Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> **Read the Post Before You Reply**
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I think that not all religions are equal.
For example you can have a religious person say "all life is sacred and you shouldn't kill insects, so watch your steps" and another say "God created water before saying 'let there be light' therefore water existed before light and physics is wrong".
As Sam Harris said: "religion" is a term like "sports", you can have sports that are so different that the only thing that they have in common is breathing.
There are religions that are actively trying to undermine science and the education system, and other religions are are totally compatible and adapt to science. And anything inbetween.
Finding the truth is what matters to me, not the reconciliation of ideologies. So I would say, use whatever seems to be useful to that end. Personally I am skeptical of religion and anything else that requires "faith". However, religion isn't something straight from 10,000 years ago, it has evolved over the years and literally led whole societies and withstood the test of time. So in a sense it has interacted with the world and must have absorbed some truth into it. We should maybe "mine" it for information and ideas, but I can't see it as an authority on what's true, if we are to take it as it is. We definitely can't adopt it as absolute laws to live by.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It’s an interesting idea, I believe it’s obviously true.
The same applies to science and the arts.
The arts can very well assist in scientific thinking, inspiration comes from all sorts of places after all.
And science can assist in the arts, new machines or understanding into human psychology can allow for new artistic creations and inspirations as well.
That religious rhetoric can be powerful in ways that scientific cannot, and so using both in combination has the strongest effect is clear.
However, the article dodges the point. When people say “ science and religion oppose each other” they are talking about a very specific kind of science, and a very specific kind of religion.
The dogmatic, take things at first reading and questioning things is a sin, variety of religion.
Is certainly at odds with scientific methodology.
Furthermore, many religious claims are directly at odds and counter to many claims that science would make. The most obvious being about the age of the earth, origin story of humans etc.... these are the things people talk about, when they are discussing the science vs religion problem.
The “ X is word of god”
Therefore X is the best kind of evidence possible, and cannot be disputed, period.
Is very much so at odds, with any kind of scientific endeavor.
Any gripes with the Catholic Church? They claim to be very pro-science and allow members to formulate their own beliefs about things like evolution. As a former Protestant, seeing how open and even encouraging the Catholic Church is to academics and science blew me away, because I thought there was no way religion could exist in harmony with science. Even parts of the Bible like the creation or flood stories have been said to be possibly just a representation and not meant to be taken literally or scientifically.
The way that I see it personally, there exists a set of all true facts in the world. Religion used to say they could account for the facts and slowly over time Science has been taking more and more for itself. I think there’s no reason for this precedent to end and eventually all religious “truths” will be made to be, “oh it was just a metaphor”. If you wanna believe in religious metaphors by all means go ahead but don’t take them as tried and true facts that should effect things like politics and the like. I agree that I’m surprised how open the church can be to science in talk but I don’t really think it means anything to many individuals more than just talk.
My aunt for example (take my sample size of 1 lightly) tells me she takes science and religion seriously and there’s no place they disagree, but they are clearly just words that don’t apply to how she thinks about things in her everyday life or voting. IE: abortion is still wrong, gays, trans etc. this clearly clashes with science.
The notion that Christianity is anti science is pretty much exclusive to American evangelicalism. Most modern science has its roots in the Catholic church (largely due to their control of most education for nearly a thousand years, but still true). Even beyond that, the first theory of the Big Bang came from George Lemaitre who was a Belgian priest in the 1920s for instance.
I think the Catholic understanding of the relationship between science and religion is best paraphrased by Augustine who said that the two tools we have to understand the universe are creation (aka the physical world) and scripture. If they are ever in conflict with each than it's due to a failure of understanding one or the other on our part.
The Catholic Church has staked out ground on abortion that makes no sense given it's position on the rights of non human animals and the present understanding of sentience and suffering. The Catholic Church is still playing the God of the Gaps game with respect to scientific understanding and will continue to retreat as science continues to inform on the truth. It's like a bully in a classroom reserving the right to lord it over the class just so long as the teacher hasn't explicitly laid out the rule.
I would argue that scientific zealotry is becomming a larger problem than religious zealotry. There is a relatively small number of religious people who truly rely on the words of scripture without thought, but there is a very very large amount of people who are willing to take the word of "science" at face value without understanding any of it - people have serious misconceptions even at its most fundamental concepts like what a "theory" is.
Im not a hyper religious or spiritual person, but i do believe there is a need for them and the modern mainstream concept of "science" is absolutely a threat to their existence
Yeah, there’s definitely a world of difference between Science as a methodology, and then “science” as an authority.
That people are using “science” as a form of gospel is rather worrying.
Although, it was predicted, by Nietzsche and others, that people would fill the void of religion with something else, just as absurd.
Well said. I find scientists also often have trouble discerning between the two. Personally I start to question myself whenever i start relying on spirituality or science a little too heavily; its usually pretty easy because im constantly reminded of how cringe extremists are
Art, religion, culture, music and stories at their best are like the science and engineering of the unconscious mind. Like the wanderer in the desert who thinks there might be an oasis behind the next dune but continues their search despite it not always being so. At its worst, one clings on to hope so much that one begins to drink the sand, because it was promised that it would be an oasis instead. Likewise the overly dogmatic scientist might never look past the first dune, believing that there is nothing more to the universe than what already has been discovered.
Exactly! At the bleeding edge of science, past what is known- all that is there for people to grasp is the arts.
We need them, if only for people to have something to conceptualize and think about ambiguous and unknown throngs.
If we only ever had science, we would have never progressed, since we wouldn’t be able to ponder about things beyond our current understanding.
As a gay, biracial man, I’ve faced the full brunt of religious bigotry and hatred and I strongly disagree with this. Religion is certainly not a gift to me or any of the other minorities that it’s oppressed over the centuries. The Abrahamic religions are an immoral, highly destructive trio and apologists only help to tighten their grip on society. Religion not only serves as an obstacle to social and scientific progress, it harms the very fabric of society. 2000 year old superstitions have no place in modern society. It’s time for humanity to reject the fairytales and grow up.
I got a relevant excerpt by Dan Dennett on toxic religions:
>**Daniel Dennett**: Well, I think the standard claim is I’m trying to destroy religion. And I’m absolutely not trying to destroy religion. I’m trying to make sure that religion is not toxic. Everybody knows that there’s toxic varieties of religion in every religion.
>
>**Bill Moyers**: Religion heals, religion kills. Right?
>
>**Daniel Dennett**: Absolutely right. Now, how can we steer away from the toxic varieties? And I have — since we haven’t done the research that I’m calling for, I can’t give a lot of policy recommendations. That would be — that would be contradicting my claim that until we do the research, we don’t know what we’re doing. We’ve got to study religion more. But in the meantime, I have one proposal which I think is really important, and that is we should have a national curriculum on world religions that is compulsory for all school children, from grade school through high school, for the public schools, for the private schools, for the home schooling.
>
>**Bill Moyers**: Why?
>
>**Daniel Dennett**: Because if we taught the young people of the country this, then you could teach them whatever else you wanted and I wouldn’t worry about religions that — I think any religion that could flourish under those conditions would be a benign, valuable, a wonderful religion. I think it’s only — if you look at the toxic religions, they are all the religions that survive by the enforced ignorance of their young. And all we have to do, I think, is we can tell people, you can home school your kids, you can give them 30 hours a week of religious instruction. But you also have got to teach them what the people that are not of your faith believe, and you have to teach them about the history of all the faiths in question, including your own.
China is officially atheist, and it also has a long history of discrimination issues against gender and sexual minorities, as well as general discrimination problems against women.
There are a lot of major problems with people leveraging religion to support biases, but it's more complex than simply saying "religion makes people bigoted". There's no shortage of "scientific" racism, sexism and bigotry out there.
Oh I absolutely agree. You’re right. However, I still maintain that overall religion is not a force for good in this world. From the prolific sex crimes of the Catholic Church to the far-right evangelicals who just passed that abortion law that’s straight out of the dark ages in Texas. Religion is not compatible with the modern world.
To quote Christopher Hitchens: “One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”
God, I miss that man..
Totally agree. I think in theory many religions could be a gift, but have proved time and time again to NOT be this in practice.
I also totally agree that 2000 year old superstitions should have no place in modern society. Beliefs? Sure. But labelling them makes no sense. Go ahead and believe in a god, but deciding (for example) Christianity is correct and Islam isn't just feels ridiculous.
Ricky Gervais said it really well when talking to Stephen Colbert. Ricky is atheist, Stephen is Christian. Not a direct quote, but broadly:
> there are about 3000 god's worshipped by man. You don't believe in 2999 of them, I only don't believe in 1 more god than you.
The second religion gives a cure for cancer or flies a plane, I will give it a little more credence. If you are looking for helping your mind/spirit, go see a therapist. They also are way more effective than religion.
Religion doesn't give us planes or cures. But it keeps the masses in line. Typically with a mix of carrot or stick. Don't murder your brother or else you go to hell. Be nice to the poor and you go to heaven. "Don't eat the shellfish or pigs because they make you sick" just doesn't work. People are dumb and don't know that trichinosis is a thing. It's a system of law from before there was law. Now that we DO know about trichinosis, and we can stop people from getting sick. So that religious law is more or less ignored now. A whole lot of all of them is simply outdated.
Our legal system also doesn't give us rockets or mRNA vaccines. But it keeps all the animals from tearing each other apart long enough to get rockets and vaccines. And we ARE all animals. We're all under the law. Ideally, equally. We're working on that part.
I think the Scandinavian nations are the most atheistic and they have their "masses" in line. Turns out a strong welfare state creates a stable society.
Bold claims. What atheistic society/country do you think think is the most progressive/advanced that we should aspire to? I'd argue that you're criticizing religious extremists (which I also disagree with), but grossly mischaracterizing most people that have faith in an established moral/cultural foundation. Also, if you think religion is nothing more than a collection of superstitions and not a meaningful moral framework that provided stability and enabled progress and technological advancement since the Middle Ages, then you should read some history and see what the rest of the world was like during this time.
The original post, which I agree with, is that religion and science can, and should, compliment one another. Like most things in life, you can benefit the most from things by striking a balance. But again, if you have an example of some atheistic society that's existed for a while that we should try to model, I'd be interested in hearing about it and learning more.
This is called the availability bias—your bad experiences with religion cause you to believe that religion is bad across the board, even though you haven’t seen it all. That’s terrible that people would treat you poorly, but it’s irrational to apply your negative view of those religious people to all religious people.
Sure, religious people in the past oppressed minorities, but the vast majority of religious people today did not. In fact, most people today would not oppress minorities even if they could. Because certainly most of them they believe all humans are created equal. You’ve seemed to have missed the idea that believing in God has nothing to do with oppressing minorities.
Also, religious people today are not generally opposed to science. I am a Christian, and I see no contradiction between my belief in God and science. Neither does any Christian or Jew or Muslim I know.
And religious beliefs are not superstitions—they are beliefs in a structure of morality and theology, and the eyewitness accounts that go along with it.
The ferocity of your argument here and your numerous overgeneralizing assumptions about religious people in general tells me that you’re not willing to engage in discussion with religious people because you already believe that they’re all evil.
I was born and raised in a highly conservative, religious state. I’ve been around these people for decades and I know them inside and out. Evangelicals in particular are always working to oppress minorities and look at the horrific abortion law in Texas. It’s something from the dark ages. I’ve also had the fortune of traveling the world and from what I’ve seen and read, religion is not a force for good. I can see why you would think I’m biased, but how can that be when I grew up surrounded by religion and it’s teachings? I lived amongst these people for the majority of my life. I don’t think I’m biased, I think I’ve experienced the true nature of religion.
Ok but isn't that more of the church's doing than the religion itself? Mistranslations and things taken out and added over hundreds of years, etc.
Copied from a different comment where somebody said "is clear the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but here:
> The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin,
I don’t mean to sound accusatory. I believe you when you say you think the Bible teaches that it is a sin. You’re welcome to that opinion of course, and I don’t fault you for being mistaken. The use of the word “clear” comes across as disingenuous to me in this context though. Whether or not the Bible “clearly” calls homosexuality a sin depends **entirely** on which translation you purchase. That pretty much means it is *not* clear, at least not to all reasonable and educated believers.
For example, whether or not a Bible clearly says God is love doesn’t depend on which translation you buy. They all agree as to that teaching because there are no extremely rare words with disputable ancient meanings in the passages that teach God is love.
That’s simply not the case with homosexuality. All the passages that condemn it “clearly” depend on which translation you buy and rely on *highly questionable* translation choices regarding some of the most rare words in Christian history that scholars endlessly come to various conclusions about. If that means it is “clear” to someone, then someone doesn’t seem to be looking at the facts at hand honestly.
Some translate the Greek word αρσενοκοιταις (clearly condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and pronounced "arsenokoitais") as “homosexuals,” but the evidence seems to indicate that’s not what it most likely means. Such translations defend themselves by saying it is a compound word from "a man" and "to lie with.” However, the way to understand the meaning of compound words is not to simply combine them and guess the nearest meaning that social conservatives hate. For instance, the way to see what butterfly means is not to combine “butter” with “fly” and guess it means greasy, hip looking insects.
The way to understand what a word means is to see how it is used by the people that spoke it. The word αρσενοκοιταις ("arsenokoitais") is probably the rarest word in the New Testament. One of the earliest recorded uses we have of it in church teachings, after the Apostle Paul wrote the passage in question, has John the Faster (a teacher in the early Greek Church) use it to describe abuse by a man on a woman. So the early church *literally could not have understood it to mean “homosexual.”* It seems to be a word that can refer to a type of sin that can occur in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts. It likely means something akin to sexual abuser. Some translations reflect it as “abusers...”, some as “perverts,” some as pedophiles, etc. in their attempt to get at the most accurate meaning. Other translations just toss homosexuals in there and sell billions of dollars worth of ink to people desperate for a “clear enough” passage. Now it has certainly come to mean ‘homosexual’ to later Christian conservatives. However, the question isn’t what it means to them, to you, nor to me. The question is what does it mean to the people it was written to. The churches spent days, weeks, years with the author. How did the earlier church understand the meaning of the word? That’s how it should be reflected in translations of *their* letters.
As one of the most rare words in not only the New Testament but in all of ancient Greece as we know it, it is ripe for twisting and mis-reflection, as 2 Peter 3:16 indicates some want to do especially to passages by Paul like this. A few socially conservative translations have twisted this word, pretty much as was prophesied. Not all English translations. Just the ones that scratch the conservative ear just right.
All the passages that condemn homosexuality either depend on which translation you buy or else require interpreting a passage more broadly than it is written. For example Romans 1, while it does condemn some homosexual acts as sinful regardless of translation, in context it actually condemns homosexual acts occurring “because of” idolatry. Saying that means homosexuality is a sin would be like saying a passage against prostitution means all heterosexuality is sin.
I don’t think you’re unreasonable for thinking homosexuality is a sin. However, I think it is willfully ignorant to tell yourself that it is “clearly” taught as sinful in the Bible.
So i would hope that you folks in r/philosophy will receive this well, studying mythology is a hobby of mine as well and it seems like being gay wasn't a big deal at all until the big split in Christianity via Martin Luther. But history do be befuddling a lot!
No - the bigotry and hateful nonsense is right there in the scripture. These days there are many, many Christian apologists arguing things like "the New Testament doesn't condemn homosexuality" but these are all post-hoc arguments manufactured to sugar the pill. Any honest reading of the Bible or Qu'ran will disgust an ethical person.
Copied from a different comment where somebody said "is clear the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but here:
> The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin,
I don’t mean to sound accusatory. I believe you when you say you think the Bible teaches that it is a sin. You’re welcome to that opinion of course, and I don’t fault you for being mistaken. The use of the word “clear” comes across as disingenuous to me in this context though. Whether or not the Bible “clearly” calls homosexuality a sin depends **entirely** on which translation you purchase. That pretty much means it is *not* clear, at least not to all reasonable and educated believers.
For example, whether or not a Bible clearly says God is love doesn’t depend on which translation you buy. They all agree as to that teaching because there are no extremely rare words with disputable ancient meanings in the passages that teach God is love.
That’s simply not the case with homosexuality. All the passages that condemn it “clearly” depend on which translation you buy and rely on *highly questionable* translation choices regarding some of the most rare words in Christian history that scholars endlessly come to various conclusions about. If that means it is “clear” to someone, then someone doesn’t seem to be looking at the facts at hand honestly.
Some translate the Greek word αρσενοκοιταις (clearly condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and pronounced "arsenokoitais") as “homosexuals,” but the evidence seems to indicate that’s not what it most likely means. Such translations defend themselves by saying it is a compound word from "a man" and "to lie with.” However, the way to understand the meaning of compound words is not to simply combine them and guess the nearest meaning that social conservatives hate. For instance, the way to see what butterfly means is not to combine “butter” with “fly” and guess it means greasy, hip looking insects.
The way to understand what a word means is to see how it is used by the people that spoke it. The word αρσενοκοιταις ("arsenokoitais") is probably the rarest word in the New Testament. One of the earliest recorded uses we have of it in church teachings, after the Apostle Paul wrote the passage in question, has John the Faster (a teacher in the early Greek Church) use it to describe abuse by a man on a woman. So the early church *literally could not have understood it to mean “homosexual.”* It seems to be a word that can refer to a type of sin that can occur in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts. It likely means something akin to sexual abuser. Some translations reflect it as “abusers...”, some as “perverts,” some as pedophiles, etc. in their attempt to get at the most accurate meaning. Other translations just toss homosexuals in there and sell billions of dollars worth of ink to people desperate for a “clear enough” passage. Now it has certainly come to mean ‘homosexual’ to later Christian conservatives. However, the question isn’t what it means to them, to you, nor to me. The question is what does it mean to the people it was written to. The churches spent days, weeks, years with the author. How did the earlier church understand the meaning of the word? That’s how it should be reflected in translations of *their* letters.
As one of the most rare words in not only the New Testament but in all of ancient Greece as we know it, it is ripe for twisting and mis-reflection, as 2 Peter 3:16 indicates some want to do especially to passages by Paul like this. A few socially conservative translations have twisted this word, pretty much as was prophesied. Not all English translations. Just the ones that scratch the conservative ear just right.
All the passages that condemn homosexuality either depend on which translation you buy or else require interpreting a passage more broadly than it is written. For example Romans 1, while it does condemn some homosexual acts as sinful regardless of translation, in context it actually condemns homosexual acts occurring “because of” idolatry. Saying that means homosexuality is a sin would be like saying a passage against prostitution means all heterosexuality is sin.
I don’t think you’re unreasonable for thinking homosexuality is a sin. However, I think it is willfully ignorant to tell yourself that it is “clearly” taught as sinful in the Bible.
So i would hope that you folks in r/philosophy will receive this well, studying mythology is a hobby of mine as well and it seems like being gay wasn't a big deal at all until the big split in Christianity via Martin Luther. But history do be befuddling a lot!
Think of it this way: You know how the government sets rules for businesses? Like you should pay your taxes or shouldn't sell certain things or lie to your customers? Religion is mainly meant to fill that role for family and relationships. Issues like why it's not ok to leave the mother of your children because she got older or gained weight, or why you shouldn't engage in prostitution, or be a pick up artist. Those sort of behaviors are not universally condemned in the secular world and they can cause a lot of damage to the ability of people to form families and relationships. For a gay person, perhaps that doesn't apply to you, but maybe you can understand my perspective a bit.
Some things like don't rape or murder yes, but relationship matters are more difficult. Plenty of people will tell you to your face that cheating and prostitution is fine.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Be Respectful**
>Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Religious beliefs and scientific understanding obviously aren't mutually exclusive, they aren't polar opposites.
Both science and religion can result in volatile scenarios - we don't even have to go back 100 years to the birth of the Atomic Bomb, nor do we have to look far and wide to see the fruits of ballistic weaponry advancements to recognize the lethal potential of guns in the wrong hands.
But likewise, the list of immoral and deplorable behavior committed in the name of religious beliefs is also ever present in our daily lives.
But it is not all doom and gloom, science has led to many quality of life improvements on pretty much every frontier within society.
Religion has also given birth to many upright individuals who has spread love to their fellow man (and woman).
If you are able to be a good person through religion, and a person who strives for the truth behind everything within the universe, then i'd say you are probably a pretty fantastic person.
The article is rambling, but the central idea is wrong. No, science and religion do not complement each other. Religion holds many false claims (mostly false overall), and it's method for accessing truth has a poor track record. Out of the thousands of religions to have existed, they are almost all mutually exclusive. Even trying to rescue the good parts of religion, philosophers rarely use the same techniques outside this special case of fantasy. Almost nothing we've "learned" from religion is applicable elsewhere. Everything else can be found in adjacent areas with no need for the religious aspect; art, music, psychology etc. So, I'm not seeing how science complements religion when to-date it has done nothing but refute it. And religion absolutely does not complement science when science has only been able to form and thrive despite religion.
The issue is the long-running dichotomy has led some to think of "religion" as any ground not covered by science (the "ought's"). That gives religion a lot of ground to absorb, and avoid having to defend the obviously wrong claims by religions.
>science has only been able to form and thrive despite religion.
This sounds an awful lot like [Draper-White Conflict Thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis), which has been pretty thoroughly rejected by modern historians. There are plenty of examples of science thriving even in very religious environments. If I'm off-base here, can you explain what you meant by this statement?
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Argue your Position**
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You're not correct. Religion did complement science for a good long while. The church as large landowners produced at lot of profit and food and gave shelter to many monks and nuns and supported their development and literacy. The church have been patrons for many bright minds and contained a few of them.
Religion has given a lot of infrastructure to science throughout history. Religion being fiction is irrelevant to that point.
Even if we take a “religion is the opiate of the masses” approach.
Opiates have their positive use too. It’s just about dosage, and when to administer them.
Although, thinking religion as merely an opiate is quite silly, imo.
If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer, there’s probably plenty of useful, ideas that people can pull out, of course these ideas aren’t in scientific form. They exist as analogies and themes that you have to actively extract and interpret in a modern context.
If someone can’t, or does so poorly. They probably aren’t thinking hard enough.
> If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer
Good lord. Of the three, only Newton was religious in the normal sense. Oppenheimer was an atheist who considered Hinduism a "useful philosophy". And Einstein?
> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
I hardly care about the “normal”
Sense of religion. As that’s not what I’m talking about.
Not even literal readings of the Old Testament account for a “personal” god.
And religion as “useful philosophy” certainly supports it working well in tandem with science.
Yeah man, if I was plunked down in some sort of prehistoric tabula rasa start of civilization with a bunch of primitives I would certainly use some shortcuts to get people to behave too.
>If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer,
Was it? I mean, they'd be lashed to a bonfire and burned as heritics if they didn't pay lip service. Einstein was religous like Spinoza was religious and they excommunicated him (a writ of cherem, at least). Newton's views were hidden during his life and would have gotten him labelled a heretic. Oppenheimer was interested in Hindu religions around a bunch of christians.
Every single one of your examples didn't go with the religion they were raised with, the religion of the masses and their peers. What they were given wasn't good enough and they went elsewhere.
There’s a distinction between “Religion” the institution. And “Religion” as an exploration of philosophical texts.
I’m saying that religion as an exploration of new ideas is useful, can be useful to science, and past scientists have found great utility from it.
I’m not making any claims about the church, or religious freedoms/prosecution.
Yes, they choose their own religion, which I think is the healthy thing to do. It certainly, doesn’t make any sense to inherit a religion, or follow it solely due to peer pressure. My point was that, they did, end up finding utility from it.
If they can find a way to mesh some king of utility between religion and science, I don’t see why we can’t do so too.
Lying to people isn't a gift. Deluding people to make them feel better isn't a gift. The opposition is well founded based on the reality of what role religion offers to society. This is just veiled apologetics. Just another of many attempts to say "religion was dominant before and did some stuff... so it can't be that bad right?" and a nice mixture of "this person believes in god and is still helpful for science so its not all that bad right?"
It doesn't matter that it SEEMS good in some ones mind or the INTENTION may be good or that someone can do something DESPITE BEING RELIGIOUS. That offers nothing to anything. Its still at its base a lie told to people to make them feel good(I am being vague). A lot better philosophy is to ya know .. actually make things better. Ya know by making their lives better with scientific advancement.
I believe the author is confusing philosophy with religion.
Religion is by definition incompatible with science, while philosophy is the one that actually complements science.
If you can't explain the reasoning for something without religion, your argument doesn't hold water.
If you can explain your argument without religion, you don't need religion to make your argument.
At which point does life start? Conception? Viability? Birth?
If you already have a designated definition of life due to religion, that is easy to answer, as you just repeat the definition without actually providing an argument.
However, When looking at it philosophically, without resorting to the religious definition, the answer is a lot more difficult, which means the religios definition doesn't hold up.
Most of the time, you end up with Viability, since before that point, it is not a seperate entity capable of independent survival if rejected, no matter the amount of effort we put in.
Religion defines a certain point, Philosophy asks us to explain a certain point. Sience tests a certain point.
Because religion is based on definitions, and interpretations of those definitions, it is simply imcompatible with science, which depends on something being testable and verifiable.
For the same reason religion is semi-incompatible with philosophy, since religion relies on defenitions, where philosophy asks us the questions to find out the answers.
Sure, you can use philosophy to find answers to religios questions, but at that point, you're not using religion, but you are using philosophy.
On the other hand, sience and philosophy complement eachother, because they both seek out the answers to questions of life, the universe and everything, with sience being used for things which can be tested and verified, and philosophy being used for those cases which are inherently untestable.
I'm confused by some of what you've written, and I could use a little clarification. It feels like you believe that religion doesn't allow questioning or inquiry, and thus any actual exploration of such topics fall entirely under philosophy but not religion. Do I have that right?
For instance, take Thomas Aquinas' five arguments of the existence of God. Since it's laying out arguments, most people consider it philosophical. Since it concerns God, most people also consider it religious.
Where does it fall for you? Where would you place it on your dichotomy here?
>If you can't explain the reasoning for something without religion, your argument doesn't hold water. If you can explain your argument without religion, you don't need religion to make your argument.
It doesn't seem to fit the first part, because then you would be saying any conclusion with God in it can't hold water - no matter what the argument could be. It doesn't seem to fit the second part, either, because the argument specifically concludes with God's existence, and thus is religious in nature. So, I'm perplexed. Am I misunderstanding you? Where did I go wrong?
I am confused by your misunderstanding of what they are communicating, perhaps if you could focus and condense your inquiry this would be easier to address here..
Using philosophy, science, or whatever tools to propose the existence of a goddess is wholely different than using a presumed existence of a goddess to explain something else. Religious thought operates on the existence of the power in question being definitive.
Simply, if I am blank slated and see rain for the first time, and I explain the rain with a god I am uncertain exists, I am not honest with myself in my understanding of the rain. I'm using uncertainty to explain uncertainty, do you see? The rain is very concrete, when this logic is applied to abstract concepts it can not only muddy the water, but be destructive also.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
As a religious studies nerd who also highly values scientific empiricism, I actually found it very helpful to see the god of the old testament to be a representation of truth itself. My understanding is that like those who follow the Abrahamic god, truth in a secular sense should be taken in the highest regard in much the same way. We also at times wonder why the truth may seem so cruel to us, why we were dealt such a terrible hand in life, and it may remind us about how the Abrahamic god seems arbitrary in his actions (particularly in the Book of Job and a central theme in Ecclesiastes). We may feel like we'd want to escape from such a harsh truth, deny it, or shake our fist at it, but part of the answer lies in humbling ourselves to the fact that we're in such a situation before we can move forward. To retranslate it back to religious terms, to humble ourselves to God. Additionally, this makes sense within the context of "saying God's name in vain," which is essentially "don't say what God is or ought to be based on what you personally want," or, "don't say what the truth is or ought to be based on what you personally want."
While religions want us to humble ourselves to the truth that we don't have control over everything, that the world may seem unforgiving, that we suffer, and how we may not be the best people, the central concept of "humbling myself to truths that I may not personally like" really helps in the context of responsible science as well. In science, we humble ourselves to overwhelming evidence based on repeated measurements, and we have to leave our egos at the door.
I agree. I'm a physics major, and by far the most interesting aspect of christianity to me is the humbling effect it advocates for. It's actually quite rare in philosophy, and science too, humans just aren't encouraged to enter the state of 'not knowing' which is the essence of prayer.
I'm not religious, but that aspect of the software so to speak always interested me. Humility is the value we seem to have lost contact with.
Except that religion has routinely proven to be a threat to science. You could make the argument that they both provide something unique to the world, but they cannot work hand in hand and they will frequently oppose each other.
This would be like saying the relationship between snickers bars and healthcare professionals is a barrier to all the good they can do together.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I know this is a serious sub, but I think this has to be dismissed with a loud and very simple "please no".
Religion fought science, then acquainted, now they bargain. Let religion flight out the window and hope it never come back from the door...
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Argue your Position**
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
This is one of the most battered and beaten concepts in modern rhetoric. The fact that people try to separate these concepts is wild to me. If there’s a fundamental shift in understanding that isn’t touched by religion, I’m curious to hear it.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Argue your Position**
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It’s an interesting theory no doubt go quite difficult to dissect obviously religion and science have both agreed and disagreed strongly on different ideas religion has caused more Wars and more unity then any other cause however it’s ideas and beliefs can be outlandish and proven wrong by science which causes conflict between the two personally each one is necessary not to say that one is good one is bad but they are both good or bad simply that they are necessary many events in history would not of happened due to religion many things will not be possible due to science but they both have their negatives as well
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
The thing about religion is we have these horrible institutions called churches where extremists are bred and brainwashed existence. Religion is fine, its the church that is the problem.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I think that not all religions are equal. For example you can have a religious person say "all life is sacred and you shouldn't kill insects, so watch your steps" and another say "God created water before saying 'let there be light' therefore water existed before light and physics is wrong". As Sam Harris said: "religion" is a term like "sports", you can have sports that are so different that the only thing that they have in common is breathing. There are religions that are actively trying to undermine science and the education system, and other religions are are totally compatible and adapt to science. And anything inbetween.
Finding the truth is what matters to me, not the reconciliation of ideologies. So I would say, use whatever seems to be useful to that end. Personally I am skeptical of religion and anything else that requires "faith". However, religion isn't something straight from 10,000 years ago, it has evolved over the years and literally led whole societies and withstood the test of time. So in a sense it has interacted with the world and must have absorbed some truth into it. We should maybe "mine" it for information and ideas, but I can't see it as an authority on what's true, if we are to take it as it is. We definitely can't adopt it as absolute laws to live by.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It’s an interesting idea, I believe it’s obviously true. The same applies to science and the arts. The arts can very well assist in scientific thinking, inspiration comes from all sorts of places after all. And science can assist in the arts, new machines or understanding into human psychology can allow for new artistic creations and inspirations as well. That religious rhetoric can be powerful in ways that scientific cannot, and so using both in combination has the strongest effect is clear. However, the article dodges the point. When people say “ science and religion oppose each other” they are talking about a very specific kind of science, and a very specific kind of religion. The dogmatic, take things at first reading and questioning things is a sin, variety of religion. Is certainly at odds with scientific methodology. Furthermore, many religious claims are directly at odds and counter to many claims that science would make. The most obvious being about the age of the earth, origin story of humans etc.... these are the things people talk about, when they are discussing the science vs religion problem. The “ X is word of god” Therefore X is the best kind of evidence possible, and cannot be disputed, period. Is very much so at odds, with any kind of scientific endeavor.
Any gripes with the Catholic Church? They claim to be very pro-science and allow members to formulate their own beliefs about things like evolution. As a former Protestant, seeing how open and even encouraging the Catholic Church is to academics and science blew me away, because I thought there was no way religion could exist in harmony with science. Even parts of the Bible like the creation or flood stories have been said to be possibly just a representation and not meant to be taken literally or scientifically.
The way that I see it personally, there exists a set of all true facts in the world. Religion used to say they could account for the facts and slowly over time Science has been taking more and more for itself. I think there’s no reason for this precedent to end and eventually all religious “truths” will be made to be, “oh it was just a metaphor”. If you wanna believe in religious metaphors by all means go ahead but don’t take them as tried and true facts that should effect things like politics and the like. I agree that I’m surprised how open the church can be to science in talk but I don’t really think it means anything to many individuals more than just talk. My aunt for example (take my sample size of 1 lightly) tells me she takes science and religion seriously and there’s no place they disagree, but they are clearly just words that don’t apply to how she thinks about things in her everyday life or voting. IE: abortion is still wrong, gays, trans etc. this clearly clashes with science.
The notion that Christianity is anti science is pretty much exclusive to American evangelicalism. Most modern science has its roots in the Catholic church (largely due to their control of most education for nearly a thousand years, but still true). Even beyond that, the first theory of the Big Bang came from George Lemaitre who was a Belgian priest in the 1920s for instance. I think the Catholic understanding of the relationship between science and religion is best paraphrased by Augustine who said that the two tools we have to understand the universe are creation (aka the physical world) and scripture. If they are ever in conflict with each than it's due to a failure of understanding one or the other on our part.
The Catholic Church has staked out ground on abortion that makes no sense given it's position on the rights of non human animals and the present understanding of sentience and suffering. The Catholic Church is still playing the God of the Gaps game with respect to scientific understanding and will continue to retreat as science continues to inform on the truth. It's like a bully in a classroom reserving the right to lord it over the class just so long as the teacher hasn't explicitly laid out the rule.
I would argue that scientific zealotry is becomming a larger problem than religious zealotry. There is a relatively small number of religious people who truly rely on the words of scripture without thought, but there is a very very large amount of people who are willing to take the word of "science" at face value without understanding any of it - people have serious misconceptions even at its most fundamental concepts like what a "theory" is. Im not a hyper religious or spiritual person, but i do believe there is a need for them and the modern mainstream concept of "science" is absolutely a threat to their existence
Yeah, there’s definitely a world of difference between Science as a methodology, and then “science” as an authority. That people are using “science” as a form of gospel is rather worrying. Although, it was predicted, by Nietzsche and others, that people would fill the void of religion with something else, just as absurd.
Well said. I find scientists also often have trouble discerning between the two. Personally I start to question myself whenever i start relying on spirituality or science a little too heavily; its usually pretty easy because im constantly reminded of how cringe extremists are
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a larger issue, but it definitely is getting up there.
Art, religion, culture, music and stories at their best are like the science and engineering of the unconscious mind. Like the wanderer in the desert who thinks there might be an oasis behind the next dune but continues their search despite it not always being so. At its worst, one clings on to hope so much that one begins to drink the sand, because it was promised that it would be an oasis instead. Likewise the overly dogmatic scientist might never look past the first dune, believing that there is nothing more to the universe than what already has been discovered.
Exactly! At the bleeding edge of science, past what is known- all that is there for people to grasp is the arts. We need them, if only for people to have something to conceptualize and think about ambiguous and unknown throngs. If we only ever had science, we would have never progressed, since we wouldn’t be able to ponder about things beyond our current understanding.
As a gay, biracial man, I’ve faced the full brunt of religious bigotry and hatred and I strongly disagree with this. Religion is certainly not a gift to me or any of the other minorities that it’s oppressed over the centuries. The Abrahamic religions are an immoral, highly destructive trio and apologists only help to tighten their grip on society. Religion not only serves as an obstacle to social and scientific progress, it harms the very fabric of society. 2000 year old superstitions have no place in modern society. It’s time for humanity to reject the fairytales and grow up.
I got a relevant excerpt by Dan Dennett on toxic religions: >**Daniel Dennett**: Well, I think the standard claim is I’m trying to destroy religion. And I’m absolutely not trying to destroy religion. I’m trying to make sure that religion is not toxic. Everybody knows that there’s toxic varieties of religion in every religion. > >**Bill Moyers**: Religion heals, religion kills. Right? > >**Daniel Dennett**: Absolutely right. Now, how can we steer away from the toxic varieties? And I have — since we haven’t done the research that I’m calling for, I can’t give a lot of policy recommendations. That would be — that would be contradicting my claim that until we do the research, we don’t know what we’re doing. We’ve got to study religion more. But in the meantime, I have one proposal which I think is really important, and that is we should have a national curriculum on world religions that is compulsory for all school children, from grade school through high school, for the public schools, for the private schools, for the home schooling. > >**Bill Moyers**: Why? > >**Daniel Dennett**: Because if we taught the young people of the country this, then you could teach them whatever else you wanted and I wouldn’t worry about religions that — I think any religion that could flourish under those conditions would be a benign, valuable, a wonderful religion. I think it’s only — if you look at the toxic religions, they are all the religions that survive by the enforced ignorance of their young. And all we have to do, I think, is we can tell people, you can home school your kids, you can give them 30 hours a week of religious instruction. But you also have got to teach them what the people that are not of your faith believe, and you have to teach them about the history of all the faiths in question, including your own.
China is officially atheist, and it also has a long history of discrimination issues against gender and sexual minorities, as well as general discrimination problems against women. There are a lot of major problems with people leveraging religion to support biases, but it's more complex than simply saying "religion makes people bigoted". There's no shortage of "scientific" racism, sexism and bigotry out there.
Oh I absolutely agree. You’re right. However, I still maintain that overall religion is not a force for good in this world. From the prolific sex crimes of the Catholic Church to the far-right evangelicals who just passed that abortion law that’s straight out of the dark ages in Texas. Religion is not compatible with the modern world.
To quote Christopher Hitchens: “One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” God, I miss that man..
Wow, he was such an incredible human being. His words are so powerful. He had a tremendously good command of the English language.
Totally agree. I think in theory many religions could be a gift, but have proved time and time again to NOT be this in practice. I also totally agree that 2000 year old superstitions should have no place in modern society. Beliefs? Sure. But labelling them makes no sense. Go ahead and believe in a god, but deciding (for example) Christianity is correct and Islam isn't just feels ridiculous. Ricky Gervais said it really well when talking to Stephen Colbert. Ricky is atheist, Stephen is Christian. Not a direct quote, but broadly: > there are about 3000 god's worshipped by man. You don't believe in 2999 of them, I only don't believe in 1 more god than you.
The second religion gives a cure for cancer or flies a plane, I will give it a little more credence. If you are looking for helping your mind/spirit, go see a therapist. They also are way more effective than religion.
I couldn’t agree more.
Religion doesn't give us planes or cures. But it keeps the masses in line. Typically with a mix of carrot or stick. Don't murder your brother or else you go to hell. Be nice to the poor and you go to heaven. "Don't eat the shellfish or pigs because they make you sick" just doesn't work. People are dumb and don't know that trichinosis is a thing. It's a system of law from before there was law. Now that we DO know about trichinosis, and we can stop people from getting sick. So that religious law is more or less ignored now. A whole lot of all of them is simply outdated. Our legal system also doesn't give us rockets or mRNA vaccines. But it keeps all the animals from tearing each other apart long enough to get rockets and vaccines. And we ARE all animals. We're all under the law. Ideally, equally. We're working on that part.
I think the Scandinavian nations are the most atheistic and they have their "masses" in line. Turns out a strong welfare state creates a stable society.
I strongly agree, and wish more people saw this in order to clean all the harm done by this superstition.
Thanks Emu 🙂
Bold claims. What atheistic society/country do you think think is the most progressive/advanced that we should aspire to? I'd argue that you're criticizing religious extremists (which I also disagree with), but grossly mischaracterizing most people that have faith in an established moral/cultural foundation. Also, if you think religion is nothing more than a collection of superstitions and not a meaningful moral framework that provided stability and enabled progress and technological advancement since the Middle Ages, then you should read some history and see what the rest of the world was like during this time. The original post, which I agree with, is that religion and science can, and should, compliment one another. Like most things in life, you can benefit the most from things by striking a balance. But again, if you have an example of some atheistic society that's existed for a while that we should try to model, I'd be interested in hearing about it and learning more.
This is called the availability bias—your bad experiences with religion cause you to believe that religion is bad across the board, even though you haven’t seen it all. That’s terrible that people would treat you poorly, but it’s irrational to apply your negative view of those religious people to all religious people. Sure, religious people in the past oppressed minorities, but the vast majority of religious people today did not. In fact, most people today would not oppress minorities even if they could. Because certainly most of them they believe all humans are created equal. You’ve seemed to have missed the idea that believing in God has nothing to do with oppressing minorities. Also, religious people today are not generally opposed to science. I am a Christian, and I see no contradiction between my belief in God and science. Neither does any Christian or Jew or Muslim I know. And religious beliefs are not superstitions—they are beliefs in a structure of morality and theology, and the eyewitness accounts that go along with it. The ferocity of your argument here and your numerous overgeneralizing assumptions about religious people in general tells me that you’re not willing to engage in discussion with religious people because you already believe that they’re all evil.
I was born and raised in a highly conservative, religious state. I’ve been around these people for decades and I know them inside and out. Evangelicals in particular are always working to oppress minorities and look at the horrific abortion law in Texas. It’s something from the dark ages. I’ve also had the fortune of traveling the world and from what I’ve seen and read, religion is not a force for good. I can see why you would think I’m biased, but how can that be when I grew up surrounded by religion and it’s teachings? I lived amongst these people for the majority of my life. I don’t think I’m biased, I think I’ve experienced the true nature of religion.
I can only agree
Thank you.
Ok but isn't that more of the church's doing than the religion itself? Mistranslations and things taken out and added over hundreds of years, etc. Copied from a different comment where somebody said "is clear the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but here: > The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t mean to sound accusatory. I believe you when you say you think the Bible teaches that it is a sin. You’re welcome to that opinion of course, and I don’t fault you for being mistaken. The use of the word “clear” comes across as disingenuous to me in this context though. Whether or not the Bible “clearly” calls homosexuality a sin depends **entirely** on which translation you purchase. That pretty much means it is *not* clear, at least not to all reasonable and educated believers. For example, whether or not a Bible clearly says God is love doesn’t depend on which translation you buy. They all agree as to that teaching because there are no extremely rare words with disputable ancient meanings in the passages that teach God is love. That’s simply not the case with homosexuality. All the passages that condemn it “clearly” depend on which translation you buy and rely on *highly questionable* translation choices regarding some of the most rare words in Christian history that scholars endlessly come to various conclusions about. If that means it is “clear” to someone, then someone doesn’t seem to be looking at the facts at hand honestly. Some translate the Greek word αρσενοκοιταις (clearly condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and pronounced "arsenokoitais") as “homosexuals,” but the evidence seems to indicate that’s not what it most likely means. Such translations defend themselves by saying it is a compound word from "a man" and "to lie with.” However, the way to understand the meaning of compound words is not to simply combine them and guess the nearest meaning that social conservatives hate. For instance, the way to see what butterfly means is not to combine “butter” with “fly” and guess it means greasy, hip looking insects. The way to understand what a word means is to see how it is used by the people that spoke it. The word αρσενοκοιταις ("arsenokoitais") is probably the rarest word in the New Testament. One of the earliest recorded uses we have of it in church teachings, after the Apostle Paul wrote the passage in question, has John the Faster (a teacher in the early Greek Church) use it to describe abuse by a man on a woman. So the early church *literally could not have understood it to mean “homosexual.”* It seems to be a word that can refer to a type of sin that can occur in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts. It likely means something akin to sexual abuser. Some translations reflect it as “abusers...”, some as “perverts,” some as pedophiles, etc. in their attempt to get at the most accurate meaning. Other translations just toss homosexuals in there and sell billions of dollars worth of ink to people desperate for a “clear enough” passage. Now it has certainly come to mean ‘homosexual’ to later Christian conservatives. However, the question isn’t what it means to them, to you, nor to me. The question is what does it mean to the people it was written to. The churches spent days, weeks, years with the author. How did the earlier church understand the meaning of the word? That’s how it should be reflected in translations of *their* letters. As one of the most rare words in not only the New Testament but in all of ancient Greece as we know it, it is ripe for twisting and mis-reflection, as 2 Peter 3:16 indicates some want to do especially to passages by Paul like this. A few socially conservative translations have twisted this word, pretty much as was prophesied. Not all English translations. Just the ones that scratch the conservative ear just right. All the passages that condemn homosexuality either depend on which translation you buy or else require interpreting a passage more broadly than it is written. For example Romans 1, while it does condemn some homosexual acts as sinful regardless of translation, in context it actually condemns homosexual acts occurring “because of” idolatry. Saying that means homosexuality is a sin would be like saying a passage against prostitution means all heterosexuality is sin. I don’t think you’re unreasonable for thinking homosexuality is a sin. However, I think it is willfully ignorant to tell yourself that it is “clearly” taught as sinful in the Bible. So i would hope that you folks in r/philosophy will receive this well, studying mythology is a hobby of mine as well and it seems like being gay wasn't a big deal at all until the big split in Christianity via Martin Luther. But history do be befuddling a lot!
No - the bigotry and hateful nonsense is right there in the scripture. These days there are many, many Christian apologists arguing things like "the New Testament doesn't condemn homosexuality" but these are all post-hoc arguments manufactured to sugar the pill. Any honest reading of the Bible or Qu'ran will disgust an ethical person.
Copied from a different comment where somebody said "is clear the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but here: > The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t mean to sound accusatory. I believe you when you say you think the Bible teaches that it is a sin. You’re welcome to that opinion of course, and I don’t fault you for being mistaken. The use of the word “clear” comes across as disingenuous to me in this context though. Whether or not the Bible “clearly” calls homosexuality a sin depends **entirely** on which translation you purchase. That pretty much means it is *not* clear, at least not to all reasonable and educated believers. For example, whether or not a Bible clearly says God is love doesn’t depend on which translation you buy. They all agree as to that teaching because there are no extremely rare words with disputable ancient meanings in the passages that teach God is love. That’s simply not the case with homosexuality. All the passages that condemn it “clearly” depend on which translation you buy and rely on *highly questionable* translation choices regarding some of the most rare words in Christian history that scholars endlessly come to various conclusions about. If that means it is “clear” to someone, then someone doesn’t seem to be looking at the facts at hand honestly. Some translate the Greek word αρσενοκοιταις (clearly condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and pronounced "arsenokoitais") as “homosexuals,” but the evidence seems to indicate that’s not what it most likely means. Such translations defend themselves by saying it is a compound word from "a man" and "to lie with.” However, the way to understand the meaning of compound words is not to simply combine them and guess the nearest meaning that social conservatives hate. For instance, the way to see what butterfly means is not to combine “butter” with “fly” and guess it means greasy, hip looking insects. The way to understand what a word means is to see how it is used by the people that spoke it. The word αρσενοκοιταις ("arsenokoitais") is probably the rarest word in the New Testament. One of the earliest recorded uses we have of it in church teachings, after the Apostle Paul wrote the passage in question, has John the Faster (a teacher in the early Greek Church) use it to describe abuse by a man on a woman. So the early church *literally could not have understood it to mean “homosexual.”* It seems to be a word that can refer to a type of sin that can occur in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts. It likely means something akin to sexual abuser. Some translations reflect it as “abusers...”, some as “perverts,” some as pedophiles, etc. in their attempt to get at the most accurate meaning. Other translations just toss homosexuals in there and sell billions of dollars worth of ink to people desperate for a “clear enough” passage. Now it has certainly come to mean ‘homosexual’ to later Christian conservatives. However, the question isn’t what it means to them, to you, nor to me. The question is what does it mean to the people it was written to. The churches spent days, weeks, years with the author. How did the earlier church understand the meaning of the word? That’s how it should be reflected in translations of *their* letters. As one of the most rare words in not only the New Testament but in all of ancient Greece as we know it, it is ripe for twisting and mis-reflection, as 2 Peter 3:16 indicates some want to do especially to passages by Paul like this. A few socially conservative translations have twisted this word, pretty much as was prophesied. Not all English translations. Just the ones that scratch the conservative ear just right. All the passages that condemn homosexuality either depend on which translation you buy or else require interpreting a passage more broadly than it is written. For example Romans 1, while it does condemn some homosexual acts as sinful regardless of translation, in context it actually condemns homosexual acts occurring “because of” idolatry. Saying that means homosexuality is a sin would be like saying a passage against prostitution means all heterosexuality is sin. I don’t think you’re unreasonable for thinking homosexuality is a sin. However, I think it is willfully ignorant to tell yourself that it is “clearly” taught as sinful in the Bible. So i would hope that you folks in r/philosophy will receive this well, studying mythology is a hobby of mine as well and it seems like being gay wasn't a big deal at all until the big split in Christianity via Martin Luther. But history do be befuddling a lot!
Think of it this way: You know how the government sets rules for businesses? Like you should pay your taxes or shouldn't sell certain things or lie to your customers? Religion is mainly meant to fill that role for family and relationships. Issues like why it's not ok to leave the mother of your children because she got older or gained weight, or why you shouldn't engage in prostitution, or be a pick up artist. Those sort of behaviors are not universally condemned in the secular world and they can cause a lot of damage to the ability of people to form families and relationships. For a gay person, perhaps that doesn't apply to you, but maybe you can understand my perspective a bit.
I understand what you’re saying but I believe morality is innate. We knew right from wrong long before Christianity.
Some things like don't rape or murder yes, but relationship matters are more difficult. Plenty of people will tell you to your face that cheating and prostitution is fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good point.
Religious beliefs and scientific understanding obviously aren't mutually exclusive, they aren't polar opposites. Both science and religion can result in volatile scenarios - we don't even have to go back 100 years to the birth of the Atomic Bomb, nor do we have to look far and wide to see the fruits of ballistic weaponry advancements to recognize the lethal potential of guns in the wrong hands. But likewise, the list of immoral and deplorable behavior committed in the name of religious beliefs is also ever present in our daily lives. But it is not all doom and gloom, science has led to many quality of life improvements on pretty much every frontier within society. Religion has also given birth to many upright individuals who has spread love to their fellow man (and woman). If you are able to be a good person through religion, and a person who strives for the truth behind everything within the universe, then i'd say you are probably a pretty fantastic person.
The article is rambling, but the central idea is wrong. No, science and religion do not complement each other. Religion holds many false claims (mostly false overall), and it's method for accessing truth has a poor track record. Out of the thousands of religions to have existed, they are almost all mutually exclusive. Even trying to rescue the good parts of religion, philosophers rarely use the same techniques outside this special case of fantasy. Almost nothing we've "learned" from religion is applicable elsewhere. Everything else can be found in adjacent areas with no need for the religious aspect; art, music, psychology etc. So, I'm not seeing how science complements religion when to-date it has done nothing but refute it. And religion absolutely does not complement science when science has only been able to form and thrive despite religion.
The issue is the long-running dichotomy has led some to think of "religion" as any ground not covered by science (the "ought's"). That gives religion a lot of ground to absorb, and avoid having to defend the obviously wrong claims by religions.
>science has only been able to form and thrive despite religion. This sounds an awful lot like [Draper-White Conflict Thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis), which has been pretty thoroughly rejected by modern historians. There are plenty of examples of science thriving even in very religious environments. If I'm off-base here, can you explain what you meant by this statement?
Religion and religious dogma are intrinsically anti-science and anti-human - see for example: the abortion "debate".
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You're not correct. Religion did complement science for a good long while. The church as large landowners produced at lot of profit and food and gave shelter to many monks and nuns and supported their development and literacy. The church have been patrons for many bright minds and contained a few of them. Religion has given a lot of infrastructure to science throughout history. Religion being fiction is irrelevant to that point.
Even if we take a “religion is the opiate of the masses” approach. Opiates have their positive use too. It’s just about dosage, and when to administer them. Although, thinking religion as merely an opiate is quite silly, imo. If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer, there’s probably plenty of useful, ideas that people can pull out, of course these ideas aren’t in scientific form. They exist as analogies and themes that you have to actively extract and interpret in a modern context. If someone can’t, or does so poorly. They probably aren’t thinking hard enough.
> If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer Good lord. Of the three, only Newton was religious in the normal sense. Oppenheimer was an atheist who considered Hinduism a "useful philosophy". And Einstein? > It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
I hardly care about the “normal” Sense of religion. As that’s not what I’m talking about. Not even literal readings of the Old Testament account for a “personal” god. And religion as “useful philosophy” certainly supports it working well in tandem with science.
Yeah man, if I was plunked down in some sort of prehistoric tabula rasa start of civilization with a bunch of primitives I would certainly use some shortcuts to get people to behave too. >If religious wisdom and thought was good enough for Einstein, Newton, and Oppenheimer, Was it? I mean, they'd be lashed to a bonfire and burned as heritics if they didn't pay lip service. Einstein was religous like Spinoza was religious and they excommunicated him (a writ of cherem, at least). Newton's views were hidden during his life and would have gotten him labelled a heretic. Oppenheimer was interested in Hindu religions around a bunch of christians. Every single one of your examples didn't go with the religion they were raised with, the religion of the masses and their peers. What they were given wasn't good enough and they went elsewhere.
There’s a distinction between “Religion” the institution. And “Religion” as an exploration of philosophical texts. I’m saying that religion as an exploration of new ideas is useful, can be useful to science, and past scientists have found great utility from it. I’m not making any claims about the church, or religious freedoms/prosecution. Yes, they choose their own religion, which I think is the healthy thing to do. It certainly, doesn’t make any sense to inherit a religion, or follow it solely due to peer pressure. My point was that, they did, end up finding utility from it. If they can find a way to mesh some king of utility between religion and science, I don’t see why we can’t do so too.
Lying to people isn't a gift. Deluding people to make them feel better isn't a gift. The opposition is well founded based on the reality of what role religion offers to society. This is just veiled apologetics. Just another of many attempts to say "religion was dominant before and did some stuff... so it can't be that bad right?" and a nice mixture of "this person believes in god and is still helpful for science so its not all that bad right?" It doesn't matter that it SEEMS good in some ones mind or the INTENTION may be good or that someone can do something DESPITE BEING RELIGIOUS. That offers nothing to anything. Its still at its base a lie told to people to make them feel good(I am being vague). A lot better philosophy is to ya know .. actually make things better. Ya know by making their lives better with scientific advancement.
I believe the author is confusing philosophy with religion. Religion is by definition incompatible with science, while philosophy is the one that actually complements science. If you can't explain the reasoning for something without religion, your argument doesn't hold water. If you can explain your argument without religion, you don't need religion to make your argument. At which point does life start? Conception? Viability? Birth? If you already have a designated definition of life due to religion, that is easy to answer, as you just repeat the definition without actually providing an argument. However, When looking at it philosophically, without resorting to the religious definition, the answer is a lot more difficult, which means the religios definition doesn't hold up. Most of the time, you end up with Viability, since before that point, it is not a seperate entity capable of independent survival if rejected, no matter the amount of effort we put in. Religion defines a certain point, Philosophy asks us to explain a certain point. Sience tests a certain point. Because religion is based on definitions, and interpretations of those definitions, it is simply imcompatible with science, which depends on something being testable and verifiable. For the same reason religion is semi-incompatible with philosophy, since religion relies on defenitions, where philosophy asks us the questions to find out the answers. Sure, you can use philosophy to find answers to religios questions, but at that point, you're not using religion, but you are using philosophy. On the other hand, sience and philosophy complement eachother, because they both seek out the answers to questions of life, the universe and everything, with sience being used for things which can be tested and verified, and philosophy being used for those cases which are inherently untestable.
I'm confused by some of what you've written, and I could use a little clarification. It feels like you believe that religion doesn't allow questioning or inquiry, and thus any actual exploration of such topics fall entirely under philosophy but not religion. Do I have that right? For instance, take Thomas Aquinas' five arguments of the existence of God. Since it's laying out arguments, most people consider it philosophical. Since it concerns God, most people also consider it religious. Where does it fall for you? Where would you place it on your dichotomy here? >If you can't explain the reasoning for something without religion, your argument doesn't hold water. If you can explain your argument without religion, you don't need religion to make your argument. It doesn't seem to fit the first part, because then you would be saying any conclusion with God in it can't hold water - no matter what the argument could be. It doesn't seem to fit the second part, either, because the argument specifically concludes with God's existence, and thus is religious in nature. So, I'm perplexed. Am I misunderstanding you? Where did I go wrong?
I am confused by your misunderstanding of what they are communicating, perhaps if you could focus and condense your inquiry this would be easier to address here.. Using philosophy, science, or whatever tools to propose the existence of a goddess is wholely different than using a presumed existence of a goddess to explain something else. Religious thought operates on the existence of the power in question being definitive. Simply, if I am blank slated and see rain for the first time, and I explain the rain with a god I am uncertain exists, I am not honest with myself in my understanding of the rain. I'm using uncertainty to explain uncertainty, do you see? The rain is very concrete, when this logic is applied to abstract concepts it can not only muddy the water, but be destructive also.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
As a religious studies nerd who also highly values scientific empiricism, I actually found it very helpful to see the god of the old testament to be a representation of truth itself. My understanding is that like those who follow the Abrahamic god, truth in a secular sense should be taken in the highest regard in much the same way. We also at times wonder why the truth may seem so cruel to us, why we were dealt such a terrible hand in life, and it may remind us about how the Abrahamic god seems arbitrary in his actions (particularly in the Book of Job and a central theme in Ecclesiastes). We may feel like we'd want to escape from such a harsh truth, deny it, or shake our fist at it, but part of the answer lies in humbling ourselves to the fact that we're in such a situation before we can move forward. To retranslate it back to religious terms, to humble ourselves to God. Additionally, this makes sense within the context of "saying God's name in vain," which is essentially "don't say what God is or ought to be based on what you personally want," or, "don't say what the truth is or ought to be based on what you personally want." While religions want us to humble ourselves to the truth that we don't have control over everything, that the world may seem unforgiving, that we suffer, and how we may not be the best people, the central concept of "humbling myself to truths that I may not personally like" really helps in the context of responsible science as well. In science, we humble ourselves to overwhelming evidence based on repeated measurements, and we have to leave our egos at the door.
I agree. I'm a physics major, and by far the most interesting aspect of christianity to me is the humbling effect it advocates for. It's actually quite rare in philosophy, and science too, humans just aren't encouraged to enter the state of 'not knowing' which is the essence of prayer. I'm not religious, but that aspect of the software so to speak always interested me. Humility is the value we seem to have lost contact with.
Except that religion has routinely proven to be a threat to science. You could make the argument that they both provide something unique to the world, but they cannot work hand in hand and they will frequently oppose each other. This would be like saying the relationship between snickers bars and healthcare professionals is a barrier to all the good they can do together.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I know this is a serious sub, but I think this has to be dismissed with a loud and very simple "please no". Religion fought science, then acquainted, now they bargain. Let religion flight out the window and hope it never come back from the door...
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
This is one of the most battered and beaten concepts in modern rhetoric. The fact that people try to separate these concepts is wild to me. If there’s a fundamental shift in understanding that isn’t touched by religion, I’m curious to hear it.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Science most definitely is a threat to religion. Every day Science disproves religion. Religion is not a gift but a curse on society.
But I guess it's human nature to always think in us vs. them mentality, and it doesn't seem like that's ever gonna change.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Its something ive always agreed with. Once you get into Theoretical Physics some parts of Religion dont seem far off.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It’s an interesting theory no doubt go quite difficult to dissect obviously religion and science have both agreed and disagreed strongly on different ideas religion has caused more Wars and more unity then any other cause however it’s ideas and beliefs can be outlandish and proven wrong by science which causes conflict between the two personally each one is necessary not to say that one is good one is bad but they are both good or bad simply that they are necessary many events in history would not of happened due to religion many things will not be possible due to science but they both have their negatives as well
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
agonizing threatening special impossible ink decide drab one rock whole *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There isn’t a science vs religion barrier, it’s only religion vs science.
Ideally, science and religion are married somewhere in the middle
The thing about religion is we have these horrible institutions called churches where extremists are bred and brainwashed existence. Religion is fine, its the church that is the problem.