A great example on why religious knowledge is less valuable than scientific knowledge. The belief that the issues are that simple and blocks understanding of why it happens and how to prevent similar situations from recurring.
More however, the god parts have no value. If you insert science into religion, it’s still science. The science information should be extracted from the religious knowledge, and the less valuable religious parts discarded.
If you insert science into religion, it’s still science
And all religions have science in them. Pacific Islanders know things about wayfaring and wave dynamics that physicists are just now discovering. Colonisers in Australia spoiled the environment by disregarding indigenous conservation practices. Buddhists have been teaching western psychologists about the uses of meditation for the past two decades. The Haudenosaunee taught Karl Marx’s friends about communism. Muslims were avoiding dangerous meats before germ theory was invented. For hundreds of years, westerners have dismissed religious knowledge and said oopsie when they later learned there was science inside the religion. I caution you not to make the same mistake.
That’s a cute story that provides a tidy explanation for religion, but is it supported by the anthropological evidence? Where are your sources? Are you sure you’re not just making up stories in an attempt to explain things that you do not understand?
Perhaps you could provide the search query terms which will lead me to an empirical study confirming your hypothesis? I’m not sure what to search to find your evidence for you.
Your hypothesis was that people use religion to explain the unknown, while this study concludes that religious people are more likely to judge the unknown as unknowable. Needless to say, one cannot explain the unknowable. Therefore, your hypothesis is countered by this evidence.
Once again, science proves that tidy little stories atheists make up to explain the world around us are just that - stories. Next time, I’d suggest avoiding speculation you can’t back up with empirical research.
A great example on why religious knowledge is less valuable than scientific knowledge. The belief that the issues are that simple and blocks understanding of why it happens and how to prevent similar situations from recurring.
More however, the god parts have no value. If you insert science into religion, it’s still science. The science information should be extracted from the religious knowledge, and the less valuable religious parts discarded.
And all religions have science in them. Pacific Islanders know things about wayfaring and wave dynamics that physicists are just now discovering. Colonisers in Australia spoiled the environment by disregarding indigenous conservation practices. Buddhists have been teaching western psychologists about the uses of meditation for the past two decades. The Haudenosaunee taught Karl Marx’s friends about communism. Muslims were avoiding dangerous meats before germ theory was invented. For hundreds of years, westerners have dismissed religious knowledge and said oopsie when they later learned there was science inside the religion. I caution you not to make the same mistake.
No, people invented religions in an attempt to explain things that they did not understand.
Things that the scientific method has allowed us to understand.
That is not science.
That’s a cute story that provides a tidy explanation for religion, but is it supported by the anthropological evidence? Where are your sources? Are you sure you’re not just making up stories in an attempt to explain things that you do not understand?
It’s a well documented sociological phenomenon. Read a (different) book.
Perhaps you could provide the search query terms which will lead me to an empirical study confirming your hypothesis? I’m not sure what to search to find your evidence for you.
Yeah let me get right on that so you can just move the goalposts.
Here look at me doing it anyway because it took like 30 seconds
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9286862/
Your hypothesis was that people use religion to explain the unknown, while this study concludes that religious people are more likely to judge the unknown as unknowable. Needless to say, one cannot explain the unknowable. Therefore, your hypothesis is countered by this evidence.
Once again, science proves that tidy little stories atheists make up to explain the world around us are just that - stories. Next time, I’d suggest avoiding speculation you can’t back up with empirical research.