Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 10:20 am Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

People are taught religion and people are taught science. It's not possible to determine how much of religion is fact and how much is embellishment but science contradicts religion in some cases. When it does, science is the determinate but science doesn't disprove all of religion, just parts.

Science can be wrong in some cases and when it is, people can be mislead into accepting a wrong concept. Space-time is a wrong concept that many people accept.

Hans Christian Anderson wrote "The Emperor's New Clothes" which says that people will follow the crowd even when the crowd is clearly wrong.

Even when the skeptic is right, he is most often unheeded.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:10 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 10:20 am Why do so many believe in religion which lacks physical evidence while many reject science which does have physical evidence?

PhilX

People are taught religion and people are taught science. It's not possible to determine how much of religion is fact and how much is embellishment but science contradicts religion in some cases. When it does, science is the determinate but science doesn't disprove all of religion, just parts.

Science can be wrong in some cases and when it is, people can be mislead into accepting a wrong concept. Space-time is a wrong concept that many people accept.

Hans Christian Anderson wrote "The Emperor's New Clothes" which says that people will follow the crowd even when the crowd is clearly wrong.

Even when the skeptic is right, he is most often unheeded.

How important is the family structure in the teaching of religion?

PhilX

Here are some links PhilX. There are other studies that look into the difference between the male and the female brain, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm pointing out that the two sides exist in both sexes and each side can be associated with a female archetype or a male's. That is to say both sexes can display any combination. This is the problem with the feminine movement, it promotes women to be more masculine to compete with men, instead of promoting women for being women. We don't want the pendulum pushed hard back to a matriarchal system though. I'm saying it makes sense to ease it to the centre.

It's a little confusing though when some of these links start off with debunking such theories to then state that it's true, just a little differently but still within the correct archetype. Most of the science field shy away from words like energy, holistic, oneness. Perhaps this is an example of imbalance, an incorrect reasoning because it tends to be separative instead of being more inclusive.

Just an important last note: I am in agreement that religion is false and has done more damage than good. But I have a little understanding in spirituality, some may consider these to be the same but there is a big difference.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ly/281962/
https://michaelhaupt.com/whats-the-real ... 341f1cb9f4
http://brainmadesimple.com/left-and-rig ... heres.html

For them, religion is salvation, this is what helps them to be happier. From the thought that someone forgives them easier, I guess. I once believed in God, and then there were questions. Why did this God never appear before our eyes to show all that he is? And all in the same way. And science for them is too difficult, it is easier to believe in what is not. I've been reading an essay on this topic https://papersbattle.com/best-term-pape ... -services/ you'll just be amazed at the thoughts of these students. Because I was in shock. Theme religions in general a complicated thing. If it is convenient for someone to believe in a dude in the sky, then this is his right.