4 ms·

I am not asking anything. For the record, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a spiritual person or adhering to a religion. However, to hijack you

I am not asking anything. For the record, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a spiritual person or adhering to a religion. However, to hijack your flat earth example, it was the dogmatic, institutionalised religion which kept that world view alive for so long in the face of contradicting evidence. That is why religion (the institution) is inherently a tool of stagnation, repression and regression. While science (the institution) can at times seem that way as well, the scientific method is ultimately the tool of progress that has built the modern world we live in. Perhaps one could argue that religion fills a different need in our societies, but still, I don’t think it is ultimately necessary for the moral, ethical and judicial development of our societies, either.

vbmak 4y ago
I think that I can help clarify badrabbit's point. There are some who believe that there is only the physical universe of matter, and there are some who believe that there is not only the physical universe of matter but also a non-physical universe. The non-physical universe is similar to ours in that there are thinking and feeling beings doing things in time and space but lack the property of matter. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of a non-physical reality because people who study physical reality have merely proclaimed that a non-physical reality doesn't exist. Institutions of higher education such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton where formed by people who understood that there existed both a physical an non-physical reality and they wanted to educate everyone to have a deeper understanding of both. Many great scientist held both views. Robert Boyle 1627 – 1691. Said that a deeper understanding of science was a higher glorification of God. Defined elements, compounds, and mixtures. Discovered the first gas law – Boyle’s Law. Leonhard Euler 1707 – 1783. The son of a Calvinist pastor. Wrote religious texts and is commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints. Published more mathematics than any other single mathematician in history, much of it brilliant and groundbreaking. Arthur Compton 1892 – 1962. A deacon in the Baptist Church. Discovered that light can behave as a particle as well as a wave, and coined the word photon to describe a particle of light. Bernhard Riemann 1826 – 1866. Son of a Lutheran pastor. A devout Christian who died reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Transformed geometry providing the foundation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity; the Riemann hypothesis has become the most famous unresolved problem in mathematics. Blaise Pascal 1623 – 1662. A Roman Catholic theologian. Pascal’s wager justifies belief in God. Devised Pascal’s triangle for the binomial coefficients and co-founded probability theory. Invented the hydraulic press and the mechanical calculator. And the list goes on and on. You are free to close your mind. Perhaps one could argue that closed minded people fill a different need in our societies, but I wouldn't.
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  What people in science are saying is...show me the evidence. Where is the evidence of a non-physical world? Scientists are theoretically not close-minded about it. They just want you to prove what you say. It's like saying you can fly. OK, show me. Then you say, "Oh, I don't want to show you, just have faith." >Institutions of higher education such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton where formed by people who understood that there existed both a physical an non-physical reality and they wanted to educate everyone to have a deeper understanding of both. Harvard University was formed in 1636, when the could still burn you at the stake for being a witch. Or at least "tsk" you real hard. So there's that. They had zero idea about what we now know today. It's hardly comparable. Listing of scientists who think as you do is not meaningful in the slightest. I can give you a long list of those who think the other way. >You are free to close your mind. Perhaps one could argue that closed minded people fill a different need in our societies, but I wouldn't. This just speaks volumes of your bias. Why used "close minded"? Are you close-minded about there NOT being a non-physical world? If so, then YOU are the one that is close minded, right? It's the inverse of what you say. And furthermore, a non-physical world has to be impossible. This "non-physical" world still has to have something. If beings are there, then there has to be SOME kind of order, SOME kind of organized energy. Otherwise, how would it work if it is just chaos and there is no order? What is this non-physical stuff that has to be organized? Pure energy? That still has to be organized in some kind of way. If this is so, then there's no such thing as non physical. If there's something there, then there's something there. The best you can hope for is to say that we cannot measure it, but just because it can't be measured by us, does not mean it is non-physical. We can't see quarks or quantum wave fluctuations at all, so because we cannot see them with our eyes, does that mean they are not there? Our instrumentation does not allow us to measure planck time, either. Does that mean we know nothing about it and it is non-physical world? And why would the non-physical world be able to interact with the physical world, as apparantly happens with demons and gods and angels and et cetera, but the physical cannot interact with the non-physical, other than you saying it with no proof? And, if the non-physical interacts with the physical, then the non-physical has to interact with the physical and we could measure the non-physical indirectly, the same way that we measure quarks and shit. So therefore it is ultimately physical, or at least some kind of measurable entity, which we can then manipulate. The only way you can deny this is if you start making stuff up, saying, "Yeah, but the non-physical knows how to not be measured." Oh? What bible verse say that explicitly? And if that is your comeback, then hypothetically, if we were to somehow measure and control every single atom in the world, then at no time would a non-physical entity be able to interact with us as we would know.
_8j50 4y ago
Here is the thing, religion did not tell people the earth is flat. There are thousands od religions with different views. You are probably talking about a west european context, the catholic church as an organizarion did a lot of bad things and held incorrect views, however, round or flat the debate was not science vs religion but mainstream false beliefs vs correct new beliefs between two parties that were very mich both religious at the time. Matter of fact they used the same reasoning as you are where as you now believe anything not conforming to the scientific community's consesus on a topic is a fringe crazy/stupid idea unless of course it happens to be blessed by the right academics (or back in the day church officials). Isaac newton and galileo who were very religious would disagree with religion being a tool of stagnation. Established systems of power and control prefer stagnation and resist change. Religion, science and politics all alike. It is a human issue and thinking only religion is affected is silly in my opinion. To your last sentence, morality, justice and ethics like science/knowledge need to be correct. Progression or regression is the means, the end of being correct trumps it all. Your statement is categorically wrong because of your generalized dismissal. Thousands of religions with opposing views wand you judges them all. It is as a incorrect as saying "science only does good and anything else is wrong" because it is too general, are we talking nuke bombs or vaccines, big difference. Are you talking about Islam, Christianity or some guy's cult religion, believe it or not there are differences.

vbmak 4y ago

I think that I can help clarify badrabbit's point. There are some who believe that there is only the physical universe of matter, and there are some who believe that there is not only the physical universe of matter but also a non-physical universe. The non-physical universe is similar to ours in that there are thinking and feeling beings doing things in time and space but lack the property of matter. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of a non-physical reality because people who study physical reality have merely proclaimed that a non-physical reality doesn't exist. Institutions of higher education such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton where formed by people who understood that there existed both a physical an non-physical reality and they wanted to educate everyone to have a deeper understanding of both. Many great scientist held both views. Robert Boyle 1627 – 1691. Said that a deeper understanding of science was a higher glorification of God. Defined elements, compounds, and mixtures. Discovered the first gas law – Boyle’s Law. Leonhard Euler 1707 – 1783. The son of a Calvinist pastor. Wrote religious texts and is commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints. Published more mathematics than any other single mathematician in history, much of it brilliant and groundbreaking. Arthur Compton 1892 – 1962. A deacon in the Baptist Church. Discovered that light can behave as a particle as well as a wave, and coined the word photon to describe a particle of light. Bernhard Riemann 1826 – 1866. Son of a Lutheran pastor. A devout Christian who died reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Transformed geometry providing the foundation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity; the Riemann hypothesis has become the most famous unresolved problem in mathematics. Blaise Pascal 1623 – 1662. A Roman Catholic theologian. Pascal’s wager justifies belief in God. Devised Pascal’s triangle for the binomial coefficients and co-founded probability theory. Invented the hydraulic press and the mechanical calculator. And the list goes on and on. You are free to close your mind. Perhaps one could argue that closed minded people fill a different need in our societies, but I wouldn't.

As_You_Wish 4y ago
What people in science are saying is...show me the evidence. Where is the evidence of a non-physical world? Scientists are theoretically not close-minded about it. They just want you to prove what you say. It's like saying you can fly. OK, show me. Then you say, "Oh, I don't want to show you, just have faith." >Institutions of higher education such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton where formed by people who understood that there existed both a physical an non-physical reality and they wanted to educate everyone to have a deeper understanding of both. Harvard University was formed in 1636, when the could still burn you at the stake for being a witch. Or at least "tsk" you real hard. So there's that. They had zero idea about what we now know today. It's hardly comparable. Listing of scientists who think as you do is not meaningful in the slightest. I can give you a long list of those who think the other way. >You are free to close your mind. Perhaps one could argue that closed minded people fill a different need in our societies, but I wouldn't. This just speaks volumes of your bias. Why used "close minded"? Are you close-minded about there NOT being a non-physical world? If so, then YOU are the one that is close minded, right? It's the inverse of what you say. And furthermore, a non-physical world has to be impossible. This "non-physical" world still has to have something. If beings are there, then there has to be SOME kind of order, SOME kind of organized energy. Otherwise, how would it work if it is just chaos and there is no order? What is this non-physical stuff that has to be organized? Pure energy? That still has to be organized in some kind of way. If this is so, then there's no such thing as non physical. If there's something there, then there's something there. The best you can hope for is to say that we cannot measure it, but just because it can't be measured by us, does not mean it is non-physical. We can't see quarks or quantum wave fluctuations at all, so because we cannot see them with our eyes, does that mean they are not there? Our instrumentation does not allow us to measure planck time, either. Does that mean we know nothing about it and it is non-physical world? And why would the non-physical world be able to interact with the physical world, as apparantly happens with demons and gods and angels and et cetera, but the physical cannot interact with the non-physical, other than you saying it with no proof? And, if the non-physical interacts with the physical, then the non-physical has to interact with the physical and we could measure the non-physical indirectly, the same way that we measure quarks and shit. So therefore it is ultimately physical, or at least some kind of measurable entity, which we can then manipulate. The only way you can deny this is if you start making stuff up, saying, "Yeah, but the non-physical knows how to not be measured." Oh? What bible verse say that explicitly? And if that is your comeback, then hypothetically, if we were to somehow measure and control every single atom in the world, then at no time would a non-physical entity be able to interact with us as we would know.

_8j50 4y ago

Here is the thing, religion did not tell people the earth is flat. There are thousands od religions with different views. You are probably talking about a west european context, the catholic church as an organizarion did a lot of bad things and held incorrect views, however, round or flat the debate was not science vs religion but mainstream false beliefs vs correct new beliefs between two parties that were very mich both religious at the time. Matter of fact they used the same reasoning as you are where as you now believe anything not conforming to the scientific community's consesus on a topic is a fringe crazy/stupid idea unless of course it happens to be blessed by the right academics (or back in the day church officials). Isaac newton and galileo who were very religious would disagree with religion being a tool of stagnation. Established systems of power and control prefer stagnation and resist change. Religion, science and politics all alike. It is a human issue and thinking only religion is affected is silly in my opinion. To your last sentence, morality, justice and ethics like science/knowledge need to be correct. Progression or regression is the means, the end of being correct trumps it all. Your statement is categorically wrong because of your generalized dismissal. Thousands of religions with opposing views wand you judges them all. It is as a incorrect as saying "science only does good and anything else is wrong" because it is too general, are we talking nuke bombs or vaccines, big difference. Are you talking about Islam, Christianity or some guy's cult religion, believe it or not there are differences.