The difference between science and religion

[BADecker]

Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

[1714104750]

1714104750

[1714104750]

1714104750

[1714104750]

1714104750

[1714104750]

1714104750

[1714104750]

1714104750

[o_e_l_e_o]

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit.

Ahh nice. The "God did it" fallacy.

1) Present an argument
2) Your opponents prove your argument is obviously false
3) Simply state "You are wrong because God did it/God can do anything"

It is impossible to argue against, because we can break the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, maths, space, time, even logic, by simply stating "God did it". Every argument presented can be refuted by simply stating "God did it".

"How come all the evidence proves the Universe is >13 billion years old" - "Ahhh, God did it"
"How come all the evidence proves evolution" - "Ahhh, God made it that way"
"How come fossils exist" - "Ahhh, God put them there"

It truly is the last bastion of the stupid and ignorant.

[stats]

Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.

I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.

A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.

[BADecker]

Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.

I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.

A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.

You really need to look into what the nation of Israel is all about. They are extremely fastidious people who over the last 3,500 years kept meticulous records. These records, and the way they were kept, and whose records were accepted by them, show that God is real, and that the things He says in the Bible are real.

Your mistake is underestimating God and Ancient Israel.

[arafat222]

Religion changes very slowly if at all to the  world around us making it difficult to apply its knowledge to new problems and circumstances.  Science is self-correcting, constantly challenging ideas, throwing out old ones in place of new and better ones.
Most religions reflect the worldview and knowledge of ancient people who are long gone.   Science is being created today, right now.

[BADecker]

Religion has the answers. Science is simply far behind in trying to find out why the answers are what they are.

[jiniyaakter]

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

[BADecker]

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

[BADecker]

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.

[Moloch]

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.

Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...

Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?

[BADecker]

Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...

Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?

Actually, science simply has shown that chemical processes are part of the body connection to spirit, mind and soul. That's why there are continual scientific investigations into how the connection works.

[Moloch]

Fuck off you cunt. That's not what science says. You obviously lack any scientific insight. You're just a troll that needs to kill themselves.

I advise anger management courses meditation or perhaps formal counselling.

They're just trolls who get paid to mouth off. Anger management doesn't work on cold, political science trolling.

Children... please stay on topic

This thread is about the differences between science and religion, not who is the bigger cunt

Thanks

[sharif12]

every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like ancient time

[BADecker]

every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like ancient time.

But it is the religious beliefs of people that cause them to look for things that work, whether or not these things fall into the realm of science. So, religion is the greater foundation of science.

[CoinCube]

Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress.

A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question.

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274

The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism. Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.

[af_newbie]

Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress.

A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question.

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274

The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism. Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.

Political or patriotic dogmas will hold longer than religious nonsense for one reason:  it is easier to demonstrate that the details of the religious dogma are simply not true.  Pick any scriptures, they are all complete BS.  They make no sense scientifically and morally.  Never mind some supernatural nonsense.  You want to base society on that?  We HAD to go through years of reformation and eventually HAD to abandon the religious ideas because the moral code was just not in line with the progress we've made in sociology and psychology.

If we stuck with the religious governments, women would never get their equal rights, gays would be either killed or held in mental hospitals.

If you take any religion, it is trivial to show that the fundamental tenets are simply not true.  Therefore over time, as people become more educated, you will have less followers and the religious societal foundations will crumble.  You would need to physically coerce people with fear, real or imaginary for people to stay in their religion.  That is what Islam is doing as I type this post.

Political or patriotic dogmas are based on real, physical societal structures, cultures, national history etc.  That is a lot harder to invalidate.

As for centralization of power, well, that will happen no matter what the underlying dogma is.  At least in the western style democracies you can vote to elect your president.  Try that with the Catholic church.  When was the last time a church goer had a chance to elect the Pope?

I am telling you that the secular thought is far superior on many different levels from human rights to morality; and it agrees with science.  I hope you'll admit this much that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works.
  
Science is the way to go, religion is not.  Sorry religion, you had your day in the sun.

[CoinCube]

@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.

[af_newbie]

@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.

Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.

12:37 - rationality divorced from your being is self-destructive? 

As a scientist you deal with data, not psychology of yourself!  His approach is to over analyze the emotions of his subjects. 
Of course, a person would go mad if you second guess your actions, emotions every second of your life.  Strong individuals do not do that.

16:20 - the dream was informed by the way we act? 

What is he talking about? We act based on our morals, ethical standards, our values.  What we feel is right.
If you don't know why you act a certain way, well, you have psychological or mental issues.

21:40 - transcendent psychological entity that inhabits the body?

Sorry he lost me there.  I think he studied too many deviants. I lost interest after that.

I have no idea what he is talking about.  Listening to him I can say that psychology is not science.

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew
inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

Today, you have to use your reason and conclude that those stories are not applicable to the modern times as they were written by very primitive humans and reflect their primitive nature.

I see no value in the stories written in the Bible, Quran or Talmud.  I have disqualified all these books as a source of wisdom based
on the moral code they espouse. 

I have better morals than any of the writers (Gods) of these holy scriptures.  I do not understand how anyone can believe that these books were inspired by some supernatural God, who I presume had an infinite wisdom.

The scriptures stories reflect the realities of life of the writers.  Nothing to do with transcendent beings.

[CoinCube]

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

[af_newbie]

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.

Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.

Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.

The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.

I see the world as is not as it could be.

Life started thanks to supernovae.

Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.

PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them.  Read it, it might help you.