kraus18

I agree with you and you might as well add that most people who believe in things that are outside of reality are in mental institutions but the fact that a lot of people who exist today day who are religious, hold political eminence is something that we should ponder about. While belief in things outside of reality can be said as a scientifically "broken" argument if not unsound argument, it is only good on paper. I can say that "forms" of thinking/feeling/experiencing have evolved and are continued to evolve. I cannot say that the dodo was broken because it became extinct. It was simply another instance of existence at one point in time. Circumstances have caused it to be extinct and if circumstances should allow for religious thinking to be extinct then that will be its uneventful fate. However, like I said in my previous post, the realm of belief in God or things unreal is a realm of the Emotions and I would really love to point Damasio's book "Descartes' Error." regarding this. Playing with emotions and controlling them is still reality for me. History has shown how irrational thinking has moved masses to action or inaction in that regard and the emotions that faith in God has evoked has effectively moved more people to action and work than say explaining(using loudspeakers at that) the workings of the human heart and the human brain in in times of distress. So is irrational thinking broken? In paper maybe, but there is more to Reality so far than paper. Yes. Well I was attacking the topic "People who believe in God are broken." If it had been "Arguments about Belief in God are Broken." then I would have been INCONSISTENT. So I can safely say, I was consistent. I stayed within the bounds of the statement "People who believe in God are broken."

Self explanatory. Flawless in fact as proven time and again. What about this logic? "Belief in things that cannot be sensed" = "Belief in not real" = "Broken" Can the scientific method validate it?

Well according to your description of science - "It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything", then it should not mean anything because we should not be giving "meaning" to anything when we use science. I have nothing against science, in fact I graduated with a degree in Physics. What I am wary of is the Hegemony of science. We should be careful what to throw and what to keep in the words of the great Kenny Rogers. I just don't think we should trash religion just like that yet. We need to study it a little bit more and be open to other avenues of thinking which is the hallmark of science. The hegemony of science can easily become just like the hegemony of the inquisitors and in some cases the hegemony of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis. We need to tread lightly, some things are still worth keeping. Science is not Everything yet, it is still a part of Everything.

I agree with Ophiolite. I don't think belief in God is "broken" from an evolutionary standpoint and hence belief in "belief in God" can still be within the scientific realm. The realm of faith involves the realm of the emotions. Religious, artistic, literary and philosophical proclivities are more potent and emotionally satisfying in expressing appreciation for certain objects. In this regard I can safely say that there has yet been no scientifically satisfying treatise or textbook on the works of Picasso or Monet. I would have to say then that belief in belief in God is safe. However, what should be questioned is the objective reality of God and not the belief in the belief in God. While many theologians have not satisfied scientists with an objective and scientific explanation of God yet, then belief in God is scientifically broken but people who believe in it are not necessarily so. I could say the same thing about science. Science has not yet provided an emotionally satisfying and practical foundation for ethics or aesthetic works. In fact, a lot of people who devote themselves purely to science with little time in anything else are the ones usually labeled as "broken" nowadays in a social sense.