Science: Do we believe or do we accept?

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

This.



It is my understanding (don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, having decidedly NOT majored in theological studies or anthropology) that spirituality and religion, per se, were devised as a means to explain "the unexplainable" in early developing culture. Phenomena that weren't understood were attributed to higher beings, spirits, gods, etc. as a way for emerging societies to make sense of the world around them. As the sciences evolved and offered explanations for these occurences with data and repeatable results, spirituality was no longer required to insulate us from fear of what we do not understand.

That being said, I think the concept of demarcation is valid. Spirituality should absolutely be applied to philosophical questions, and that which cannot be explored by science (until we evolve the technology to do so, of course). However, I see the religious card being used less as a tool to promote community and more as an excuse to hide behind bigotry and ignorance. Unfortunately, science cannot be applied to human morality.

Yes. All of this is exactly what I teach in my home. I absolutely agree that many of the anecdotes found in the bible, the myths of various cultures have their basis in the need for early humans/human cultures to explain the phenomena around them that could not otherwise be explained. They were insecure and scared - thunder? Lightning? What the hell was going on?! Specific anecdotes from the bible, the burning bush and the parting of the the Red Sea, for example, can now be explained in factual terms.

And, of course, fear of the unknown is an early, and continuing, method of creating a power structure.