Sorry, as to the rest of your thinking, one can only speculate also on any religious belief, there is more evidence in science than religion, if one reads history, when the two disagree, science has come out on top: such as a dome over the heavens,flat earth, the earth being the center of the universe(even knowing the sun doesn’t really rise, but the earth turns. etc. It just takes centuries for religion to catch up.
Monavis
I think that that remark belies any real understanding of either science or religion. It is like arguing that there is more transportation in a car than an airplane.
I don’t follow your analogy. As religion exists independent of evidence (see the definition of “faith”), and evidence is fundamental to the scientific method, it is not an incorrect statement.
There is a great deal more than faith to religion. There is a lot of experience. But there is no need to argue which is greater: science or religion. They both fulfill the needs of humanity.
I’d like to point out that when you don’t try and interpret meaning, all you’re really going to hear is “Fshfjk wfwuehi jdhfkjkj jkjkdu oier skfkj fhas. Ajhjk eukj ds askh?”.
There is indeed more to religion than faith - however faith is the foundation on which religion is built. For example, faith that the scripture of that religion is the truth, and that therefore the interpretation of it and the religious behaviour that stem from those teachings are justified.
Science is based on the axioms mentioned previously in this thread. As was discussed in some detail earlier, these axioms are axioms because they cannot be proved without assuming that they are true. An awful lot of scientific “scripture” is based on those axioms, but that does not mean that the scripture is beyond doubt. It’s been mentioned before that all scientific theories are subject to revision if predictions based on those theories fail to be accurate.
Anyway, I digress… I intended to question your statement that “They both fulfill the needs of humanity” - I don’t believe they do. Neither of them fulfill all the needs of humanity, and I don’t believe they fulfill the same needs.
I know people who are wholly satisfied with their faith - it does indeed fulfill their needs (spiritual, at least… I’m not sure it provides the food and shelter). However, the needs of one person are not the needs of humanity. Humanity also has a desire to improve itself, to create better technologies, to make enormous advances.
Science can help fulfill this desire - although I wouldn’t say it does fulfill it. Scientific method has enabled thousands of discoveries over the centuries. Widespread use of electricity, for example, relied on the understanding of the phenomenon deduced from experimentation and hypothesis testing.
Science enables us to move ever onward… with each step, we see a further horizon to aim for - our desires may never be fulfilled because there is no end to this particular path. It’s a great part of humanity - we strive to improve ourselves.
I know of no religious documents or faiths that would’ve enabled electrical pioneers to discover the causes and behavioural patterns of electricity by careful study of existing scripture.
Conversely, science can’t answer questions on subjects that cannot be tested, or observed. You’ve mentioned near death experiences - scientific study has shown that when a person dies, activity in the brain stops. This activity has been shown to be related to thought processes, and is labelled “consciousness”. If the activity stops when a person dies, then from a scientific viewpoint, the consciousness ceases to exist. However, it does not rule out this consciousness continuing to exist in some non-corporeal state that cannot be detected. Because it can’t be detected, it has no place in a scientific statement because it cannot be proven or disproven.
Religion can fill these gaps - science refuses to cover what cannot be tested, but religion does not. Religion can say that on the evidence of this scripture (or whatever) which your faith holds to be true, consciousness carries on after death and goes to heaven, or hell, or Timbuctoo.
Sometimes, both do cover the same area - describing the world around us. Science does it by investigating the world around us, and drawing conclusions from that. Religions do it by investigating their holy truths and drawing conclusions from them.
Now, it may be that some religions are right… their truths really are true. It may be. But if their evidence is “it says so right here”, then it’s not convincing to me, I’m afraid. Scientific method can point me to the evidence, and even tell me how I can perform and experiment that supports this answer. I feel more comfortable believing that than religion. Other people don’t. Fine.
But I don’t feel fulfilled by either of the two parties.
OK, I am inclined to disagree on some minor issues in your post, but we will forget them and talk about fulfilling human needs.
It is true that science has given us many things that make our lives easier and better. But only to some people, the poor still labor long hours on small wages and many go to bed hungry at night. Science can make crops more abundant. Science can produce medicines to fight diseases. And many other good things, but as pointed out to me in this thread science is amoral. Among the most pressing needs in the world today are universal social morals. Everyone who can feed the poor, heal the sick, educate the ignorant should feel compelled to do so. This moral base can come only from spirituality. A universal code of religion to uplift and help all others no matter what their nationality, or color, or sex, etc.
Religion is fulfilling the needs of many, even those who are very poor. It gives them hope for the future, a reason for their suffering, and provides impetus to others to help them. I can’t imagine an amoral world.
I am completely fulfilled in my spirituality, and I know many others are also.
Below is part of a previous post #298. It show how I and many others are fulfilled by spiritual experiences.
The reason they/me became believers is the profound personally changes NDEers go through after their experiences. These personality changes are dramatic and long-term, like the rest of their lives. Many go back to school and become teachers or counselors, some write books, give lectures, even build centers of service to others. Some volunteer at hospitals and hospices. Nearly all begin some kind of service to their fellow man. They have lost their desire to become rich and/or famous. The world is forever seen in a different way. The reason for this is the knowledge gained from the experience. We experience the “ghost in the machine” and know the reality of a higher intelligence. Now the experience doesn’t change them, they change themselves after “seeing the light” and want to get in step with reality.
There is nothing in the form of delusions, illusions, drugs, dissociation, or any other means known that has the ability to cause people to change so.
When you have an experience like this worldly things just don’t matter any more. You know you are safe even unto death. What you want to do is help others, as best you can, with the knowledge you have. Spiritual axioms prove themselves true in their application.
:dubious:
Are you suggesting that athiests do not have morals nor can an athiestic society have morals?
I’ll jump in on that. I’ve personally known atheists who are very moral. They don’t fear hell or wait for heaven. They act right simply because it is right. Religion can be a beautiful thing. But, a peson’s lack of religion doesn’t have to mean that person is evil.
SteveG1 is right - there is no need for morals to come from religion. Lekatt, You’ve suggested that a universal code of religion is needed - surely a universal code of morals would suffice? Morals don’t require the backing of the Gods to be moral. Teaching people to act on these morals using Gods (and maybe the carrot and stick of heaven and hell) can be useful, but wouldn’t it be nice if people would behave according to these morals because they believe they are right, not because they believe God said they are right?
Whether or not a universal code of morals is actually a good thing is another debate in itself, but for the most part I’m in favour. Agreeing on what those morals may be would be tricky.
Science is indeed amoral - bad guys and good guys can use scientific methods, and the results of successfully tested theories. But that’s what science tries to do - be objective - it works whoever is doing it because “good” and “bad” and “moral” and “immoral” are subjective, and have no part in science. Science can’t make moral proclamations, although information learned through scientific methods can be used to help us make moral decisions.
Religion (for the most part) contains morals - correct behaviour as required by God(s). However, often the religious information leading to these morals can be interpreted differently by different people. Good and bad people alike. If the morals stand alone of religion, then they can be corrected, and clarified, and made free of interpretation. New information (obtained through scientific study) can lead to modification of existing moral code or creation of a new set of morals.
An a-religious world is not by definition an amoral one. Religion and faith can be very powerful, and as you rightly say, can provide support to those in need. Some people help those in need through because of their religious beliefs. Some people will help those in need without the impetus of religious belief.
The poor people working long hours on low wages and going home hungry at night still work long hours on low wages and go home hungry at night if they believe in God. They might be a bit happier about it (which I don’t doubt is a good thing), but they’re still hungry. Religion can make them happier while they suffer, science can investigate the causes of the suffering, and examine existing data to build hypotheses on the political, economical and environmental causes of that person’s suffering, and make predictions of how best to alleviate it. Hopefully a solution can be found. In the meantime, religion can help them through the suffering.
You say you are completely fulfilled by your spirituality, but I disagree. I’m sure your needs for a spiritual belief system are fulfilled, but many others are not. For instance, your need to tell people about your spirituality. That isn’t fulfilled by your beliefs, you have websites, and SDMB posts, telling the world about how your life can be changed by near death experiences. If you were completely fulfilled by your spirituality, you’d just sit in your room thinking spiritual thoughts with a big smile on your face.
If I were completely fulfilled by my scientific understanding, I wouldn’t be writing this now. Nor would I be interested in the findings of a recent scientific study - I’m fulfilled, remember - I have no desire to know any more than I do already. Science and religion fulfill some parts of humanities’ needs. They don’t fulfill the same parts (although there are some overlaps), and nor do they exhaustively fulfill the entirety of needs together.
But the point I’m trying to make is that part of the battle for America’s minds (and those of the rest of the world) is caused by people believing that religion and science are in open conflict with each other, and that the two are mutually exclusive. This is not the case. Science and religion can happily cohabit.
It seems that a lot of people are brought up to believe that “science is wrong” or “religion is wrong” by advocates on whichever side. If this culture can be avoided, and children can be brought up being taught that prisms split light into different colours whether or not you go to church on Sunday, we can crack the problem. If in formative years a teacher, or parent, or religious figure instructs a child to disbelieve what someone else says, then they will have real difficulty in the future to accept it.
Once a person is older, they can look at the complicated issues where scientific evidence disagrees with their personal beliefs, and reach their own conclusions. Either their skepticism learned through their science classes at school will lead them to discard that part of their beliefs, or their beliefs will be strong enough for them to ignore the evidence. They will be able to distinguish between that one disagreement, and all the other areas where their paths do not cross. Skepticism can help them through life, maybe preventing them from being suckered in to some scam, and religious faith can help them find solace when they go through a difficult period in life. There is no need to discard one in favour of the other.
We are complex beings, and most of us have no difficulty believing two seemingly contradictory things. Part of science is being able to say “I don’t know” and hopefully following it up with “I want to, and I’m trying to find out”. Reconciling a religious belief in the face of contradictory scientific evidence in this manner is acceptable to me - science doesn’t claim to have all the answers (although some people say it does) - if one can accept that religion doesn’t either, we’re well on the way to better understanding.
As I see it, Science doesn’t try to cancel out Faith, but I have noticed that Prayer is answered more for the cure of illness than they were years ago when scientific cures were not available,such as a lot of contagious deceases,heart problems, injuries from accidents etc. that years ago no matter how hard you prayed would not be cured or healed.
Monavis
Not all religion is theistic; there is deism too. And in fact, a theist may be a deist (but not the other way around).
But you must admit, the vast majority of those professing devotion to a religion are not deists.
I didn’t want to copy your lengthy post. I disagree with most of it.
I will try to simplfy the supjects.
People do not discipline themselves very well. So laws of conduct and procedures are written to guide the flow of society’s functions. These laws are backed up by a judicial system of some kind involving inforcement, hearings, and judgement.
But there are large gaps in the laws allowing those in power to gain an unfair advantage over those not in power.
Religion attempts to fill those gaps with the fear of God, if you harm your fellowman God will punish you. No matter who you are or how much power you have. God will reward the honest and dash the dishonest into hell.
If everyone believes, the society works fairly well without too much crime.
Someone comes along and says God doesn’t exist, that is just a crutch for the weak. Better hope everyone doesn’t take that to heart at once. The poor will revolt to grab what they can as well as the powerful. The judicial system will be overwhelmed in 24 hours, and you will find the policeman grabbing also. This often happens in riots or disasters. We saw a lot of this in the 60’s. Buildings burned to the ground and fireman shot at trying to put them out. Total chaos.
If every individual was convinced God would judge them, some would still take advantage, but only a few.
Spirituality is far different from religion. Spirituality has only one prime order, that is to love one another. This is taught by all major religions. If you doubt that read:
http://www.aleroy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28
It is the teaching of the near death experiences to all experiencers regardless of religion or no religion.
Can a society exist completely without religion, probably not, the few that tried were unsuccessful. Russia, China, Cuba, failed to produce a great society without religion. There may have been more that I never heard about.
My wish is for spirituality to become widespread, but spirituality is not easy to practice. It is learned through the emotions and the intellect combined.
The statement: does God exist. For me, absolutely, I have experienced being in the presence of God and there is no doubt in my mind He exists. Judgement is very real also, but not by God. You will judge your own actions in the presence of truth, and measure them against the goal of love one another. For some, Dannion Brinkley writes “it was the most painful thing I ever endured”, it will be painful and for others it will be sheer joy.
If it was painful you try again until you get it right.
And yet, in the 1960s, the “death of god” movement was a fringe element relegated to univerisites while the riots and breakdown of law occurred in places that were very religious. There is less belief in a god, today, and we have fewer riots and no complete breakdowns of order. In fact, the most “lawless” places in the world are among the most religious places. I do not agree with those that claim that religion caused that lawlessness, but your claim has no facts to support it. It is simply projecting your beliefs onto a selective view of history.
Lekatt, you’ve described a way in which people can be convinced to act in a moral manner. God will punish you if you don’t do this. Very effective indeed, if everyone believes not only in God, but also that he will punish you, and that what they’ve been told to do (or not do) agrees with God’s views.
I’m not trying to say that religion doesn’t help people or humanity. I’m saying that it’s not necessarily the only, or best, solution. I’m not religious, I’m not worried about God punishing me - but strangely I’m not rioting and burning buildings to the ground. Don’t try telling me I don’t have any morals because I don’t have any religion.
But I will readily admit that if there was no danger of any punishment, I probably wouldn’t be as law abiding as I am. And I certainly don’t think that the populace as a whole would be well behaved. However, that’s what the police and the judicial system are for - to act as a punishment and deterrent for criminals.
Yep, whoever makes the rules does have power over everyone else, and conceivably can change the rules so they can escape prosecution. This is where a good and just legal system is important, and ever since the Magna Carta people have tried to make sure it wasn’t open to abuse. I don’t think the existing legal system is perfect, but it can be improved and people in power not only are not immune, but they are also put in power by us minions, voting.
A religious code of law, with the punishment of God as a threat, can be very effective deterrent. However, the people in power have just as much ability to abuse the system as anyone else. The local preachers can interpret the holy word to their congregation in a way which benefits their cause. The Pope has enormous power to effect laws over all members of the Roman Catholic church - what if he were to abuse it?
The gaps you perceive in non-religious legal systems don’t need to be filled by religion, and the same gaps can exist (perhaps in different places) in religion. Belief that something is wrong does not need to be backed up by belief that God will punish you for doing it. As I mentioned before, it would be nice if we could all behave in a moral manner because we believe it to be right, not just because we’re scared of God. I know I manage it, and I know plenty of other people who do. I’m sure there are religious people out there who act in a less moral manner than me.
I don’t think it’s valid to take a small sample of countries who tried to have non-religious culture, say that they failed and blame the lack of religion. There are several connections between the three you mentioned that aren’t religious (not to mention the contentious statement that they failed to produce a great society).
If we are to have our great universal moral society, through religion as you suggest, then we require everyone to believe in the same religion. Otherwise, some people will have different morals and laws than others. Which religion should we use? Which one is right? Who decides? The people who decide are now the powerful ones with the unfair advantage over the others.
I’m not sure that’s how I’d word it but I think I get the sentiment. Why does this need a God? Why does this need a religion? Why does this need spirituality? All it needs is for the person doing the judging to realise that every other human being on this planet is actually a human being, the same as them. A bit of empathy. Religion is not required to make this statement (and a lot of existing religions actually say contrary things), why bring it into the equation?
Indeed the values that allow for the world to function as a society of societies are secular values. Human rights and such. Nevertheless most societal rules initially justified themselves with religious postulates.
Right and wrong are beliefs held as fact regardless of evidence for or against. A good fit for religion.
That seems like an incredibly narrow view of how one might arrive at concepts like “right” and "wrong. Moral and ethical principles (used to delineate “right” and “wrong”) could also be established via sociological observation, experimentation, compromise, and consensus, and can change over time as conditions require. One needn’t establish “right” and “wrong” with some arbitrarily inviolate and purportedly holy received wisdom, which is taken as fact based upon nothing but faith. IMO, virtually everything that is dysfunctional about establishing standards of human morality and ethics stems from such extremism and absolutism.
Loopy I did not say that divine revelation was the only means, just a good fit. I did say that they are not evidentiary based.
If I understand that sentence, in light of your earlier comments, you’re saying that “right” and “wrong” are faith-based concepts, revelatory or not. Are you still disputing my assertion in qualifying your own? If you are not, there seems to be an internal contradiction in your statements, but I could be wrong.