On Religion, Nature, and civilization's course; Belief is a means for survival, that could hinder scientific improvement

Hans Dunckel: The fall into religious state of mind while in peril and suffering, despite other things, can be genetic habit. As your ancestors were more firmly religious throughout the millenia, you have a natural instinctive inclination or wanting. Religion holds human morality and society together, when the people perceive there is higher law that governs their activity, they let natural course take its path, they are also more confident and motivated to pursue things in their own convictions, within their understanding of reality. As such however, religious belief is not exclusive to the supernaturally and superstitiously ritualistic. It is a belief in things outside of our control, that determine everything, that we consciously or unconsciously follow as we understand it more. The ways of nature, the universe, our understanding of it through the sciences. The laws of the universe, the relative laws of our planet according to its composition. Our natural inclinations that determine our actions, the influence and effect of other factors in our environment. It is no different essentially. Only the code of conduct, the frame of morality, and the perception one has of the universe, is what changes in an individual. There is no meaning. We are like animals, we follow relative morality not unlike them, only more complex as we've developed more complex language and social conduct for survival. All is self-preservation in the interest of prosperity and satisfaction of one's needs.

We cannot know beyond what we think to know for sure, at this time. Our precise neo-scientific understanding is still in its infancy. It will end when we cease to have "beliefs", that is, when we reach ultimate scientific understanding, or when our species ceases to exist.

Hans Dunckel: Do share your thoughts on this matter if you have them.

XtremeTyger: This doesn't make any sense to me. Science is figuring things out in the universe and explaining them and giving answers to things in the universe. Religion typically is the belief in the one that created the universe. This puts their higher power outside the laws of spacetime because they are the one who created it . Science and religion should go hand n hand . I don't understand where this whole way of thinking came that science is better then God or better then having the belief in God because God is the one who created the laws. People don't have their own beliefs just when they are in peril . People have their beliefs everyday that they are alive. Their god works outside of the boundaries and restrictions that science likes to put on them because their god is the one who made all things. No one's ever met God and no one has ever seen God . He can't be weighed . He can't be measured he can't be touched. No one can answer to God . God does whatever he pleases and answers to no one. You can't pull the wool over god's eyes and use his own spacetime to make calculations to say he doesn't exist or religion is wrong. Imagine that the universe is a giant watch that god built and then in his watch their are pieces that are like yea God doesn't exist we just came from no where and we're proud as shit because of it. God's still gonna see you. God works outside of the restrictions you put on him using his own universe. Im not saying science is bad science is very good I don't understand this whole science vs god thing tho. Plus if you really wanna go there and ask science where anything came from all it has are theory's. More recently I'm pretty sure the guy who invented the big bang was like a religious scientist genius. You can't take what's in gods universe and try to use the laws he created against him. Ppl have to understand that. sry to piss off anyone by identifying God as him or he and not she or her that's just what I call him

Hans Dunckel: If you're unable to look at the topic from its point of view then take your argument elsewhere, or start a new conversation, because "god vs science" is not the topic here.

XtremeTyger: Then I respectfully apologize, while reading I must have projected my own view on what you were saying and didn't understand. That was just how I initially took it in and interpreted it as what you were saying.

Hans Dunckel: I understand, and that's alright. I apologise for being harsh, you seem to be a good-willing person.

XtremeTyger: Thanks, you too

ajb911: you got it all wrong hans the scientist believes there is more to be discovered

Hans Dunckel: can you point out exactly what "I have wrong"?

DIAMONDfire: i think the truth is no matter how far you fall nothings going to dig you out

AretoNyx: Is imagination of anything a religious nature? One can make anything including leftist or rightist politics into religion? Can people fan worship cult like to a point it is religious? Can science ever be wrong but be corrected , or is science never wrong like some people think on many religious sects? So this topic is no " god verses science" but " religion versus science"?
Can one be moral with lies, or is truth only subjective? Is the way some science cherry picked about racism right or wrong where size of skulls a thing, or ways to cure is a lobotomy or diseases just a smell...or is it better to assume supernatural anything is a thing science can measure? Is there nothing else to discover and everything is known because humans including scientists will never lack biases, or is there always something to learn where even scientists can be wrong?
Is this more determinism verses freewill?

AretoNyx: True swampfire

AretoNyx: Are you saying if people don't believe things then humans will not exist? So people are only physically here because of the " Secret" of just thinking? Diseases exist just because thinking they exist too?

DIAMONDfire: I think that's what I'm saying you must think but one of the biggest problems I've had is education so I am a bit biased to that presumption, a personality thing.

But evidence on the topic of abstract thinking the ability usually for an adolescent to manipulate thoughts inside of one's mind (an element of Piaget's psychology) is a marker of healthy development. I'm self-learning chemistry right now and the abstraction of it I feel has positive effect on my brain for instance. It is abstract to manipulate mental constructions that otherwise wouldn't be comprehended. But on a more general level science ended the debate of whether or not God exists, we don't rely on nature anymore to explain our mishaps, we don't live in a Red Sea world. We know why things are, and knowing this intellectually has become a huge thing for us, whether that reflects the brain is a calculable in other worlds mathematical tool in the sense that we need to feed it material so it will operate? I think that is a big part of living in a scientific world, spirituality is evolving, I don't mean to say God doesn't exist, its life is more of a race. But like I said I am a male of 43 years this is my perspective I know no others.

AretoNyx: I don't really assume. Just went on what you stated.

axocanth: "But on a more general level science ended the debate of whether or not God exists . . . "

- swampandfire




It's hard to think of a charitable way to read this remark that is not obviously false.

People no longer debate whether God exists? Obviously not so. There are few more popular topics for debate. See these very forums, for example.

Science has disproven the existence of God? Likewise, obviously untrue.


Contemporary science, by and large, due to a commitment to "methodological naturalism", no longer entertains the possibility of supernatural interference? True, but it's not (obviously) the claim that was made.

And, needless to say, there are always a few exceptions . . .


"I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"

- Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion" (2006)


Anyone familiar with Dawkins will be well aware that he does not for a moment think that the God hypothesis is TRUE. He does, however, regard it as being SCIENTIFIC.



I suppose the only plausible reading of the quoted comment would be that scientists, QUA scientists, by and large, have simply stopped talking about God. Is this what you meant?






Similarly for this comment in the OP . . .

"It will end when we cease to have "beliefs", that is, when we reach ultimate scientific understanding, or when our species ceases to exist."


Again, it's hard to make any sense of this. Unless you hold the radical position of "eliminative materialism" -- i.e., mental states such as beliefs, desires, pain, hope, consciousness, etc. DO NOT EXIST -- then having beliefs is part of being human.

Humans ceasing to have beliefs is akin to suggesting that humans stop digesting food. It's what we do!

We believe it's raining when we see or hear raindrops, we believe there is a cat on the mat when we (seem to) see a cat on the mat, etc.

And if by some miracle we stopped having beliefs, we would--by definition--cease to have any KNOWLEDGE. We would know precisely nothing.

To know anything, at the very least, you have to BELIEVE it.

It makes no sense to say "I know X but I don't believe X" (insert any proposition X you like).

DIAMONDfire: Most people today don't go around blaming God for feeling sad, injuring oneself or creating a painful argument. We think we know why that is, what I mean by science as an answer to God. We discovered how nature works how the human body functions, how mathematics powers innovation. God doesn't tell us these things whereas once he did. It's a Nietzschian view that I've copied here.

He said the Enlightenment was part of man's maturation process. That science was creating a better man.

I was a little careless with my statement in order to make a point, not many people will tell you that God killed my dog, for instance.

Truth is I think of God a lot, but I think science will lead one to oneself more so than God. I may have been in error but to say science leads you to God I think is questionable.

AretoNyx: Actually Nietzchian views are not blaming gods but people how they treat such things in themselves at most, but hey that is just another debate where bad movies should not have been made. Now it is a thing any how I guess.

AretoNyx: I find it more important what one thinks themselves rather than what others put on a pedestal to worship or dislike even if they make that part of themselves.

DIAMONDfire: In Muslim religion they say 'God willing', God doesn't have to be massive taboo to put people in their place, is there such a thing as forgiveness left? Maybe not? When Nietzsche said God is Dead I think that's what he meant, no forgiveness left, I kind agree really. And God men will say, cut the line save yourself and I think that is what God wants. But he doesn't want law. I find it difficult to manifest grace like some christians routinely do, perhaps a traditionalist or belong to school of the continual revelation. Mary. I like Nietzsche though a kindred spirit. I think he's important for understanding our time, who we are. The disembodied spirit, genius.