RE: Science and Religion

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

This is an interesting topic to me.

I'm not sure that the 2 magesteria do not overlap, in practice. I see a lot of talk online about religious claims having scientific validity. I'm not sure that scientific claims of a real Adam and Eve or a global flood are compelling to me.

On the other side, religion is something having to do with how individuals and groups behave in certain settings. I think science has a lot of good things to say about why religion developed, and why it is sticky once it gets in our heads.

One resource I really like is a book I read by John C. Wathey called

Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing

Here's a link to it on Amazon which may be an affiliate link.
https://amzn.to/4bVzVfJ

One can read more about the author and his research on his website:

https://www.watheyresearch.com/about/

Here's a long YouTube video by Wathey.

As for me

I think religion is a human behavior that naturally follows from our nature. I am very much on the science side of things but I have religious beliefs my social circle taught me as a child. I choose to believe things that have no evidence but actually have natural explanations, just because I am able to choose to believe some things that are helpful to me yet have low probability of being "true" in a literal sense. Religion has value to me, and apparently to many others.

Thanks for the excellent post which led me to revisit the topic in my mind. There's tons more that can be said, but this reply is my thoughts in a tiny nutshell.

Have a great day!

!ALIVE !BBH !UNI !PIZZA !LADY

hive-126152
0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

Good morning, @kenny-crane !

Thank you so much for such a rich thoughts that you placed in our reply.

I'm honored to have your reply (a very complete and fundament one) in my post. I completely can see that you read and put effort in your answer, witch is very rare to see here in Hive. Thank you so much for that!

I see my self as a person that is science based, since I'm a veterinarian.

I choose to believe things that have no evidence but actually have natural explanations, just because I am able to choose to believe some things that are helpful to me yet have low probability of being "true" in a literal sense

I think that sometimes, more pragmatic persons read and listen to religious texts and speeches to literally. Many scripts, most of them were produced more then 3000 years ago, and it were the words that were "found" to explain "complex" things and concepts to the persons in a "simpler" way.

That could be a part of the issue in the cleavage between the "two worlds".

I didn't knew about this author, but as soon as I finish to reply to all the comments that I have in my Hive feed, I'll be back to watch the YT link that you shared.

Thank you so much for your reply. It is a true gem to have your thoughts about this issue.

Have a great Sunday!

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I am having a pretty good Sunday, thanks! And I hope you are, as well.

I think that sometimes, more pragmatic persons read and listen to religious texts and speeches to literally.

I'll agree with you, and will generalize it to a thought I have. I think that many texts/books that people read and listen to talks about, can be a type of Rorschach test that can tell us a lot more about what is going on in the reader/listener's mind than what is actually going on in the texts.

People read something that is open to interpretation, which seems to be applicable to most religious texts, and they tell themselves and others what the text means to them. A thousand people can read the same text and there can be dozens of different interpretations voiced by these people. Some will have a literal reading and some a more pragmatic one.

This maybe accounts for all the different denominations and sects in the major religions who are mostly reading the same exact words.

So I would say, if someone reads religious texts (or anything, really), they should talk to people about what it means to them, and ask those people what they think it means. This way we can all have a richer experience. I think it is better than being told by other people what to think about texts and stories.

Just a random thought inspired by your awesome comment to me. Thanks!

!ALIVE !BBH !UNI !PIZZA !LADY

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

(...) if someone reads religious texts (or anything, really), they should talk to people about what it means to them, and ask those people what they think it means. This way we can all have a richer experience.

Good morning, @kenny-crane !
Sorry again for the overdue in the reply.
Yes, your point, is in fact the most important part to retain and be mindful about it. We can't only "stay" and live with a single "personal-sided" interpretation of anything. It is, and always will be a biased "opinion". Looking, and caring for other's opinion or view, leads as individuals, and also communities, are more caring and more informed subjects.

Thank you so much for your valuable and worthy comment :)

0
0
0.000
Reply