[commanderkai]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

No...church attendance is not only less than it was, it's in general decline. If the salient point is "Science will win out over religion" than, in a Western context, the latter can be demonstrated to be "losing". Will there be a "religious resurgence"? Doubtful.

Except that church attendance in decline isn't really proof of the decline of religious faith. There is a decline of "organized religion", yes, but there really hasn't been a decline of religion that can be attributed to "losing". Religious believers of all sorts are still in the majority, even in countries that are considered more secular.

Also, how can you really know if there might or might not be a religious resurgence?

$1:

And spiritual and religious are not synonymous - spiritualism isn't dogma insomuch as it can encompass other ideas, worldviews and intellectual approaches (including science).

When did I ever say they were exactly the same?

Being spiritual has been one of the biggest factors of being religious. How can you believe in God if you aren't searching for a greater meaning, through your inner self or through a greater force in the universe. Can you be spiritual without being religious? Of course you can, but being spiritual, through the search of a God, inner meaning of one self or soul, or through the search of the unknown is a testament of why people believe in religions, no matter if it's Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Wiccanism, Jedi, Mormonism, Taoism, Buddhism, or whatever else.

$1:

At the end of day, "believers" argue their point, not due to merit, but because it rationalizes their worldview. It's not about objective fact, it's about self-esteem. I'm not disagreeing with that, but it certainly doesn't substantiate their point.

And why are you arguing your point, exactly? What really do you get out of this to prove that science will win over religion? Absolutely nothing outside of a nice self esteem boost and some agreement to your worldview. Exactly the same thing as anybody else who enters a discussion or debate with a level and cool head (trolls are another matter). Saying that "believers" argue purely for rationalizing their beliefs, or that religion is "losing" are nothing more than subjective opinions of your own worldview. If you really are just concerned objective fact, why argue religion at all?

[Mustang1]

angler57 angler57:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

angler57 angler57:

Voltaire said; To paraphrase.
I may disagree with what you say. But, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
These words are printed on the Op-Ed pages of many newspapers. Good words to live by.

You're not writing an Op-Ed, but thanks for playing. Oh...and to quote-mine (the fact that Voltaire's authorship of this oft-quoted line is in major question - funny, that you messed up again) one of the Enlightenment's biggest critics of religion (he was a big proponent of reason) in this thread is priceless.

mustang1 the fact is that you really can't stand an antagonist.
And, I are one.
So, no matter what I say you will find fault.
So be it my friend. Just remember this is only a word game to me. As have said before, people are easy to play. And, you are one.

You're no foil...rationalize it anyway you want, if you're just playing, you've crapped the bed, if this is a game, it's bushleague, and if you're trying, quit, because so far all you've done is serve as a cautionary tales to others.

Shuffle on...you're all out of gibberish, Gollum.

[Mustang1]

commanderkai commanderkai:

And why are you arguing your point, exactly? What really do you get out of this to prove that science will win over religion? Absolutely nothing outside of a nice self esteem boost and some agreement to your worldview. Exactly the same thing as anybody else who enters a discussion or debate with a level and cool head (trolls are another matter). Saying that "believers" argue purely for rationalizing their beliefs, or that religion is "losing" are nothing more than subjective opinions of your own worldview. If you really are just concerned objective fact, why argue religion at all?

You missed the point...religious worldviews are largely subjective, so, by extension, their justifications are predicated on personal belief. This isn't an opinion, it's an argumentative fact. Don't believe me? I can demonstrate science - that's an empirical fact - can you do the same for religion?

$1:

If you really are just concerned objective fact, why argue religion at all?

I wasn't...i was responding to the thread's topic regarding science's "eventual" win over religion.

[Mustang1]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Gee, you tried that with me too. Post a bunch of argumentative garbage then at the end of it claim that you are just "playing" with the other person and they are easy to get.

You really need to grow up a little sunshine.

I figured it was just a poorly written concession speech.

[Zipperfish]

ASLplease ASLplease:

no thanks, I'm not a fan of quotation, I like my coffee black.

Never weigh your socks when they are wet.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Being spiritual has been one of the biggest factors of being religious.

A commonly held conceit. I have never found religious people to be any more spirtual than non-churchgoers. Actually, I find that those who were brought up in the stricter religions to be less spirtual than others who have explored different faiths and ideas.

That said, it's not really fair to compare relgion and science. Sprituality is the ideal and religion is the imperfect manifestation of that ideal. Science is the ideal and technology, its imperfect manifestation.

To be consistent you should compare science and sprituality, not sceince and relgion.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Being spiritual has been one of the biggest factors of being religious.

A commonly held conceit. I have never found religious people to be any more spirtual than non-churchgoers. Actually, I find that those who were brought up in the stricter religions to be less spirtual than others who have explored different faiths and ideas.

That said, it's not really fair to compare relgion and science. Sprituality is the ideal and religion is the imperfect manifestation of that ideal. Science is the ideal and technology, its imperfect manifestation.

To be consistent you should compare science and sprituality, not sceince and relgion.

But spirituality is a worse comparison to science than religion in terms of understanding the universe around us. Science is empirical, spirituality is whatever strikes your fancy. Science discards disproven theories, spirituality retreats to a banal "well, it's MY opinion so it's now unchallengeable!"

The only thing spirituality has in its favour is that nobody who worships Q-Ray bracelets, windchimes and geodes has ever burned down an abortion clinic accordingly.

[angler57]

Found this quote thats suits a few of the forums members.
John Ruskin once noted.
"When a man is wrapped up in himself. He makes a very small package."
Have found ourselves that We, All of us often place our worst faults at the feet of people that dare to say we may be wrong.

Something to give serious consideration. If a person has the courage to face themselves.
======================================================
And, the shallow curse and insults continue. As my young grandson would say, Lame.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A commonly held conceit. I have never found religious people to be any more spirtual than non-churchgoers. Actually, I find that those who were brought up in the stricter religions to be less spirtual than others who have explored different faiths and ideas.

That said, it's not really fair to compare relgion and science. Sprituality is the ideal and religion is the imperfect manifestation of that ideal. Science is the ideal and technology, its imperfect manifestation.

To be consistent you should compare science and sprituality, not sceince and relgion.

Oh I totally agree with you. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, but, at least in my opinion, you need to have some spirituality to be religious. I also agree comparing organized religion to science isn't the proper way to go, which was my point over the "Human Religion" or basically, the spiritual nature of human beings.

Most people I personally know are religious, but I don't think all people who are spiritual will turn to organized religion (like yourself, I think you've told me once).

Another quote I found was this: "Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization."

That's been one of my biggest contention points during this discussion. Religions might rise and fall, but the spiritual nature of human beings, the...drive that makes us ask the various questions about the afterlife, the purpose and meaning of life, the order of the universe, so on and so forth will always exist as long as those concrete, factual answers don't.

[commanderkai]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

You missed the point...religious worldviews are largely subjective, so, by extension, their justifications are predicated on personal belief. This isn't an opinion, it's an argumentative fact. Don't believe me? I can demonstrate science - that's an empirical fact - can you do the same for religion?

Of course I agree religious worldviews are largely subjective. My interpretation of God, the afterlife, and the meaning of our existence will differ from anybody else on this site, most likely.

My point is, science, as a concept, is factual and objective. 2+2=4 and you can't really argue about it. I agree completely about the objectivity and the factual nature of science. Scientific studies or theories that are proven wrong are discounted and tossed away, those that can't be proven wrong are considered fact.

Your belief of science "winning" over religion is as subjective as religious belief itself. You, and Hawking's personal belief over the triumph of science over religion is purely subjective belief. You believe science will win because of its nature. I don't see a conflict between scientific curiosity and spiritual desire.

Hawking, nor you, are arguing an objective, scientific fact (or theory generally accepted as fact) right now. I have never mentioned Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, or the 6000 year old Earth bullshit. So far, I really don't see any conflict or war between religion and science, let alone one "winning" over the other.

[angler57]

Commanderkai, Zipperfish and Mustang. Last three post are excellent.

[Mustang1]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Hawking, nor you, are arguing an objective, scientific fact (or theory generally accepted as fact) right now. I have never mentioned Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, or the 6000 year old Earth bullshit. So far, I really don't see any conflict or war between religion and science, let alone one "winning" over the other.

No...science will win (and semantics aside, i'm not advocating a win, or victory) "because it works." It works despite belief. That's the kicker. Religion doesn't exist without believers. In fact, if one takes even a cursory glance over Western history's last 500 years, religion is on the downswing. There's no way any educated individual can claim that the Church has the same power it did in the Medieval period. Science? It doesn't matter because it exists despite one's worldview to the contrary. That's the salient point

[Mustang1]

angler57 angler57:

Found this quote thats suits a few of the forums members.
John Ruskin once noted.
"When a man is wrapped up in himself. He makes a very small package."
Have found ourselves that We, All of us often place our worst faults at the feet of people that dare to say we may be wrong.

Something to give serious consideration. If a person has the courage to face themselves.
======================================================
And, the shallow curse and insults continue. As my young grandson would say, Lame.

Quote-mining again? You'd think your last disastrous foray into this would've taught you to take a break from pretend-intellectual. I guess this is the part of the game where you're benched.

Oh...and any insult that uses, drops, or riffs off of "lame" is automatically kicked to the bushleague of wit wars.

[commanderkai]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

No...science will win (and semantics aside, i'm not advocating a win, or victory) "because it works." It works despite belief. That's the kicker. Religion doesn't exist without believers.

...

Science? It doesn't matter because it exists despite one's worldview to the contrary. That's the salient point

And I don't disagree that science will work with or without our belief or even our understanding of how it works. The universe still operates even though we have only scratched our understanding of it.

However. You keep using organized religion (as in, the various organized churches, mosques, temples, etc) against science as a concept (and not as particular studies be it geology, physics, or dead forms of sciences like alchemy), or even applications of science (like abortion, or hell, computer software and hardware).

Like I said before, many times: Organized religions rise and fall, but the reasons why religions exist (aka, our spiritual side) really won't cease to exist because, UNTIL science does answer the various questions about existence, people will gravitate to the answers that suit them best, be it through a Bible, or through whatever other inner truth people believe in. At least, that's what I believe, and that's why I don't see religion ever "losing", even if our scientific understanding of our universe is vastly greater than it is now.

$1:

In fact, if one takes even a cursory glance over Western history's last 500 years, religion is on the downswing. There's no way any educated individual can claim that the Church has the same power it did in the Medieval period.

Here's where you confuse "organized" religion, and religious belief. You don't need to attend a church, temple, mosque, or anything else to believe in God or to be religious. If you see going to church (or whatever other religious institution) as a requirement of religious faith, then there really isn't much I can say to change your mind.

Anyway, this has been fun. We're going to keep going in circles, and it was nice having a discussion that involves religion that doesn't involve pissing matches.

[Zipperfish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

But spirituality is a worse comparison to science than religion in terms of understanding the universe around us. Science is empirical, spirituality is whatever strikes your fancy. Science discards disproven theories, spirituality retreats to a banal "well, it's MY opinion so it's now unchallengeable!"

The only thing spirituality has in its favour is that nobody who worships Q-Ray bracelets, windchimes and geodes has ever burned down an abortion clinic accordingly.

Science is, by definition, concerned with the natural world. Anything outside the rational laws of nature is beyond its realm. So, I'd say that by discarding sprituality and faith, you may be discarding the possibility of anything beyond the realm of ration and reason. Needlessly limiting, in my opinion.

My studies of science (in particular quantum and relativistic physics) have resulted in my faith--my irrational certainty, if you will--in an unknowable interconnectedness of the multiverse. But the faith may also inform science. Many scientists come to a mental impasse, unassailable by reason. Many great scientists have experienced a "eureka" moment where the entire answer has come to them in an instant; and what's more the scientist knew immediately and intuituvely that the answer was correct. And the epiphany invaribaly happens at a time when the person isn't even thinking about the problem.

In these cases it is postulated--and I believe this--that irrational thinking processes ("intuition", "faith") result in quantum leaps of understanding. So in these cases, faith can actually move science forward. That's my theory anyways. A little whacko, but there you have it.

Incidentally, a joke is an example of an irrational, quantum leap of the mind. You either "get" the joke or you don't. If you have to explain it (raitonalize it) it is no longer funny.


In these cases the brain actually transcends rationality and makes