Religion vs science

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

[Systematic]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

People believe in greed rather than in science. Religion is just their modus operandi to squash science. In case you didn't notice, those people who most often debate that God tells them not to believe in global warming are also those that get huge kickbacks for doing so. Ironically our politicians and preachers are very greedy. They should call it Goving. Why are you taking more than your fair share? Don't Gov me bro!

[-1-]

In case you didn't notice, those people who most often debate that God tells them not to believe in global warming are also those that get huge kickbacks for doing so.

I don't believe in Global Warming either, but I don't get ANY kickbacks for it. True enough, it is not God that tells me to be his spokesperson in this matter.

Granted, I do get a lot of kicks in my backside for saying I don't believe that global warming is man caused. Sure man may or may not have contributed to it, but the scales and speed are unbelievably speedy and high to be merely man's doing.

[-1-]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

On your first point, science implicitly promises to extend life (even it's been recently claimed that no one can live beyond 115 which isn't true as someone just died at 117). Furthermore scientists are seeking to improve the quality of life.

PhilX

[-1-]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

On your first point, science implicitly promises to extend life (even it's been recently claimed that no one can live beyond 115 which isn't true as someone just died at 117). Furthermore scientists are seeking to improve the quality of life.

PhilX

While what you say is true, and I accept it, you must admit that your addition does not try to negate or contradict my first point.

You asked us to give account of what it is that makes some people believe in religion more than in science. I gave you the reasons. The reason you responded with is counter-indicative to your own question. Why did you do that?

[Philosophy Explorer]

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

On your first point, science implicitly promises to extend life (even it's been recently claimed that no one can live beyond 115 which isn't true as someone just died at 117). Furthermore scientists are seeking to improve the quality of life.

PhilX

While what you say is true, and I accept it, you must admit that your addition does not try to negate or contradict my first point.

You asked us to give account of what it is that makes some people believe in religion more than in science. I gave you the reasons. The reason you responded with is counter-indicative to your own question. Why did you do that?

I'm explaining what science is doing to make it clearer. I'm not contradicting myself.

PhilX

[Systematic]

Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.

2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.

3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.

4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.

5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.

6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

Sounds like we need computers to do science while pretending to be a religion. Sometimes the computer just says no, no matter how much you pray to it. They're half-way there with their icons for doing advanced calculations.

[-1-]

On your first point, science implicitly promises to extend life (even it's been recently claimed that no one can live beyond 115 which isn't true as someone just died at 117). Furthermore scientists are seeking to improve the quality of life.

PhilX

While what you say is true, and I accept it, you must admit that your addition does not try to negate or contradict my first point.

You asked us to give account of what it is that makes some people believe in religion more than in science. I gave you the reasons. The reason you responded with is counter-indicative to your own question. Why did you do that?

I'm explaining what science is doing to make it clearer. I'm not contradicting myself.

PhilX

I did not say you were contradicting yourself!! I was trying to say your point was irrelevant to the original question, but you wrote it in a light as if it contradicted MY point. You did start with "On your first point..." etc.

You need to read your own questions before you attempt to answer them PX.

In other words, you dinged me for no good reason at all, and now you are surprised for my dinging your dinging me. All I ask you is to be relevant to your own questions. If not, then what can you expect of others? You, as the OP, has to show a good example. Respect thy own self first, lest you garner disrespect from others.

[Philosophy Explorer]

While what you say is true, and I accept it, you must admit that your addition does not try to negate or contradict my first point.

You asked us to give account of what it is that makes some people believe in religion more than in science. I gave you the reasons. The reason you responded with is counter-indicative to your own question. Why did you do that?

I'm explaining what science is doing to make it clearer. I'm not contradicting myself.

PhilX

I did not say you were contradicting yourself!! I was trying to say your point was irrelevant to the original question, but you wrote it in a light as if it contradicted MY point. You did start with "On your first point..." etc.

You need to read your own questions before you attempt to answer them PX.

In other words, you dinged me for no good reason at all, and now you are surprised for my dinging your dinging me. All I ask you is to be relevant to your own questions. If not, then what can you expect of others? You, as the OP, has to show a good example. Respect thy own self first, lest you garner disrespect from others.

You made it seem that science has no point in comparison with religion. When you said that science makes no promises beyond life, that's not quite true because science implicitly promises a greater life through trying to extend it and giving it a greater quality which religion fails miserably at so I think it's you who owes some apologies for making a misleading statement. Also can you prove there is an afterlife, otherwise religion is making a false promise?

PhilX

[-1-]

I'm explaining what science is doing to make it clearer. I'm not contradicting myself.

PhilX

I did not say you were contradicting yourself!! I was trying to say your point was irrelevant to the original question, but you wrote it in a light as if it contradicted MY point. You did start with "On your first point..." etc.

You need to read your own questions before you attempt to answer them PX.

In other words, you dinged me for no good reason at all, and now you are surprised for my dinging your dinging me. All I ask you is to be relevant to your own questions. If not, then what can you expect of others? You, as the OP, has to show a good example. Respect thy own self first, lest you garner disrespect from others.

You made it seem that science has no point in comparison with religion. When you said that science makes no promises beyond life, that's not quite true because science implicitly promises a greater life through trying to extend it and giving it a greater quality which religion fails miserably at so I think it's you who owes some apologies.

PhilX

HAHA, YOU!!. You talk about life before death. BEYOND LIFE is life AFTER death.

Why am I always stuck with trying to explain to the lesser endowed the already stated, which is next to obvious? First, I had to explain (unsuccessfully, I must say) to Averroes that "proof" and "evidence" are not synonyms; now I have to explain to Philosophy Explorer what the concept "beyond life" means.

Phil, if you extend someone's life, that's extending his life BEFORE death, you understand? And after death comes "BEYOND LIFE". That's when the religions gain, because they promise the soul's existence will continue, and possibly in a very pleasant way.

I don't mean to put you down, PX, but if you keep on being stupid about this, then I'll lose my temper.

GEESH.

[-1-]

You made it seem that science has no point in comparison with religion.
PhilX

Yes, but your question did not call to allude to that. You asked a straight question, which I answered. You dinged me for not answering something you did not ask.

If you want to hear an answer to a question, you have to ask that question. If you don't see an answer to what you did not ask, for that you can't fault the person who answers you.

That clear?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I did not say you were contradicting yourself!! I was trying to say your point was irrelevant to the original question, but you wrote it in a light as if it contradicted MY point. You did start with "On your first point..." etc.

You need to read your own questions before you attempt to answer them PX.

In other words, you dinged me for no good reason at all, and now you are surprised for my dinging your dinging me. All I ask you is to be relevant to your own questions. If not, then what can you expect of others? You, as the OP, has to show a good example. Respect thy own self first, lest you garner disrespect from others.

You made it seem that science has no point in comparison with religion. When you said that science makes no promises beyond life, that's not quite true because science implicitly promises a greater life through trying to extend it and giving it a greater quality which religion fails miserably at so I think it's you who owes some apologies.

PhilX

HAHA, YOU!!. You talk about life before death. BEYOND LIFE is life AFTER death.

Why am I always stuck with trying to explain to the lesser endowed the already stated, which is next to obvious? First, I had to explain (unsuccessfully, I must say) to Averroes that "proof" and "evidence" are not synonyms; now I have to explain to Philosophy Explorer what the concept "beyond life" means.

Phil, if you extend someone's life, that's extending his life BEFORE death, you understand? And after death comes "BEYOND LIFE". That's when the religions gain, because they promise the soul's existence will continue, and possibly in a very pleasant way.

I don't mean to put you down, PX, but if you keep on being stupid about this, then I'll lose my temper.

GEESH.

Go ahead and lose your temper. It seems many do so here.

Since science is seeking permanent life with greater happiness, then religion wouldn't be able to compete. So what would be the point to religion? (btw how does religion nowadays define everlasting happiness?)

PhilX

[commonsense]

1. religion promises an everlasting happiness. Science promises nothing beyond life.
2. religion is venerable. Science is calculative.
3. Religion is mystical. More fun to scrutinize than science, which is in your face.
4. Religion has no hard math problems. Science kills you with math.
5. Religion gives you a believed power over things you don't have power over, via prayer. Religion gives you tools to get around life using rabbitholes and snakes and ladders around real life effort. Science is merciless in its rigor to force complete compliance.
6. You can govern your spouse not to cheat on you, and your kids to obey you, and the masses to go into war even with the knowledge they will die there for sure, if one successfully manipulates the notion of a supreme being. Science has no supernatural allies.

Since science is seeking permanent life with greater happiness, then religion wouldn't be able to compete.

Since when is science trying to make life permanent? Longevity is an attempt to extend this life finitely, not an attempt to create immortality. -1-‘s 6 points already answer how religion would compete with science.

So what would be the point to religion?

-1-‘s 6 points already answer this.

(btw how does religion nowadays define everlasting happiness?)

This is tangential. Besides, religion's definition is not relevant without a comparison to science's.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Commonsense asked:

"Since when is science trying to make life permanent?"

You haven't been keeping up with the news.

PhilX