Is Religion the Opposite of Science? 

Biblical literalism was never really a part of Catholic thought. That's something the Protestants insisted on and became falsely attributed to all Christianity to the point where there's Catholics that are infected by the scourge of fundamentalism. I, myself, have only just begun reconnecting with my Catholic heritage after dismissing the religion for the same reason as you.

I came to realise that all religions are attempting to grasp at the Univeral Truth, so it's just best to stick to your own culture/heritage. I took an interest in Eastern religion as well, until I realised that Westerners who follow Eastern religions are just lost souls.

This is 1000% the point he misses, and then goes off ranting for 30 minutes without ever addressing anything I actually said.

​@JA-in3hw First off, he didn't rant, but responded to you, someone who has left nothing but angry and nasty responses that I have read. Second I belive he has tried to answer it by saying, " This point is moot because Science and Religion have different functions." And then goes on to explain the function of religion vs science in from a Jungian persepctive, but since he did it in such a round about what that psychologists are prone to doing, I have restated the question in a more understandable manner.

Oh thaaaaaaaaaaank you now I can understand cause clearly if I just understood like you it would all be fixed. God d*** ya'll are so sure of yourselves and sooooo wrong. It's really disgusting. Go read the comments again and maybe learn something because if you agree with this slop that's sad.

@@vasilenapetrova5085 Yes a 30 minute video because you're mad at a comment is ranting.

@@JA-in3hw Please consider that you are speaking to an actual person not an avatar.

Can you explain what science without experiments mean? You have a lot of points but you don't explain them. What do you mean by: "The way they train you to tell if something is true is opposite to the way religions train you to tell if something is true." Which religions does this apply to? All of them? And how can philosophy be grounded in science, and why would grounding it in science cause it to be better?

@@nexusvoid314 You are hung up on science being equations and beakers and a lab. You are hung up on the products of scientific thought. Reduce it to a school of thought that argues that something is only true when we've tried our hardest to prove it wrong. And we will accept it as false at a later date when it is later proven wrong. Science doesn't have prophets and bishops with the one word of god in their mouth. Yes ancient religions have at times been far less harmful but billions today are wrapped up in truly poisonous ones with unquestionable sacred doctrines and leaders. The way a man defends religion requires appeals to authority, generous fallacy, and often claims to know things he can't know. They tend to codify morals of their time but they don't tend to actually advance philosophy, morality, any of the things their followers do that they take ownership of. They put hard lines on what you can and cannot think. What art is and is not ok. What your role in life can and cannot be. And these often come down from authority figures. You belittle as if I haven't thought of this and don't get how religions form and that there are many, but you don't get that science is not the product but the way you think that gets you there and can be applied to so many things. Then you make a long whine about it and don't even read the part where I already said this. Many religious people advance many things but I don't ever credit the religion for causing it. You can thank the catholic church for strangling thought in all areas for centuries. That science and religion touch different things crap would come straight out of a bishop's mouth as he tries to defend that he cannot defend his position. Religion thinks top->down and most things are bottom->up emergent not willed or designed. They occupy the same space in how we think and they come to two fundamentally opposed answers. You're just letting them parasitically take art and philosophy and all the other bits they claim are theres and saying oh look it touches on something different. No they both are schools of thought on how to come to knowledge and understand ourselves and the world and they reach two positions in that that are not remotely compatible. Religion abuses built in emotion and fallacy to the max to make its case. Many religions were early science and philosophy and we can recognize that without giving them a pass and acting like it's ok your family just knows you'll be burned for all eternity. Or just knows you'll come again over and over. Or just knows heaven awaits if you die in battle for your god. Philosophy needs a grounding in reality to be useful, make it someone who respects science over religion any day. I've met plenty of brilliant people that still will tell you some bread is the body of christ. A lot of religions take authority from a leader communicating with a spirit of some kind. We know this is garbage. I can't stand anything that elevates religious thought to the same level of respect as philosophy that is science grounded, knows our biases, knows how we fight them. I think I have to include philosophy for you to get it because many fear without religion we lose philosophy and wonder. This is a lie. Generally without it we can truly think freely about the same questions. You don't get permission to stop asking because "God made it all". That is not an answer worth dignifying until they have some better reason they believe it. Science/philosophy are closely intertwined and grow out of each other. Religion always sets out to answer hard questions. But it always does it wrong. We can learn cool things from them but not within them. They can be studied but should not be believed, else you lose the ability to reject the toxic parts. Religion often uses logic starting as false premises given by revelation to walk you off to a false reality and will shut down criticism and push back beyond a small area. Science asks you to disprove it, you are most excited to find you are wrong. There are no authorities that cannot be questioned and one day overturned. They are competing intellectual frameworks and they do not agree at all. In the sense that old ones might have fine, but that dodges the colloquial actual experience of millions of people. If you have to nuance it to hell to make it work, then the statement was not good to begin with. Everyone needs to stop saying Religion and science are separate. That is part of how religions trap you inside them. It's their antidote for when they have nothing to actually argue with to shut down the argument. It's a nasty thing to propagate. Scientific thinking will pull you out of religion unless you emotionally and socially trap yourself. Religions don't have much to say when you start asking them to support their positions, when you push back on the skewed view of their history and founding. They get angry and threaten you eventually. Science has consensus, but the day it's overturned is the day we really find something out. You are free to try and push back whether you succeed or not. You're glossing over the extreme difference in how each trains you to think and confining science to the beaker, rather than as a school of how to think that led you to the beaker. Thanks for a rehash of something I've heard a thousand times. None of this trash video was new and while i was just raging, you missed the point completely then made a video about a missed point. Was I just a raging comment yes. But you take it this far and you didn't even really understand it. You argue like a religious. Appeal to authority oh I'm a scientist, this silly little angry man doesn't know XXXXX. Shut the fuck up. I've dug into this shit for decades. I do research in electrical areas (you know the invisible shit we can show exists). You sit there all high and mighty but you're just as nasty engaging in this as I was screaming into the void on the other one. So stop acting so conceited.