What does a person want?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Many of us talk so much about the universe and cosmology and QM and so on as though it is a matter of life and death. Truth is, most people in the world have no idea of these matters. Nor do they care!

In the final analysis, of what use is all this 'knowledge'? The only thing that every person wants is peace, love, emotional stability, hope, good relationships and social support. A good life and a peaceful death. In spite of all the knowledge in the world, if a person has depression, emotional instability, confusion, lonileness and anxiety, he/she can be absolutely miserable.  A life worse than death.

Science has no understanding of these matters nor any ready means by which people can find peace or love or mental stability in their lives.  Psychology and neuroscience don't seem to have made any significant contribution in this regard.

Religion and spirituality do provide the means by which people can find peace, hope and emotional stability.  So, why should people give up these things and take up  a study of science that is hopeless and tentative?

I am not talking against science per se. Science has no doubt, provided some medical benefits and lots of conveniences  (I don't even want to talk about the many negatives of science).  But it is not an alternative to religion or spirituality! So, why do people assume that it is?!

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram   

[Sebastian Toe]

Hi everyone,

Many of us talk so much about the universe and cosmology and QM and so on as though it is a matter of life and death.

Really?
I have yet to meet such a person  online or in the real world!

What circles of people do you frequent that hold such views?

How many is many anyway?

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

Many of us talk so much about the universe and cosmology and QM and so on as though it is a matter of life and death. Truth is, most people in the world have no idea of these matters. Nor do they care!

In the final analysis, of what use is all this 'knowledge'? The only thing that every person wants is peace, love, emotional stability, hope, good relationships and social support. A good life and a peaceful death. In spite of all the knowledge in the world, if a person has depression, emotional instability, confusion, lonileness and anxiety, he/she can be absolutely miserable.  A life worse than death.

Science has no understanding of these matters nor any ready means by which people can find peace or love or mental stability in their lives.  Psychology and neuroscience don't seem to have made any significant contribution in this regard.

Religion and spirituality do provide the means by which people can find peace, hope and emotional stability.  So, why should people give up these things and take up  a study of science that is hopeless and tentative?

I am not talking against science per se. Science has no doubt, provided some medical benefits and lots of conveniences  (I don't even want to talk about the many negatives of science).  But it is not an alternative to religion or spirituality! So, why do people assume that it is?!

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Big straw man.  I never met anyone who chooses science as an alternative to religion or spirituality.  They occupy different niches in the human psyche. We do science because we are curious about things and we want to figure them out.  This is just as profound an inclination in the human phenotype as spirituality but it is not an alternative to or substitute for it.

[Stranger]

Religion and spirituality do provide the means by which people can find peace, hope and emotional stability.

They do to some people, some of the time. This also seems to be a "who cares of it's true, so long as it makes me feel good" sort of argument. That's fine, so long as your chosen faith doesn't hurt anybody else.

Presenting your faith as a truth about the objective world that can be placed alongside science or even make scientific claims (evolution can't explain humans, for example), is when it gets problematic.

So, why should people give up these things and take up  a study of science that is hopeless and tentative?

Who suggested they should? Many people do both. And there's nothing wrong with that unless they try to drag their faith into science.

[Enki]

Hi everyone,

Many of us talk so much about the universe and cosmology and QM and so on as though it is a matter of life and death. Truth is, most people in the world have no idea of these matters. Nor do they care!

In the final analysis, of what use is all this 'knowledge'? The only thing that every person wants is peace, love, emotional stability, hope, good relationships and social support. A good life and a peaceful death. In spite of all the knowledge in the world, if a person has depression, emotional instability, confusion, lonileness and anxiety, he/she can be absolutely miserable.  A life worse than death.

Science has no understanding of these matters nor any ready means by which people can find peace or love or mental stability in their lives.  Psychology and neuroscience don't seem to have made any significant contribution in this regard.

Religion and spirituality do provide the means by which people can find peace, hope and emotional stability.  So, why should people give up these things and take up  a study of science that is hopeless and tentative?

I am not talking against science per se. Science has no doubt, provided some medical benefits and lots of conveniences  (I don't even want to talk about the many negatives of science).  But it is not an alternative to religion or spirituality! So, why do people assume that it is?!

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

It looks to me that this is infested with assumptions that very few people, if any, actually hold..

[Sriram]

The Science vs religion debate has been going on for centuries.   Religions, especially Abrahamic religions, have been ridiculed and mocked by science enthusiasts for decades. Atheists have been scornfully pushing their views on God on religious people for decades. Buses have been painted with atheist messages by renowned scientists!!

Religious theology, mythology and Faith have been condemned as wishful thinking, unscientific and delusional. Elaborate 'scientific' explanations have been given for religious experiences. Scientific understanding of the world has been thrust on religious people as the only correct view as against their own religious beliefs.

Most of the arguments on this board have been on similar lines.

Under the circumstances, how do you people claim that no one here thinks of science as an alternative to religion?! 

[torridon]

The Science vs religion debate has been going on for centuries.   Religions, especially Abrahamic religions, have been ridiculed and mocked by science enthusiasts for decades. Atheists have been scornfully pushing their views on God on religious people for decades. Buses have been painted with atheist messages by renowned scientists!!

Religious theology, mythology and Faith have been condemned as wishful thinking, unscientific and delusional. Elaborate 'scientific' explanations have been given for religious experiences. Scientific understanding of the world has been thrust on religious people as the only correct view as against their own religious beliefs.

Most of the arguments on this board have been on similar lines.

Under the circumstances, how do you people claim that no one here thinks of science as an alternative to religion?! 

The conflict arises largely from where there is overlap, such as when faith makes claims as objective fact, putting them in the domain of science.  When creationists for example claim that the world is only a few thousand years old then there will be people ready to dismiss that as incorrect.

[Roses]

Science is a continuing process, which as yet can't answer how the universe came into being, but maybe one day might be able to do so and produce the evidence to substantiate the claim. Whereas creationists state as a fact that god created it, but cannot produce anything but the Bible as evidence, which of course it isn't.

[Gordon]

The Science vs religion debate has been going on for centuries.

No doubt, but since religions are largely static and science isn't that is no great surprise.

Religions, especially Abrahamic religions, have been ridiculed and mocked by science enthusiasts for decades.

So what: nothing is sacred and everything is fair game.

Atheists have been scornfully pushing their views on God on religious people for decades.

I suspect it is more the case that atheists have no views on 'God', especially since some of us don't think 'God' is a meaningful claim anyway. 

Buses have been painted with atheist messages by renowned scientists!!

Buses carry all sorts of ads.

Religious theology, mythology and Faith have been condemned as wishful thinking, unscientific and delusional.

Which is fair comment.

Elaborate 'scientific' explanations have been given for religious experiences. Scientific understanding of the world has been thrust on religious people as the only correct view as against their own religious beliefs.

Provisional scientific explanations have been offered for all aspects of mental activity. 

Most of the arguments on this board have been on similar lines.

Which is unsurprising.

Under the circumstances, how do you people claim that no one here thinks of science as an alternative to religion?! 

One deals in naturalism and the other doesn't, although that doesn't stop some religious people from making spurious naturalistic claims.

[Steve H]

Science is a continuing process, which as yet can't answer how the universe came into being, but maybe one day might be able to do so and produce the evidence to substantiate the claim. Whereas creationists state as a fact that god created it, but cannot produce anything but the Bible as evidence, which of course it isn't.

That's amost a sensible post, which makes a nice change. However, the reason the universe exists - why there is something rather than nothing (which is not quite the same as how the universe came into being) - is probably a metaphysical rather than a scientific question, and beyond the remit (that word again) of science. Using God as the explanation for what science can't yet explain but is within science's remit is gapism, which is bad theology as well as bad science.

[Sriram]

The conflict arises largely from where there is overlap, such as when faith makes claims as objective fact, putting them in the domain of science.  When creationists for example claim that the world is only a few thousand years old then there will be people ready to dismiss that as incorrect.

You called it a straw man and now say that conflicts arise where there is a overlap.  Where is there no overlap?!

[King Oberon]

Really Sriram, buses is that the best you can do?

The reason 'people' struggle with religion is that there are so so so so so many with polar views about everything little (if any) of which is based on any physical evidence (yep that 'evidence' thing again, and no the bible is not evidence).

The other reason is that religion is a personal thing so like people claiming that fairies  it's hard to relate to unless you think it's happened to you and yes there are people who really really do!

I don't think of science and religion being anywhere near the same in any shape or form.

People of religion who claim it is are trying to justify their 'faith' by claiming it is based on facts  It's called faith for a reason (dictionary definition:strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof) Could have put it better myself! 

[Stranger]

Under the circumstances, how do you people claim that no one here thinks of science as an alternative to religion?! 

Science isn't an alternative to religion except as regards to claims of objective fact about the world. If you regard religion as (as you said in the OP) a "means by which people can find peace, hope and emotional stability", rather than an alternative to science for accessing objective truth, then there is no conflict.

The problem is when people try to make claims about the objective world based on nothing but faith. You have an entire blog, riddled with misinformation, in which you try to do just that.

[Enki]

The Science vs religion debate has been going on for centuries.   Religions, especially Abrahamic religions, have been ridiculed and mocked by science enthusiasts for decades. Atheists have been scornfully pushing their views on God on religious people for decades. Buses have been painted with atheist messages by renowned scientists!!

Religious theology, mythology and Faith have been condemned as wishful thinking, unscientific and delusional. Elaborate 'scientific' explanations have been given for religious experiences. Scientific understanding of the world has been thrust on religious people as the only correct view as against their own religious beliefs.

Most of the arguments on this board have been on similar lines.

Under the circumstances, how do you people claim that no one here thinks of science as an alternative to religion?! 

I don't think that talking about cosmology is akin  to feeling that it is a 'matter of life and death'. I agree with you that most people consider practical things to do with their own lives are much more important. So?

People want all sorts of things which definitely includes many of the things you list. So?

I disagree. Science has contributed a great deal to these 'matters' as you call them.

Religion and spirituality have definitely been very useful in helping to provide all the things you say. As a person who values my spiritual nature, why on earth should I want to give it up? Why should I not want to be interested in science and all that it has to offer at the same time?

I don't see science as any sort of alternative to religion or spirituality. It seems to me that they are in different categories. My alternative to religion is atheism not science. Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. Only when religion seeks to explain the natural world and is found wanting, does science take a prominent part.

Just some thoughts on why I think that your assumptions are way out of line, certainly as regards myself but, as seems from the replies on this forum, for others too.

[torridon]

You called it a straw man and now say that conflicts arise where there is a overlap.  Where is there no overlap?!

I might hear some music and feel uplifted by it.  Someone else might hear the same thing and not feel any emotional response.  That is a case where there is no 'wrong' or 'right' about it.  It is subjective experience which is personal to the listener.

[Sriram]

I might hear some music and feel uplifted by it.  Someone else might hear the same thing and not feel any emotional response.  That is a case where there is no 'wrong' or 'right' about it.  It is subjective experience which is personal to the listener.

Hi everyone,

All religious matters....the theology, mythology and even the objects of faith....are usually subjected to scornful scientific scrutiny and religious people are made to hear no end of it.  Even personal religious experiences of individuals are 'explained' in terms of brain mechanisms or dismissed mockingly as hallucinations and delusions. Religious believers have virtually been harassed about their beliefs. Spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, fairies and elves...are often used to mock peoples beliefs and faith.
 
That is what this board (and BBC) has been all about and that is what I have read on here for nearly 20 years!!

Now suddenly many of you are reacting as though I am making some baseless charge on you!!     Ha! Ha!  Nice volte face..that! After all these years!!

Fine...if you want to change your view. No harm in that. But you people are reacting as though you have no idea what  I am talking about!! That is rubbish....!

I know that science is not an alternative to religion. That is what my OP says. But that is not what all of you have been badgering on and on about all these years. Most of you have been insisting that science is an alternative to religion and that religion should preferably be eradicated while science should be learnt by one and all (or similar sentiments).   Science being the epitome of truth while religion is all about falsehood.  Some of you have even maintained that personal solace and peace through falsehood is not worthwhile.

In view of this situation, I have said in the OP that religion has its many uses in terms of personal satisfaction, solace and so on...while objective knowledge provided by science does not hold much value for most individuals.

In the final analysis, it is ones relationships, peace, hope, mental well being and happiness that really matter and not some detail about the universe or atom or evolution that in any case is tentative. 

That is all this thread is about.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sriram]

I might hear some music and feel uplifted by it.  Someone else might hear the same thing and not feel any emotional response.  That is a case where there is no 'wrong' or 'right' about it.  It is subjective experience which is personal to the listener.

We cannot separate out the 'objective' aspects of mythology and theology from the subjective experiences. It is Jesus, God, heaven and salvation that lend hope, solace and peace to Christians. The subjective experiences depend on certain 'objective' beliefs. You cannot tell a person to abandon all his beliefs as false and still expect him to get all the personal satisfaction. That doesn't make sense.

[torridon]

We cannot separate out the 'objective' aspects of mythology and theology from the subjective experiences. It is Jesus, God, heaven and salvation that lend hope, solace and peace to Christians. The subjective experiences depend on certain 'objective' beliefs. You cannot tell a person to abandon all his beliefs as false and still expect him to get all the personal satisfaction. That doesn't make sense.

Maybe, but we can say that personal beliefs are are personal matter, but not true for all, as if they were objective.   In most places, people are free to follow their path and so long as that doesn't impinge on the similar freedoms of others there is no problem.

[torridon]

Most of you have been insisting that science is an alternative to religion and that religion should preferably be eradicated while science should be learnt by one and all (or similar sentiments).

Really ?  I don't recall such sentiments.  Can you link to an example ?

[torridon]

In view of this situation, I have said in the OP that religion has its many uses in terms of personal satisfaction, solace and so on...while objective knowledge provided by science does not hold much value for most individuals.

In the final analysis, it is ones relationships, peace, hope, mental well being and happiness that really matter and not some detail about the universe or atom or evolution that in any case is tentative. 

I think I'd broadly agree with that. The majority of people don't take a close interest in science.  We are emotional beings, our choices in life are the result of our hopes and fears.  But we are all also analytical beings to some degree, and we use that capacity for reasoning in the service of our emotions. We are curious, because we know that by being curious we may discover things to improve our lives.

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

All religious matters....the theology, mythology and even the objects of faith....are usually subjected to scornful scientific scrutiny and religious people are made to hear no end of it.  Even personal religious experiences of individuals are 'explained' in terms of brain mechanisms or dismissed mockingly as hallucinations and delusions. Religious believers have virtually been harassed about their beliefs. Spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, fairies and elves...are often used to mock peoples beliefs and faith.
 
That is what this board (and BBC) has been all about and that is what I have read on here for nearly 20 years!!

Now suddenly many of you are reacting as though I am making some baseless charge on you!!     Ha! Ha!  Nice volte face..that! After all these years!!

Fine...if you want to change your view. No harm in that. But you people are reacting as though you have no idea what  I am talking about!! That is rubbish....!

I know that science is not an alternative to religion. That is what my OP says. But that is not what all of you have been badgering on and on about all these years. Most of you have been insisting that science is an alternative to religion and that religion should preferably be eradicated while science should be learnt by one and all (or similar sentiments).   Science being the epitome of truth while religion is all about falsehood.  Some of you have even maintained that personal solace and peace through falsehood is not worthwhile.

In view of this situation, I have said in the OP that religion has its many uses in terms of personal satisfaction, solace and so on...while objective knowledge provided by science does not hold much value for most individuals.

In the final analysis, it is ones relationships, peace, hope, mental well being and happiness that really matter and not some detail about the universe or atom or evolution that in any case is tentative. 

That is all this thread is about.

Cheers.

Sriram

Science is an alternative to religion in terms of an explanation for the world we see around us and the things we experience. I don't think anyone has suggested that science can replace the 'spiritual' elements of religion. If that's what you think the non religious on here have been saying I think you have misunderstood. We are emotional beings and need to experience those emotions and religions can provide an opportunity for this. Scientific discoveries can generate emotions, such as hope or despair, but cannot be seen as a replacement for religions anymore than any other human activity in that regard.

[Enki]

Hi everyone,

All religious matters....the theology, mythology and even the objects of faith....are usually subjected to scornful scientific scrutiny and religious people are made to hear no end of it.  Even personal religious experiences of individuals are 'explained' in terms of brain mechanisms or dismissed mockingly as hallucinations and delusions. Religious believers have virtually been harassed about their beliefs. Spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, fairies and elves...are often used to mock peoples beliefs and faith.
 
That is what this board (and BBC) has been all about and that is what I have read on here for nearly 20 years!!

Now suddenly many of you are reacting as though I am making some baseless charge on you!!     Ha! Ha!  Nice volte face..that! After all these years!!

Fine...if you want to change your view. No harm in that. But you people are reacting as though you have no idea what  I am talking about!! That is rubbish....!

I know that science is not an alternative to religion. That is what my OP says. But that is not what all of you have been badgering on and on about all these years. Most of you have been insisting that science is an alternative to religion and that religion should preferably be eradicated while science should be learnt by one and all (or similar sentiments).   Science being the epitome of truth while religion is all about falsehood.  Some of you have even maintained that personal solace and peace through falsehood is not worthwhile.

In view of this situation, I have said in the OP that religion has its many uses in terms of personal satisfaction, solace and so on...while objective knowledge provided by science does not hold much value for most individuals.

In the final analysis, it is ones relationships, peace, hope, mental well being and happiness that really matter and not some detail about the universe or atom or evolution that in any case is tentative. 

That is all this thread is about.

Cheers.

Sriram

I haven't changed my view at all. I have always accepted that one's sense of spirituality and/or religious feelings are a matter for the individual only(true for you, but not necessarily for anyone else) and that includes my own of course. I could easily quote you examples of where I have said as much previously in various threads.

What I object to is any person telling me that their particular version is some sort of absolute truth which has to be true for me also. I have always challenged anyone who says that their religious/spiritual view is the one that I should follow if I disagree with it and tried to give the reasons why I would disagree.  My responses to Alan Burns are of that very nature, for instance. I do not object to his sense of faith, Whatever floats his boat is alright by me. I do object, however, to his attempts at proselytising others by claiming that his particular world view is the only true one.

So, no, I have not changed my mind at all, and I shall continue challenging others(including your good self) if I disagree with you if and when I wish to.

[ekim]

I have always accepted that one's sense of spirituality and/or religious feelings are a matter for the individual only(true for you, but not necessarily for anyone else) .....
.......I do object, however, to his attempts at proselytising others by claiming that his particular world view is the only true one.

I think that is fair enough.  I would include politics, consumerism and medicine as well as religious persuasion.  Unfortunately, there are those who use persuasion as a means of controlling mass mind to satisfy an urge for power.  One of the advantages of the inner 'spiritual' path is that it can be followed in secret and if found to be beneficial it could be shared as a possibility for others rather than a truth, and perhaps, taking care not to 'cast pearls before swine'.

[Sriram]

Be that as it may, I am happy to see a softening of stand against religion. From the very Dawkinian 'hate religion in all its forms' stand of some years back, people seem to be now taking a more 'it has its use' stand.  Wisdom gained. Nice!

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: Individuals indignantly saying 'I never ever said such and such'...or...'I have always said such and such' etc., is neither here nor there. In the OP I was talking of what most posters have maintained, quite emphatically, over the years.
 

[Maeght]

Be that as it may, I am happy to see a softening of stand against religion. From the very Dawkinian 'hate religion in all its forms' stand of some years back, people seem to be now taking a more 'it has its use' stand.  Wisdom gained. Nice!

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: Individuals indignantly saying 'I never ever said such and such'...or...'I have always said such and such' etc., is neither here nor there. In the OP I was talking of what most posters have maintained, quite emphatically, over the years.

Who were you referring to then? My position has not changed over the years. Who do you think has changed their position on this?