Ask Your Question today
There are valid arguments for each position, and the consequences of each are far reaching. But in general, which do you think would be better than the other. Please explain your reasoning. Don't be afraid to cut loose and offend people. Brutal honesty is very welcomed.
| Devoutly religious. | 11 | |
| Devoutly scientific. | 39 | |
| They are roughly of equal importance. | 12 | |
| Both are bad. | 10 |
Personally, I am an Agnostic. I believe that both are existent, there's something out there that created the science of the universe. And I don't believe it's a man.
Science is rooted in reality. Some religion can be good, but it does not share equal footing with science, which can be proved or disproved and helps us further our knowledge of how the universe works. Plus, the fact that every religion contradicts the other should tell you something. Here is a quote I heard from a friend:
"Just as masturbation satisfies the drive to reproduce without actually reproducing, religion satisfies the drive to understand without actually understanding."
It's hard to explain. But I value science and separation of church and state more than spreading religion. I still believe in God and I try to be a good person, but perhaps I am a bad Christian.
Are you a Christian?
Yea.
I think as long as you make the distinction between religion and faith no harm is done.
It might do you some good to find others like yourself. Not all churches are batshit crazy or hateful.
Maybe I will. I haven't been to any church in years. I live in a rural area so the churches around here are pretty crazy lol.
Yeah I have a friend who's Christian and she's lovely, sane and never tries to brainwash you unlike all the others I've ever met in my life.
It depends on what the question is. Science is useful for answering specific questions about the natural world using empirically gathered and verifiable data. Its logic is primarily inductive, and while it isn't a system without flaws, it is a system with what might be considered the least amount of flaws. While it is true that virtually any belief one holds takes a degree of faith to believe in, science allows one to believe in certain propositions with less faith than they would need otherwise, or rather, science gives direction to one's faith and allows one to believe in certain propositions with a greater amount of reason or legitimacy than they would have otherwise.
This also depends on what you mean by "better." Better for what purposes, precisely? While I don't believe that religion is necessary for one to have a system of morals, I don't believe that science is capable of devising a system of morals, hence why I believe that being devoutly scientific isn't all that great either. While one might find that information gathered through empirical research might allow one to make more informed judgments on certain moral issues, I don't believe that science can actually tell one what the value of a moral action is. This isn't what science was made for, being that science merely gathers and explains data about the world, but doesn't really tell one how they are to act with this data, or what the ethical dimensions of this data are. Again, though, I don't think religion is necessary for one to behave in a moral fashion, or even possess a valid moral framework of some sort.
-an irreligious IIN user (inb4 complaints of "WELL UR JUST A RELIGITARD, IF U READ MORE STEVEN PINKER AND SAM HARRIS, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALITY IS!!! RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM!!!")
I would like to know some of these valid arguments for the devoutly religious.
I vote for devoutly scientific. A devoutly scientific person would believe in the evidence without regard for where it may lead him. If the evidence leads him to the existence of a creator, that is what he will believe.
Conversely, if evidence could ever prove that God did not exist, a devoutly religious person would disregard that evidence and their beliefs would go unchanged.
"...in general, which do you think would be better than the other."?
Better? Better for what?
It's a bit like asking, What is better? a hammer or a computer?
I disagree with the basic premise of your answer choices. Science and spirituality are useful for different things. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Whoa. Settle down there, cowboy. First off, the notion is that they are mutually independent, not mutually exclusive. Secondly, the issue is "far reaching". That means you have to use a bit of imagination and self-direction to give an answer that is insightful or useful in ANY way. Civilization? Society? Individual completeness? You frame the details the way YOU want.
I made my point that science and spirituality are useful for different things.
You responded by being patronising.
Also what is the purpose of saying, "...the issue is "far reaching"? Isn't that kind of stating the obvious?
Here's my take on the science part of the equation. (BTW I am not anti-science by any means).
Science has its limits. It seems people are always equating science with rationality, yet what is beyond science is not necessarily irrational.
For example, science cannot tell us if a work of literature, art or music are good, bad or beautiful. Science CAN tell us if you put a certain amount of cyanide into your spouses coffee it will kill them. But science cannot tell us if it's morally right to do so.
Science cannot answer even the basic questions of a child: Who am I? What is the meaning and purpose of my existence? What is consciousness?
There seems to be a grand rationality to the universe. But it's a process, not a person-like entity.