Hi. I'd see the difference between science and religion is the former doesn't comment on what should be moral values, although through evolutionary studies it helps explain how we came up with them. Religions, particularly Abrahamic branches, claim universal and absolute moral values which lose their relevance with time, e.g sexist rulings etc. Unlike secular value systems, by nature of their devine claims, they cannot adapt without losing their devine validity.
However, I completely agree with your point about religions promoting collectivistic behavior is the reason for their success. Sadly, this was usually used to slaughter ones neighbors, forcibly convert any survivors and steal their stuff. Somehow, these processes are celebrated as great positive events. Like "The Christening of country X" when what we're really talking about is barbaric, unjustified invasions.
@lanastompanato In fact, we don't just have two separate phenomena either, but most religions are explicitly anti-scientific in the sense that their worldviews do not allow prediction to take place due to the forces of nature being sentient and erratic. While there's no necessity to this aspect, it seems to be a universal property of religion that it has no predictive power. A religion where ritual magic produced effects could perhaps be called knowledge in a sense, but that is unheard of.
@Gnomefro "The only way you could even argue that the two phenomena had anything in common " Where did I say they had anything in common? My statements implied the opposite of that. That the two were complementary, that each filled a need that the other didn't fill. Where did you get "in common" out of that?
@lanastompanato Nah. The only way you could even argue that the two phenomena had anything in common is through humanity's early, and failed, attempts at understanding the world. When we finally understood that making shit up was not a path to truth, and that a made up "explanation" could actually be more harmful than accepting that one doesn't know, then we get two completely separate phenomena. One based on evidence, and one based on imagination.
I think that if you look carefully at ancient writings, you'll see that at least all the Abrahamic religions are parasitic on earlier secular writings with regards to every reasonable thing they have to say about human morality. Works like the code of Hammurabi, Confucius etc. However, Hinduism might have a different status in terms of claiming original ideas. Overall, I'd say that the Abrahamic religions have a retarding influence in areas where it makes statements in terms of understanding.
"Works like the code of Hammurabi, Confucius etc." Confucius lived in 500 BC, but none of his teachings were written down until 220BC. We have no works that he actually authored. His teachings weren't written down or popular until centuries after Judaism was well established and the Abrahamic story well told in the Old Testament. Compare the Hammurabi Code to the Old Testament and there may be a few overlaps like "don't murder" and "don't steal" but there is very little resemblance otherwise.
@Gnomefro "most religions are explicitly anti-scientific" No they aren't. "due to the forces of nature being sentient" Very rare belief, limited to pantheistic religions, a very small minority of religions. It is not a universal property at all.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/tr.png)
Science and religion go hand in hand.
Hi. I'd see the difference between science and religion is the former doesn't comment on what should be moral values, although through evolutionary studies it helps explain how we came up with them. Religions, particularly Abrahamic branches, claim universal and absolute moral values which lose their relevance with time, e.g sexist rulings etc. Unlike secular value systems, by nature of their devine claims, they cannot adapt without losing their devine validity.
However, I completely agree with your point about religions promoting collectivistic behavior is the reason for their success. Sadly, this was usually used to slaughter ones neighbors, forcibly convert any survivors and steal their stuff.
Somehow, these processes are celebrated as great positive events. Like "The Christening of country X" when what we're really talking about is barbaric, unjustified invasions.
@lanastompanato In fact, we don't just have two separate phenomena either, but most religions are explicitly anti-scientific in the sense that their worldviews do not allow prediction to take place due to the forces of nature being sentient and erratic. While there's no necessity to this aspect, it seems to be a universal property of religion that it has no predictive power. A religion where ritual magic produced effects could perhaps be called knowledge in a sense, but that is unheard of.
@Gnomefro "The only way you could even argue that the two phenomena had anything in common "
Where did I say they had anything in common? My statements implied the opposite of that. That the two were complementary, that each filled a need that the other didn't fill. Where did you get "in common" out of that?
@lanastompanato Nah. The only way you could even argue that the two phenomena had anything in common is through humanity's early, and failed, attempts at understanding the world. When we finally understood that making shit up was not a path to truth, and that a made up "explanation" could actually be more harmful than accepting that one doesn't know, then we get two completely separate phenomena. One based on evidence, and one based on imagination.
I think that if you look carefully at ancient writings, you'll see that at least all the Abrahamic religions are parasitic on earlier secular writings with regards to every reasonable thing they have to say about human morality. Works like the code of Hammurabi, Confucius etc.
However, Hinduism might have a different status in terms of claiming original ideas. Overall, I'd say that the Abrahamic religions have a retarding influence in areas where it makes statements in terms of understanding.
"Works like the code of Hammurabi, Confucius etc."
Confucius lived in 500 BC, but none of his teachings were written down until 220BC. We have no works that he actually authored. His teachings weren't written down or popular until centuries after Judaism was well established and the Abrahamic story well told in the Old Testament. Compare the Hammurabi Code to the Old Testament and there may be a few overlaps like "don't murder" and "don't steal" but there is very little resemblance otherwise.
@Gnomefro "most religions are explicitly anti-scientific"
No they aren't.
"due to the forces of nature being sentient"
Very rare belief, limited to pantheistic religions, a very small minority of religions. It is not a universal property at all.