Do you see science as being able to explain everything within out universe and lives? Or do you find limitations within scientific rationality?
Science would be indistinct to religious belief if it could explain everything. Just because science can't explain something yet doesn't mean it won't be able to in the future. So no, I don't see science as being able to explain everything - no real scientist would but do I give credence to supernatural beliefs to help fill in the gaps? nope.
I think you might have misunderstood stoffel highclimber. When he said that he prefers to focus on the interesting aspects of all religions
nah, I don't think I did. There are no positive aspects to religion. it's all just make-believe. Like santa only he's real
I find many people intolerant of "spirituality" in an Agnostic sense. So often batted away with "hippie" or "nonsense". I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.I have A faith, my faith, but it isn't everyones and we should just accept that.
I think you need to look up the definition of 'faith'.
There are no positive aspects to religion
Actually I take that back - there's some lovely architecture out there, but that's about it.
There are no positive aspects to religion
It's really too late at night to get into this nonsense. And he football's suddentl y got very intsresting. Night.
Poor guy was just after a singing competition, personally I would have obliged him. Few celtic songs and he'd soon shut up, definitely be clamped after we started on the hymns. 😆
Historically, in every country I've lived in religion did have have a monopoly on values at some point in history. If you look at the British legal system you'll find the head of state who signs off laws is also the head of the Church.
I think if you know English history it demonstrates political capture of religion, not religious capture of politics. In other words, you've got it backward.
Am I the only one thinking that the pilots must be looking at each other thinking 'did we lock the door?'.
I haven't got it backwards, Konabunny, you've added the concept of "capture" that I've never used. If you are referring to Henry VIII then he went from being under the control of Rome to running his own church. both religions being based on slightly different interpretations of the Bible. In the first part of Henry VIII's reign his values were imposed by Rome, in the second half his values were negotiated with protestant clergy.
Throughout his life his choices were heavily influenced by religion. He went to the trouble of getting papal consent for his first marriage and annulation. It was when Rome would no longer agree to his whims that he was presented with protestant clergy more accommodating of his wishes by his advisors, collaborated to form the Anglican church and went around robbing and destroying catholic monasteries. The religious civil war he started is still running.
I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.
It depends what you deem to be "absolute" proof. Evolution is as close to proven as makes no odds; look at bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics, for example. And it'll happen irrespective of whether you have faith in it or not.
I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.
It's entirely different. ENTIRELY.
The big difference is that when conflicting experimental results arise, scientists update or even throw out their current model.
Religions burn the experimentalist for being a heretic.
Another tragedy arising from patterns of endogamous marriage in religious groups (alongside the isolationism and loss of choice) is the health issues it throws up. The tradition of marrying first cousins (quite common in Birmingham), over several generations, has produced damaging genetic consequences for some of its offspring.
stoffel - MemberFortunately, not being 'religious', I can pick and choose the bits I liek, and ignoe the stuff I don't.
Most religious people seem to do the same tbh.
I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.
Hahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
You know we've actually viewed evoloution in real time, yes?
I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof
I'm of the school of thought that says you don't understand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a fairy story.
Another tragedy arising from patterns of endogamous marriage in religious groups (alongside the isolationism and loss of choice) is the health issues it throws up. The tradition of marrying first cousins (quite common in Birmingham), over several generations, has produced damaging genetic consequences for some of its offspring.
That's a social, not religious, restriction - if the restriction were religious, you'd have a billion plus people who are not within your kinship group so nae bother.
I question in any case whether that is in fact the tradition and how common it is.
I question in any case whether that is in fact the tradition and how common it is.
"in Britain's ****stani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders."
"55% of British ****stanis are married to first cousins while in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. Only 3% of all births in Britain are to British ****stanis parents but they make up one third of children with genetic disorders."
http://www.medicinechest.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452
