Nope,all possible science. Because it concerns itself with the physical universe, and like us is unable to go beyond its boundaries. By any physical measure it doesn't. That is correct if 'truth' = facts. But keep in mind that we are narrative animals. Everything is true for a given value of 'true'. No, you'd just believe. No more, no less. There is no right or wrong --it's a narrative; the sense you make of your life. It may seem that way, but it is not, because it can never scientifically be proven to be true either (which is why what the intelligent Design crowd practice is not science, even if they believe they do). There is no scientific argument for or against faith any more than there is for or against my liking chocolate, or thinking that Victorian steam engines are pretty. We live in two realms of existence: the physical universe in which things are and happen, and the psychic plain, which is our experience of this realm, ourselves and our life. We don't just think in facts; we think in story. We impose meanings and values. We do not just create our inner world; we see that it is good (or bad, or whatever). We are not Homo Sapiens, Thinking Man, but Pan Narrans, Storytelling Ape. The psychic realm --how we experience things and what they mean to us-- must be compatible with the physical world --what is and what happens-- to a large extent for our psychic realm to be any use, but some divergence does not practically matter (we can think of junk memes). What does matter is that our narrative, our memes, ideas and values are generally functional to our survival. Pragmatic use trumps factual accuracy. If the narrative your neighbourhood Crazy Cat Woman™ imposes on her experience allows her to stay functional in this physical universe, then it's all good as long as her brain is concerned. Whatever gets a lonely, alienated woman through the day. We see this clearly in children who grow up in extremely dysfunctional or traumatic environments; the narratives they develop --and hence the behaviours and relationships they form-- may seem crazy to us, but it helped them survive in extreme circumstances. Religion is just another narrative. Whatever beef you have with it, it is generally functional. We know this because superstitious thinking is wired into us evolutionarily, religion still exists and so do the people who believe in it. Real or imagined, true or false, good or bad: it works (for a given value of 'works', of course). Science is a different narrative; much better suited to the facts, hence much better for some of life's quandaries (but not all), but it has been around for only about 0.05% of the time that religion has. So give it some time to let evolution decide whether it can now supplant one narrative with the other. Meanwhile consider your own narrative. The love you feel for your wife, your kids --we can explain it scientifically as a combination of biological reproductive instinct and attachment; limbic drives that ensure the continued existence of our species, the end product of electrochemical activity in your neurons and hormonal glands. But your love feels real, right? It feels true.
But the topic was about 'hate'. And I argued that there is not particular reason why one should hate religion as opposed to other human movement that does some things that one doesn't like.
There's a great quote from CS Lewis which I think is applicable: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." There's nothing quite like religion for instilling complete conviction in people, and complete peace when they go about the most atrocious of actions. Edit: And before the obvious reply, I'm not saying religion has a monopoly on committing evil or anything, just that it has a particularly impressive effect in making people so at peace about committing heinous actions.
Or nationalism. Or racism. Or capitalism. Or medicine. Or psychiatry. Whatever it is you sanctify: make sacred. And remember narrative: everybody is the hero and martyr of their own story.
i dont want to be a racist but: "JESUS was originaly jewish," and if you bring (every) religion to th genesis (origin) it is basicaly all the same.
Yeah, but he was black on the inside, bro! Rev. Lovejoy to Ned Flanders, during another one of his annoying phone calls in the middle of the night: "Ned, have you considered any of the other major religions? They're all pretty much the same."
Hate, I've got no time for unreasonable hate but I can understand why some reach hate, I had to hate myself before I really understood, your cool Guinevere & that cupboard project = nice idea. Time I got back to modding.
Question: Why do bad deeds appears 'Eviler' when they are backed by religions but 'More Acceptable' when backed by politics? Sent from my 3GS!
I'm not religious, I believe people have a right to be religious if that's what they want. what I don't like about religion, people pushing it on others or using it as an excuse to make war. I don't believe schools should have anything to do with religion except to teach an appreciation of all religion. it should always be the individuals choice to choose a religion if they so wish.
I believe that is what Religious Education should continue to be. Teaching about religious understanding without trying to sway you. I had an incredibly religious teacher in school, she was constantly trying to convert students. No one brought up that her teaching style was irresponsible and ethically wrong in a public school though. As an atheist and a 'keen thinker' as I like to describe myself, I used to have some pretty serious debates with her concerning her teaching style, thoughts and opinions on religion. Most of it came down to "everyone should be a christian" with her.
In my opinion she should be banned from teaching. There is a "big" difference between being a religious teacher and actively "proselytising". She was put in a position of trust after all. I was taught in the French system (long story) and they are pretty secular. The learning about religions was done in history class. ie, Romans believed in Jupiter, Egyptians to Amon-ra, then the Abrahamic religions, how they branched out till the present day. It was History, taught in History class, and in my opinion, exactly where it belonged. I don't think it should be set apart.
