Religion and science are looking at reality from two entirely different perspectives. Neither can see the whole, so neither is “correct” in their own views 100% of the time.
It’s like the blind men and the elephant. Neither is 100% correct, but also neither is 100% wrong. They are both useful tools that can allow us to find out what the truth is, provided that is the original purpose.
It’s just such a fucking shitty false equivalency to relate the physical to the meta physical.
Look at Christianity for example, the biggest factor in your choice of religion is where you were born first and who you were born to a close second.
You see a great amount of similarity, especially inter discipline, but you can find huge differences between states, even cities and counties. People will shop for churches when they move to find a version of the same religion that fits with their preferred style and interpretation.
That’s inside of a body like the SBC, Roman Catholicism and the SBC are even more different fundamentally. Same books, same dudes tho.
Scientific models update with research, even if things are difficult to change, they change based on new info. Religion needs to constantly fit it’s ever dwindling influence into the same scripture, you just get to think the words mean different things now.
While I agree with your assessment vis claims and observable truths, I also think that religion has to be seen as a kind of naturally evolved and universal system of sense-making in anatomically modern homo sapiens that would not exist did it not serve some kind of selective value in our distant past as a species.
In other words, religion, or notions of spirituality, wouldn’t be as universal as they seemingly are were it not the case that they played something like an adaptive role in human evolution.
No. That is a post hoc justification. The kinda logic that says since nearly every rabbit gets eaten eventually by a predator the predator must be doing the rabbit a favor. Just because religion is near universal does not mean it exists to serve us. It could easily just be a selfish meme and we are it’s food.
Math and the concept of god are not in the same vein at all.
Religion, and the concept of god, is entirely fabricated by human minds
Non-human animals can count
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121128-animals-that-can-count
There is no evidence that they pray to any deity
Religion and science are looking at reality from two entirely different perspectives. Neither can see the whole, so neither is “correct” in their own views 100% of the time.
It’s like the blind men and the elephant. Neither is 100% correct, but also neither is 100% wrong. They are both useful tools that can allow us to find out what the truth is, provided that is the original purpose.
Religion doesn’t do anything to find any truths. It’s just people making wild claims with zero evidence to back it up.
Science and scientists make claims, test those claims, gather data, and make measurable conclusions about the world.
They are absolutely not the same.
It’s just such a fucking shitty false equivalency to relate the physical to the meta physical.
Look at Christianity for example, the biggest factor in your choice of religion is where you were born first and who you were born to a close second.
You see a great amount of similarity, especially inter discipline, but you can find huge differences between states, even cities and counties. People will shop for churches when they move to find a version of the same religion that fits with their preferred style and interpretation.
That’s inside of a body like the SBC, Roman Catholicism and the SBC are even more different fundamentally. Same books, same dudes tho.
Scientific models update with research, even if things are difficult to change, they change based on new info. Religion needs to constantly fit it’s ever dwindling influence into the same scripture, you just get to think the words mean different things now.
While I agree with your assessment vis claims and observable truths, I also think that religion has to be seen as a kind of naturally evolved and universal system of sense-making in anatomically modern homo sapiens that would not exist did it not serve some kind of selective value in our distant past as a species.
In other words, religion, or notions of spirituality, wouldn’t be as universal as they seemingly are were it not the case that they played something like an adaptive role in human evolution.
No. That is a post hoc justification. The kinda logic that says since nearly every rabbit gets eaten eventually by a predator the predator must be doing the rabbit a favor. Just because religion is near universal does not mean it exists to serve us. It could easily just be a selfish meme and we are it’s food.