Religion and Science: Roles?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by eagleseven, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    Religion has fulfilled many roles in human civilization, some of which are becoming obsolete due to science. Others still prove to be very useful:

    1. Religion as a method of passing down natural knowledge from one generation to the next. Whether through temples, monasteries, or religious schools, religion has provided the environment for much of our scientific development until relatively recently. This function has been replaced by science.

    2. Religion as a method of standardizing morality across a society, and between societies. Contrary to what some trans-humanists would have you believe, there is no "universal morality" that humans are born with. Thus, we have developed religion as a way to ensure that every child learns social values. This function cannot be replaced by science.

    3. Religion as a tool for maintaining social stability and political power. A population that believes together, stays together. While fighting between religious groups can become intense, religion reduces infighting inside a group. This is what made Islam so initially successful; it eliminated the family vs. family blood feuds. This function cannot be replaced by science.

    4. Religion as a method for explaining potentially frightening phenomenon that are beyond a society's comprehension. A prime example of this is blaming natural disaster on an angry god, or evil demon. This function has been replaced by science.

    5. Religion as a method for answering existential questions that can be summed in one word "Why?" While humanity has continually expanded its understanding of the universe, it needs religion to explain why the universe is the way it is. Included in this role is addressing death. This function cannot be replaced by science.

    Your thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  2. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705

    This was never filled by science, but by oral history, legends, and then writing independent of religious beliefs

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...l-morality-in-humans-and-non-human-speci.html



    Incorrect, ethics arise through social contract independent of religious belief; religion merely played a supportive role by scaring children. Religion served not to maintain ethics or law, but as a means of maintaining the power structure for the benefit of the ruling elite, who use religion to control the idiot masses

    not so. Religion makes internal struggles more bloody as they become holy wars ad the 'we' is split into 'those who are 'right' and those who are heretics
    funny that you choose islam as you example :lol:

    BTW, it's social theory, social contract, and philosophy and reason, not science [​IMG] Your lack of education is glaring

    In other words, an escape for the ignorant so they can feign knowledge :lol:

    philosophy, fool. existentialism, for instance :eusa_whistle:

    'Gott ist tot'
    -Nietzsche


    -'the world will be better when that is true'
    -J. Beukema
     
  3. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
     
  4. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    What is religion if not a collection of oral history and legends? You've got very funny definitions, my friend.

    Also, were writing, books, computers, and the internet not borne of science?
    The idea of social contract came about long after religion had hammered out morality around the world. In truth, any effective code of laws ultimately developed into a religion.

    This is why in both the Middle and Far East we saw the rise of deified Emperors.

    Look at non-Roman Europe before the rise of Christianity, and after. Look at the religious philosophy coming out of China. Look at the tribes of Saudi Arabia. Religion brought order.

    Order, as it so happens, enables conquest.


    Yes. Islam enabled a handful of tribes that had done little save kill eachother for about 16,000 years to forge an empire reaching across three continents in a little under 200 years.

    That's impressive for a "retarded, ignorant" religion, wouldn't you say? An empire comparable to Rome...

    Your arrogance is glaring. Religion fulfilled these roles centuries before social theory, contract, and reason were formalized into meaningful theories and disciplines.

    You celebrate the leaves yet curse the roots.



    An escape for the ignorant so that they can overcome panic and survive. Mock them if you want, but they are the reason you and I are here.

    Philosophy? Derivative of religion.

    Existentialism? A modern religion.


    You think yourself so enlightened, separated from the great mass of humanity...perhaps hubris is the greatest form of self-deception?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  5. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    JB, I suggest you read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Smart-People-Dumb-Things/dp/0671892584"]Why Smart People Do Dumb Things: Lessons from the New Science of Behavioral Economics[/ame]


    The fatal flaw of the intelligent is hubris. Given your attitude towards others on this forum, you really ought to read this book.
     
  6. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    You confuse culture with religion [​IMG]

    They were. What does that have to do with what either of us said?

    I refer to the sociological concept of social contract as describing the emergence of society at its most basic level. I'm not sure what you're thinking of.
    Really? Has George Washington been declared divine? Laws have oft reflected and been influences by the predominant religion because it is inherently a bottom-up system (no matter who issues a proclomation, it is ultimately the masses who decide whether it takes effect)

    Again, religion is useful for manipulation the idiot masses, and that is one of the primary reasons organized or 'standardized' religions have been so long a part of the human experience

    You're avoiding my point. The use of neochristianty by Constantine and those after him were not an example of internal struggle, but odf conquest and subjugation of outsiders (non-believers). Look at the wars within christianity after its raise; each religion and sekt declares itself to be ultimately true, thus making negotiation and peace near impossible. One must be wiped out ..

    Religion is not the only unifying factor that can maintain order; it's merely the easiest to manipulate to make good people do cruel things and make the ignorant masses obey you.

    And when two sekts both claim to be the true religion of Allah? The suffering that ensues when they clash is immense, and the hatred is rivaled only by blood feuds

    Wrong. Religion itself emerges through social contract. Social contract has always been the way such things emerge. It has merely been recently that any came to truly understand that an d out the realization into written words.
    By your reasoning, one cannot curse American slavery, the genocides against the natives of North America, Hitler's extermination campaigns...

    Incorrect. Religion is the ugly sibling of proper philosophy
    Incorrect. Existentialism is a philosophy. Existentialism is not a religion by any reasonable definition. Now you're just parroting the same fallacious BS every YEC and uneducated theist ultimately spews during every exchange.
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Eagle, I invite you to head over to LoR and post the BS you've posted above. My criticisms are only the most obvious. There are others over @ LoR who could write entire books about how fallacious and dishonest your posts have been
     
  8. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    Is not religion critical to culture? How has it survived even the Atheist regimes in the USSR and China?

    The methods by which we pass on information from generation to generation has been determined by science, which was my original point.

    Our constitution is more sacred than the Bible. We have the world's most expensive military for the sole purpose of spreading our faith to all the world. We have formed international bodies to push our beliefs, and believe that our morality is the best in the world. We have holidays celebrating the invention of our beliefs, and massive monuments at which we can pay our respects to our founding fathers.

    Is that not a religion?

    Religion provides order. Order can be used for the benefit of the masses, or for the benefit of the rulers.

    Compare the wars within Christianity to the near-constant conflict present before Christianity.

    Ditto, look at intra-religious wars in the Muslim world, and compare with the near-constant battle of the tribes before Islam.

    Secret police are quite effective at keeping order, and have been extensively used by nearly every atheist government in existence.

    Only, the Secret Police don't offer hope of an afterlife.

    The bigger they are, the harder they fall. The pre-Islam tribes of Arabia contributed nothing to humanity's development.

    The chicken or the egg? We won't agree.

    One cannot separate America's modern development from its past. Likewise, one cannot separate Human development from its religious roots, as you have been attempting to do.

    We're both parrots squaking opinion at eachother, at this point in the exchange. I'm quite tired of arguing semantics.
     
  9. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    I have no intention of stepping into a hive of atheists working studiously to divorce human development from human spirituality. This is America, not China. Americans still have souls :lol:

    Fallacious and dishonest? I assure you, my facts are both accurate and honestly portrayed. You may attack my opinions, but my facts are solid.


    If you are going to slander both my character and my intelligence, please back it up with reliable data. Vague accusations just won't do...
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  10. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Is not religion critical to culture? How has it survived even the Atheist regimes in the USSR and China?[/quote]

    Religion can be an aspect of culture. You were fallacious in treating them as equivalent things



    Incorrect. We use that military to protect our own interests. ''Spreding Democracy' simply means looking after opur ilitary and economic interests, nothing more.


    We helped form the UN in the hopes that we could use it to exploit all the world. then it turned on us.

    No, it is highly aggressive foreign policy to line the pockets of a select few [​IMG]
    as opposed to.. the levites? The inquisition? Witch trials? Same thing, really

    flawed semantics and fallacies are all you've forwarded
     

Share This Page