I've been an agnostic atheist for roughly two decades and one thing I just don't understand is why religion continues to take up so much mental and actual time in human lives. We have many serious global concerns(e.g. AIDS, overpopulation, climate change, etc) but people are more worried about their "souls" than what's going on right now. Science deals in certainty and yet it has few religious adherents, which is confusing to me. You would think that the concepts that have been proven would be more likely candidates for worship. Yet humanity still chooses to believe in things that cannot be proven for no logical reason.
All the old mysteries have been solved! We die due to disease, accident, or age. The lights in the sky are stars. When we die we cease to be and that's it. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Knowing all that, why is religion still a thing?
I've been an agnostic atheist for roughly two decades and one thing I just don't understand is why religion continues to take up so much mental and actual time in human lives. We have many serious global concerns(e.g. AIDS, overpopulation, climate change, etc) but people are more worried about their "souls" than what's going on right now. Science deals in certainty and yet it has few religious adherents, which is confusing to me. You would think that the concepts that have been proven would be more likely candidates for worship. Yet humanity still chooses to believe in things that cannot be proven for no logical reason.
All the old mysteries have been solved! We die due to disease, accident, or age. The lights in the sky are stars. When we die we cease to be and that's it. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Knowing all that, why is religion still a thing?
Dude.
People believed in Christ during the Black Death. When a quarter of the population of civilized Europe died. As far as the Europeans were concerned, the world was ending. How could God exist when you see everyone you knew and loved die a very horrible death?
And you think what happens now is enough to end religion?
Seriously?
And, no, science does not deal in certainty. That is a wrong way to look at science.
Furthermore, the premise of "we cannot prove it, therefore it doesn't exist" is... flawed to say the least.
Why do we die of age? That has yet to be solved. Why does our bodies fail in old age? How do you "definitively" know that we cease to exist when we die?
I get what you're trying to say, but it's (imho) a terribly bad thing to try to take logic and science beyond what it is meant to be.
Well... I think you're being too general. We can't speak for all religious people in general as people who are only concerned for their souls, the after life, etc.
Religion means something to these people. Religions form communities of people and it can also be a form of comfort, identity, security, hope, meaning, moral guidance, etc.
I would imagine that many of these things are important to us humans in general, not just the religious - but religion can offer people these things and sometimes more. We can't be so quick as atheists to condemn religion as nothing more than stupid nonsense on based on what we think about religion, we have to ask ourselves what religious people think about their religion in order to understand why it's still around.
Also we should keep in mind that sometimes there are non-religious people that still go to church, temple, mosque, etc. for some of these things as well.
Why do we die of age? That has yet to be solved. Why does our bodies fail in old age? How do you "definitively" know that we cease to exist when we die?
A big part of why humans die of old age has to do with telomeres, which basically keep our cells from dying during division. With each division they shorten and eventually they end and your cells begin to die. Over time your organs begin to function at less than maximum capacity because their cells are dying and so you begin to die, albeit slowly. Telomeres are still kind of a mystery because they don't behave the same way between different species. As for ceasing to exist when we die, what we consider to be ourselves is our unique neurological patterns in the brain. When you die for good that pattern is lost forever and there is no compelling evidence to prove that humans don't die for good when we die. If animals are forever lost when they die then it stands to reason that humans are the same. Sentience doesn't grant us some special destiny that sets us apart from the species we share this planet with. In the not too distant future I think we will be able to preserve a person's neurological pattern and in that way they won't really die.
I get what you're trying to say, but it's (imho) a terribly bad thing to try to take logic and science beyond what it is meant to be.
Logic and science are sometimes friends but are often at odds with each other. Logic can be entirely subjective while science is evidence based and thus not subject to individual opinions. I think science is much more logical than religion because of it's emphasis on evidence rather than faith.
We can't be so quick as atheists to condemn religion as nothing more than stupid nonsense on based on what we think about religion, we have to ask ourselves what religious people think about their religion in order to understand why it's still around.
I didn't say that religion was stupid nonsense, I asked why it is still relevant and why more people don't worship science.
I've been an agnostic atheist for roughly two decades and one thing I just don't understand is why religion continues to take up so much mental and actual time in human lives.
That rather explains itself, doesn't it?
We have many serious global concerns(e.g. AIDS, overpopulation, climate change, etc) but people are more worried about their "souls" than what's going on right now.
I don't think it's fair to say that the people who are concerned about their souls aren't worried about any of the world's problems.
Hell, someone could pass judgment on us, saying we're more worried about pieces of brightly-colored cardboard than we are about the problems of the world. But that wouldn't be a fair or accurate judgment, would it?
Science deals in certainty and yet it has few religious adherents, which is confusing to me.
It's confusing to you that people don't worship science?
I didn't say that religion was stupid nonsense, I asked why it is still relevant and why more people don't worship science.
I didn't say that you did and my post answered your question. Stop thinking like an atheist for a second and ask yourself those same questions. Then tell us why you think religion remains an influential and an important part of the human experience for the people who follow them.
A big part of why humans die of old age has to do with telomeres, which basically keep our cells from dying during division. With each division they shorten and eventually they end and your cells begin to die. Over time your organs begin to function at less than maximum capacity because their cells are dying and so you begin to die, albeit slowly.
I know what telomeres are. I also know that you didn't actually answer my question.
I asked you- Why do we die of age? And why do our bodies fail in old age? Telomeres do not explain this. They serve to give a potential mechanism, part of many other mechanisms, that can cause the body to fail.
But they are not definitive answers to the question of "why do we die of age" and "why do our bodies fail in old age"?
Why does it have to be that our organs need to fail? Why is it that our cells and their ability to replicate perfectly suddenly start degrading rapidly around the age of 40 and onward?
And therein lies my point- Science is not in the business of giving definitive answers. It never has been. This is why I have a really big issue with your entire post and the concept you're trying to put here.
As for ceasing to exist when we die, what we consider to be ourselves is our unique neurological patterns in the brain. When you die for good that pattern is lost forever and there is no compelling evidence to prove that humans don't die for good when we die.
Prove it.
And, I repeat again- "we cannot prove it, therefore it doesn't exist" and every similar line of thought is... flawed to say the least.
Logic and science are sometimes friends but are often at odds with each other. Logic can be entirely subjective while science is evidence based and thus not subject to individual opinions. I think science is much more logical than religion because of it's emphasis on evidence rather than faith.
Logic can be described as the explanation of things within a fixed and finite world. That is, we can define what an apple is, provided that we set certain parameters and definitions that we choose to work with.
In that sense, what you wrote here doesn't even make sense. It's not "logic can be entirely subjective", logic IS entirely subjective. And the fact that you think logic can go beyond a subjective method suggests to me that you think it is more than it really is, which is what I wanted to point out.
The desire to pursue logic that we see in society today, especially in all them younger folks (lol at me saying that) who want to be seen as logical people and therefore reject Christianity for that reason, doesn't make sense to me.
Wow.... seems the same-same passive aggressive attitudes prevail. Wave your flags boys and girls!
Not saying I'm any different than the rest of you, but this did induce a WTF?
A big part of why humans die of old age has to do with telomeres, which basically keep our cells from dying during division. With each division they shorten and eventually they end and your cells begin to die. Over time your organs begin to function at less than maximum capacity because their cells are dying and so you begin to die, albeit slowly.
I asked you- Why do we die of age? And why do our bodies fail in old age? Telomeres do not explain this. They serve to give a potential mechanism, part of many other mechanisms, that can cause the body to fail.
But they are not definitive answers to the question of "why do we die of age" and "why do our bodies fail in old age"?
Why does it have to be that our organs need to fail? Why is it that our cells and their ability to replicate perfectly suddenly start degrading rapidly around the age of 40 and onward?
And therein lies my point- Science is not in the business of giving definitive answers. It never has been. This is why I have a really big issue with your entire post and the concept you're trying to put here.
I call bull*****.
I come from a medical background, work in an ED dept. and have a degree in science.
magickware99, it seems to me you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death > so how about you explain why you've come to this conclusion with a reason yourself?
(above is not a reason)
There are many reasons for death. Once you study the human body at length, you come to realise the mortal body is not much more than a machine with a conciousness, which has a number of frailties and usually if one component fails it can cause failures in other places.
Medical science and the science community at large has developed ways to keep the body going far beyond the natural way of things, in the vast majority of conditions. Like Cancer for example, if someone has an Aortic Dissection or rupture, or if someone takes an overdose of something deadly.
We have found a way to keep an otherwise dead body alive (life support), transplant limbs and organs and stop the body rejecting them, and in some cases, humans have developed efficient ways to kill the body too. Science has proven that some suffer from mental illness, either from chemical/hormone imbalances, organic causes and what-not, and are not currently possessed by a demon or paying for bad ju-ju
Point is, science has explained plenty about how the body works, and as scientific research continues we will learn more > So prove otherwise.
For me;
The relevancy of religion is all about whether it actually improves lives or not.
I personally see religion (in a general sense), as not much more than a set of morals to live your life by, and as a westerner my society is based to live on some basic chritian morals whether I like it not. If you're living in time or place of conflict, where religion has played a part in actually decreasing your safety, and/or your chances of living a long & peaceful life, I would argue that religion has done you no favours.
The relevance is up to you.
I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Quote from Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 »
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.
But then again, lest we take the wisdom of Solomon too seriously,
Quote from Ecclesiastes 7:28 »
...while I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I come from a medical background, work in an ED dept. and have a degree in science.
magickware99, it seems to me you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death > so how about you explain why you've come to this conclusion with a reason yourself?
Kudos for completely missing the point. I mean... "you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death"? Really? That's what you got out of what I wrote?
Of course we know how a number of deaths occur. Heart attacks kill you because your heart fails and you no longer get oxygen to your cells. Cancer kills you because your body becomes flooded with a horde of monster cells that interfere with a number of vital functions of the body and eventually cause them to shut down. Falling from a very high height kills you because of the massive trauma caused by the fall, which causes various organs to rupture and unable to fulfill their functions. Internal bleeding kills you because of blood loss. Ditto for most gunshot wounds.
Etc. Etc.
I wrote all those in an attempt to further my understanding of how Bitsy views science by getting a response to what I wrote. I object to Bitsy stating "All the old mysteries have been solved!" and "Science deals in certainty" and I wanted to take my time teasing out what he meant by that while injecting my own opinion into it.
Instead you take what I wrote and think I'm being some sort of idiot/********.
Funny.
...
Now you tell me, where's the bull***** in what I wrote? What offended you so much that it elicited a "WTF" from you?
And where's the passive-aggressive attitude in what I wrote?
I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
Quote from Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 »
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.
But then again, lest we take the wisdom of Solomon too seriously,
Quote from Ecclesiastes 7:28 »
...while I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
I really cannot tell whether you're joking or not.
And therein lies my point- Science is not in the business of giving definitive answers. It never has been.
That. Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
I'm not offended, just disappointed that a conversation about religion has descended to bash science so very quickly.
I look at our OP's original post as "Why is religion still so popular in the world", whereas many here have bashed the other things they have said as this or that, without actually addressing what I think is the whole point of their question.
And therein lies my point- Science is not in the business of giving definitive answers. It never has been.
That. Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
I'm not offended, just disappointed that a conversation about religion has descended to bash science so very quickly.
I look at our OP's original post as "Why is religion still so popular in the world", whereas many here have bashed the other things they have said as this or that, without actually addressing what I think is the whole point of their question.
Science PROVIDES answers. It does not provide DEFINITIVE answers. In short, my beef is with the "certainty". We are not certain about anything in science. We are only always as knowledgeable as our current ability to gain and interpret information allows us.
There is a very big difference between saying science gives you answers and definitive ones. You should know this if you are a hard science major. I don't think you would be going around saying science proves that red meat is bad for you. Rather, you would probably be saying science suggests/strongly gives reasons for us to believe/etc (depending on the strength of existing evidence) that red meat is bad for you.
I personally find the belief that scientific endeavors conclusively explain things as poisonous and dangerous a mindset as religious radicals and fundamentalists.
As much as it is seemingly impossible to disprove the solar system being a heliocentric one as opposed to a geocentric one nowadays, I believe you are still practicing bad science if you say "we have conclusively proved that we live in a heliocentric solar system". It would be far better to say "To the best our of knowledge, we live in a heliocentric solar system".
Does this seem asinine and overly technical? Perhaps. But I find it a very important thought process to adhere to.
And, no, I don't bash science and the scientific method. I like it enough that I would prefer for people to not use it in an attempt to make definitive claims when science doesn't want to make definitive claims.
Unless you can explain to me that I'm completely wrong on this. I'd be interested to hear that.
Science PROVIDES answers. It does not provide DEFINITIVE answers. In short, my beef is with the "certainty". We are not certain about anything in science. We are only always as knowledgeable as our current ability to gain and interpret information allows us.
I would argue that science does both in a lot of cases, and the black and white separation you're flagging isn't obvious, nor relevant.
Definitive = a final or conclusive answer, right?
Sure there will be some things, like the big bang for example, that have yet to be fully explored, or simply cannot be proven one way or the other, but in many cases science has provided answers to many a problem. The rest is generally a matter of time and money until definitive answers might be provided, where possible.
In the vast majority of things we can prove/disprove through scientific analysis, the answer has a good chance of being a definitive one given time and funding.
I personally find the belief that scientific endeavors conclusively explain things as poisonous and dangerous a mindset as religious radicals and fundamentalists.
Seriously?
Science has conclusively explained many things. Why doesn't sound travel in a vacuum, how a rocket works, why it's hard to breath at high altitude, why the sky is blue, how a nuclear reaction works and how to control it etc. etc. > there's answers for many things proven by scientific method, that I would suggest are definitive.
I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
I think lots of people are drawn to religion for comfort and a sense of control.
The world is overwhelming, especially if you expand your view to include all of those huge issues we face. Religion tends to make those fears and unknowns more manageable. And in some cases it can give someone a sense of purpose/control that can be very difficult to find elsewhere.
I really cannot tell whether you're joking or not.
Eh, I wanted to come at the issue from an unexpected direction. And Ecclesiastes is something Christians and Jews have to deal with (and often don't even realize they do).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
I see it as a difference in mentality.
People tend to take "incomplete" sciences and assume that, since it's based on the scientific process and all that, it must be correct.
Like with food sciences or dietary sciences, for a simple example.
Plus my understanding of scientific is that, it is all based on evidence. Nothing based on evidence could be "absolute". This is the difference between something that we create and something we attempt to understand.
And I see the belief that we conclusively understand something a very nice way to become close-minded in that particular something and cause troubles.
Like I said, it's the mentality I have an issue with. It seems innocuous with things like wind, but then you get people getting idiotically hard-headed over even the soft sciences like anthropology, or when people take incomplete sciences and attempt to create policy/take it as if it's complete, then I see issues.
Let me know if I'm wrong in thinking that "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right". This is what my whole thought is rooted in anyhow.
I mean... otherwise the ancient Greeks must have been right in thinking that we lived in a geocentric world. And it is only with the development of methods to better perceive our world that we realized we were wrong.
I really cannot tell whether you're joking or not.
Eh, I wanted to come at the issue from an unexpected direction. And Ecclesiastes is something Christians and Jews have to deal with (and often don't even realize they do).
=D
You've certainly succeeded. I've never read Ecclesiastes, but just from those short verses alone I get the feeling that it goes against a lot of the conventional Christian teachings.
You should read it. Like, right now. It's not long. I read through it last night just to find those verses, since I didn't have their citations memorized. And for being basically the griping of a cranky misogynistic old fart, it's actually one of the most beautiful parts of the Bible.
I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
I see it as a difference in mentality.
People tend to take "incomplete" sciences and assume that, since it's based on the scientific process and all that, it must be correct.
Like with food sciences or dietary sciences, for a simple example.
Plus my understanding of scientific is that, it is all based on evidence. Nothing based on evidence could be "absolute". This is the difference between something that we create and something we attempt to understand.
And I see the belief that we conclusively understand something a very nice way to become close-minded in that particular something and cause troubles.
Like I said, it's the mentality I have an issue with. It seems innocuous with things like wind, but then you get people getting idiotically hard-headed over even the soft sciences like anthropology, or when people take incomplete sciences and attempt to create policy/take it as if it's complete, then I see issues.
Let me know if I'm wrong in thinking that "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right". This is what my whole thought is rooted in anyhow.
I mean... otherwise the ancient Greeks must have been right in thinking that we lived in a geocentric world. And it is only with the development of methods to better perceive our world that we realized we were wrong.
You are correct. Even the most established scientific ideal isn't truly a "fact" in the traditional sense, as even if we are 99.99999% sure it is correct there is always some chance that it isn't. Science is about acting on the most likely possibility. Everything in science is about probability, not certainty, when it comes to determining results and acting on them. This is why statistical significance goes hand in hand with virtually every serious scientific discussion of results (i.e. P < x).
Now there are two areas where I often see religious leaning folks get confused when comparing science to religion:
1. They ask "If science can't actually prove anything aren't scientists really just acting on faith like us?" - No, scientists operate on what could simply be described as the "best guess" model of thinking. You never have perfect knowledge of anything, meaning that you always have to operate under some set of assumptions. Scientists use data driven results and probability to determine the most likely answer and use that as the assumption for moving forward. But fundamentally there is no faith that the assumption is true, just an acceptance that we can't know for sure but have to base our actions on something.
2. "Usefulness" matters and divides science and religion. Scientific observation is repeatable and designed to provide practically useful information, mostly in the form of being able to make future predictions (i.e. best guesses). Religious belief/study/practice does not tend to provide that kind of actionable data.
Science PROVIDES answers. It does not provide DEFINITIVE answers. In short, my beef is with the "certainty". We are not certain about anything in science. We are only always as knowledgeable as our current ability to gain and interpret information allows us.
I would argue that science does both in a lot of cases, and the black and white separation you're flagging isn't obvious, nor relevant.
Definitive = a final or conclusive answer, right?
Sure there will be some things, like the big bang for example, that have yet to be fully explored, or simply cannot be proven one way or the other, but in many cases science has provided answers to many a problem. The rest is generally a matter of time and money until definitive answers might be provided, where possible.
In the vast majority of things we can prove/disprove through scientific analysis, the answer has a good chance of being a definitive one given time and funding.
I personally find the belief that scientific endeavors conclusively explain things as poisonous and dangerous a mindset as religious radicals and fundamentalists.
Seriously?
Science has conclusively explained many things. Why doesn't sound travel in a vacuum, how a rocket works, why it's hard to breath at high altitude, why the sky is blue, how a nuclear reaction works and how to control it etc. etc. > there's answers for many things proven by scientific method, that I would suggest are definitive.
I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
I think you two are talking past each other to some degree. But at base, I agree with magicware99.
You're right that science provides pragmatic answers that are useful in making decisions. For example, as someone who works in an emergency department you can use scientific information about how the body works to make treatment decisions. But that information, while reliable and useful, isn't "conclusive" or "absolute." For example, our understanding of how the heart works was pretty good 50 years ago, it's better today, and it will be even better 50 years from now. Scientific truth is evolving.
Religion usually deals in conclusive truths. "Thou shall/shalt not do X." This kind of statement is a dogma. It's handed down from God and beyond questioning. No amount of evidence or logic can disprove it in the mind of a zealous adherent. It is irrefutable.
That's not how science works. Even if a scientist is 99.9999% sure about the truth of a statement, he or she is always on the look out for evidence that contradicts or modifies that statement. Indeed, there's no better way to advance your career as a scientist than to find a hole in the prevailing theory (see, e.g., Einstein). Science doesn't deal in dogmas, everything is potentially fair game.
Finally, I think the question "why don't people worship science?" is absurd. First of all, science doesn't warrant worship. It's a tool, not some cosmic overlord. Second, I think there's a very small area of overlap between the questions that science and religion are both trying to answer. Basically, the only overlap is "how was the universe created?" (and plenty of religious people don't look to their religion to answer this question). But religion deals with a great many issues that science isn't designed to address: it provides a social network, it tells people what moral standards to adhere to, it provides a shared cultural experience, it gives people coping mechanisms for various hardships, it gives people comfort when faced with their own mortality, etc. We can argue about whether religion gets these things right or wrong, but it's undisputed that science isn't here to answer these kinds of questions.
I've been an agnostic atheist for roughly two decades and one thing I just don't understand is why religion continues to take up so much mental and actual time in human lives. We have many serious global concerns(e.g. AIDS, overpopulation, climate change, etc) but people are more worried about their "souls" than what's going on right now. Science deals in certainty and yet it has few religious adherents, which is confusing to me. You would think that the concepts that have been proven would be more likely candidates for worship. Yet humanity still chooses to believe in things that cannot be proven for no logical reason.
All the old mysteries have been solved! We die due to disease, accident, or age. The lights in the sky are stars. When we die we cease to be and that's it. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Knowing all that, why is religion still a thing?
Eh I look at it in perspective. A famous fellow once said as long as there is fear of death religion will exist. Plus considering much less influential religion is compared to centuries ago. I'm ok with the gradual erosion of religion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All the old mysteries have been solved! We die due to disease, accident, or age. The lights in the sky are stars. When we die we cease to be and that's it. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Knowing all that, why is religion still a thing?
Dude.
People believed in Christ during the Black Death. When a quarter of the population of civilized Europe died. As far as the Europeans were concerned, the world was ending. How could God exist when you see everyone you knew and loved die a very horrible death?
And you think what happens now is enough to end religion?
Seriously?
And, no, science does not deal in certainty. That is a wrong way to look at science.
Furthermore, the premise of "we cannot prove it, therefore it doesn't exist" is... flawed to say the least.
Why do we die of age? That has yet to be solved. Why does our bodies fail in old age? How do you "definitively" know that we cease to exist when we die?
I get what you're trying to say, but it's (imho) a terribly bad thing to try to take logic and science beyond what it is meant to be.
Religion means something to these people. Religions form communities of people and it can also be a form of comfort, identity, security, hope, meaning, moral guidance, etc.
I would imagine that many of these things are important to us humans in general, not just the religious - but religion can offer people these things and sometimes more. We can't be so quick as atheists to condemn religion as nothing more than stupid nonsense on based on what we think about religion, we have to ask ourselves what religious people think about their religion in order to understand why it's still around.
Also we should keep in mind that sometimes there are non-religious people that still go to church, temple, mosque, etc. for some of these things as well.
A big part of why humans die of old age has to do with telomeres, which basically keep our cells from dying during division. With each division they shorten and eventually they end and your cells begin to die. Over time your organs begin to function at less than maximum capacity because their cells are dying and so you begin to die, albeit slowly. Telomeres are still kind of a mystery because they don't behave the same way between different species. As for ceasing to exist when we die, what we consider to be ourselves is our unique neurological patterns in the brain. When you die for good that pattern is lost forever and there is no compelling evidence to prove that humans don't die for good when we die. If animals are forever lost when they die then it stands to reason that humans are the same. Sentience doesn't grant us some special destiny that sets us apart from the species we share this planet with. In the not too distant future I think we will be able to preserve a person's neurological pattern and in that way they won't really die.
Logic and science are sometimes friends but are often at odds with each other. Logic can be entirely subjective while science is evidence based and thus not subject to individual opinions. I think science is much more logical than religion because of it's emphasis on evidence rather than faith.
I didn't say that religion was stupid nonsense, I asked why it is still relevant and why more people don't worship science.
I don't think it's fair to say that the people who are concerned about their souls aren't worried about any of the world's problems.
Hell, someone could pass judgment on us, saying we're more worried about pieces of brightly-colored cardboard than we are about the problems of the world. But that wouldn't be a fair or accurate judgment, would it?
It's confusing to you that people don't worship science?
Prove it.
I didn't say that you did and my post answered your question. Stop thinking like an atheist for a second and ask yourself those same questions. Then tell us why you think religion remains an influential and an important part of the human experience for the people who follow them.
I know what telomeres are. I also know that you didn't actually answer my question.
I asked you- Why do we die of age? And why do our bodies fail in old age? Telomeres do not explain this. They serve to give a potential mechanism, part of many other mechanisms, that can cause the body to fail.
But they are not definitive answers to the question of "why do we die of age" and "why do our bodies fail in old age"?
Why does it have to be that our organs need to fail? Why is it that our cells and their ability to replicate perfectly suddenly start degrading rapidly around the age of 40 and onward?
And therein lies my point- Science is not in the business of giving definitive answers. It never has been. This is why I have a really big issue with your entire post and the concept you're trying to put here.
Prove it.
And, I repeat again- "we cannot prove it, therefore it doesn't exist" and every similar line of thought is... flawed to say the least.
Prove it.
Logic can be described as the explanation of things within a fixed and finite world. That is, we can define what an apple is, provided that we set certain parameters and definitions that we choose to work with.
In that sense, what you wrote here doesn't even make sense. It's not "logic can be entirely subjective", logic IS entirely subjective. And the fact that you think logic can go beyond a subjective method suggests to me that you think it is more than it really is, which is what I wanted to point out.
The desire to pursue logic that we see in society today, especially in all them younger folks (lol at me saying that) who want to be seen as logical people and therefore reject Christianity for that reason, doesn't make sense to me.
Not saying I'm any different than the rest of you, but this did induce a WTF?
I call bull*****.
I come from a medical background, work in an ED dept. and have a degree in science.
magickware99, it seems to me you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death > so how about you explain why you've come to this conclusion with a reason yourself?
(above is not a reason)
There are many reasons for death. Once you study the human body at length, you come to realise the mortal body is not much more than a machine with a conciousness, which has a number of frailties and usually if one component fails it can cause failures in other places.
Medical science and the science community at large has developed ways to keep the body going far beyond the natural way of things, in the vast majority of conditions. Like Cancer for example, if someone has an Aortic Dissection or rupture, or if someone takes an overdose of something deadly.
We have found a way to keep an otherwise dead body alive (life support), transplant limbs and organs and stop the body rejecting them, and in some cases, humans have developed efficient ways to kill the body too. Science has proven that some suffer from mental illness, either from chemical/hormone imbalances, organic causes and what-not, and are not currently possessed by a demon or paying for bad ju-ju
Point is, science has explained plenty about how the body works, and as scientific research continues we will learn more > So prove otherwise.
For me;
The relevancy of religion is all about whether it actually improves lives or not.
I personally see religion (in a general sense), as not much more than a set of morals to live your life by, and as a westerner my society is based to live on some basic chritian morals whether I like it not. If you're living in time or place of conflict, where religion has played a part in actually decreasing your safety, and/or your chances of living a long & peaceful life, I would argue that religion has done you no favours.
The relevance is up to you.
But then again, lest we take the wisdom of Solomon too seriously,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Kudos for completely missing the point. I mean... "you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death"? Really? That's what you got out of what I wrote?
Of course we know how a number of deaths occur. Heart attacks kill you because your heart fails and you no longer get oxygen to your cells. Cancer kills you because your body becomes flooded with a horde of monster cells that interfere with a number of vital functions of the body and eventually cause them to shut down. Falling from a very high height kills you because of the massive trauma caused by the fall, which causes various organs to rupture and unable to fulfill their functions. Internal bleeding kills you because of blood loss. Ditto for most gunshot wounds.
Etc. Etc.
I wrote all those in an attempt to further my understanding of how Bitsy views science by getting a response to what I wrote. I object to Bitsy stating "All the old mysteries have been solved!" and "Science deals in certainty" and I wanted to take my time teasing out what he meant by that while injecting my own opinion into it.
Instead you take what I wrote and think I'm being some sort of idiot/********.
Funny.
...
Now you tell me, where's the bull***** in what I wrote? What offended you so much that it elicited a "WTF" from you?
And where's the passive-aggressive attitude in what I wrote?
I really cannot tell whether you're joking or not.
That.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
I'm not offended, just disappointed that a conversation about religion has descended to bash science so very quickly.
I look at our OP's original post as "Why is religion still so popular in the world", whereas many here have bashed the other things they have said as this or that, without actually addressing what I think is the whole point of their question.
Science PROVIDES answers. It does not provide DEFINITIVE answers. In short, my beef is with the "certainty". We are not certain about anything in science. We are only always as knowledgeable as our current ability to gain and interpret information allows us.
There is a very big difference between saying science gives you answers and definitive ones. You should know this if you are a hard science major. I don't think you would be going around saying science proves that red meat is bad for you. Rather, you would probably be saying science suggests/strongly gives reasons for us to believe/etc (depending on the strength of existing evidence) that red meat is bad for you.
I personally find the belief that scientific endeavors conclusively explain things as poisonous and dangerous a mindset as religious radicals and fundamentalists.
As much as it is seemingly impossible to disprove the solar system being a heliocentric one as opposed to a geocentric one nowadays, I believe you are still practicing bad science if you say "we have conclusively proved that we live in a heliocentric solar system". It would be far better to say "To the best our of knowledge, we live in a heliocentric solar system".
Does this seem asinine and overly technical? Perhaps. But I find it a very important thought process to adhere to.
And, no, I don't bash science and the scientific method. I like it enough that I would prefer for people to not use it in an attempt to make definitive claims when science doesn't want to make definitive claims.
Unless you can explain to me that I'm completely wrong on this. I'd be interested to hear that.
I would argue that science does both in a lot of cases, and the black and white separation you're flagging isn't obvious, nor relevant.
Definitive = a final or conclusive answer, right?
Sure there will be some things, like the big bang for example, that have yet to be fully explored, or simply cannot be proven one way or the other, but in many cases science has provided answers to many a problem. The rest is generally a matter of time and money until definitive answers might be provided, where possible.
In the vast majority of things we can prove/disprove through scientific analysis, the answer has a good chance of being a definitive one given time and funding.
Seriously?
Science has conclusively explained many things. Why doesn't sound travel in a vacuum, how a rocket works, why it's hard to breath at high altitude, why the sky is blue, how a nuclear reaction works and how to control it etc. etc. > there's answers for many things proven by scientific method, that I would suggest are definitive.
I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
The world is overwhelming, especially if you expand your view to include all of those huge issues we face. Religion tends to make those fears and unknowns more manageable. And in some cases it can give someone a sense of purpose/control that can be very difficult to find elsewhere.
Tell that to Richard Dawkins he says we should believe in science and not religion.
It does not deal it often though. How many things is a cosmologist really willing to admit he / she is a 100 percent certain on?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I see it as a difference in mentality.
People tend to take "incomplete" sciences and assume that, since it's based on the scientific process and all that, it must be correct.
Like with food sciences or dietary sciences, for a simple example.
Plus my understanding of scientific is that, it is all based on evidence. Nothing based on evidence could be "absolute". This is the difference between something that we create and something we attempt to understand.
And I see the belief that we conclusively understand something a very nice way to become close-minded in that particular something and cause troubles.
Like I said, it's the mentality I have an issue with. It seems innocuous with things like wind, but then you get people getting idiotically hard-headed over even the soft sciences like anthropology, or when people take incomplete sciences and attempt to create policy/take it as if it's complete, then I see issues.
Let me know if I'm wrong in thinking that "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right". This is what my whole thought is rooted in anyhow.
I mean... otherwise the ancient Greeks must have been right in thinking that we lived in a geocentric world. And it is only with the development of methods to better perceive our world that we realized we were wrong.
=D
You've certainly succeeded. I've never read Ecclesiastes, but just from those short verses alone I get the feeling that it goes against a lot of the conventional Christian teachings.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Belief is not worship.
You are correct. Even the most established scientific ideal isn't truly a "fact" in the traditional sense, as even if we are 99.99999% sure it is correct there is always some chance that it isn't. Science is about acting on the most likely possibility. Everything in science is about probability, not certainty, when it comes to determining results and acting on them. This is why statistical significance goes hand in hand with virtually every serious scientific discussion of results (i.e. P < x).
Now there are two areas where I often see religious leaning folks get confused when comparing science to religion:
1. They ask "If science can't actually prove anything aren't scientists really just acting on faith like us?" - No, scientists operate on what could simply be described as the "best guess" model of thinking. You never have perfect knowledge of anything, meaning that you always have to operate under some set of assumptions. Scientists use data driven results and probability to determine the most likely answer and use that as the assumption for moving forward. But fundamentally there is no faith that the assumption is true, just an acceptance that we can't know for sure but have to base our actions on something.
2. "Usefulness" matters and divides science and religion. Scientific observation is repeatable and designed to provide practically useful information, mostly in the form of being able to make future predictions (i.e. best guesses). Religious belief/study/practice does not tend to provide that kind of actionable data.
I think you two are talking past each other to some degree. But at base, I agree with magicware99.
You're right that science provides pragmatic answers that are useful in making decisions. For example, as someone who works in an emergency department you can use scientific information about how the body works to make treatment decisions. But that information, while reliable and useful, isn't "conclusive" or "absolute." For example, our understanding of how the heart works was pretty good 50 years ago, it's better today, and it will be even better 50 years from now. Scientific truth is evolving.
Religion usually deals in conclusive truths. "Thou shall/shalt not do X." This kind of statement is a dogma. It's handed down from God and beyond questioning. No amount of evidence or logic can disprove it in the mind of a zealous adherent. It is irrefutable.
That's not how science works. Even if a scientist is 99.9999% sure about the truth of a statement, he or she is always on the look out for evidence that contradicts or modifies that statement. Indeed, there's no better way to advance your career as a scientist than to find a hole in the prevailing theory (see, e.g., Einstein). Science doesn't deal in dogmas, everything is potentially fair game.
Finally, I think the question "why don't people worship science?" is absurd. First of all, science doesn't warrant worship. It's a tool, not some cosmic overlord. Second, I think there's a very small area of overlap between the questions that science and religion are both trying to answer. Basically, the only overlap is "how was the universe created?" (and plenty of religious people don't look to their religion to answer this question). But religion deals with a great many issues that science isn't designed to address: it provides a social network, it tells people what moral standards to adhere to, it provides a shared cultural experience, it gives people coping mechanisms for various hardships, it gives people comfort when faced with their own mortality, etc. We can argue about whether religion gets these things right or wrong, but it's undisputed that science isn't here to answer these kinds of questions.
Eh I look at it in perspective. A famous fellow once said as long as there is fear of death religion will exist. Plus considering much less influential religion is compared to centuries ago. I'm ok with the gradual erosion of religion.