What is religion?

"what is not true does not exist in this moment."
Bert McCoy

"When you follow your thoughts you follow a ghost."
Bert McCoy

The point I'm making is that you claimed that science says "without random chance, the first living organism would never have formed and evolution would never have made us." You then proceeded to provide one sentence--the 4 nucleotides making up RNA/DNA will bond together from natural causes but since there is no preference in which order they bond, it is only
random chance that determines the order in which they bond--that you don't cite and doesn't back this assertion, and another one--Evolution: It only happens when random mutations are reinforced by natural selection. No random mutations, no natural selection--that you don't cite. You then go on to cite another quote that doesn't back your original assertion as well.

You pulled your assertion out of your--clear blue sky.

Now you're just boring me.

On random chance being the driver of evolution I played your silly game and gave you the source above. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

I gave you the scientific fact behind there being no natural cause other than random chance accounting for the order of nucleotides in the first RNA/DNA based life form. If you have evidence that I'm wrong about that, lets hear it. Otherwise, don't bore me further.

Your source doesn't say that, and there you go again.

And there you go again. You have offered only empty negation without any alternative explanation.

If you approach it from the standpoint of 'science', Mutation, whether by environmental effects (radiation, etc.) or replication error is by random chance by definition. And without mutation there is no evolution.

Religion just ain't what it used to be. Looky
what happens when God doesn't live here anymore.

You seem to be fixated on the word 'negation'.
BTW you might be interested (albeit from a negative pov) in the recent book called 'What is Life ?' by Andy Pross. He reduces biology to systems chemistry and evolution to an outcome of DKS (dynamic kinetic stability) in which 'complexity' plays a major role.

Only because most of the arguments given in these threads consist of negation without reasoning or supporting argument. I.e. :

My idea is right.

No it's not, mine is.

Your idea is wrong.

etc.

But you accused me of 'negation' when I stated there was 'no correct picture of reality' meaning that pictures/descriptions could only be evaluated in terms of their contextual utility. "Right"and "wrong" don't apply. Call that 'a negation of absolutism' if you like, but I suggest that is the same game people play when they call atheism ' a belief'.
In general, traditional logic is inapplicable to 'ideas' since 'truth' is dependent on the acceptance of at least one axiom whose 'truth' must be assumed. (Godel). This is another angle on 'the negation of absolutism'.

To be clear, that was in a different thread, and as you point out, context is important.

I'm very big on utility myself. And if the 'picture' is detailed and nuanced enough, it works within the context of my existence, which is all I require of it. That makes it 'right' even though I may update it occasionally. A picture that must be totally discarded is a sure sign you didn't have the right one. No shame in that, but we must admit that it was wrong.

Now that leaves me open to the charge of being 'utilitarian' and 'principles be damned'. I'd just say that would only be the case if your picture was not accurate or complete. That makes it - not the right picture.

"God is the experience of looking at a tree and saying, 'Ah!"

Joseph Campbell

"Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else ... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it."

Hermann Hesse, "Siddhartha"

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
Albert Einstein

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Religion is the love of God.

Religion and government are the blood and bones of life. Humanity cannot exist without either. Humans do not create religion or government. They are innate; humanity only externalize and express them.

Welcome to A2k.

I agree with you that religion is innate to humans. The question is how religion is defined.

Poor a defined religion.

Joseph Campbell speaks on the need for a new myth. The old archetypes or elementary ideas are still appropriate, but the local variations or myths need to be created. The first minute or so is accidentally repeated.

This is actually pretty funny.

Darwin already gave us a new myth. How do you like the results?

With the advent of the understanding of an evolutionary process of nature the supernatural creation was no longer necessary. This not only changed the way we view nature, it changed the whole nature of our identity. The basis of our identity was no longer consisting of little Islands of consciousness existing in an alien world, but now we are part of a larger process, as perceivers. Now we are the universe witnessing itself.