"It really is terribly simple,
1) models with predictive capability are of utility.
2) Science is in a class of its own, a process without competitors, when it comes to its ability to form such models.
So where is the problem? These are observations that not only essentially everyone agrees with, but practically EVERYONE eagerly embraces, most notably in tasting the sweet fruits of science, such as modern civilization.
However religion, a model with no demonstrable predictive utility, remains prevalent within mankind.
The bizarre thing is that all these people who engage in religion must realize what a good model looks like as they use them everyday of their life. Convergent models with predictive capability are the good one... the ones they chose to use. Yet still, peculiarly, these folks still embrace religion which is evidently divergent with no demonstrable predictive utility".
The Problem with Religion
by whereami 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
whereami
-
free2beme
I personally think the main problem with religion. Is that it is the only form of society, in which people of all educational levels and rational thinking, can step in and ignore all the truths that life has taught them. They are willing to accept stories, as fact. When they would ask for solid proof in anything else. They are willing to say silly things, as normal. When they would give thought to their words, otherwise. Basic thought here, religion gives in to basic minded thinking in a complex universe.
-
A.Fenderson
@free2beme: excellent critique of religion. When you say "it is the only form of society, in which people of all educational levels and rational thinking, can step in and ignore all the truths that life has taught them," that seems dead-on, excepting perhaps politics. Religion, though, merely encompasses most of the systematic and ornately-structured paradigms of non-sane belief that are shared among two to several billion people. The root of the problem lies deeper: non-critical, non-sane thinking (though sometimes lying very deep in the mind and even obscured by painstakingly-learned systems of rational thought) seems almost universally pervasive. Whether this is an inherent trait of the human mind, or merely an unfortunate side-effect of one or more aspects that all human cultures have in common--such as naturally-evolved language--seems up for debate. If this deeply ingrained inability to think rationally and critically can be found to derive from one or more non-essential elements of global human culture, perhaps it's not too late nor too daunting a task for us to identify and eliminate the root cause. At least, I hope so.
-
Ding
Science is not the be-all of human understanding.
Can science prove that human beings have value and worth?
Can science demonstrate that it is better to be a Mother Theresa than a Hitler?
-
satinka
Great thread, whereami!
Religion has too much power. People have created a monster that threatens the continued existence of our planet.
satinka
-
wobble
Another problem I see with religion is that it is such a brake on Human development and progress, witness the looney politician who said we need not worry about global warming etc. because god is in control (or similar).
I remember as a JW that I felt similar to the above, and wsted a lot of my life and efforts because of it.
-
darthfader
It doesn't take religion to tell the difference between Hitler and Motner Theresa... it only takes a moral compass. Sadly a great many people were never given one by their envionment or learned to develop one on their own...
Religion is based on human control and power over others. Spiritulaity comes from within and has no power that can be used on others.
-
bohm
Ding: "Can science demonstrate that it is better to be a Mother Theresa than a Hitler?"
Science can certainly explain why you think Hitler is worse than Mother Theresa. Such insight is IMHO the cornerstone in creating a society where people tend to behave MORE like Mother Theresa than Hitler, which i think would be a good thing to do.
Does religion really explain it? I dont think so, but i dont think i should copy-paste: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/204729/2/Why-do-you-believe-the-bible-or-not
Here is a good question: Assume some women engaged herself in the same work as moher theresa did, but she was an atheist. Can religion demonstrate that she is better than Hitler, a roman catholic?
you can certainly find religious people who will give funky answers...
-
peacefulpete
Gould used to famously refer to Religion and Science as NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria), a meritorious idea in principle but unworkable in reality. By religion he meant what would probably be called "spirituality" or "ethics" by most people. It is absolutely true that science cannot dictate ethics, but it does inform it. For instance we condemn racism in part because science informed us of our biological relatedness. Social sciences have also contributed to opening our ethical eyes to the wrongness of bigotry through statistical analysis of societal consequences of racial segregation. Did these facts and statistics alone mean that racism was defacto wrong? No, society used it's inherent sense of fainess and reciprocity to change the system.
Religion IMO has simply assumed the role of ethical/moral definers and most people, without much consideration, assume that to be true. However, in reality religion has always been as much a reflection of the people in the religion as a dictator of their actions. Religion as an institution is a group control mechanism, not the source of ethics or the originator of 'sprituality' (values, art and creativity). Many feel that the controls supplied by religion are unnecessary and even repressive to real ethical progressivness but mistakenly suggest that science alone can give us moral direction..