What you are pointing out is "scientism". The existence of "scientism" (even if it exists) doesn't invalidate science. You are desperately searching for an excuse.
One does not have to be "religious" or have a belief in some invisible spiritual entity to lade an ethical, "moral", constructive and humanitarian life of compassion, productivity and human charity. One can generalize that many "religious" folks are far more judgmental, critical, unaccepting than non religious folks. Probably because religious dogma becomes more important thatn human caring principles. or thinking for themselves.
This is a standard, yet preposterous attempt to discount all knowledge outside of personal religious belief. It's the standard assault on higher education and all forms of policy being informed by what has been discovered through organized investigation. There is no possibility of learning how our physical universe works without opening one's eyes and taking a look. The idea that humans should believe their religious experts, but disbelieve ALL OTHER EXPERTS is just plain STUPID.
It is also extremely outdated..............as human knowledge has progressed a long way from the time many "religious texts" were written. (which one cannot take literally anyhow)
You seem to think this is an either/or question...it's not. Science and faith/revelation are complimentary ways to understand our universe.
No, you want to shield your religion from laws against sexually assaulting children. And, you STILL want to call your religion a religion!! No respectable citizen sees it as a legitimate duty of a religion to shield child rapists.
First, let's make sure you know what "compliment" means. Complimentary means praising or approving - or sometimes it means free. You are NOT complimenting science. You have been promoting it as a false religion - with those who consult science being called members of the cult of "scientism". Maybe you meant "complement". But, I don't accept that, either, and for the same reason. You have stated you are not interested in completion - you are interested in dominance.
I've never said anything about child rapists. It was a spelling mistake, probably the autocorrect. I meant it to read complementary.
According to some fake religions God hates humans and He cursed mankind, but according to the only one and true religion the story is totally different – the true God loves humans and He will reword good people after the death. The truth is that the world was created by mistake. The only One and True God – Flying Spaghetti Monster - created the world while being drunk, intoxication is the cause for a flawed Earth. But don’t worry – after suffering in this imperfect world, the good people will be go heaven, where volcanoes spill a cold beer and stripper factories produce beautiful stripper whose only task is to make us happy. And there are strippers for every one – for men, for women, for gays, for transgender and even for necrophiles. R’amen to all true believes!
Then you need to further explain. You made hard charges against those who accept science. In fact, you even came up with a derogatory term for anyone who consults science - the "religion of scientism". NOW you want to claim that science and religion can be complementary. So, you owe an explanation on that, as I see no way to consider these two strongly opposed positions.
This assumes that God is dumb, corrupt, and evil enough to curse people for the actions of others. Though I suppose there is scriptural evidence for this. Your average kindergartner has better moral sense than the moral monster proposed in those verses. No child should be punished for the actions of their ancestors. Biblical literalists think that God was too dumb or evil to figure that out.
Science is what comes from the exercise of our higher intangible nature by way of our tangible physical nature. For instance our love and conscience might compel us to seek a cure for cancer to help a loved one. Intangible inspiration might impel us to investigate one thing or another, resulting in an advancement in a particular science. Considering that our intangible higher nature isn't of the tangible natural world. Then it stands to reason that it is a bridge to the divine, stirring us to a remembrance of God, moreso than a quiet servant to our vanity.
Well, this doesn't address the issue I was discussing with mswan. His comment about "scientists" was clearly addressed to those of us who are willing to consult science. Your comment is more about how we form motivation, consciousness, etc., as I don't remember you being opposed to considering science. For example, once I know that I need a cure for cancer, may I consult or use science? Am I a "scientist" (which mswan describes in his cite as a truly despicable individual) if I do that? Of course, the same goes for questions about history, cosmology, issues of biology, etc.
Do I deserve paradise? That has nothing to do with this thread. I didn't design this system that Christians hold so dear. In fact, I'm not so sure there is uniform agreement among Christians concerning what the original sin might have been. There are serious Christian denominations which do not see it as NEARLY so simple as Adam being coerced by Eve to eat an apple against God's demand.
RE: Has God cursed mankind? SUBTOPIC: intangible higher nature 'vs' tangible natural world ⁜→ Injunctions, et al, First, I found you commentary extremely interesting. (COMMENT) ◈ intangible higher nature ◈ tangible natural world Yes, I agree, from your persective, there is a bridge between the two (Intangible on the left - Tangible on the right). But the "Supernatural" (any kind of deity) moves you to the plane on the next elevated level. In the Metaphysics of the nature (left or right) is a discussion about the nature of reality. When you say: "bridge to the divine" yo have jumped the tracks. What is tangible (Normal Matter) and what is NOT tangible (Dark Matter) is a question of reality → what we can sense and detect, and manipulate. Your notion in very possible. While the Discovery on the effects of Dark Matter dates back to 1933, the Nobel's not awarded until 2019. It is still an undefined phenomenon. Things that are outside the Scientific Method are in dark territory. But if all the universe that we can sense mount to less than ≈5%, we must be swimming in Dark Matter. Most Respectfully, R
No, I don't need to further explain. I've given you my thoughts and reasoning, you can accept or reject them. That's on you not me.
