Will science ever overtake religion?

[IDMclean]

I know of awe and wonder, but they are not of science, they feed it like a block of wood feeds the fire. If I write a poem about the workings of the universe, without testing the prose put forth then the poem is not scientific.

 

Science itself is cold. It's like watching looney toons versus explaining, in detail, what is going on in looney toons. It sucks the fun out of it. Pure Science. Pure Logic. is unemotional, it is started by emotion but it is not emotional, in and of itself. Science is the Balance to Religion and Philosophy. To be pure in any of them is to invite madness.

 

Perhaps even one of the very stars he/she is looking at has long since died, burned out, exploded and those very same atoms have begun a new dance, forming civilizations, people, etc

 

In analysis of this statement you will find that it is full of unscientific things, it does not explain, logically, and falsifiably, anything at all. it is full of metaphor and emotive eticers. Dance is of art, and science is not art, not yet anyway. Death is a mortal concept, a fear of things to come that are inescapable. A planet does not die, it merely changes state.

 

I am not denying that Emotion, inuition, and faith are not important to science. Quite the oppisite. I am just saying that each is it's own realm at current and until we have merged all of it together and get a working interlinked system going, the machine will remain a machine.

 

It will chug on without fail, it will correct and recorrect and one day it will come to understand that there is more to the universe than just what meets the eye.

 

I am not saying science is hidious, I am a scientist myself, I am just saying it is not an island unto itself. It advances with the advents in religion and Philosophy. One can only see what one can imagine.

[someguy]

Hello KAC,

I hope you don't mind the initials.

I felt that some statements that were made, were intentionally hostile. If I made err, all I can say is: I'm human.

I certainly don't mean to be hostile. I am defending the point of view I believe to be correct. I think the mere mention that anyone claims to have the "truth" is a slap in the face of everyone who belives differently. It is very hostile to call everyone else a liar.

 

This is a straw man arguement, I did not make this statement nor does it reflect my thoughts, opinions or emotive state.

Well just what do you mean when you say respect what others have to say? I respectfully disagree with some and agree with others. I have issue with any who claim to know the "truth" and can not prove it. I have the right to disagree and criticize as does every person. That is what your quote says.

Say what you will, but please do so civilally and with respect for the beliefs of others. I respect your beliefs and you obviously do not respect mine, in a reactionary way. That is within in my perspective.

 

Have I been less than civil? To say that someone is wrong is not to be uncivil it is to be contrary. I do respect your beliefs, I just disagree when they are contrary to mine. This is respectful. Respectful does not mean allowing someone to call you a liar because they claim to know the "truth". Disrespectful does not mean not telling somone you think they are wrong. It is not disrespectful to ask somone to support their claim of the "truth".

 

More or less both, I like to try out a given ephemera before dismissing it as false.

As do I and this includes a check of validity.

 

Me myself, I am partial to the idea that I cease to be when I die. No "immortal" soul in any conventional sense, my ego finishes when this shell finishes.

The same that I am partial to. But the truth is that no one knows and this is the arguement I have stated.

The superstition of others will be shed away as the real truth is revealed by the only worthy system, one that is objective and verifible.

 

This gives me comfort and purpose in life, and drives me to be a better person. There is no "reason" or logic that I am aware of that makes this so, science can not explain, as of yet why it is that I choose the paths I do.

Again I say there is nothing wrong with your ideas. There are those that say you are outright wrong and those are who I have issue with.

The idea that this gives you purpose is excellent and wonderful. The very notion that absence of life after death makes it precious and reason to be moral and live well is beautiful. Science may very well reveal that you are correct by showing that no such afterlife does exist or at least put extreme doubt in the idea.

 

What it summerizes as is:

"Whatever floats your boat, just don't rock ours without really good reason."

Beautifully said now apply this to everyone who tells you that you are wrong and are going to burn for eternity for what you believe in. My really good reason is that those who claim to be correct do so without merit.

Someguy

[IDMclean]

Those people whom disagree with can do just that, in the mean time I am going to go on walking my path.

 

Anyway like I said, and it was the basis of my reaction, I perceived hostility and so I reacted accordingly. I erred and so my following arguements were erred also.

[someguy]

Those people whom disagree with can do just that, in the mean time I am going to go on walking my path.

 

Anyway like I said, and it was the basis of my reaction, I perceived hostility and so I reacted accordingly. I erred and so my following arguements were erred also.

So be it.

A question.

Why KickAssClown? Is there some kind of signifigance or just a name?

Thanks,

Someguy

[IDMclean]

It's KickAssClown because of a number of reasons, and I don't mind the abbreviation of KAC.

 

One because it's a pretty unique Screen name.

Two because it reflects an inner awe of clowns and comedy, and therefore of Tradgety. As Life is to Death...

Three because if I wasn't lauging I would be crying.

Four because I fear clowns for what they could do, could be doing, of the advantage of their position.

Five because Clowns wear makeup, masks and costumes, mocking the ordinary and common place.

[Freddy]

I hope science topples religion, but remain doubtful because religion indoctrinates from cradle to the grave.

[IDMclean]

The clearest thing I can grapple from this thread is thus:

 

When the word religion is used it is used with context. In reference to the Christian religion, no surprise as that is the one that dominates the world.

 

I hear the word religion and I think like this:

Religion:

Secular Humanism

Taoism

Buddhism

Catholicism

Judaism

Islamism

Hinduism

Shintoism

Paganism

Wicca

Wuism (Wuism is a old chinese animism belief, the apparent predecessor of Shintoism)

 

These each have their point of view and each has it's own methods of conveaying the way to find a path. Religion like Science and Philosophy is about the search for the truth.

 

A question is a good idea, a belief is fine within you as your belief. A conviction is a great thing to have. However it only becomes a problem, and falls outside of contexts when it is thrown upon others.

 

So what I think I mean to say is:

If you don't like the dogmas, then drop them.

If you wish to teach your own path to the truth, then speak, and when asked to, teach.

If you hold something as the truth then by all means stick to it, however make sure it is the truth, within you.

I hold Balance as nessary, that the extreames are dangerous and problematic, and the best path to truth is that of the middle path. I hold this as truth, I don't deny there are other truths, and I don't deny that other religions could be right. Only that I know what is best for me.

[someguy]

These each have their point of view and each has it's own methods of conveaying the way to find a path. Religion like Science and Philosophy is about the search for the truth.

 

With the exception that many, if not all, of these believe they already have the "truth" and you need only accept it. So to define religion as the search for truth would be an improper defintion it would be more like the one's who think they have the "truth".

 

Again I say that science will overtake religion in popularity because of the objective nature and the fallibility of science. When you can back up what you assert with a mountain of evidence and leave room to correct when proven wrong, it makes what you say much more popular.