Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[just me]

I took your quote to mean religion is a necessary source of comfort and was wondering just how uncomfortable the world is without it.

Not citing the quote or how you took it, but rather focusing on the last part of your statement; i.e. "just wondering how uncomfortable the world is without it(religion)."

I, too, wonder about the world in general and its well-being. Your response reminds me of the lyrics of a song: "I can't live with or without you." Is that the general mindset of the world on average, I often wonder?
Organized religion is full of people who are inherently "falling short of the Glory of God". To some it is an impetus to try harder to be holy; to others, an excuse to do what they will. To yet others, they strive to do what they can given their situational responsibilities. To yet others, they mean well and act accordingly.
I can recall those who were called "imps" in my younger years. Made me learn the word "impious". There are those that grasp religion for an outward appearance, trying to reap from their interaction as one of the members. There are people from all walks of life in religion; some old and some new; some learned and some unlearned; some trying and some not(some trying harder than others). Judging religion by those we see may or may not give us a good picture of what we should expect. Had a guy tell me last night regarding learning something, "We get out of something what we put into it." Not always true. Expecting something in return for a gift is not true giving. We actually get more from the act of giving than we do anything else if we are truly giving from our heart. Giving is a gift for some people and a struggle for others. We cannot place burdens on people that cannot give. Organized religion has to have funds to survive. Asking for money turns many people off with most anything. It is when one gives of one's time so much that it interferes with one's own natural way of life that one's eyes are opened to the need for funds and outside physical help. Each of us give of our resources to help others in some form or another. Giving is living. Do we need religion to teach us that? Does the world need religion to teach it about giving? It does help point people in the right direction if they will only give enough of their time to try and discern the writings for themselves, but some people are just not called to do so. Matter of fact, some people's hearts may be hardened to where they cannot try and discern what is there. Some are even called into religion; others, chosen. My answer is specific people do need religion, while other specific people cannot and will not need religion. The rest of the balance of people may or may not have a choice to make and choose they most likely will. Those that choose not to seek religion should not want to try and take away religion from those that need it.
I have learned, though, as a disclaimer: we do not always get out of something what we put into it. Should we expect to, I wonder often?

 

[Eric86]

I do not believe that religion itself is a meme; however, there are a lot of people who, through their application of it, make it become one, though this does not change the nature of that religion. For an extreme example, Muslims who go around blowing themselves up are not representative of the nature of Islam; their personal beliefs cannot change it, regardless of their conviction.

 

[Ketsugi]

*runs and puts on a U2 CD*

I can't liiiiiiiveee with our withoooouttt yoouuuuu....

 

[Satya]

I do not believe that religion itself is a meme; however, there are a lot of people who, through their application of it, make it become one, though this does not change the nature of that religion. For an extreme example, Muslims who go around blowing themselves up are not representative of the nature of Islam; their personal beliefs cannot change it, regardless of their conviction.

How do you know what the true nature of a religion is? What if some religions are truly memes and some people just accidentally interpret them in a way that allows them not to be controlled by it?

 

[Eric86]

Well, by doing as thorough of an analysis of it as possible, you could come close to having an objective understanding of it, though I don't believe it's possible for anyone to have a 100% full understanding of [most] any religion, because there will always be one or more areas in which things will be lost, like translation from original language, or texts that have disappeared/not yet been discovered, for example.

I think this would be best described by an exponential decay curve, the x-axis being the amount of logical analysis one puts into studying a religion, and the y-axis being the amount of understanding of its objective [divine] nature (Though personally, I'd say that not all religions could necessarily be considered divinely inspired.). You can get very close to having a full understanding, but it will never be at 100%, because we, as humans living in these four dimentions, are trying to grasp something that is at a higher level than us. However, I don't think one would need to have a 100% understanding of a religion (btw, I'm using 'religion' as a reflection/earthly application/revelation of its deity/s, ideals, etc., which exist outside of the religion) in order to determine if it is a meme or not.

Oh, and by 'analysis,' I mean exegesis, which, in this context, is basically the religious form of the scientific method (looking at evidence and reaching conclusions from it, rather than trying to find or conform evidence to a conclusion one wishes to prove).

(ignore the units, I just found some random graph that would work)

Of course, for all this to be applicable, you'd have to at least believe that something higher than us exists, whether it be a god, spirit of the universe, a natural (non-spirit) metaphysical system that controls everything and that we exist in (in other words, physical laws of a plane at a higher energy level than we exist in, which would be considered 'spiritual' to us, that affect our plane), or whatever.


Just a random thought...I would say one example of a religion that really is a meme is Mormonism.

 

[Satya]

Well, by doing as thorough of an analysis of it as possible, you could come close to having an objective understanding of it, though I don't believe it's possible for anyone to have a 100% full understanding of [most] any religion, because there will always be one or more areas in which things will be lost, like translation from original language, or texts that have disappeared/not yet been discovered, for example.

I think this would be best described by an exponential decay curve, the x-axis being the amount of logical analysis one puts into studying a religion, and the y-axis being the amount of understanding of its objective [divine] nature (Though personally, I'd say that not all religions could necessarily be considered divinely inspired.). You can get very close to having a full understanding, but it will never be at 100%, because we, as humans living in these four dimentions, are trying to grasp something that is at a higher level than us. However, I don't think one would need to have a 100% understanding of a religion (btw, I'm using 'religion' as a reflection/earthly application/revelation of its deity/s, ideals, etc., which exist outside of the religion) in order to determine if it is a meme or not.

(ignore the units, I just found some random graph that would work)

Of course, for all this to be applicable, you'd have to at least believe that something higher than us exists, whether it be a god, spirit of the universe, a natural (non-spirit) metaphysical system that controls everything and that we exist in (in other words, physical laws of a plane at a higher energy level than we exist in, which would be considered 'spiritual' to us, that affect our plane), or whatever.

You are making the assumption that religions can be understood simply by studying them. Regardless of whether or not a religion is a meme, there is always a certain amount of irrationality associated with a religion because it is taken on faith rather than on observable evidence or reason. You cannot obtain a rational answer from an irrational source.

Just a random thought...I would say one example of a religion that really is a meme is Mormonism.

Interesting qualification. Why do you suspect this particular religion?

 

[BenW]

1. You say people who are religious/superstitious/what ever else you want to call it are deluded. Congrats, you think people are deluded. I think you're deluded by your faith and arrogance that you are always right because you 'use' logic. Your logic is full of fallacies thus I think you're deluded.

Did we settle anything by that? Nope, didn't think so. All this is is ad hominem

I stated precisely why I think the aforementioned group to be deluded, wherein lies the difference between what I said, and what you just said.
Please elaborate on my faith, arrogance, and logical fallacies.

2. Is this a fact or an opinion because you're presenting it as a fact. If you love facts so much I want your proof with empirical evidence, otherwise you're delusional.

It was conjecture.

3. Seeing as you rely and believe in facts and evidence so much, I'd like some for this, and let me make it crystal clear; I want numbers/graphs/pie charts/what ever that states specifically, and I quote "more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". I don't want numbers of people killed by the actions of people, I want hard proof that in fact more people have been killed my religion than not.

I never stated this was a fact, it was again, conjecture.

In the end it's the people who did the killing, not religion. You can't place blame for people's actions on inanimate things such as ideas. People get killed by cars, so cars are to blame, right? Or is it the people driving the cars...

Religion has systematically enabled and facilitated people to commit violent acts. Much as did fascism, or colonialism (both of which had religious elements to them).

4. To quote you (in yet another circular use of your arguement), because violence exists in religion, violence that is outside of religion and is "vehemently defended by a large portion of the population" is blameless for it's share?

What?
I think you misunderstood me.

"Most of these other causes are generally acknowledged being as nefarious, rather than institutionalized, and vehemently defended by a large portion of the population."
The underlined refers to violence external to religion, the bold refers to religion itself.

5. And you are not delusional for believing in something so strongly as science? That in science/empirical evidence alone lie the answers? What if science can't prove the answers to everything? To believe in science you have to have faith that science is right. Sure, there is "evidence" but that evidence exists solely in the belief that the "evidence" is correct. Science can only be proven by empirical evidence, much like religious arguments can only be proven in faith. You can't argue faith with science or science against faith because they exist separate from each other.

Science can't provide the answers to everything, and that is exactly the point to pay attention to; this is a crucial pillar of the methodology. The scientific method is limited by the bounds of the natural universe, and openly acknowledges it's own limitations, and also just as importantly, science is falsifiable. The supernatural is not falsifiable.

6. This is an argument from authority, aka fallacie!!!

Congrats! you had a harmful upbringing, do you want a cookie? Just because it was pernicious (I can use big words too ) to you does not mean it is across the board. Logical fallacie.

I would like to see where I stated that my upbringing was applicable to anyone else's, let alone everyone else's.

I try to gauge my vocabulary to my perceived audience.
Sorry for overestimating, I'll try to tone it down next time.

7. So something is wrong if there is a lack of evidence? Just because it can't be proven means it holds no water?

Exactly. Theories, in science, are guilty until proven innocent, as such.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

What if someone's faith follows along the lines of science/empirical evidence and they use faith to fill in the blanks? The stuff science can't prove. Science answer's how and faith/religion answers why. They both are creations of mankind and you're using one to disprove the other but they are on completely different playing fields. Just because you don't believe in the why doesn't discredit those who do.

I've never stated that science can disprove religion, since it can't. My statement was that science cannot prove religion, which it also can't. Thus why people looking for evidence to back up their faith-based beliefs confuse me.

Science is naturalistic, and therefore wholly incompatible with the supernatural by very definition.

You're playing refferee in a soccer match while handing out penalties by the rules of basketball.

Am I? It would appear you are ignorant as to what game is even being played at all, if were going to use vague and meaningless metaphors.

Science and faith are seperate and can't be proven or disproven by the other, but they can work together if there is acceptance and acknowledgement of eachother.

Explain to me how they can "work together"?

8. Believe in evidence all you want but it's only true because you believe it to be and others believe it to be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove, so don't use it to discredit other's opinions.

As stated above, absence of evidence is considered evidence of absence. Ironic that you try to score points against me for using an alleged fallacy, while overlooking other ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

9. Aren't you the one who's saying other people are wrong because they don't believe in the way you do? Please explain what your point in saying this is.

I'm not sure what you are confused by here, I don't think you paid attention to the context, and what the person I quoted said.

10. Intellectual surrender? Are you kidding me? Don't be niave. Because one feels beyond the five senses they are wrong? I'm not saying they are right but this is just name calling. You're assuming they give the same importance to "empirical evidence" as you do.

I'm not sure how you deduced that what you quoted had anything to do with empiricism vs. theism, but it didn't. It was related to MBTI.

I hate it when I see people agressively push and use reason as an argument against faith; the same people saying that faith/religion is dangerous because it tells people how to think. Hypocritical. The bullshit excuse is anti-religion can do so because they have facts on their side, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, facts are only facts if one believes them to be so, it doesn't matter if the belief that "science and facts are indeed true" is a widely held popular opinion, because in the end it is just that, nothing more than an opinion.

Science has very little to do with belief.
Facts are not facts because one "believes" them to be, they are facts because they are generally observable by everyone. They are objective truths.

When will people realize that there indeed could be more to this world than our five senses can percieve? I'm not saying that there is or isn't, but it is a possibility. If it's beyond our five senses, no matter what we do we will never be able to prove or disprove it, but does that make it any less real (potenionally)? I mean the Tralfamadorians (anyone get this reference?) could see in four demensions and Billy couldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Ironically, the Tralfamadorians were an allusion to scientific determinism, the Einsteinian belief that the universe operates like a predictable machine, and that randomness is impossible.
Good book, BTW.

 

[bamf]

Ben I'm sorry but it's impossible to continue this with you if you don't read what I say and are continuously adding and rearranging your arguement.

Your arrogance lies in your assumptions and presentation that you are always correct and other disagreeing beliefs are underneath yours.

Conjecture is nothing more than guesswork and proves nothing, which you yourself ask for. You want proof in the supernatural, which is unprovable, and yet you argue against it with hypotheses.

Once again, people enable themselves. Something that is inanimate cannot be held accountable for the actions of those who use it.

You fail to grasp the understanding that just because something can't be currently proven or disproven doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. I'm not trying to argue religion is right, but to claim it's wrong or impossible isn't right, nor is calling names to the people who do believe in it.

Are you claiming I used argument from ignorance? Because if so you have been mistaken.

I'm glad you admit science has little to nothing to do with faith, because we both know they are separate. And yet you still claim people deluded. Is it because it can't be proven/disproven by science? If this is the case, it is circular because you say they are separate.

I don't know where you are trying to go with this.

 

[Eric86]

You are making the assumption that religions can be understood simply by studying them. Regardless of whether or not a religion is a meme, there is always a certain amount of irrationality associated with a religion because it is taken on faith rather than on observable evidence or reason. You cannot obtain a rational answer from an irrational source.

One can make a rational inference about a source that is not dependent on if the source is actually entirely rational itself; determining if a religion is a meme would be one, as you provided various criteria for it that can be proven or disproven. You do not have to personally believe in a religion (in other words, accepting that the reasoning for its validity is true, which is often the only area in which it could be considered irrational) in order to understand it, and you would definitely not need this to figure out if it's a meme. For instance, there are Biblical scholars who are not Christians, and yet they have a better understanding of Christianity than most Christians do.

Faith being a necessary part of practicing a religion is not necessary to have in order to understand it. It's only necessary for experiential understanding, not intellectual understanding. It's like comparing someone who has read a book on how to play football with someone who has read that book, but also plays the sport as well. They both understand football just as much; the only difference between them is that one doesn't play it, and the other does. If the first person has never seen a game of football being played, and although he hears people talking about it, the only observable source of its existence he has is the book itself, he could very well think that the game is only the ramblings of someone's imagination, and doesn't exist, but could still make rational inferences about it.

Simply put, the validity of a critical analysis of any text [which does not have anything to do with discovering if the text itself is valid as a rational resource], religious or otherwise, is not dependent on if the text itself is rational. Think of it as simply being a commentary.

Hopefully that helps.

Interesting qualification. Why do you suspect this particular religion?

Well, that's not something I could explain very easily at all. I was mostly just thinking out loud, haha...and to be honest, I'm not even sure if I could really explain it all properly myself. Admittedly...I care far more about my personal ability to understand when I'm learning things than my ability to relay that understanding to others, which is why I don't post very often in sections like this because my mind just doesn't work like that. The information doesn't get retained in a concise, organised manner that can be presented well to others, so whenever I say something and someone asks me to explain myself, I find it really difficult to do, so I normally just don't say anything to avoid going through all that, as I don't consider it worth the effort (I know it's selfish, but that's just how I am. ). I don't even remember any more how many hours this post has taken me to type up, and it's not even that long, haha. I'm certainly no theologian who can rattle off huge essays out of nowhere...though I do know some people like that. lol



hmm...now that I think of it, it looks like this thread hasn't been on-topic very much, especially on this page... lol

 

[BenW]

Ben I'm sorry but it's impossible to continue this with you if you don't read what I say and are continuously adding and rearranging your arguement.

I've directly addressed everything you've said, very plainly to see, and my argument has not changed.

I recall that you are the one who began conversing with me in this thread, so if you feel my post aren't up to your standard, don't feel obligated to continue.

Your arrogance lies in your assumptions and presentation that you are always correct and other disagreeing beliefs are underneath yours.

Ive never stated this.

Conjecture is nothing more than guesswork and proves nothing, which you yourself ask for. You want proof in the supernatural, which is unprovable, and yet you argue against it with hypotheses.

I have not argued against faith with a hypothesis... Where have I done this? I said faith lies outside the range of science, making "proof" for the existence of God impossible.
If somebody decides to discard science in favor of faith, that's certainly their choice; they just can't cherrypick.
Fairly profound consequences.

Once again, people enable themselves. Something that is inanimate cannot be held accountable for the actions of those who use it.

This is a fairly useless statement. I've never argued that religion itself shouldn't exist, I've stated that the mindset behind it is delusion, and potentially dangerous.

You fail to grasp the understanding that just because something can't be currently proven or disproven doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. I'm not trying to argue religion is right, but to claim it's wrong or impossible isn't right, nor is calling names to the people who do believe in it.

Thank you for ignoring my last post.
Repeating things doesn't make them more true.
See below.

Are you claiming I used argument from ignorance? Because if so you have been mistaken.

You stated that something cannot be seen as unproven or false, lacking evidence in it's favor.
This just isn't how it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses

I'm glad you admit science has little to nothing to do with faith, because we both know they are separate. And yet you still claim people deluded. Is it because it can't be proven/disproven by science? If this is the case, it is circular because you say they are separate.

They are separate, because it cannot be proven or disproven by science. Lacking evidence and falsifiability, the existence of God, ghosts, etc... are treated as false.
I'm not sure how you decided this was circular.

I don't know where you are trying to go with this.

I wasn't aware I was trying to go anywhere, in all honesty.
But Anchorage, Alaska sounds nice.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to break from addressing my post directly, that was a lot more convenient and tidy.
It would have been nice if you had directly addressed some of the things I wrote.

 

[bamf]

1. I have not argued against faith with a hypothesis... Where have I done this? I said faith lies outside the range of science, making "proof" for the existence of God impossible.
If somebody decides to discard science in favor of faith, that's certainly their choice; they just can't cherrypick.
Fairly profound consequences.

2. This is a fairly useless statement. I've never argued that religion itself shouldn't exist, I've stated that the mindset behind it is delusion, and potentially dangerous.



3. You stated that something cannot be seen as unproven or false, lacking evidence in it's favor.
This just isn't how it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses

4. They are separate, because it cannot be proven or disproven by science. Lacking evidence and falsifiability, the existence of God, ghosts, etc... are treated as false.
I'm not sure how you decided this was circular.

1. You most definitely have argued against religion (seeing as faith/religion/supernatural have been interchangeable in this thread) and done so with a hypothesis. Do you remember stating something along the lines of "Religion, "organized" or not, is the best known and most used tool for controlling people" and "in the historical context, more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". You then went further to explain that they are conjecture which by definition is "inference from defective or presumptive evidence". Thus you argued against religion with hypothesis.

2. You completely miskewed what I said. I said you are blaming religion for violence and intolerance. I never claimed that you said religion shouldn't exist. I once again will say that you are blaming something inanimate for the actions of people. You have said both the mindset behind religion and religion it's self is to blame. The mindset is a legitimate arguement, direct blame on religion is not.

3. I said it can't be proven or disproven due to lack of evidence. There is possibility. I'm not saying there is or isn't, merely that it is possible.
Then you go to reference burden of proof in science for an arguement outside of science, thus using science to disprove the supernatural because it doesn't follow science's rules.
Let me reiterate again, the supernatural could exist outside of science. I'm not saying that it does or doesn't because where we are today, we can't know using science. That doesn't mean it isn't possible thus people believe in a possibility, not nessicarily making them delusional.

4. Once again you quote a rule of science to talk about the supernatural when you say "They are separate". Herein is the origin of my basketball/soccer reference. I'm merely quoting you.
Sorry, it's circular.

 

[Satya]

One can make a rational inference about a source that is not dependent on if the source is actually entirely rational itself; determining if a religion is a meme would be one, as you provided various criteria for it that can be proven or disproven. You do not have to personally believe in a religion (in other words, accepting that the reasoning for its validity is true, which is often the only area in which it could be considered irrational) in order to understand it, and you would definitely not need this to figure out if it's a meme. For instance, there are Biblical scholars who are not Christians, and yet they have a better understanding of Christianity than most Christians do.

Faith being a necessary part of practicing a religion is not necessary to have in order to understand it. It's only necessary for experiential understanding, not intellectual understanding. It's like comparing someone who has read a book on how to play football with someone who has read that book, but also plays the sport as well. They both understand football just as much; the only difference between them is that one doesn't play it, and the other does. If the first person has never seen a game of football being played, and although he hears people talking about it, the only observable source of its existence he has is the book itself, he could very well think that the game is only the ramblings of someone's imagination, and doesn't exist, but could still make rational inferences about it.

Simply put, the validity of a critical analysis of any text [which does not have anything to do with discovering if the text itself is valid as a rational resource], religious or otherwise, is not dependent on if the text itself is rational. Think of it as simply being a commentary.

Hopefully that helps.

People who neither follow nor practice a religion but simply study it could not be said to understand the religion. To understand something is to experience it. That reality is because humans are not simply intellectual beings but emotional and sensual beings as well. A person who has never swam before could not truly understand what it is to swim until they have done so and no amount of intellectual understanding of swimming can equate to that experience. Things like the sensation of the water and the emotions like the fear of potentially drowning are lost to those who simply study swimming but never experience it. If religion is a meme then the only people who could truly understand this are the apostates, those people who once experienced religion but were able to break free from its control and to recognize it as a meme. People who have only an intellectual comprehension of the religion cannot know the feelings or sensations associated with believing in it.

 

[BenW]

1. You most definitely have argued against religion (seeing as faith/religion/supernatural have been interchangeable in this thread) and done so with a hypothesis. Do you remember stating something along the lines of "Religion, "organized" or not, is the best known and most used tool for controlling people" and "in the historical context, more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". You then went further to explain that they are conjecture which by definition is "inference from defective or presumptive evidence". Thus you argued against religion with hypothesis.

My statements against religion on a moral ground, however you choose to regard them, are entirely separate from my claim that faith is a delusion.

2. You completely miskewed what I said. I said you are blaming religion for violence and intolerance. I never claimed that you said religion shouldn't exist. I once again will say that you are blaming something inanimate for the actions of people. You have said both the mindset behind religion and religion it's self is to blame. The mindset is a legitimate arguement, direct blame on religion is not.

My "blame" on religion itself is an invention of your imagination, not something I have said. I don't even understand where you think the distinction came from.
I have said that faith is delusion, therefore potentially dangerous. Because of this, I stated that religion can easily be manipulated.

3. I said it can't be proven or disproven due to lack of evidence. There is possibility. I'm not saying there is or isn't, merely that it is possible.
Then you go to reference burden of proof in science for an arguement outside of science, thus using science to disprove the supernatural because it doesn't follow science's rules.
Let me reiterate again, the supernatural could exist outside of science. I'm not saying that it does or doesn't because where we are today, we can't know using science. That doesn't mean it isn't possible thus people believe in a possibility, not nessicarily making them delusional.

Something being "possible" or not has little bearing on whether or not it is observable right now; things which require faith are not, which is WHY the require faith in the first place...
It's entirely possible that invisible gnomes live in my back yard, but it's still delusional to think that they actually do.
Do you think phrenology is also "possible outside of science"? Would you argue so vehemently in it's defense too?
Why should anything not be applied to the same logic?

4. Once again you quote a rule of science to talk about the supernatural when you say "They are separate". Herein is the origin of my basketball/soccer reference. I'm merely quoting you.
Sorry, it's circular.

You were the one to state that they are separate, I stated that they are incompatible, and I stated why. Big difference, despite your attempts at intertwining them.

Believing in something without evidence for it makes you wrong, not magically "separate" from logic.

 

[bamf]

Ben, please reread your previous posts

 

[BenW]

Great analysis.

 

[evalura]

Religion becomes a method of control, when it causes individuals who believe it to go out, and control others who don't fall in line with it.

As Christians, they feel it's imperative to inform you of their savior so you can experience the love they have for their Father, and offer you the opportunity for everlasting life. They do it to bring numbers to their congregations and some of them are expected to volunteer for 'missionary' work, as helping humanity. They believe that they are serving God by spreading the Word. There is nothing parasitic about religion. We all have the power to choose what to believe in. None of them can control us if we choose not to let them.

 

[IndigoSensor]

As Christians, they feel it's imperative to inform you of their savior so you can experience the love they have for their Father, and offer you the opportunity for everlasting life. They do it to bring numbers to their congregations and some of them are expected to volunteer for 'missionary' work, as helping humanity. They believe that they are serving God by spreading the Word. There is nothing parasitic about religion. We all have the power to choose what to believe in. None of them can control us if we choose not to let them.

I understand that, and while that kind thing leaves a very sour taste in my mouth, they have a right to inform people, but just inform.

The reason I have an adversion to this is because for the most part, people who go on these mission trip have the mindset that there religion is the only religion that is correct. Because of this, they try to disregard the religions (or lack of) that people hold that might already give them feelings of love, and deem them as "false". As such, they try to change what people believe in. While this is not a control method, it strikes me as control like, which is why I feel so opposed to it. I have very strong spiritual beleifs, but I am not going to go out and just start preaching them to people. I will only tell someone if they ask. It is unfair, offputting, and insensitive to try to change someone's religion beleifs for selfish reasons such as thinking yourse is the "right" one.

 

[Ketsugi]

BenW, do you even have any scientific knowledge? You talk about science, but you don't back it up with theories or proven fact. I almost have a degree in biochemistry and many of my classmates, professors, and I agree that spirituality and science overlap in many places. The argument that they don't is made up by certain religious groups that object to evolution being taught in school. While I was studying the sciences, I felt that my spiritual beliefs were actually confirmed, not the other way around. BTW, I'm not Christian, so I am not talking about Creationism here.

By the way, the "supernatural" are only things that we can't see or prove yet. It doesn't mean they don't have a basis in the physical world. There was once a time where we couldn't observe gamma rays in space... then we developed the technology to do so. Were they there when we couldn't see them? Of course they were.

An open mind is important here. Everyone laughed when Columbus claimed the Earth was round...

In keeping true to the scientific tradition, you would have to prove that that your alternate hypothesis is true. You have not done that. Just stating that "religious people don't have proof" doesn't prove your point of view either...

...meaning none of us have the answers. If you do, maybe you'll win the Nobel Prize and save us all.

 

[IndigoSensor]

BenW, do you even have any scientific knowledge? You talk about science, but you don't back it up with theories or proven fact. I almost have a degree in biochemistry and many of my classmates, professors, and I agree that spirituality and science overlap in many places.

Really? I am a Chemistry major (going into my 3rd year)! I love every single minute of it.

And yes BenW you are going in circles and being very general more or less to try to get your point across.

While I was studying the sciences, I felt that my spiritual beliefs were actually confirmed, not the other way around.

Me as well.

 

[Ketsugi]

I have a secret love affair with chemistry! I was in the Chem Engg program, but had to leave for disability reasons. I'm in the business program now, but I still pursue science at home. I really miss chem classes. The engineering part was extremely fascinating as well. Material and energy balances was a blast. In that course, one learns how to adjust the factory processes in order to turn raw chemical materials into a product.

I love math as well. When I get my MBA I am going back to teach math in community college. Math is the ultimate universal law!