You google it if you like. You won't find it.
You google it if you like. You won't find it.
I definitely think there's a strain of dogmatism in science. We need to be careful. Science is not the Truth, it's a method for producing accurate predictions. We accumulate evidence until the predictions seem overwhelmingly likely, or not. At no point have we proven that things might not be completely different from what we imagine them to be, or that they won't change. Science isn't Truth, it's just a method of finding the best answer up to that point.
And religion is not only a truth, it's not a method of finding the truth either.
Careful. Science is not the Truth, it’s a method for producing accurate predictions. We accumulate evidence until the predictions seem overwhelmingly likely, or not. At no point have we proven that things might not be completely different from what we imagine them to be, or that they won’t change. Science isn’t Truth, it’s just a method of finding the best answer up to that point.
Listen to the mainstream, not the mediastreams, don't listen to the jackasses spewing transdimensional micro-wormholes -- yet. There's mystery in science, but that's literally how we find the next-big-thing. When there's mystery in religion, you are supposed to ignore it.
Science and religion are two entirely separate things. Treating religion like science is bad, but treating science like religion is worse.
You cannot "believe in" science; it is not intended to tell you how to live a moral life or provide meaning to your existence, etc. If you try and make it do that, you are not being scientific, you're being dogmatic.
These concepts aren't related to each other, and shouldn't be compared.
Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive. Granted there are some origin storys in religion (Eve's sin or Noah's rainbow) but we've had people dismissing their own fables back in the classical age, instead trying to hypothesize how things are really.
This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.
The religious equivalent is scriptural passages to kings ( govern wisely ) and to bonded servants, ( obey ), without any elaboration on the mechanics or consequences.
Consensus among religious scholars is that scripture (whether Christian, Muslim, Hellenic, Nubian or whatever) are just early attempts at moral philosophy distilled down to divine command theory, which is very basic deontological ethics (creed-based ethics). With centuries (and centuries) of further thought on the matter, our religious ministries have focused more on profiteering than on keeping up with the times.
Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive.
This is true, but also it's prescriptive about different things... religion is focused on morality, which isn't the kind of thing science is useful for; morality is a philosophical and religious thing.
This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.
Or "the lord moves in mysterious ways," type hand waving.
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula
I wouldn't call that science, that's philosophy
Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.
This is ... a political science theory relying on haphazard historiography, maybe?
I do not know anyone claiming to have a "science of morality" that I would consider to be scientific, or moral...
So absolutely true. Until people realize this, memes like these sound stupid.
However, both are ways people seek to, understand the world around them.
I'd love to see your source for "belief" in science being worse than religion.
It's not worse than religion, it just is religion. Treating religion like it's science only convinces those that want to be convinced.
... But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what "science" says. Since doubt is the basis of empiricism, removing it from science destroys the utility of science... and that's bad.
We shouldn't think of science as a better replacement for religion. It's a different thing entirely; if we start worshipping rationalism, we've just made ourselves the gods of a new religion.
Rationalism can lead to a cult mentality. It's happened before. Of course, you could say that this isn't "true rationalism", but you have to ask yourself if you're actually practicing rational thinking or just fetishizing the trappings of rationalism. I think that this means that skepticism is just as important as rationalism.
Science is definitely a better replacement of religion. But let's not go crazy there...or we end up with eugenics and phrenology.
Unfortunately, so many. Like vaccines.
Just name one thing? Reason! Ha, checkmate atheists!
Science itself during the dark ages.
Romans were doing very well before my buddy JC came along.
Maybe our sins should have stayed unforgiven, you know?
I mean, religion by definition is basically just guessing what's true, or guessing that what somebody else told you is true is true. Not exactly a foolproof method.
Image Transcription:
A 4-panel Angry NPC Wojak meme. The first panel shows grey NPC wojak saying "Religion and science are both ways of finding the truth" In the second panel the white character replies "Can you name me one thing that was found by science and was later replaced by religion" The third panel is grey NPC wojak with no text, and the final panel is the titular angry NPC wojak with his brows furrowed.
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
I googled the website on one of the signs, bounced on 2 or 3 links and found this gem :
https://www.thetrumpet.com/literature/1176-does-god-exist/print
Checkmate atheists!
(/s, in case anyone needs this)
That hurt to read, I feel I'm dumber now
I questioned the existence of God! Also I questioned the opposing doctrine of evolution.
Right out the gate, there's a false premise. Evolution is not an opposing doctrine to belief in God. In fact, some Christians believe in both God and evolution. There's no contradiction there, as evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists.
"Can you name one thing...?" OK I'll try.
Religion: Creation.
Science: Steady State! No initial creation!
(CMBR has entered the room)
Science: Oh shit.
Sources:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+1%3A1&version=NIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
The religious notion of creation still presumes there was a state of nothing in some alleged p before time.
The Big Bang makes for a chronological event horizon, yes, so we can only hypothesize what happened before or if there even was a before, and if there is a prime movement of the cause-effect chain.
God is not an answer. At very best, it is a label with no established properties. Especially not the first-dad properties that religions appoint God (omnescience, omnibenevolence, etc.)
(If you want to argue a simulated universe, then we can start talking about programmers.)
But where Stephen Hawking posited time only started with the Big Bang (so if there are causes, they'd have to occur on a separate, perpendicular axis of time), where Brian Greene (focusing on string theory and brane cosmology) figures ours is a single universe in a vast foam of them in a higher order manifold, and the intersection of two branes can cause a big bang event which is commonplace within this foam.
But what they figure is the universe we live in was started by natural forces, much the way our star was formed, or this earth. Those who are desperate for a creator deity to worship might try to insist They created the bulk (the foam manifold) but that positions all of life on Earth as infinitessimal and incidental. The depths of our own universe are unfathomable, let alone the countless others that exist alongside us.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Religion's contribution was that the universe... began?
It's stll a presumption, and if we were to take Hawking's approach (time started with the big bang, ergo, there's no before in which causes could occur) it still leaves no room for a creator agent. Nothing happens without time.
So how does that work? We don't yet know. It remains a singularity in our models.
But just as science is merely a (pretty darned accurate) model of the mechanics of the world we live in, religion is a mythical narrative of that world, based on tradition, and willfully modified to adapt to political, cultural and technological developments. The real world continues on its own and doesn't care what we think... or if we're around to think about it.
i’m not religious, but anti-religious enlightened atheist garbage is some of the worst content out there
anti-religious enlightened atheist garbage is some of the worst content out there
Really? Pedantry is as bad as fatwas and religiously motivated killings?
How quaint.
It's not the atheist part that sucks, just that a community for people who don't believe in something's (as opposed to a community for people who believe in something) lowest common denominator is basically hating something else, so you get a lot of condescending posts.
Doesn't help that a lot of posts are also very edgy, because atheism tends to skew towards the younger generation. I cringe every time, but at least it's not as bad as people taking the opportunity to be racist in the name of atheism.
are you sure you didn't catch religion off someone who was contagious at the time?
I think all communities can be annoying in this exact way if they resort to virtue signaling / dunking / repeating the classic lines, as opposed to working to form new arguments.
as opposed to working to form new arguments.
Atheism is the rejection of thiest's arguments. You'll have to get the ball rolling over there before we can do anything.
A sense of meaning. Not replaced but science hasn’t found it yet.
Many people find meaning in understanding how the world works.
Didn’t say it was the only thing that provided meaning but you’ll find in a church depression is less prevalent likely due to the sense of meaning and purpose attendees have.
That sense of meaning is something all attendees can achieve because they are taught to. Science doesn’t teach a person how to be okay with their purpose in life, in fact some of the answers science finds may push people further from purpose.
Not replaced
Exactly. Why did you post comment irrelevant to the question?
To counter the core of what I felt this comic is saying. Religion can be replaced by Science. Right now it can’t.
If you reach it in an external, supernatural being who grants it to you, maybe you're searching in the wrong place.
I think genuinely my life would have been a lot easier with Spirituality, and the result of my life is being required to practice Mindfulness instead to manage the many many confusing thoughts.