For me personally science contributes much more. Organized religion is to me often worth pitting.
But human societies seem to have always had some faith element and have not always had science. So as someone who believes in science I would conclude that any claim that science is required for human survival or culture is falsified, and as of yet any claim that religion is not required for culture at least is not yet falsified.
Faith is like any tool. It is used well to good ends and it is used highly effectively for bad purposes as well.
I don’t have faith myself but I definitely have experienced times that I recognize I would have benefited from having it. I have known many people who have been inspired by faith to do great things for others. I respect them immensely. And they do not try to impose their beliefs on me.
I detest those who use the tool for bad ends. And I would detest them in any case because if they weren’t abusing faith as a tool they would abuse other tools of power.
I’m not gonna say all Buddhists don’t believe they are the one true dogma because there is a huge range of Buddhist beliefs. But even the Buddha himself said, “Work out your own salvation.” And it’s not unheard of to have Buddhist Christians (Thich Nhat Hanh was Catholic.) But I think it’s a fair assessment to say Christianity is less contradictory of Buddhist beliefs than Buddhism is contradictory to Christian beliefs.
My Presbyterian minister friend believes that his religion is the one true way, as distinct from other forms of Christianity, that appears particularly idiosyncratic to me. We watched a documentary together about the (unhealthy, arguably racist) obsession some sects of Christianity have with the state of Israel. It was a biased documentary, but interesting. When we tried to discuss it, and we were saying, “Some Christians are doing this,” it was really hard for him to get past the idea that the other Christians’ beliefs were not Biblical. It’s like he couldn’t even process that Christians were doing this because what they were doing was contrary to his interpretation of the Bible.
My friend does have formal education in Biblical scholarship. I don’t agree with his view of Christianity but I do admire that he rejects beliefs that are popular with Christians that have no Biblical basis, such as heaven, the existence of hell as a place of eternal punishment, guardian angels, and the belief that God is omniscient, all powerful and all benevolent. He doesn’t believe everything that happens is God’s plan. Don’t get me wrong, he believes some weird stuff. But I imagine he feels the same about me.
Even the simplest of societies used science (measuring, weighing, mixing etc.) so I find it extremely difficult to believe that you could survive wihout it.
There are plenty of branches of Christianity that believe in a jealous and vengeful god – one whose punishment is eternal, yet. The distinction you’re trying to make in that post between Christians in general as worshiping a loving god and Judaism and Islam as worshiping a harsh and spiteful one really doesn’t work.
The most hilariously inept characterization since that time at the Indiana State Fair with the guy sitting on a platform over a tank of water (you were supposed to hit a target with a baseball, dumping him into the water) who was trying to throw me off my game with insults.
I’m at a loss as to what exactly is being avenged when an infant with a lifespan of only a few hours is born with harlequin-type ichthyosis.
I’d like to believe, rather than divine retribution, it’s God’s challenge to his children to act charitable and comfort the parents as best as possible, or rise to their potential in seeking prevention and cure. But the current religious-political nexus in the USA maintains that I’m full of shit
I think it’s obvious that the answer is Yes and a resounding NO. And that those who think they’re living without science should be glad that science (for instance, gravity) is still working for them.
.
At one of the No Kings protests, some people from our church were wearing shirts that had big white type on black:
FWIW I do find the question of what is the minimum to be considered science a potentially interesting one to discuss. It isn’t a Pit discussion though. Feel free to join here.
To quibble your quibble - A statement saying that “I do not know that God is Christian.” is in fact a statement, an accurate statement, about the person’s knowledge set. As is my saying “I do not know that God exists.” I have a belief that there is no god of the sort that gives any shits about people, and I have some evidence to support that belief, I have no evidence to believe otherwise, but that is not knowledge.
I dunno, I feel like this reinforces the belief that Science is the Enemy that has prompted so much desecration of science in the Trump Administration.
Many people get along quite well with science while still being Christian. I think there is an entire domain of… belief, or human experience, or whatever you want to call it, that isn’t rational, and that that’s generally okay, as long as it’s acknowledged as being outside the domain of science and rationality.
(I’m thinking specifically of one of my favorite things: romantic love)
You can absolutely study romantic love using a scientific approach. We can do stuff like monitor heart rate when someone sees the person they love, and note that there’s a physiological component. We can study examples of people sacrificing for non-blood relatives, and see that behavior matches the described internal state. We can hypothesize about a way that an instinct for romantic love might have evolved, and what survival purpose it might serve.
There’s nothing about love that’s outside the reach of science.
