Think you have it backwards. Science evolves as we 'learn stuff'. Religion fights doggedly to maintain beliefs from earlier times.
Some of those beliefs are good for humanity (love thy neighbor, etc.) ... and some will prove (have proved) to be 'the death of us.' god help us ... and scientists too!🙂
I have to disagree with this one as well. The philosophy that underlies "modern" Western science hasn't changed since the 14-15th century. Buddhism nowadays simply isn't the same as it was 2000 years ago. They learnt a lot about the workings of the mind in this time, and almost no psychologist is willing to talk to a Buddhist to learn about it - the Buddhists are interested in psychology, however.
And how do you mean, some of those beliefs will be the "death of us"?? I'm really sorry, but I think "modern" western science will be the death of us, with its separated reductionist materialistic thinking. Religion didn't cause climate change, the depletion of resources and the impending biodiversity collapse - all these go on the count of science and technology!
Oh, definitely! And the religious institutions much more so than religion itself. Even the Buddhist institutions in Japan have war and bloodshed in their history...
Mike, your comment is funny, but I agree with CRL that it's untrue, at least as regards Judeo-Christian religion. I can't think of any time when religion wasn't divorced from science (and reality). Even though we now know that extreme behaviors are caused by mental illness often resulting from chemical imbalances in the brain, there is still – in 2024! – a wide swath of religious folk who believe in demon possession. It's not surprising that these folk also believe Donald is going to make things better for them.
I have to disagree with you. For instance, Isaac Newton was a very fervent believer in God. René Descartes spent a lot of time trying the find out God's plan. A very interesting book about this theme is Cosmopolis by Prof. Stephen Toulmin.
Surely you don't think that one or two isolated individuals over the past two millennia, or even a hundred such individuals, have demonstrated some kind of concordat between science and religion!
The patronage of a scientist by a wealthy cleric is a strictly financial arrangement and should not be interpreted as mutuality of thought.
It is possible for religious beliefs to overlap with scientific theory, but one does not prove nor disprove the other.
Many scientists are devout in their religions, but pursue their studies using scientific methods without allowing religious superstitions to govern or interfere with their scientific activities. Those who attempt to marry the two must do so by twisting logic into pretzels.
A couple of points here then: it wasn't two isolated individuals. I know "science lovers" don't want to hear it, but science and the church were married for hundreds of years. The goal of science was to discover "God's plan". If you don't believe it, look it up. Once again: read the book by Prof. Toulmin. I'm a scientist myself, I've worked in pharmaceutical chemistry for 15 years, but I don't believe the fairy tale anymore that science is the "one and only truth" and that it's a linear success story - Thomas Kuhn disproves that story. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was right: the history of science is science itself.
Second point: the philosophy of reductionist materialism that is still the foundation of modern western science is no philosophy for/of life. It denies the soul and even the psyche, it being just a by-product of your biochemistry. It literally takes the soul out of everything and dehumanizes us: it reduces humans to just a bag of molecules controlled by their DNA. It did fit in well with the thinking of the Christian church: science also dictates that there is only one way of thinking that is true, in other words: thpu shalt worship only one God. Trouble is: if one would really _live_ the modern scientific philosophy, you would have to admit that the love you feel for your children is just an imbalance in your brain biochemistry, and if they get run over by a truck, you have to admit they're just a collection of molecules that found each other by accident and move on. This completely destroys all our emotions, morals and values. This philosophy, the way of thinking of modern science, is the biggest threat to humanity ever, because it also reduces Nature to just a heap of molecules. As the quantum physicist David Bohm so eloquently stated: "This fragmented thinking may well lead to our extinction." Well, here we are.
Not true. Science and religion were married for centuries. Only in recent times, science filed a divorce and is now sh*t-talking her ex.
Think you have it backwards. Science evolves as we 'learn stuff'. Religion fights doggedly to maintain beliefs from earlier times.
Some of those beliefs are good for humanity (love thy neighbor, etc.) ... and some will prove (have proved) to be 'the death of us.' god help us ... and scientists too!🙂
🎯🎯🎯
I have to disagree with this one as well. The philosophy that underlies "modern" Western science hasn't changed since the 14-15th century. Buddhism nowadays simply isn't the same as it was 2000 years ago. They learnt a lot about the workings of the mind in this time, and almost no psychologist is willing to talk to a Buddhist to learn about it - the Buddhists are interested in psychology, however.
And how do you mean, some of those beliefs will be the "death of us"?? I'm really sorry, but I think "modern" western science will be the death of us, with its separated reductionist materialistic thinking. Religion didn't cause climate change, the depletion of resources and the impending biodiversity collapse - all these go on the count of science and technology!
Good points but religion has it’s own crosses to bear.’
Oh, definitely! And the religious institutions much more so than religion itself. Even the Buddhist institutions in Japan have war and bloodshed in their history...
That has shocked me. Is there any group that doesn’t. Or is bloodshed a requirement for viability In a human world.
It seems that as soon as politics and power come into play, greed and war are what follows, no matter what your starting point is...
Mike, your comment is funny, but I agree with CRL that it's untrue, at least as regards Judeo-Christian religion. I can't think of any time when religion wasn't divorced from science (and reality). Even though we now know that extreme behaviors are caused by mental illness often resulting from chemical imbalances in the brain, there is still – in 2024! – a wide swath of religious folk who believe in demon possession. It's not surprising that these folk also believe Donald is going to make things better for them.
Demon Donald.
I have to disagree with you. For instance, Isaac Newton was a very fervent believer in God. René Descartes spent a lot of time trying the find out God's plan. A very interesting book about this theme is Cosmopolis by Prof. Stephen Toulmin.
A couple points and then I'm done.
Surely you don't think that one or two isolated individuals over the past two millennia, or even a hundred such individuals, have demonstrated some kind of concordat between science and religion!
The patronage of a scientist by a wealthy cleric is a strictly financial arrangement and should not be interpreted as mutuality of thought.
It is possible for religious beliefs to overlap with scientific theory, but one does not prove nor disprove the other.
Many scientists are devout in their religions, but pursue their studies using scientific methods without allowing religious superstitions to govern or interfere with their scientific activities. Those who attempt to marry the two must do so by twisting logic into pretzels.
A couple of points here then: it wasn't two isolated individuals. I know "science lovers" don't want to hear it, but science and the church were married for hundreds of years. The goal of science was to discover "God's plan". If you don't believe it, look it up. Once again: read the book by Prof. Toulmin. I'm a scientist myself, I've worked in pharmaceutical chemistry for 15 years, but I don't believe the fairy tale anymore that science is the "one and only truth" and that it's a linear success story - Thomas Kuhn disproves that story. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was right: the history of science is science itself.
Second point: the philosophy of reductionist materialism that is still the foundation of modern western science is no philosophy for/of life. It denies the soul and even the psyche, it being just a by-product of your biochemistry. It literally takes the soul out of everything and dehumanizes us: it reduces humans to just a bag of molecules controlled by their DNA. It did fit in well with the thinking of the Christian church: science also dictates that there is only one way of thinking that is true, in other words: thpu shalt worship only one God. Trouble is: if one would really _live_ the modern scientific philosophy, you would have to admit that the love you feel for your children is just an imbalance in your brain biochemistry, and if they get run over by a truck, you have to admit they're just a collection of molecules that found each other by accident and move on. This completely destroys all our emotions, morals and values. This philosophy, the way of thinking of modern science, is the biggest threat to humanity ever, because it also reduces Nature to just a heap of molecules. As the quantum physicist David Bohm so eloquently stated: "This fragmented thinking may well lead to our extinction." Well, here we are.
😂😂😂