Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

bigchris1313 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem with (Western) science is that it doesn't actually know everything. It knows a lot, but there are a lot of things (physical phenomena) that cannot be explained very well by Western science.

Acupuncture comes to mind as a pretty good example. It's been around for a few thousand years, works very well, but doesn't fit well with Western Science.

Are you Azn?

It only works for our kind, much like Kung-Fu and butterfly knives.

Science draws it's conclusions from evidence. Religion draws it's despite evidence. There is no place for superstition in a modern world.

Science and critical thinking have their limits.

While predictive models are great there will be limits to the applicability of those models. Sometimes there will be obscure variables that are very hard to identify or include in a model. Some things are very hard to properly represent in scientific terms, but can be fairly well intuited. A couple of years ago my cricket team was very capable, but had lost more than it had won. One week, after a player dropped out at the last minute we forced a few changes and ended up with a much weaker team. We beat the top side. For the rest of the year the captain picked the same team, or as close as injuries/other would allow. There were generally players available that offered more balance and more skill to the team, but we didn't lose another game all year. It might have been madness but we won the premiership so I don't care.

Mathammer may absolutely prove how worthless some unit or item is, but if you keep winning when you take it, keep taking it. If something is working for you there really doesn't need to be a sound scientific explanation as to why. I'm not suggesting in any way that evidence and arguments built around reason and science aren't important, as they are the key to decision making, I'm just saying there are situations where people can and do benefit from going another way.

I refer you to the title of this thread, and the OP's point. The cricket story is easily explained with psychology, and the mathshammer thing is limited by context, not mathematics.

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem with (Western) science is that it doesn't actually know everything. It knows a lot, but there are a lot of things (physical phenomena) that cannot be explained very well by Western science.

Acupuncture comes to mind as a pretty good example. It's been around for a few thousand years, works very well, but doesn't fit well with Western Science.

Actually the German government health service did a major analysis of acupuncture which showed it did not work in the way claimed by its practitioners

One study doesn't prove anything, as there are counter studies that demonstrate acupuncture to be as effective as any scientific course of treatment. Unless your point is to convert a single datum (i.e. anecdote) into global data, then perhaps you're getting right back to the heart of OP's point.

If an entire theory can be proved or disproved with a single study or experiment, why isn't my car powered by the magic of "Cold Fusion"?

Greebynog wrote:Science draws it's conclusions from evidence. Religion draws it's despite evidence. There is no place for superstition in a modern world.

There's a word for this kind of thinking: hubris. The idea that because of science we have surpassed a need for religion, or that that all religion or non-scientific thought is mere "superstition" that that has no place in our wonderful "modern" world of knowledgeable, rational people is utterly asinine. The idea that scientific thinking owns all other types of thinking is a pretty sad, limited view.

And before anyone is all like "OMG N00B!" on me, let me say that I like science. I think it is incredibly useful and beneficial when used properly, and interesting to boot, but to imply the "modern world" has made this intellectual discovery called science, which surpasses and replaces all other forms of human thought and expression is absolutely ridiculous.


Humanity might have a bit more of collective knowledge, and bit more technology, but at the base of it, we are no different than we've ever been.


Also, as far as "religion draws it's [conclusions] despite evidence," please let me know what kind of evidence proves that God doesn't exist, because I think it'd probably be important for me to hear it.

As to the thread title, no one really uses the word "datum," anymore. You know, like a single piece of data. Maybe that has something to do with it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Unless your point is to convert a single datum (i.e. anecdote) into global data, then perhaps you're getting right back to the heart of OP's point.

Oh, snap! You just said datum!

Well, my theory is out the window....

Hordini wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Science draws it's conclusions from evidence. Religion draws it's despite evidence. There is no place for superstition in a modern world.

There's a word for this kind of thinking: hubris. The idea that because of science we have surpassed a need for religion, or that that all religion or non-scientific thought is mere "superstition" that that has no place in our wonderful "modern" world of knowledgeable, rational people is utterly asinine. The idea that scientific thinking owns all other types of thinking is a pretty sad, limited view.

And before anyone is all like "OMG N00B!" on me, let me say that I like science. I think it is incredibly useful and beneficial when used properly, and interesting to boot, but to imply the "modern world" has made this intellectual discovery called science, which surpasses and replaces all other forms of human thought and expression is absolutely ridiculous.


Humanity might have a bit more of collective knowledge, and bit more technology, but at the base of it, we are no different than we've ever been.


Also, as far as "religion draws it's [conclusions] despite evidence," please let me know what kind of evidence proves that God doesn't exist, because I think it'd probably be important for me to hear it.

As to the thread title, no one really uses the word "datum," anymore. You know, like a single piece of data. Maybe that has something to do with it.

The burden of proof does not rest with the atheist. To claim I have to disprove the existence of God is a logical fallacy, in the same way me requiring you to disprove the existence of unicorns would be. I would have to prove to you that unicorns exist, not vice versa.

In terms of religions claims flying in the face of evidence, I refer you to evoloution, and the age of the earth for one.

Scientific thought is simply more valid than any other type of thought in terms of establishing truth. Not to say that spiritual and philosophical thought aren't massively important, but they do little to further our understanding of truth.

Science attempts to establish truth by speculating a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it. If evidence suggests that hypothesis is incorrect, changes are made, and it is re-tested.

Religion establishes truth by pointing to ancient writings and arcane rituals. It causes war, death and hatred, stops people from thinking in a clear and rational fashion and is spread to children like a virus. I find the whole structure of organised religion abhorent, and ultimatley harmful. I don't deny anyone's right to believe whatever the hell they want though, and I realise fully that religion can be a positive thing in some people's lives. On a global scale, it is the single biggest evil in the world.

Please don't take this as a personal attack Hordini, I'm looking forward to your reply. If I have offended you, please tell me. Thanks.

I like how all religions are ham-pressed together as if they all think alike and act alike.

Science doesn't give us "TRUTH", it gives us observations. Very useful observations, but observations nonetheless. Science can't tell me what really happened in the forest in Rashamon.

Of course the tricky thing is what is truth? If you think you have the solid answer you aren't thinking enough as it has been a fundamental question for a few thousand years.

Greebynog wrote:The burden of proof does not rest with the atheist. To claim I have to disprove the existence of God is a logical fallacy, in the same way me requiring you to disprove the existence of unicorns would be. I would have to prove to you that unicorns exist, not vice versa.

As a Pastafarian, the very notion of that one might even conceive of an Invisible Pink Unicorn is offensive in the extreme! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the true supreme being and creator of the universe.

Fundamentally, pretty much all religion acts the same. Judaism, Islam, Christianity: all anti-women, homophobic catylysts to war. All religion serves to make it's followers subservient, unthinking, unquestioning and 'good', according to whatever moral code it subscribes, as evil or hateful as that may be. It's a fundamental control system.

What is truth is indeed a very large question, but at least science attempts to find it rather than just plucking things out of the air.

Critical, rational, scientific thought is not perfect, but it's by far the best, and most useful, system of thought we have. Without it we'd still believe that the sun was dragged across the sky by a chariot. Because of scientific analysis we have great things like internet forums about toy soldiers where we can exchange thoughts on subjects that long ceased to be about said toy soldiers...

My last contribution to this thread is utterly worthless and makes no sense. Now that I'm fully compus mentis I'd like to change it to "I'll be getting that book, but not 'til I've finished reading The Bumper Book of Bleedin' Obvious.

Thats why you paint the buggies red.

Red ones go fasta!!!!

Greebynog-Fundamentally, pretty much all religion acts the same. Judaism, Islam, Christianity: all anti-women, homophobic catylysts to war. All religion serves to make it's followers subservient, unthinking, unquestioning and 'good', according to whatever moral code it subscribes, as evil or hateful as that may be. It's a fundamental control system.

Your knowledge of religion is as vast as your World experience, methinks.

Greebynog wrote:I refer you to the title of this thread, and the OP's point. The cricket story is easily explained with psychology, and the mathshammer thing is limited by context, not mathematics.

You’re welcome to refer me to the OP, but then you’d be mistaking my example for an attempt at proving a point with an anecdote, and you should know they’re quite different things.

You’d be speculating wildly to assume psychology perfectly explains my cricket example, given that you weren’t there. It wasn’t that simple, as picking players who weren’t the best available led to plenty of politics and conflict within the team. Psychology likely played a part. Confidence from stringing a few wins together helped. A few of the more highly regarded players weren’t as good as was generally considered. The team also improved in a few areas that aren’t normally noticed when a team is put together (ground fielding especially). But that’s all speculation after the fact, there’s probably a whole host of other factors in there as well… point being it didn’t matter, we went with what was working regardless of the theories that said it was wrong.

The mathshammer example is a product of context, but often that context is not entirely clear. And that’s really what I’m saying, the application of science and reason to problem solving is wonderful, but it has its limitations because our information set is rarely complete. Results will often fly in the face of the model you’ve created, due to an unseen or neglected variable.

When faced with a seemingly solid model and results that consistently return differing results, there are a lot of situations where you are best off just going with the thing that’s working for you, and maybe figuring out why some other time. Believing that the scientifically constructed model is always best just doesn’t work every time, and flies in the face of many of science’ best discoveries.

@Akira: My knowledge of religion is largely based on my degree, and a great deal of independent study. I, of course, was making a sweeping generalisation, as I said earlier, religion can be a powerful tool for good in some individual cases, but on a meta-scale, religion has a hugely negative impact on lives.

@sebster: Again, I apologise for my over-simplification, I was merely trying to suggest a way that the result you saw could be explained, I didn't intend to appear arrogant by claiming I could adequatley explain your victory in one word. Reading back over my post, that's exactly how my tone appears, I'm terribly sorry for this, it's difficult to judge tone when typing, especially in an annonymous fashion.

I fully accept your point that results will often fly in the face of proposed models and that you cannot accuratley predict any given event in any given situation, and that to do so would be a futile waste of time.

That is precisely why the scientific method is so great, it's what you do with this new data that counts. If a scientist had claimed the world to be 6000 years old, with the advent of carbon dating and the discovery of fossils, he would change said theory. I don't see the Pope changing his mind. Nor, for that matter do I see him stopping telling people not to use condoms in AIDs ridden countries.

The reason I love science can be brought down to one annecdote. A prominant evoloutionary biologist had spent the best part of thirty years working on his theorum. A guest speaker came to his university and gave a presentation that completely disproved the biologist's work. He stood up, walked to the front, shook the guest's hand and said thank you, with a broad smile on his face.

Congrats on your cricket win BTW, I look forward to taking the ashes back off you!

Greebynog wrote:Fundamentally, pretty much all religion acts the same. Judaism, Islam, Christianity: all anti-women, homophobic catylysts to war. All religion serves to make it's followers subservient, unthinking, unquestioning and 'good', according to whatever moral code it subscribes, as evil or hateful as that may be. It's a fundamental control system.

Um, that's kind of a big brush you've picked up. Not everything is fundamentalist monotheism.

You might want to take a deeper look at things, Unitarianism, in particular - they don't stand for anything, but they claim to be a religion.

Greebynog wrote:@Akira: My knowledge of religion is largely based on my degree, and a great deal of independent study. I, of course, was making a sweeping generalisation, as I said earlier, religion can be a powerful tool for good in some individual cases, but on a meta-scale, religion has a hugely negative impact on lives.

And that degree would be in? Certainly not in Religious Studies. I find it interesting, perhaps a Freudian slip of sorts, that the only three religions you mention all come from the same place and are all connected. It doesn't seem so much that you dislike Religion, but that you dislike the ones that are most familiar to you and your culture, and thus put the onus of your grief upon all religion. I have to second my esteemed colleague akira5665. You seem to be speaking way above your experience and knowledge. It's funny that you want to be totally open to science, but totally dismiss the human experience.

I agree with Ahtman and Akira. Claiming you have a degree only makes you appear to be frantically backpedaling.

Grrebynog, this post of mine has been in internet posting limbo for a few hours, during which you replied to my earlier message. I've left it as I wrote it, but it might appear a little snarkier than it probably should, especially given your recent post. And thanks for the congrats on the cricket win, though we lost to the same mob the next two years running.

Greebynog wrote: Scientific thought is simply more valid than any other type of thought in terms of establishing truth. Not to say that spiritual and philosophical thought aren't massively important, but they do little to further our understanding of truth.

Science is the study of the material world, it is built around hypothesis that are capable of being tested and potentially disproved. It is the best tool we have for answering questions of what ‘is’. But science has no answer for how we ought to act, what is right and what is wrong, it has no answer for our existential questions, it cannot shed any light on our spiritual place in the world.

There are truths to be found beyond those of science, and philosophy and religion go some way towards answering them.

Greebynog wrote:Fundamentally, pretty much all religion acts the same. Judaism, Islam, Christianity: all anti-women, homophobic catylysts to war. All religion serves to make it's followers subservient, unthinking, unquestioning and 'good', according to whatever moral code it subscribes, as evil or hateful as that may be. It's a fundamental control system.

One of the best things about the scientific method is taking a hypothesis, such as your suggestion that all religions act as homophobic, anti-women catalysts to war, and comparing that to real world situations. I might examine this by looking at my Christian cousins, who used the social network of their Church to organise protests against the Iraq war. I talk to my Muslim friend from uni, who wrote extensively on the meaning of the Koran in an historical and modern context, and actively encouraged all fellow believers to examine the book in great detail and challenge the most common assumptions.

I might consider that religion has facilitated learning and science as often as it has stunted it. I might look at the role played by various Churches in protecting and proliferating a number of valuable texts. I might consider the role played by various Churches in advancing human rights and equality, the protestant movement against slavery in the US, the Christian efforts to alleviate povery going on right now in South America, Asia and Africa.

And I might look at the atheist groups that have inflicted absurd cruelties on their fellow man… Soviet Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

And having reviewed such, I might consider that perhaps it isn’t religion but people who have a tendency towards misogyny, homophobia and war. That religion serves as an excuse for such, no different to so many other possible excuses; politics, economics, ethnicity, culture, skin colour...

And I say all that as an atheist.

Ahtman=Exalt.

Greebynog, no offense taken at all. I hope you understand no offense or attack was directed at you either, even though my post was strongly worded. This being Dakka, I figured you would understand.

Also, as a bit of a preface, please note in my post that if I use the term "religion," I'm not necessarily talking about organized religion, but just general spirituality, faith or religion in general. I'll try to be specific if I'm only talking about organized religion.

Anyway, I admit I probably jumped the gun on the "Oh yeah, well prove God doesn't exist!" part of my post. I was only going off your three sentence long original post, with "Religion draws its [conclusions] despite evidence." I took this to mean that you were implying science had disproved the existence of a God, which after reading more, I don't think that's necessarily what you were implying, at least not directly. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Anyways, I would agree that the burden of proof doesn't lie with the atheist. Personally though, I don't really feel like "proof" really applies as far as God, religion, and spiritual things are concerned. Religion or spiritual faith in general isn't about proving whether or not God exists. That isn't the goal, and it would in some ways cheapen the whole faith aspect. Things like evolution and the big bang theory can co-exist just fine with religion. I agree mostly with Whitedragon, it doesn't disprove God or a creator, it can just illuminate one of the creator's possible methods. In most cases, fundamentalists speak out loudly against things like evolution, because they don't really understand it, or because their faith is really a lot more limited than they realize.

That said, when I asked you to provide me with evidence that the existence of God has been scientifically disproved, I wasn't intentionally try to start the rather pointless argument of burden of proof and so forth; rather, I thought you had something specific in mind, and was curious to hear what it was. I'm not going to try to prove to you that God exists, I fully recognize that I cannot, so that's not really what this is about.

Anyways, moving beyond that, I realize that in your other post you were generalizing, but what you are implying is something I take strong issue with. I agree that organized religion has often been (and at times still is) misused as a tool of the powerful to control the general populace, and that it has been used (and still is used) to "justify" horrendous acts. I understand how these acts in the name of God or whoever else could easily be misconstrued as an example of how religion is one of the worst things that has ever happened to humanity. I would argue though, that in most cases these horrible acts have been cases of terrible people twisting and misconstruing religion (and sometimes outright lying) to an over-indoctrinated, and unquestioning populace. The religion doesn't cause these horrible acts or ways of thinking. These horrible things are caused by horrible people, who then "justify" what they've done by twisting the religion's teachings to suit their needs (or in some of the worst and most blatant cases, coming up with new teachings on the fly). Often, if you go back to the original teachings of a certain religion, there are a lot of what most people think of as generally positive things: love, generosity, caring for your fellow man, etc.

Most of us know about the horrible things done in the name of religion, such as the Crusades and everything else. However, to claim that religion was the cause of the Crusades or anything else though, is a massive cop-out and ignores the more frightening truth: That an educated group of horrible people twisted what would otherwise be a positive thing into a fabrication to suit their purposes, which included subverting the ignorant populace and convincing them to fight their personal enemies.

Unfortunately, to realize this you have to look beyond the surface, and be familiar with specific religious teachings and how they work. To people on the outside, it's easy to see a religion as just a bunch of fanatics who control the ignorant, you might not necessarily realize that the ones in power are twisting and warping ideas and teachings that were originally positive to suit their terrible agendas. It's difficult, and is something I struggle with as a Christian myself, as I tend to catch a lot of flak from people both within and without the religious community.

I guess my point is, religion doesn't cause horrible things. Horrible people cause horrible things by twisting religion into a tool to control others, which as far as I'm concerned makes those people all the more despicable.


I guess what frustrates me, as far as science goes, is that science is given the benefit of the doubt a lot more than religion is, in terms of whether or not it is a positive thing, or whether or not it "causes" negative things. Now don't get me wrong, I think science is absolutely a good thing, and to suggest otherwise is crazy (maybe you see where I'm going here). As an example, some people claim that the Nazis tried to use science to justify their horrendous doctrine and atrocities. Nazi doctors (who were really nothing more than savage butchers) performed "scientific" experiments on many innocent people. It was horrible.

But would any reasonable person take those terrible acts, and say that they were caused by science?

"Of course not! That would be ridiculous! Those acts were caused by people who were cruel manipulative butchers, not science!"

I think that would probably be the general reaction from most reasonable people, including myself. So why, if religion is the theoretically good thing that is twisted, rather than science, people are so quick to cry out against the evils of religion, rather than placing the blame where it really should lie: at the feet of the horrible people who manipulated something that could otherwise be positive to create something sickeningly horrible for their own benefit?


Anyway, I'm just saying sometimes it's good to dig a little deeper. All religion isn't really about control or discouraging questions. I ask questions every day, and I always try to seek the truth in whatever form it may take, whether it's scientific, philosophical, spiritual, or something else I don't expect - which in a lot of ways is the fun of it .

The fact that horrible people have twisted religion into something that some people find nearly synonymous with ignorance and control is something none of us should be okay with, whether we are religious or not. It shouldn't be that way, and it doesn't have to be. Religion is just the easy target, and provides a scapegoat to lessen the hostility towards the people who are actually responsible for terrible things.

Thanks to anyone who read this whole thing, and I look forward to your reply. I'd also kindly ask, that if any of the Mods take issue with this thread or its location, please move it to the Off-Topic board, rather than locking it (as long as it remains civil of course). I personally have found it rather enjoyable.

@doctor thunder- I was just trying to respond to the post accusing me of having no knowlege of what I was talking about. I'm sorry if I appeared in some way boastful or condesending, that was never my intention.

@Ahtman- My degree is in Sociology, and a great deal of it was concerned with religion. Again, I'm sorry if my post mis-represented my views, I don't dis-regard the human exerience, or philosophy or anything of the sorts.

Those religions were only intended as examples, and living in London there are no major religions far from my culture, the cultural mix here is one of the reasons I love it.

@sebster-I don't see that as particularly snarky, don't fret.

I agree that science cannot answer questions of morality, except from an evolutionary or psychological standpoint, but I don't think religion is needed for that purpose. I think people should consider thier own morals internally, not be handed them by an out-dated source.

As for your second point, about taking a scientific method to this question, I think the conclusion you draw there would be due to flaws in the methodology, not the concept of science. And like I said, I don't think religious people are all bad, some sure as hell are, but my family, who are mostly religious aren't. That's me using my human perspective a little

I agree with you that religion serves as an excuse for the behaviours you describe, in fact, I couldn't agree more. I would love it if that excuse weren't available, but c'est la vie.

I think it might be useful to really clearly state where I'm coming from with this.

-I don't believe religion makes *everyone* evil

-I don't hate all religious people, and don't hate anyone for their religion or beliefs, I will engage them in conversation about their beliefs and challenge them, but I expect to have my beliefs challenged too. I hate people for thier actions.

-I don't think religious people are stupid

-I don't blame religion for *all* the worlds evils

-I don't blame it on the individuals, but the over-arching religious monoliths above them.

-I believe that religion is a destructive force (on the meta-scale). The Israel/Palestine conflict, the troubles in Pakistan, the AIDs endemic etc

-I dislike the use of fear to control

-I believe religion stunts freedom of thought

-I hate the seperation caused by religion. 'That's a Jewish kid, that's a Muslim child...' the kids are already seperated, they didn't choose that. You'd never hear of a school for republican children or democrat children based on their parent's political views, so why should there be a religious divide.

-I envy those of faith, it must be incredibly comforting to have. I just can't accept such huge claims blindly I'm afraid.

-I fundamentally don't believe all major religions to be founded on fear, misunderstanding and deception. I'm sorry if that appears harsh.

All in all, what I would like to say, is that I don't want to become the new forum prick, I once again apologise if my earlier posts seemed curt, it's just that this is a subject I'm passionate about. I don't claim to have all the answers. I welcome you to pick apart my points of view at leisure. Cheers.

I continue to be impressed by the caliber of many Dakka members.

Sebster speaks my mind, and in fewer words. Exalt.

Hordini, my post after yours was written before I read yours. I too am quite enjoying this interchange. I feel you're right to make the distinction between organised religion and spirituality, it is organised religion I take issue with, not personal sprituality.

You made some very good points in your argument, but the main one (as it seems to me) is that religion is not inherently wicked, but certain members of those religions make it so.

If you study the texts closely, you'll find some disturbing things though. For example the bible story where a male traveller stops at an inn, and attempts to have sex with a man there. The disgusted inn keeper gives the traveller his daughter to rape, rather than have him lie with a man. I'll find the verses for you if you would like.

I'll also return later with verses from the koran that are particularly nasty later, to balance the point if required, but I think my general point is made.

I just have to say, the last 8 posts or so really impressed me with the way they presented their thoughts.

Dakka is the better for it.

@Greebynog-IMHO-you are a scholar and a gentleman. Well said that, Sir.

EXALT!

Sociology looking at religion is like blind men feeling an elephant and describing the animal. If it gave a full, reasoned description, there wouldn't be a whole separate department devoted to Religious Studies.

While London does has many different people of different cultures living there, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the dominant British theology is Christianity. See any 800 year old Buddhist Temples around there?

For each story of gay panicking inn keepers you will fond more of Jesus telling people to love one another and to treat each other with kindness and compassion. Cherry picking verses doesn't really work well as an argument as it is essentially what you are arguing people do to pervert it. They cherry pick and pervert to create hate et al, and you do it to show how wrong it is. If anything it shows that the problem is more in a fundemental lack of understanding and the problem (also in science) of starting with your conclusion then making the data fit it.

Sociologoy looks at the over-arching effects of religon though, and that's where I'm coming from.

You are correct in your assumption about a huge christian majority, yes. There is a Budhist community, it's age is irrelevant as far as I see.

The problem with your cherry picking argument is that the bible is the supposed word of God, and therefore should it not be perfect? If it isn't, how can it be the word of God? If it is not the word of God, what is Christianity based on?

The idea of religion creates more problems than it solves, if you reason that life was created by a higher being, then who created the higher being?

Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

Ah yes, but by that reasoning, Science would never evolved either. Looking for the 'more than immediately tangible' kind of thing.

Belief and Science are stronly intermixed.
1.I Believe I can Fly.
2.I have heard of this Belief. I will try to make this happen.
3.I invent the Aeroplane, play a game of Poker with a pair of Card-Sharks, called "The Wright Brothers" or something like that, and the next thing you know, I live in a gutter, watching 747's fly overhead(Mostly).

Belief in something gives us the inspiration for perspiration.

I have a hypothesis regarding the Shao-Lin Monks-If I say anything not historically incorrect, please feel free to correct .

Did they "Invent"some of the amazing physical feats they can perfom, for and by the Religion the follow?

Dunno, kind of rambling here.

As far as anectdotal evidence becoming 'science'..

What have you guys heard about Richard Gere?

sebster wrote:Science is the study of the material world, it is built around hypothesis that are capable of being tested and potentially disproved. It is the best tool we have for answering questions of what ‘is’. But science has no answer for how we ought to act, what is right and what is wrong, it has no answer for our existential questions, it cannot shed any light on our spiritual place in the world.

There are truths to be found beyond those of science, and philosophy and religion go some way towards answering them.

The problem I have with so much of spiritualism is that it has been created by the same system that seeks to explore it. You talk about our "spiritual place in the world", but what does this mean? These questions about the soul and spiritualist meanings are created by the very religions that then go to try and provide answers to solve.

Science isn't a morality system, but neither is religion. Society creates morals, religion is a way these are historically recorded and taught. There are many religions that have come and gone, the idea that religion provides moral guidance only holds if a divine entity actually laid them down. Even if god really exists he'll only be backing one religion as they all teach different morals to various extents. All the other religons are mistaken. Religions come from people, so morals come from people. The ten Comandments didn't really come from god, they came from a group of people, or even several cultures. But it's just people. How is it that different people read the same bible and get different moral messages from it? How do they cherry pick? Why do some think homosexualism is wrong and others think it's ok? Yet none have a problem eating shellfish. They cherry pick, and at the heart of that is the human mind, the individual who has a moral code of their own often affected by society and their parents etc. These religions aren't a moral guide any more than any other book for advice, they just have different window dressing.

Science doesn't provide morals, it hopefully provide facts. Religions does may claim to offer moral guidance but it doesn't have a stronger claim to morals. There are no moral absolutes, and religion certainly doesn't have access to anything science doesn't have. Science merely doesn't have the inclination to comment.