• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Religion... why?

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299
If we have been educated in a religion like Islam or Catholicism, we know each religion has its own dogma. Dogma is not determined by an individual, but by an established institution.

Dogmas are mutually exclusive. Dogmas are indoctrinated at an early age before the age of reason at seven years of age, and the indoctrination stays for life.

And it is fatuous to think religions can be reconciled with each other - this is called whisful thinking, and it makes us feel good at the expense of reality.
 

Cor Luctis

Between the Shadows
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
26,600
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This is true (sans imagination), but you seem to be trying to make the point that it follows that religion would thus be unreliable because it is non-standardised.

Take a look at what you believe. What do you believe we should do about the environment? The future? How we should treat our fellow human beings? People would likely have very different answers. Those are things science cannot answer- but can support with data and the scientific method. Religion and science need not be at war. We figure out a system that works for ourselves, and that forms our belief, outlook, morality, and influences our actions. Just because your method isn't standardised, it doesn't mean it isn't valid, or that it doesn't work.




Coriolis has explained it well, but to add to his post- for anyone who wants to know more of the bolded in a nutshell, this guy explains it well:


I hope this also explains how 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory' cannot really be equated to religion in that it's- as some people say it- 'just a theory' that can just be swapped out for any other theory.
I like this video. It does a good job of explaining the scientific usage of the words in question, which differs from layman's usage. I do wish he had used a cleaner example to illustrate what a hypothesis is, though. If his point was that, to test the hypothesis, we examine the relationship between the items he lists and incidents of people falling ill, he should also see a correlation with gluten. Gluten is not a germ, though, so to distinguish the two and formulate a germ theory separate from an allergy/insensitivity theory would require another hypothesis, and additional testing.

Religion can be reliable, too, but only if you rely upon it for the right thing. It cannot tell you the age of the earth or explain why we have rainbows. Those questions should be left to science. In fact, those who argue over the historical veracity of our religious stories are missing the point entirely. The reliable part of religion is what it has to teach us: values, morals, observations about our place and purpose in the world. We don't have to accept that a tortoise really did beat a hare in a foot race in order to accept and learn from the truth of that story.
 

Anantashesha

adishesha
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,545
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
648
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I like this video. It does a good job of explaining the scientific usage of the words in question, which differs from layman's usage. I do wish he had used a cleaner example to illustrate what a hypothesis is, though. If his point was that, to test the hypothesis, we examine the relationship between the items he lists and incidents of people falling ill, he should also see a correlation with gluten. Gluten is not a germ, though, so to distinguish the two and formulate a germ theory separate from an allergy/insensitivity theory would require another hypothesis, and additional testing.

This is basically Science:TLDR, and this guy does a lot of videos for us Gen Z-ers who can't really sit and listen unless it's colourful, talking, and moving, with memes for laymen that serves as an introduction to a lot of scientific concepts instead of being 1 hour long lecture-podcasts. If you want to check him and his team out, he has a bunch of science videos out there that are really interesting and all delivered in a very interesting way.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299
Most ideology, mythology, and religion is based on sympathetic magic. And sympathetic magic is based on correlation. And anything can be correlated with anything else. And correlation is not causation.

Astrology is based on sympathetic magic where our feelings and life chances are correlated with the stars, but not caused by the stars.

Mbti is also based on sympathetic magic, as is Tarot.

We perceive by making distinctions, and the more distinctions, the more we see. So the educated make the distinction between correlation and causation, and the uneducated don't make the distinction between correlation and causation, and so believe in sympathetic magic.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299
Sympathetic Magic, click Sympathetic Magic - YouTube, makes us feel good, which means we are feeling bad.

We come here because we are feeling bad, and want to feel good, so we fall for sympathetic magic.

However we know the best way to feel good is by doing good, and in particular by doing good for another person.

Fortunately most of us live in civil societies that welcome volunteers.

So by volunteering to help others on a regular basis about once a week or once a fortnight, we start to feel good about ourselves and sympathetic magic loses its hold on us.
 
Top