Deconstructing religion

[Someone here]

I really liked the "deconstructing the myth of science "series. 

It's time to deconstruct religion. To help religious stage Blue people loosen up a bit.

[Preety_India]

Lol your avatar 

[Fadl]

Deconstruct your self first man.

[Oeaohoo]

The trouble with this is that the “myth of science” intrinsically and explicitly defines itself as hostile to any truths which aren’t positively verifiable and empirical. It’s very easy to deconstruct something as inane and stupid as this.

Deconstructing religion would be much more difficult because at a certain point you would reach truths which supersede the merely destructive postmodern methodology.

Stage Blue people are loose enough nowadays as it is. Like Alan Watts said, if there were any real Christians left in this world they would be screaming in the streets!

18 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Lol your avatar 

Haha, Shiva deconstructs Hinduism! He is the destroyer, after all…

 

[Preety_India]

@Oeaohoo haha 

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

The trouble with this is that the “myth of science” intrinsically and explicitly defines itself as hostile to any truths which aren’t positively verifiable and empirical. It’s very easy to deconstruct something as inane and stupid as this.

Deconstructing religion would be much more difficult because at a certain point you would reach truths which supersede the merely destructive postmodern methodology.

Stage Blue people are loose enough nowadays as it is. Like Alan Watts said, if there were any real Christians left in this world they would be screaming in the streets!

Haha, Shiva deconstructs Hinduism! He is the destroyer, after all…

 

My argument runs like this. I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.

And I’ll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett: “Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Of course many religions don’t fit that definition, but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often ..the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam .

Next, realize that both religion and science rest on “truth statements” about the universe ..claims about reality. The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning, but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims. You can hardly call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the Resurrection of Christ, a Muslim if you don’t believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad, or a Mormon if you don’t believe that the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. After all, why accept a faith’s authoritative teachings if you reject its truth claims?

The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.