Another reason why religion bothers me

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

I disagree with some things you wrote, DaN.

 

(1) I think we agree that (the) one thing religion has in common with science is that both came from the drive we have not to be satisfied with “I don’t know”. We want answers. But, from then on, science and religion take completely separate paths.

 

Science seeks to put together explanations that can give us answers, thru gathering data, evidence, testing claims and hypothesis, making predictions, experimenting, and so on. It is a dynamic process that’s always dependant on evidence.

 

What does religion do? Well, it invents an answer. It requires no evidence to support it and it’s usually un-testable. What is more, it isn’t meant to be dynamic. It is an absolute answer! After all, how can it not be? An omniscient, almighty being cannot be wrong, can it?

 

So I disagree with your claim that both are based on ‘as much information as they could get’. Religious claims come from a LACK of information, and then, whatever idea that came to the mind of its authority figures becomes ‘truth’. “I don’t know” asked someone, “then call it God” replied the authority. Problem solved.

 

(2) You say that science “does not yet have the tools to answer questions people have about god - so why feel like they have a right to say, "no god isnt real". This is above sciences station I'm afraid.”

 

As far as I know, science doesn’t claim that ‘god isn’t real’. What science claims is that there is no evidence of gods… or fairies, or flying unicorns, or leprechauns. Sure enough, you can’t ‘prove’ that none of these exist, but I think we can make a good guess about a hypothesis (god/gods) that’s been around for thousands of years and that’s still lacking the tiniest piece of evidence to support it.

 

I don’t know why questions about ‘god’ (and you can add ‘souls’, ‘spirits’, etc. to that) should be out of the scope of science. There either is/are god/s or there is/are not. What’s not scientific about that question? A universe without a god wouldn’t be the same as a universe with a god, and that’s a very scientific question to elucidate.

 

Of course, if gods don’t exist, then science can’t answer questions about them, since science gives answers about things that exist. But if gods exist, then I see no reason why science would have no say about it; perhaps you are right, and science ‘does not yet have the tools’, but I have no idea why religion should have more to say about it than science.

 

We agree that science doesn’t explain everything, but what makes us think that the things science can’t explain can be explained by the whims of some religious individuals? Should we rely on personal experiences, authority claims and/or tradition? Or do they have some ‘special tools’ I don’t know of? I'm honestly interested in knowing your thoughts about this.

 

Also, we should consider the possibility that science DOES have all the tools to answer the question of god, and it might be giving us the answer right now, by showing us the complete lack of evidence of it. That’s exactly what you would expect from something that doesn’t exist, right? No evidence of its existence.

 

(3) You say that we can find no moral teachings in a science book and I agree. Of course there aren’t, since science explains things about our natural world and provides knowledge, but doesn’t tell you what to do with that knowledge or how to behave towards other individuals.

 

However, there is no need to call in religion to do that. We can do very well with empathy and logic – through philosophic/ethical reasoning.

 

Related to this, you wrote:

But you will find lots of research and test results that were arrived at through the use of animal testing.That is the irony of vegans who so closely follow science, but who would laugh at Buddhism.

 

That’s like blaming Einstein for the atomic bomb. We can do unethical things in the name of knowledge or in the name of anything else, but that doesn’t make science immoral. Science is amoral. Individual moral agents are the ones to blame, therefore I see no irony in ethical vegans being science-oriented. I think that our search for answers and knowledge cannot overrun the interests of sentient beings, and that’s the end of it. No incompatibility with science.

 

(4) Finally, you wrote that like a christian will “run to their book and see what it says about condoms, and decide based on that”, a scientist does the same “when confronted by a belief like past lives”.

 

I think this is an inaccurate description of how science works. As Carl Sagan said, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, and it is not the skeptic the one who has the burden of proof when someone makes wild claims like the ones regarding ‘the after-life’, or ‘prior-lives’ for that matter.

 

Nonetheless, some scientists might choose to give consideration to such a claim, but they won’t go to read a book to see if the wild claim is true or not. There is no such thing as the ‘science holy book’.

 

They will go out looking for evidence supporting this claim. They will make hypothesis, test them, and see if the results match with the hypothesis. Quite the opposite of your characterization of it.

 

As it’s been said, science is based on the fact that we don’t know everything and from that fact it strives to find explanations and answers. Unlike religions, it doesn’t come up with answers out of nowhere and proclaim them as absolute truth.

 

With respect,

 

Samuel.

 

PS: Weren’t his followers the ones who wrote down the teachings of Siddharta Gautama?

 

PPS: I also thought that you might have been sarcastic about the "respectable breeders". Someone who profits from using other animals as commodities (in this case as 'companion animals') is not someone vegans should support, and this breeder most certainly isn't a 'respectable' individual, at least in respect to his/her relationship with other animals.

And this regardless of whether there are homeless domesticated animals out there or not.

[DaN]

bruce, & johan.

 

The converstaion was about puppy mills, I meant if you are going to buy from a breeder, then go to a small respectable one, not a "puppy mill"

 

Obviously dog homes are the best route to take.For me and my partner, the same applies to adopting a child instead of having our own, for many reasons, mainly the amount of children that need adopting & overpopulation in general.

 

I guess I should have specified exactly what I meant.

[blabbate]

bruce, & johan.

 

The converstaion was about puppy mills, I meant if you are going to buy from a breeder, then go to a small respectable one, not a "puppy mill"

 

Obviously dog homes are the best route to take.For me and my partner, the same applies to adopting a child instead of having our own, for many reasons, mainly the amount of children that need adopting & overpopulation in general.

 

I guess I should have specified exactly what I meant.

No problem, I just misunderstood. Should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

[DaN]

Liberacion:

 

Take scientific testing with animals as an example.I believe, any scientific testing with animals is wrong.I base this on my belief that hurting another living thing, is wrong unless that being is directly threatening your life.I think most vegans hold this belief (although not all of course)

 

My point is that branches of science that use animal testing are wrong in my opinion, but I do not believe all science is wrong.JUST THAT PART.

 

The same can be said for religions.Yes, we all know that thousands if not millions of people have died in wars that were caused by christianity (The Crusades, etc) I agree with you!

 

But you cannot hate all religions based on just christianity.The problem with most people like yourself who are anti-religion is that you only ever quote christianity, like your post above.Its like its the only religion you know anything about.

 

But I do not believe all religion is wrong.JUST THAT PART.

 

You cant make sweeping judgements like "science is great and only deals in truth and is amoral" or "religion is stupid and wrong and immoral" because you are making sweeping judgements of institutions that span thousands of years & millions of people.Judging them in one sweep is at best, really dumb.Its like saying all muslims are terrorists and bad people, just because some of them are.Or saying all black people like rap, just because some of them do.Its called stereotyping, and it stems from ignorance.

 

Wake up, and grow up.

 

My advice to you is to recognise the good and bad in things.Dont be only pro-religion or anti-science, or anti-religion and pro-science.Understand that there is merit & harm in most things, you have to be a bit smarter & intuitive to pick out what is what in life.

 

If you cannot grasp this concept, you need to try harder.

 

Edited July 8, 2009 by DaN

[DaN]

No problem, I just misunderstood. Should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Cheers, & no worries

[after4ever]

It was only for jews in regards to other jews. “Jews shall not kill jews”. After all, are we to believe that god simply had a bad day when he told ‘his people’ to go and kill entire populations of non-jews? Or when ‘he’ commanded the murder of other animals for ‘his’ pleasure?

This is why I believe,in my opinion,in my mind Bible is not a good book,is bad.

Also,in "Bible culture" woman is not important like man.

 

In Israel there was also death for love relations not

approved by religion.

 

 

 

DAN:

I am agree with you, there is a part of religion bad,

and instead an other can be good.

The problem in my opinion is,all famous religion and books are bad.I think is 99% bad / 1% good.

I can wrong.

 

I have an idea of karma,but different from general teachings about it.

About sins for me there is only one:

damage others lifes is wrong.No others.

I do not think there is a big god watching the earth and a judge after death,I think we are alone.

[DaN]

Yeah, it just annoys me that people say religion is rubbish, when they dont seem to grasp the fact that religious people past and present number in the hundreds of millions and many many of them are really good people who contribute alot to society but they get criticised by people who often contribute very little to society.

 

While of course there are some really bad religious people, the same can be said for any group of humans, with good and bad in all.Stereotyping any group and saying "all these people are stupid" or "wrong" etc is just plain ignorant and dumb.When you walk through life without stereotyping you find that the only true way to judge something is on its own individual merits, not by what group it is a part of.

 

If more people did this there would be alot less conflict and hatred in the world.

[after4ever]

I am agree,there is a lot of good people in religions.

 

When I say in my opinion bible is bad,

I mean about the book only.

The problem are the big political leaders,the big books,

and their doctrine,all based on constrinctions about life

for me,in my opinion

strange meanings about good and evil,

justice versus charity (!) then redemption,

law of material world and law of spiritual world,

there is something brainwashing.

 

 

I believe in not damage others and harmony,this is good.

If I damage others is bad.

There is only one law.

Pleasure is good ever.Pain is wrong ever.

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

DaN,

 

I’ll try to dispel some things I think might have been misunderstood.

 

My point is that branches of science that use animal testing are wrong in my opinion, but I do not believe all science is wrong.JUST THAT PART.

 

Fair enough. But what you wrote before was, basically, that there was an irony in vegans who ‘so closely follow science’ because some humans use other animals for scientific experiments.

 

As I explained, there is no irony, since science is basically a method of acquiring knowledge (that’s been proven to work quite well), and morality is not something we get FROM science, but something we, as moral agents, add to the mix in order to put limits to the means with which we want to acquire knowledge.

 

There’s nothing in science that reads ‘humans are superior to other animals therefore we are justified in using them to further our knowledge of the world’. Therefore, I maintain that experiments using other animals are a mistake in our ethics, not in science itself.

 

I think the crucial difference between this and most religions is that the ‘wrong things’ about the latter ARE, in fact, inherent to them. They are either said by their religious leaders or written in their holy books. And religious morality is DERIVED from these sources. Therefore these ‘wrong things’ are inseparable to the whole.

 

But you cannot hate all religions based on just christianity.The problem with most people like yourself who are anti-religion is that you only ever quote christianity, like your post above.Its like its the only religion you know anything about.

 

But I do not believe all religion is wrong.JUST THAT PART.

 

I don’t hate religions. I simply recognize, on the one hand, that there is no evidence to support their supernatural and dubious claims, and on the other, that I don’t think they are necessary parts in a healthy society – actually, they are usually quite harmful. I actually wrote this in my other post.

 

And to be honest, I haven’t read the whole of the ‘holy books’ of most religions, but what can I say? I don’t really like sci-fi that much. It makes me feel like I’m wasting my time.

 

You cant make sweeping judgements like "science is great and only deals in truth and is amoral" or "religion is stupid and wrong and immoral" because you are making sweeping judgements of institutions that span thousands of years & millions of people.

 

Well, perhaps if I actually made any of those sweeping judgments then you’d have a point.

 

In any case, yes, I think science is great (I mean, we are communicating with each other and I don’t even know who you are or where you are – impossible without science), science does deal with reality, and IT IS amoral. If you disagree with any of those statements, then perhaps an argument would be interesting, instead of just telling me that “I can’t say it”.

 

On the other hand, I haven’t said that religions are 100% stupid, wrong about everything, and immoral. As I have already written, there are stupid things attached to most religions, they make false claims, and promote things I consider immoral. No sweeping judgments here.

 

However, I also wrote that you CAN find good things about religions. Perhaps you didn’t read that part of my post. Here it is again:

 

Some say that there are some ‘good things’ about religion. Well, there might be. There might be ‘good things’ about everything. Think about it. Think about the most hideous ideology you can remember, and I bet you can find good things about it.

But that doesn’t make them all desirable, nor does it make the ‘bad things’ about them go away.

 

That’s my point.

 

If there are religions that have no discriminatory nature, no hierarchical view when it comes to either men/women, humans/other animals, heterosexuals/homosexuals, etc., then I’d have no problem with it, in terms of ethics. I don’t know any, however.

 

Yet, there is still the question of whether their claims are true or false.

 

To be clear, I’m not implying that we erase everything about religions. There are some things that we might want to maintain in terms of literary value, the history of some ancient human groups, or even in terms of philosophy. But that’s not the same as saying that religious institutions should be preserved.

 

I think your points about the teachings of Siddhartha are valid. My knowledge about it is not so vast but enough to recognize that there are, indeed, some wise and useful things in there. But I don’t need to be buddhist or otherwise worship Siddhartha, nor do I need to believe spirits, souls, and gods in order to appreciate it. In short, there is no need for religion to appreciate good things about certain philosophy.

 

Yeah, it just annoys me that people say religion is rubbish, when they dont seem to grasp the fact that religious people past and present number in the hundreds of millions and many many of them are really good people who contribute alot to society but they get criticised by people who often contribute very little to society.

 

The problem with this quote is that you either imply that saying that religion is rubbish is akin to saying that no religious individual can be ‘good’; and/or that because some religious people are ‘good’ and ‘contribute to society’, then religion is not rubbish.

 

In any case, there is absolutely no logical connection between both statements. Religious individuals can be ‘good’ and still believe in rubbish. And anyone can point that out, even if they ‘contribute very little to society’.

 

Samuel.

[DaN]

 

Looks like we both agree on most points within this discussion.I am happy with that outcome.

 

You wrote:

 

In short, there is no need for religion to appreciate good things about certain philosophy.

 

Yup.This is my view, but I did not express it very well! My interest and 'defensivness' of religion is actually based on their philosophy, from which you can draw great wisdom.I agree that the unproven and apparently silly ideas about god, etc are totally unnecesary and its a shame because they distract people from seeing the true philosophical & ethical lessons that can be learned from most religions.Oh and just so you know my comments about making sweeping judgements were not specifically aimed at you, but at others who I know have very anti-religious/pro science views.The only major thing I think you are not grasping is the animal testing part of science, and saying it is an ethical problem, not a scientific one, and your comments about science being ammoral.Let me tell you, nothing is ammoral.Everything we do has an aspect of morality present.When the body of science as a whole accepts, condones or uses animals in its experiments it is representing the lack of morality present in the scientific community.As such, science involves itself in morals, and badly so.You cannot separate them.Its like saying I run a business that makes money from slave trading, but it is not a problem for the business, it is a problem of morals, and that my business is ammoral.Unfortunately this whole 'science is ammoral' thing is an bad attempt at justifying and separating itself from the reality of the harm inflicted on thousands of animals each year & it amazes me when vegans of all people do not realise this.

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

The only major thing I think you are not grasping is the animal testing part of science, and saying it is an ethical problem, not a scientific one, and your comments about science being ammoral.Let me tell you, nothing is ammoral.Everything we do has an aspect of morality present.When the body of science as a whole accepts, condones or uses animals in its experiments it is representing the lack of morality present in the scientific community.As such, science involves itself in morals, and badly so.You cannot separate them.Its like saying I run a business that makes money from slave trading, but it is not a problem for the business, it is a problem of morals, and that my business is ammoral.Unfortunately this whole 'science is ammoral' thing is an bad attempt at justifying and separating itself from the reality of the harm inflicted on thousands of animals each year & it amazes me when vegans of all people do not realise this.

 

I disagree.

 

Think of it this way. Science is a method to acquire knowledge. There is no dogma written in stone. Science does NOT propose a moral theory for humans to behave. Therefore, science itself is amoral.

 

You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents, and their ACTIONS the ones open to moral scrutiny. As you say, 'everything we DO' has an aspect of morality. Do = action. What they use in that action is not the immoral thing. A car is not immoral because a car-driver runs over a dog and kills him. It's the driver the immoral actor.

 

Since scientists don't base their morality on science, but on something else, THAT something else is the one that should be revised.

 

A better analogy (based on yours) is TRADE. Trade is a way in which individuals interact with each other. There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It simply is. So we agree, slave trade is immoral, but not because trade in itself is immoral, but because ENSLAVING is immoral. It is a completely different thing.

 

If I may quote you: "If you cannot grasp this concept, you need to try harder."

 

Again, the fact that "the body of science as a whole accepts, condones or uses animals in its experiments" is not something derived from science. Actually, what else one would expect from a SOCIETY that accepts, condones and uses other animals for anything, from using them as 'pets' to exploiting/murdering them for their bodily secretions and corpses?

 

And this is no attempt to justify anything. As a Vegan I'm just as opposed to scientific experimentation on other animals as I'm opposed to their use for any other human purpose - from horse riding, to animal agriculture, to the enslavement of other animals for entertainment (in zoos or circuses), etc.

[offense74]

I disagree.

 

Think of it this way. Science is a method to acquire knowledge. There is no dogma written in stone. Science does NOT propose a moral theory for humans to behave. Therefore, science itself is amoral.

 

You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents, and their ACTIONS the ones open to moral scrutiny. As you say, 'everything we DO' has an aspect of morality. Do = action. What they use in that action is not the immoral thing. A car is not immoral because a car-driver runs over a dog and kills him. It's the driver the immoral actor.

 

Since scientists don't base their morality on science, but on something else, THAT something else is the one that should be revised.

 

A better analogy (based on yours) is TRADE. Trade is a way in which individuals interact with each other. There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It simply is. So we agree, slave trade is immoral, but not because trade in itself is immoral, but because ENSLAVING is immoral. It is a completely different thing.

 

If I may quote you: "If you cannot grasp this concept, you need to try harder."

 

Again, the fact that "the body of science as a whole accepts, condones or uses animals in its experiments" is not something derived from science. Actually, what else one would expect from a SOCIETY that accepts, condones and uses other animals for anything, from using them as 'pets' to exploiting/murdering them for their bodily secretions and corpses?

 

And this is no attempt to justify anything. As a Vegan I'm just as opposed to scientific experimentation on other animals as I'm opposed to their use for any other human purpose - from horse riding, to animal agriculture, to the enslavement of other animals for entertainment (in zoos or circuses), etc.

Best stuff I've in a long time!!

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

Hey, thanks! I'm glad to see it wasn't just DaN and I reading this! Ha! I can get very lengthy and boring at times.

[DaN]

I've got to say, everything you write I agree with, so its difficult to see the point of our conversation

 

I agree, science is as ammoral as a car.It is a tool used by humans, and we are the ones who decide the outcome of that science or car.My problem is with the scientists, not the science.

 

What I thought you were saying was that science is ammoral, ie: does not have to abide by ethics, which I felt was a poor attempt at justifying what scientists do.

 

But I see your point is not about scientists, but about science as a tool for investigation, and I share that opinion.Thats why when people say to me that the internet is evil or bad, I always say, its as good or as bad as the person using it.

 

[Vegan Joe]

You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents,

The same can be said about a religious institution.

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents,

The same can be said about a religious institution.

As explained a couple of times already, the difference is that these individuals do not base their actions on a scientific 'holy book'. Their ethics are not derived from it.

 

That difference is extremely important with religious institutions and those who abide to them.

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

DaN, I'm glad to see that there were just misunderstandings messing between us.

 

Cheers!

[Vegan Joe]

You talk about the 'scientific community'; well, that community is composed of individual humans. These individuals are the ones who are moral agents,

The same can be said about a religious institution.

As explained a couple of times already, the difference is that these individuals do not base their actions on a scientific 'holy book'. Their ethics are not derived from it.

 

That difference is extremely important with religious institutions and those who abide to them.

And the difference between a holy book, and a book self-fashioned between their own ears.

And you can actually make a judgement as to which is better?

[Vegan Joe]

[

As you say, 'everything we DO' has an aspect of morality. Do = action. What they use in that action is not the immoral thing. A car is not immoral because a car-driver runs over a dog and kills him. It's the driver the immoral actor.

Hmm. and I thought it was merely an accident.

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

And the difference between a holy book, and a book self-fashioned between their own ears.

And you can actually make a judgement as to which is better?

I don't think I get your point. Perhaps a little less sarcasm and a bit more argumentation would be helpful.

 

My point is simple. If someone really (REALLY) believes that there is creator of the universe, who happens to be infallible (omniscient, omnipotent, you name it), and not just that, but that 'he' also wrote a book where 'he' outlined what's good and bad, what ought to be done and what not, then the logical conclusion is that if you follow that you cannot be on the wrong. Even more, if you don't want to get punishment, you OUGHT to follow it.

 

So if your 'holy book' says that you must (not only can) kill children who disrespect their parents, then you ought to do so, and you cannot be persuaded otherwise. Or if the same book says that you must kill your neighbor and his whole family if he works in the 'sabbath', again, you've got a moral obligation to do so.

 

The direct link between religious dogma and these immoral behaviours cannot be any clearer.

 

As I've said already, I'm not implying that everything about religions is nonsense (although the percentage is quite high in some of them) or that religious individuals are, necessarily, 'bad' or 'nonsensical'. But it is clear that if someone really, REALLY, believes in something they purport to be 'holy word' then you cannot be surprised when they act on it nor can you expect to persuade them. The latter because that's the whole point of having 'faith'. Not even the biggest amount of evidence or rational argumentation can persuade you to drop your faith, since it represents that 'something' that allows you to believe something without any reasons.

 

Of course, getting rid of religious dogmas won't solve every problem. I quote Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." We could dispute the use of the words 'good' and 'evil' here, but I think we should rather focus on the general point trying to be made, which I think is more important.

 

Again, the difference between religion and, say, science, is that while the latter is merely a 'tool' the former is a 'motor'.

 

And there's also the issue, as I've argued before, that religions make claims about the universe and how it works without providing any evidence to support it or serious explanation about its mechanisms. These claims can be disputed and refuted by science.

 

So I don't know if one can make 'judgements as to which book is better' (we would have to define specifically what we mean by 'better' and what the parameters are), but we can surely assess whether a particular book is based on evidence or not, and we can assess whether the arguments therein made are valid or not. In short, whether there are good reasons to believe it or not.

 

Also, I don't think there is any evidence of such thing as a 'non-self-fashioned between someone's ears' book.

 

Anyway, I think I've explained these points ad nauseum now, so I won't repeat them anymore.

 

Take care.

 

BTW, DaN, earlier I genuinely asked about something you said in regards to science 'not yet having the tools' to answer certain questions (I think you mentioned 'the afterlife'). Now I'm not sure if you were implying that religions do have these tools, so if you don't, nevermind; but if you do think so, could you tell me what do you believe those tools to be?

[Vegan Joe]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

So what your saying is that for bad people to do good things that takes religion?

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion

So what your saying is that for bad people to do good things that takes religion?

Nah, that would take a 'miracle'.

 

Wait! That could be religion! Yaaay!

[Vegan Joe]

Again, the difference between religion and, say, science, is that while the latter is merely a 'tool' the former is a 'motor'.

What a motor can't be a tool?

[DaN]

Hey liberacion.

 

Some things which people (religious and otherwise) believe in and have experienced are past lives, angels, alternate dimensions, spirit mediums etc.

 

Often these ideas are attacked because science has found no proof of them, but I would say that science does not have the tools to test these ideas properly, and as such should not pass any comment or judgement upon them.

 

Example, past lives.Person 'A' says he/she is getting memories that they have not encountered during this life.These memories can be so strong, and obscure, perhaps even detailed, that the person believes they are remembering a past life.Exactly what tools can science bring to bear on such claims, in order to invalidate them? There are ways to indicate that this is truth or untruth, like asking them questions about the place they remember, their name, and when it was.These can then be analysed against actual historical records.This however is open to alot of interpretation, and does not really constitute proof or falseness, as this person may be recalling details from a film they saw as a child, or indeed be genuinely remembering things from a time of which we have no accurate records, which in truth, is any time in history, bear in mind even every occurance that happened yesterday has not been fully documented (for example I read a paper on the loo yesterday and NO ONE on earth can verify or disprove that)

 

Surely then, without any real scientific way to prove or disprove this idea, it should be an idea that at the moment is 'unknown' This is a vital word for the point I am making.There are 'unknown' things in our existence which should be left as 'unknown' until they are proven or disproven.Unfortunately, insecure people need everything in their world to be proven, set in stone, known or they get panicky, insecure and threatened.They attack ferociously the idea, out of fear, and as a defense mechanism, because you are talking about something which cannot be proven or disproven.It is scary, unchartered territory for the scientific disciple.What they fail to realise is that all scientific fact began as an unknown idea, and for a long time there was no way of proving it.In the past various people have theorised the idea of what we today call atoms.But because there were no tools (scanning-tunneling electron microscopes) back then to prove it, and it was a scary unknown for the insecure people, the idea was rubbished as a load of crap.Just like what happens today with past lives.I am a great believer in them myself, due to my own personal experiences, and am 99% sure that at some time in our future, science will have created a tool (like the above example of atoms) that can actually prove the reality of many lives.

[DaN]

To summarise, and I think I mentioned a similar thing in a previous post, science has machines and methods that can prove to us with amazing accuracy that wood when burnt makes fire, and that it leaves certain substances after it has burnt.It can proove that a long time ago dinosaurs walked the earth, because we have actually dug them up etc.

 

But I think science and people often operate WAY above their station.They will discredit the idea of an 'afterlife' (for example) when science as a method, as a body of people, has no machine that can actually analyse this data.Despite this they feel qualified to make claims or statements about it, when I dont believe they should.Sure they can have an opinion, but to be so 100% devout in their opinion, and to be so openly critical of people who actually claim to have seen or be able to communicate with spirits in the afterlife, to me seems really rude, narrow minded and frankly, smacks of insecurity.

 

Liberacion, I am not talking about you specifically, I am making a general pont about a vast body of people who actually think the way I have explained above.They know who they are.