them with words of hope to keep them at that time rather than mocking them.'
Psalm 143:2
@moonbus saidSo when I ask for evidence why is it that you and others attempt to turn the conversation into a spiritual one? The right tool, the evidence, in science is not to talk about Bible verses yet that is almost all that gets done when questions of evidence and science are brought up. It shouldn't matter what the ramifications might mean, what should matter is an honest response.
If I may be so bold: one can use a hammer to pound a screw in, but it’ll be mess.
If you want the job done right, then use the right tool for the job.
Otherwise, I fully agree: science is about “how” questions and delivers causal answers. Religion, philosophy, spirituality are about “why” questions and they deliver a different kind of answer (non-causal). Confusing them leads to nonsense.