Monotheism vs. Polytheism

[Phylum of Alexandria]

To the extent that a religion has a scripture or other traditional belief about the world that is falsifiable, then it can be tested and potentially disproven. 

But even in such an instance, it depends on how the passage in question is interpreted.

The use of symbolism, allegory, metaphor, parable, etc, don't make someone less religious. It simply makes them less of a provincial fundie asshole.

[IFR]

2 hours ago, Mentat said:

On the other hand, we tend to brand as "evil" things that happen to us (death, injury, sickness, old age...), things that happen in general (natural disasters, famine...) and things that we purposefully do to each other (war, crime...). Yet a world devoid of all this would be extremely strange and boring, and we probably wouldn't even exist in it (would an omni-benevolent God have allowed a meteorite to wipe out the dinosaurs?). Without adversity or competition (which lead to "evil" things such as death, winners and losers, inequality...) the world might be an endless calm sea full of lazy immortal amoeba with no incentive to evolve.

The classic retort is: does it have to be this way?

But aside from that, you seem to suggest the path of betterment, which always requires change. Betterment can never acknowledge perfection, because even if perfection is achieved, betterment demands change beyond perfection.

But I really think this is an impossible disccusion. Once you couch the discussion around omnipotence, every idea is undefined.

[Tywin et al.]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

But you can't deny that religion and science co-exist. It's pretty undeniable that they do. 

Absolutely not. Every religion is a story created by a human, That's not the same as science. 

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Absolutely not. Every religion is a story created by a human, That's not the same as science. 

 

'Co-existing' and 'being the same thing' aren't the same thing. 

[Tywin et al.]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

 

'Co-existing' and 'being the same thing' aren't the same thing. 

Giving them equal value is the problem. Religion is just folklore. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Giving them equal value is the problem. Religion is just folklore. 

Believing an easily falsifiable statement such as "religion and science cannot coexist" isn't being very scientific minded.  

[polishgenius]

Well, giving them equal value as a base for empirical knowledge is a problem, yes. But I don't think anyone was doing that. 

 

 

Religion isn't just folklore, though, though folklore isn't just folklore either. I don't think we should dismiss non-scientific cultural touchstones just because they're not real, whether they're religion or folklore, though obviously we should be careful how we engage with religion (speaking from a religious perspective).  

[fionwe1987]

48 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Absolutely not. Every religion is a story created by a human, That's not the same as science. 

I'll point out thought that there's been quite a bit of "science" that turned out to be stories created by humans. Only constant re-examination and questioning gets these outed, and like with religion, you can often have "superstar" scientists who plant these ideas with no basis in data that remain sticky for a long time.

That's why I keep saying religion and science aren't these poles apart, never shall the twain meet concepts. They can and do coexist, and the world of religion has produced good science, and the world of science has produced pseudo-religions. 

[Conflicting Thought]

science and religion can co-exist, thats a fact, but....i do think that religion goes against scientific progress and its often (or always) a limiting factor, i mean yes newton was a very smart man that was able to somewhat escape the chains of religion, but was still tied by them. i would say that  religion impacted negativley on his scientific output. and i think that religion is negative force to science, conservatism is in its nature, and its self limiting because it will almos always go against science that can disprove it or bring doubt. i also think that religious faith goes against a scientific mind. i think that religous people that are scientist are often fighting against two conflicting forces inside them, and i think the religeous side is ultimelty  a hindrance to their more logical, scientific side.

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

.i do think that religion goes against scientific progress and its often (or always) a limiting factor,

 

Yeah, but again, this is factually untrue. Like I say, in the middle ages in Europe, .centers of learning were very often religious places. There have of course been times when religion has repressed science, and in this day and age when funding for science doesn't come from religious establishments the prospect might seem absurd, but there have been times in history when it was religion not just hindering science but actively promoting it.

 

 

I'm really not sure what you're basing the idea that Newton's scientific output was impacted negatively by his religion on. I mean you have to back a claim like that up. 

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Believing an easily falsifiable statement such as "religion and science cannot coexist" isn't being very scientific minded.  

Believing that the equivalence of a Spiderman comic is the same as the periodic table is kind of scientific. 

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

Religion isn't just folklore, though, though folklore isn't just folklore either. I don't think we should dismiss non-scientific cultural touchstones just because they're not real, whether they're religion or folklore, though obviously we should be careful how we engage with religion (speaking from a religious perspective).  

They're meant to be stories we learn lessons from. Once you believe they're real you're going down a dangerous path. 

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Like I say, in the middle ages in Europe, .centers of learning were very often religious places.

Damn near everything was. That doesn't mean they were right. Did you learn nothing from Satan's Alley?
 

 

Edited January 20 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[Larry of the Lawn]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Believing that the equivalence of a Spiderman comic is the same as the periodic table is kind of scientific. 

They're meant to be stories we learn lessons from. Once you believe they're real you're going down a dangerous path. 

I think there's some talking past each other here.  No one has equated science and religion.  Saying two things can co-exist is not equating them.

 

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

@Mentat

From my understanding of Islam, suffering exists fundamentally to test our character and different people are tested in different ways (wealth for example is considered one of the most dangerous and one a majority of humanity fails). To badly paraphrase a verse in the Quran "We will test you with a little bit of fear, hunger, and death, and then you shall be returned unto Us." Furthermore, God says in another verse that you may think something is a punishment or bad for you when its the opposite and similarly you may want something thinking its good for you but its actually not. What's more there is a hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) says after a battle that now they go from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (daily life) and in another God himself says that if humanity were sinless He would replace us with a race that does sin (but then repents). Beyond that, suffering exists as a natural byproduct of having free will and conscience (I mention both because in Islamic theology, unlike humans and jinn, angels have conscience but not free will, also just because God allows something to happen doesn't necessarily mean he approves of it), and is in turn why Judgment Day exists. Because on that day every injustice, every good deed, every debate, every dispute, every aspect of our lives, will be brought forth for presentation, interrogation, explanation, reward, punishment, redress, etc. Speaking of the Jinn, in the Quran when God announces to the angels He intends to create mankind and establish through them stewardship of the earth, the angels point-blank ask Him (having seen what happens when you give creation free will with the Jinn, who were created before humanity but after the angels) "are you going to create (again) a race that will shed blood and spread corruption while we worship and praise you constantly?" to which God responds "I know what you do not know." (What God means by this is up to interpretation obviously.) So yeah, this world ain't perfect because it isn't meant to be. In essence, its a crucible. (As for the whole love thing, that gets into among other things the difference between God being both ar-Rahman and ar-Raheem, which is beyond the scope of my knowledge to properly address.)

Apologies for the rambling!

As for those saying religion can't coexist with science or rationality, say that to pretty much any Muslim scientist in the last 1000+ years.

Edited January 20 by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back

[Conflicting Thought]

They coexist, but religious people belive things that go against science, like thats a fundamental thing that separates the two, there will be a point in wich they go against each other.  

I mean the church did science in the middle ages( im talking about europe), cuz everithyng went through the church, like they had the absolute power, and they famously wherent very science minded people. And you could get in very serious truble if you whent against what the church said. Thats not very conducive to science.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Dr. David Eagleman gives a wonderful Ted Talk on the Possibility Space.

https://youtu.be/LENqnjZGX0A?si=1_l7AjuUy-xDyAHB

[IFR]

@Mr. Chatywin et al.

Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "religion"?

To elaborate why I ask, I refer to the Merriam-Webster definitions:

1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

2.a.1: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

2.a.2: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2.b: the state of a religious

3:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I propose the following religion. The article of faith is that God is divine, and God is the universe. The doctrine is that to understand God, and therefore the divine, one must do so through the scientific method.

And that's it. This religion satisfies definitions 1, 2.a.2, 2.b, and 3 of the dictionary definitions. It contains an article of faith that is not falsifiable (God is divine and the universe, and may be revealed by understanding the universe). It does not interfere with science, since the article of faith is outside the domain of science. And its doctrine is specifically aligned with the scientific method.

Does this constitute as a religion to you?

Edited January 20 by IFR

[polishgenius]

3 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

and they famously wherent very science minded people.

 

Yeah, you and others keep saying or implying this, but it's not true. Or rather, it's only sometimes true. 

 

And this line: 

3 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I mean the church did science in the middle ages( im talking about europe), cuz everithyng went through the church, like they had the absolute power, and they famously wherent very science minded people.

just makes very little sense because if the church had all the power and they weren't science minded people then why did they do all that science? Like IFR's hypothetical religion is obviously fictional and not Christianity, but for a lot of Christians that was how they thought- that to better understand the universe was to better understand God. 

 

Like, even the Galileo thing was way more complicated than just 'saying the Earth goes round the Sun is illegal'. Even at the time the Church may have accepted it if he'd proven it, irrefutably- but since he hadn't he was told only to publish it as hypothesis, not fact, and he did the latter. I'm not saying that is acceptable reason to lock him up or ban his work, but it wasn't were're anti-science!!!', it was 'if the science contradicts our view we want to be really sure before we affirm it'. Like, they were sponsoring his work in the first place - the Pope personally did, even after the initial ban on Copernican theory. It was clearly a fucked up way to treat him and a combination of abuse of faith and personal politics, but 'religion is just anti-science' is a simplistic way to treat even that story. 

[fionwe1987]

Here's the "Creation" Hymn in the Rig Veda:

Quote

There was neither non-existence nor existence then;

Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond;

What stirred? Where? In whose protection?

There was neither death nor immortality then;

No distinguishing sign of night nor of day;

That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse;

Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;

Without distinctive marks, this all was water;

That which, becoming, by the void was covered;

That One by force of heat came into being;

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?

Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;

Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;

The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing

He indeed knows, if not, no one knows

Pretty agnostic, no? I bring this up because foundationally, Hindu philosophy had plenty of agnostic and materialist views, and agnostic and atheistic/materialist schools of Hindu philosophy literally coexisted for millennia with all the various religious/theist schools, which all debated each other. Flavors of these also influenced and got influenced by Buhhism and Jainism.

I think there's definitely a strain of religious thought that is against skeptically enquiry, period, but I think that says more about the people who insist on such interpretations of religion than anything fundamental about religion itself, or if religion can coexist with science. 

If the proudly anti-science religious nuts of today are your guide, it might be tempting to think religion and science can't coexist, but I don't think history supports that view. 

[Rippounet]

39 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I think there's definitely a strain of religious thought that is against skeptically enquiry, period, but I think that says more about the people who insist on such interpretations of religion than anything fundamental about religion itself, or if religion can coexist with science.

There's no theoretical opposition between religion and science ; that's just the way it's been so far, because major religions have a tendency to go way beyond mere matters of spirituality.

39 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

If the proudly anti-science religious nuts of today are your guide, it might be tempting to think religion and science can't coexist, but I don't think history supports that view.

Depends what one means by "co-existence."

I would say that it's a sign of just how successful science has been that, after millenia of being a pretty major obstacle to some scientific fields even emerging, it is now possible to argue that religion was not actually a problem for science.

Edited January 21 by Rippounet