I’m appreciative that you’re entirely misunderstanding what I think should be happening in favor of writing your own narrative. I do not think that religious texts and oral histories should be erased. They should be studied. I think that religion deserves suppression. There will be no magical discoveries religious people make anymore. Most of that was likely not religious until they made it as such to get people to believe them in the first place.
The scientific information can and should be taken in. But, I explicitly said “less value” not no value in regards to religious knowledge, which you so kindly ignored, again to write your own narrative, one where you condescendingly assume I did not already know what you just stated
There will be no magical discoveries religious people make anymore
I implore you to consider the fact that every living culture on this earth is still changing, evolving, and growing, and even some dead religions have been revived. And these religions have access to the scientific method just as you do.
So unless you mean to imply that science is finished making discoveries, which I’m certain you don’t, then religions will keep making discoveries. The Buddhists are still improving their meditation techniques. The Pacific islanders are still training to be better wayfarers. The Australian Aboriginals are learning to care for a land ravaged by climate change.
Religions as dead things written in an old book is a western idea and I fear you have projected this onto distinctly nonwestern religions where truth comes from a connection to the ancestors and the land, constantly evolving as the people and the land evolve. And to nonwestern religions where truth comes from exploration of the mind, and surely you can see the mind is a highly dynamic environment in the modern day, ripe for fresh discoveries.
Religions are anti science. Any small advancements they may make on the side do not make up for the rest. But frankly, they aren’t making advancements on a religious basis.
Buddhists are still improving their meditation techniques. The Pacific islanders are still training to be better wayfarers.
They are not.
The Australian Aboriginals are learning to care for a land ravaged by climate change.
That’s science, not religion.
And these religions have access to the scientific method just as you do.
Which they are using in a scientific manner, and their use is not religious, and will not be changed by reducing religion.
If they are adding religion to it, it isn’t the scientific method.
Religions as dead things written in an old book is a western idea
I don’t think they’re dead, I think they have nothing to contribute to science that cannot be contributed to better by scientifically motivated people, who will remain as such religion or no. Again with you pushing your own narrative of what you want my opinions and statements to be.
And to nonwestern religions where truth comes from exploration of the mind, and surely you can see the mind is a highly dynamic environment in the modern day, ripe for fresh discoveries
Religions do not define where truth comes from. It comes from the same places in every place. It can come from the mind, or observation, and study. It’s ripe for discoveries and that has NOTHING to do with religion, of any sort.
I’m appreciative that you’re entirely misunderstanding what I think should be happening in favor of writing your own narrative. I do not think that religious texts and oral histories should be erased. They should be studied. I think that religion deserves suppression. There will be no magical discoveries religious people make anymore. Most of that was likely not religious until they made it as such to get people to believe them in the first place.
The scientific information can and should be taken in. But, I explicitly said “less value” not no value in regards to religious knowledge, which you so kindly ignored, again to write your own narrative, one where you condescendingly assume I did not already know what you just stated
I implore you to consider the fact that every living culture on this earth is still changing, evolving, and growing, and even some dead religions have been revived. And these religions have access to the scientific method just as you do.
So unless you mean to imply that science is finished making discoveries, which I’m certain you don’t, then religions will keep making discoveries. The Buddhists are still improving their meditation techniques. The Pacific islanders are still training to be better wayfarers. The Australian Aboriginals are learning to care for a land ravaged by climate change.
Religions as dead things written in an old book is a western idea and I fear you have projected this onto distinctly nonwestern religions where truth comes from a connection to the ancestors and the land, constantly evolving as the people and the land evolve. And to nonwestern religions where truth comes from exploration of the mind, and surely you can see the mind is a highly dynamic environment in the modern day, ripe for fresh discoveries.
Religions are anti science. Any small advancements they may make on the side do not make up for the rest. But frankly, they aren’t making advancements on a religious basis.
They are not.
That’s science, not religion.
Which they are using in a scientific manner, and their use is not religious, and will not be changed by reducing religion.
If they are adding religion to it, it isn’t the scientific method.
I don’t think they’re dead, I think they have nothing to contribute to science that cannot be contributed to better by scientifically motivated people, who will remain as such religion or no. Again with you pushing your own narrative of what you want my opinions and statements to be.
Religions do not define where truth comes from. It comes from the same places in every place. It can come from the mind, or observation, and study. It’s ripe for discoveries and that has NOTHING to do with religion, of any sort.