Religion

[wellington1869]

so here's a related question, speaking of the culture wars -- the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. The right wing likes to read this as an absolute without any context or limits. Louisiana's guv'ner just signed a bill on this basis allowing guns in church. SO -- if you read the second amendment literally in that way -- by what right can we prevent people from boarding planes with guns strapped to their hips?

Its a serious question, because i think it would be hilarious to insist - as the right wingers insist - on the absolute sanctity of the second amendment on airplanes in this day and age.

hl=en_US&fs=1">

[Voixdelion]

I've no idea who this man is, but he makes some interesting points

Re: "Accepting a label"@ 10:30 time

Herein lies the problem -  consenting to be named and by naming ourselves.  There is a fundamental limitation put upon us early in life when we begin to constrain ourselves to the use of language in communication and through that constrain our perception of the universe to that which can be contained in the understanding of the words we use to define it.

Why must we attack the entirety of everything or accept the entirety of everything?  The basic message within Christianity, when you take out all the twisted motives of "the church" or the pious, is probably a reasonably sound code of behavior that doesn't incite destruction of self or society in and of itself.  I personally do not hold the same father figure image of "God" that the Catholic religion has put forth, yet I am not convinced that some higher order of design is not present, especially when I consider the likelihood that the events leading up to and throughout my existence were all coincidental and pure happenstance.  I find that highly unlikely that everything I perceive is only existing by chance, yet I suppose it really doesn't matter in practice if it is or isn't, since by the time I discover, if at all if there is or isn't any other driving force behind it all, it shall be far too late to have any practical effect on what is happening in the realm of my consciousness now.  Regardless of the presence or non-presence of God, in any form or by any definition current in any religion, it still holds true that the current state of my existence is subject to what actions I do or do not take, regardless of reason or motivation.  Therefore, it doesn't really matter why I do anything, but it does matter what I do.  If I misunderstand a literary work as literal, I run the risk of missing the opportunity to create a literal reality for myself (and others) by looking to the outside for a solution to the current reality rather than inward where at least something can readily be put directly into action.  To dismiss the idea that their is a God and use that as an excuse to abdicate responsibility is the same fault as those that abdicate responsibility by embracing the idea that God exists.  

This idea is nicely explored in Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose, a book which I have mentioned more than once and the ultimate gist of which is summed up nicely @ 30:54 in this video:  "What contemplatives and mystics over the ages claim to have found is that there is an alternative to living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness."  This book is one of the few but becoming more common now expressions of a philosophy of life that neither leaves one subject to the doctrines of religion nor dismisses the validity of some of the concepts expressed in traditional religious doctrine.  I highly it as an easy and quick read that may significantly impact our perceptions of self and surrounding.  In my mind this is an example of gray matter put to good use and a reasonably simple to understand explanation of the complex insomuch as it matters to us here and now as opposed to whatever loftier realm may or may not be there to aspire to.

[gr1m]

Have you all heard about the theory of "cosmic natural selection"?

Here's what it says. Basically, you know how right now Voixdelion, you claimed that it is unlikely that the events leading to your existence are not likely to be coincidental.

Now, imagine you're walking in a jungle and see a bee making honey. You think to yourself, "Wow, it's a good thing bees know how to make honey, or else they wouldn't be alive right now!" That thought is incorrect; bees are alive because they know how to make honey. If they didn't, they wouldn't be alive.

It's all made clear in that video I posted. As a member of MENSA, you would probably appreciate it more than most. I recommend it, it's a good watch.

[ch_123]

so here's a related question, speaking of the culture wars -- the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. The right wing likes to read this as an absolute without any context or limits. Louisiana's guv'ner just signed a bill on this basis allowing guns in church. SO -- if you read the second amendment literally in that way -- by what right can we prevent people from boarding planes with guns strapped to their hips?

Its a serious question, because i think it would be hilarious to insist - as the right wingers insist - on the absolute sanctity of the second amendment on airplanes in this day and age.

The 2nd Amendment is something that is completely taken out of context by the pro-gun side in the US. IIRC, it's to do with letting a militia stockpile arms for use against a tyrannical government.

There's all sorts of problems with this. On a very practical level, when the US constitution was drafted, wars were fought by a group of men with muskets at one end of the field, and another group men with muskets at the other. It was perfectly conceivable that a militia of men armed with weapons that were intended for civilian use could take on a proper army (assuming correct training and whatnot).

Nowadays wars are fought with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, missiles and all sorts of fun things, and really, it doesn't matter whether federal law dictates that your AR-15 can only hold 5, 10, 30 or even 100 rounds without being reloaded - if you run into a tank you're ****ed either way. If the second amendment was taken to its logical conclusion in today's terms, the government would subsidize the cost of buying a battle tank for private citizens. It would also allow private ownership of plastic explosives, anti-aircraft artillery and anti-tank missiles, and all the other things that are necessary for fighting a modern war. I think in reality that basic public safety overcomes this need to fight against this imaginary tyrant.

Which leads onto the deeper philosophical problem of the amendment - it was written by a group of revolutionaries who had usurped British power - of course they were going to say that it was right for the people to overthrow the government with revolutionary means. It also must be contextualized with the relative immaturity of democracy, and the fact that revolutions and general instability were all the rage back then in western nations. Fast forward hundreds of years, is it really right that people living in a democracy should be afforded the right to lead violent revolution against their government if they feel they are being tyrannized? Who decides if the government is a tyranny? Obviously it isn't going to be the government in question, so is it up to the people on the ground to decide? Should Timothy McVeigh have been acquitted under his 2nd amendment rights? The idea is comical as it dangerous.

That all said, I don't think America's strange obsession with guns, and its huge gun crime problem is a product of the ubiquity of weapons. In Switzerland, every grown man is issued a military assault rifle and is encouraged to go shooting with it regularly. Yet Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world. Obviously the issue is not really straightforward at all.

[quadibloc]

That all said, I don't think America's strange obsession with guns, and its huge gun crime problem is a product of the ubiquity of weapons. In Switzerland, every grown man is issued a military assault rifle and is encouraged to go shooting with it regularly. Yet Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world. Obviously the issue is not really straightforward at all.

It may be noted that the guns are army property, the ammunition is sealed, inspected, and counted - so while these guns might be used in crimes of passion, they wouldn't be used to commit murders of stealth.

But as for the issue not being straightforward - well, the issue of America's high crime rate is perfectly straightforward, even if guns=crime is not the issue.

If it were not for an expedient some of your southern states resorted to in order to harvest cotton, and otherwise get laborious tasks done in a hot climate, where an open frontier meant that it was hard to hire people for low-paying jobs... leading to a population of individuals in the United States who suffer disproportionately from poverty, and are alienated from the surrounding society... your crime rate would be much lower.

The question of whether a potential additional reduction in crime levels woud be worth the potential hazard to freedom of gun restrictions could be debated rationally.

In Canada, most police tend to favor our stricter gun controls, while the general public questions their effectiveness. Both responses are rational.

Tighter gun controls, at least of the types envisaged, aren't likely to take guns out of the hands of drug pushers in the big cities. So they won't prevent innocent citizens being hit by stray shots in a gunfight between rival gangs. They won't prevent armed robbers threatening people with guns. For that matter, they won't prevent the next al-Qaeda attack, should Canada join the America, Spain, Britain, and Bali as targets. So what's the point?

Police officers, on the other hand, answer domestic violence complaints. Having less guns out there in the hands of what had been, so far, good law-abiding citizens, therefore, makes their jobs a lot safer.

Few people are going to stand up in public and say that we should allow men to beat their wives in relative impunity so that we can cut back on our police departments and thus reduce the potential risk of sliding into a dictatorship! Such positions to tend to be characterized, with reason, as belonging to the lunatic fringe. Those who aren't lunatics but do feel that way, to some extent, find a more careful way to express their ideas.

[wellington1869]

what quadiblock said.  if america had the same culture as switzerland, then maybe we could issue guns to everyone and we'd be fine... but we dont. and so issuing guns in THIS (ie, american) climate doesnt make any sense at all.  

Contrariwise, if switzerland was 1000 times bigger in size and had a much less homogenous population, I DOUBT its government would be happily issuing guns to every citizen.

[Rajagra]

I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.

I would never normally try to prove a religious person wrong. But you issued the challenge.

What I can do is point out to you that your reasons for believing in the Lord are irrational.

Whether God exists or not does not affect this fact. There is no rational argument for believing in God, nor for following any organised religion.

There are basically three reasons for believing in God:

• Being indoctrinated with the belief from childhood so it has become core to your way of looking at things and you are no longer able to think about the matter objectively.
• Simple fear of dying. You can't tolerate the idea that your life simply ends, and all the sad implications it entails. So you reject the idea out of cowardice and are forced to believe the opposite.
• You have a religious experience.

Of these three, only the last reason deserves any respect. Of course when people claim to have religious experiences it is usually dismissed as mental illness or confusion induced by some external influence. Interestingly the Church (in Western culture at least) is normally the first to voice lack of faith in these religious experiences.

I know. Too Long Didn't Read. So in summary:

Your reasons for believing are irrational. You know they are, and this disturbs you, no matter how much you boast that nothing can be done about your belief.

[wellington1869]

I dont believe switzerland exists.

[ch_123]

The worrying thing about religion is that if the non-existence of God was objectively proven tomorrow, religious people would be obliged to reject it.

[kishy]

The worrying thing about religion is that if the non-existence of God was objectively proven tomorrow, religious people would be obliged to reject it.

Evidence of not only how it is a control scheme, but a very effective one at that.

[ch_123]

I would never normally try to prove a religious person wrong. But you issued the challenge.

What I can do is point out to you that your reasons for believing in the Lord are irrational.

Whether God exists or not does not affect this fact. There is no rational argument for believing in God, nor for following any organised religion.

There are basically three reasons for believing in God:

• Being indoctrinated with the belief from childhood so it has become core to your way of looking at things and you are no longer able to think about the matter objectively.
• Simple fear of dying. You can't tolerate the idea that your life simply ends, and all the sad implications it entails. So you reject the idea out of cowardice and are forced to believe the opposite.
• You have a religious experience.

Of these three, only the last reason deserves any respect. Of course when people claim to have religious experiences it is usually dismissed as mental illness or confusion induced by some external influence. Interestingly the Church (in Western culture at least) is normally the first to voice lack of faith in these religious experiences.

I know. Too Long Didn't Read. So in summary:

Your reasons for believing are irrational. You know they are, and this disturbs you, no matter how much you boast that nothing can be done about your belief.

Oddly enough, around the time you made this post, I was having the exact same conversation with someone in that strange 'real world' place.

The vast majority of religious people do not hold sincere beliefs - that is to say, religion was something that has been forced upon them and they just believe in its validity a priori, and they could not rationalize their beliefs in any sort of convincing way. Thus, their religious faith depends on everyone they come into contact with sharing their fantasy. When a religious person is 'offended' by someone's non-belief in their religion, or they attempt to assert it onto others without any explanation, it's really a subconscious defense mechanism, because in order to hold onto their beliefs, they need to be protected from people who would make them doubt what they think is right.

It's like a four year old child with his 'blankey', except it's seen as socially acceptable for some mind-boggling reason.

[Voixdelion]

Evidence of not only how it is a control scheme, but a very effective one at that.

Aha! BUT if you really think about it, isn't "Evidence" itself (insomuch as how scientific method claims to define rules of compliance)  also a control scheme?  

I am reminded of an article I read a few months or so ago, in Wired Magazine I think, which was an excellent analysis of the real estate market going balls up and how it really happened because of a misconception as far as the rules to evaluate risk in speculation.  The associated risk was being gaged essentially by using a map of patterned history and conclusions drawn on the relationships observed.  The map suggested a correlation of circumstances that had proved the magic formula for successful speculation for a long while.  If this indicator said x then historically y would be the outcome and if factor abc was in play then historically z would result.  This created a problem because what the historical map did not so readily expose was the interdependency between those factors which was vitally important since if only smaller part of that abc factor were to alter (say a1bc instead) then the resulting effect (which perhaps had not yet been witnessed or included in the particular timespan of historical precedence) was affected disproportionately by the change and catastrophe followed.  

Statistics lie simply because they cannot tell the whole truth, and whilst the number people fundamentally did understand this, that there was a fallacy in the pattern of relationships that was up until that point a formula for success they weren't really able to make it clear to the marketing people how it was so.  The marketing people were not nearly as well equipped to grasp the inherent danger and exacerbated the problem further by overburdening the market by using this highly successful system of risk analysis.  

I am a little reserved about the entire science of "science" as a pure and incorrigible paradigm.  Evidence may stand as such just because it always has.  Though we often apply past evidence as rule, there is a fallacy inherent in that concept, if only for the simple reason that we do not understand the ultimate minutia of the universe and its inner workings.  It is wiser to remember that just because "it always has" in no way guarantees that "it always will."

I propose that in that way our "scientific Evidence" is a faith based system also- and also implemented to allow us the illusion of "control."


And I too say +1 for quadibloc's post.

(And get ready for a tl;dr coming up, I just have to organize my notes here....  )

Engarde, Gr1m!   Are you ready?  Let's dance....

[kishy]

Alright, so logic (which science simply is) is a fabricated control scheme.

I'm actually willing to accept that as possible, except for the part where science doesn't attempt to limit the actions of people who subscribe to that belief. Religions place limitations whereas science (big fabricated scam or otherwise) breaks us free of limitations.

[gr1m]

Science is nothing like faith. You cannot propose ludicrous theories and get away with it. Every statement a scientist makes is scrutinized so carefully by hundreds and hundreds of stick-up-ass peers and tested robustly. Perhaps in the ****ing 1500s there was some unity between Church and science that caused some dumb theories like "The Earth is flat!" to be accepted but practises like that have all but disappeared thanks to a process called scientific method.

[ch_123]

Aha! BUT if you really think about it, isn't "Evidence" itself (insomuch as how scientific method claims to define rules of compliance)  also a control scheme?  

I am reminded of an article I read a few months or so ago, in Wired Magazine I think, which was an excellent analysis of the real estate market going balls up and how it really happened because of a misconception as far as the rules to evaluate risk in speculation.  The associated risk was being gaged essentially by using a map of patterned history and conclusions drawn on the relationships observed.  The map suggested a correlation of circumstances that had proved the magic formula for successful speculation for a long while.  If this indicator said x then historically y would be the outcome and if factor abc was in play then historically z would result.  This created a problem because what the historical map did not so readily expose was the interdependency between those factors which was vitally important since if only smaller part of that abc factor were to alter (say a1bc instead) then the resulting effect (which perhaps had not yet been witnessed or included in the particular timespan of historical precedence) was affected disproportionately by the change and catastrophe followed.  

Statistics lie simply because they cannot tell the whole truth, and whilst the number people fundamentally did understand this, that there was a fallacy in the pattern of relationships that was up until that point a formula for success they weren't really able to make it clear to the marketing people how it was so.  The marketing people were not nearly as well equipped to grasp the inherent danger and exacerbated the problem further by overburdening the market by using this highly successful system of risk analysis.

I am a little reserved about the entire science of "science" as a pure and incorrigible paradigm.  Evidence may stand as such just because it always has.  Though we often apply past evidence as rule, there is a fallacy inherent in that concept, if only for the simple reason that we do not understand the ultimate minutia of the universe and its inner workings.  It is wiser to remember that just because "it always has" in no way guarantees that "it always will."

I propose that in that way our "scientific Evidence" is a faith based system also- and also implemented to allow us the illusion of "control."

I'm not fully convinced by this. When you have something where the 'science' is being used to further a profit making agenda, obviously bits are going to be left out where it isn't expedient to the greater good. I don't think there's that same pressure with trying to understand the nature of the world.

But a more fundamental problem is this - your argument is based on the assumption that because some science is faulty, it is all faulty, or at least that it's so hard to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff that we should embrace faith in a higher being. If you read this thread from the start, you'll see that this line of argumentation has been done to death before... What you are saying about how science requires faith is correct to an extent, but it does not automatically imply the existence of a higher being, just that certain aspects of our scientific method is invalid.

I'd agree that science requires some degree of faith, as everything we know could be proven wrong or inaccurate. It is widely accepted that our current view of how the world works is flawed, and that within our lifetime, a completely different model of physics will emerge. But I think faith in science is good because it allows us to further our understanding of the world. If current scientific views are proven invalid, then it's a good thing, because better views are formed to take it's place. Science is deserving of our 'belief' because there rational reasons for recognizing it's validity.

Religion is the exact opposite because its interpretation of the world is fixed, and when its view of the world is shown to be wrong, it is undermined, not strengthened. Thus people throw aside any sort of rationality, and what you end up with is a load of dumb hicks who believe that the earth is flat, or that it's only 6,000 years old or some ****...

[Voixdelion]

Okay hold the phone for just a minute.  This discussion can have certain merit provided that we don't end up arguing semantics when we think we are arguing concept.  How exactly for the purposes of the discussion at hand are we defining "religion"?  "Science" is a little less open to interpretation, but even from the brief exchange that I have chimed in on I have noticed several different possible perceptions of what we are referring to with the word "religion."  

Are we defining it as specifically the Judeo-Christian organized church as a political entity?  Any philosophical view which holds that something beyond our current consciousness is perhaps in play besides chance and the laws of physics?  The idea that there is more to reality than what we currently experience?

   How are we defining GOD? as the Judeo-Christian father figure holy trinity old guy with a white beard up in the sky? or any conceptualization that we are no more than temporary arrangements of atomic particles that for reason bound in science just so happen to be and that there is no more or less than that?  Or any organized groupthink with some prescribed doctrine of behavior?  

In The Celestine Prophecy or berhaps in the sequel The Tenth Insight, I remember thinking that Redfield had illustrated a very plausible scientific explanation of how the religious prophecy and science could actually be of the same mind and allowed for truth in both even with the notion that the end of the world would bring some to salvation and leave others to suffer eternal hell.  It was a very elegant treatment of the entire concept and I thought it rather enlightened and very likely the most plausible and reasonable grasp of the entire thing that I had ever been exposed to.  It offended neither my spiritual sensibilities, nor my faculties of reasoning.  (and interestingly to ensure that I meant what I wrote I just looked up the term "faculty of reason" and opened an entire new can of worms which briefly touched on the discussion here when it pointed out the inherent conflict in a being that is rational yet using that rational mind to justify the irrational...)

All in all it appears to me that it is of little consequence to us here and now if there is or isn't a GOD of any sort.  And further more, it is of equally little consequence to pursue the ever elusive horizon of knowledge that will forever be out of reach to science just as the zealots are forever out of reach of their GOD.

  If we are here at this small community can agree that it is not necessary or harmful that others have a different code of ethos or sexual preference as individuals and think that we can coexist without having to be all of one mind, then to attack a system of belief that can not actually be refuted through hard evidence is just as foolish as it is to staunchly defend one that cannot be supported through the same means.  The whole exercise is futile on either side as what is ultimately lacking on both ends is substantiated evidence that is irrefutable proof that faith is or isn't justified.  


With that in mind, I should state that the closest organised concept of spiritual matters that I can find the least to disagree with thus far is Buddhism in that it doesn't automatically disallow for different understandings of what we cannot ourselves quantify enough to accurately  measure the differences.  That being said, as I see some of what Jesus was purported to have said and done, I am finding that Jesus was pretty much the ultimate Buddhist.  Even if I take some of the ideas at face value without the various agendas that have pulled or pushed at the perception of "what he might have actually meant by that" some things make a great deal of sense and it saddens me all the more if the one so many call the Messiah and Saviour and blah blah blah, was just a man without anything more than actual wisdom and clarity of perception that set him apart from the rest of us.  If he was a real human and not just a myth in entirety, but a human who became myth because we weren't able to understand the same things he did?  Utterly tragic and yet,...  well, that is a road that I am unprepared to get to much less travel down in the space I have here to make a point.

In terms of practicality to our current, not future, existence, is the pursuit of the understanding of the universe any more useful than looking to the Heavens for a GOD?  Do we really think the modeling of the space between quarks is adding to the benefit of the human condition?  I deeply believe that we cannot hope to understand our surroundings as long as we count ourselves separate from them.  To put it simply I believe in GOD, I believe that GOD literally everything and that We are Everything as well, which makes US GOD, and I can say then that I believe that I am GOD.  I know that there are things that I will not know no matter how much I wish to and I know there are things that I will know no matter how much I wish I didn't.  Really the only thing that matters is what is now and we are so busy chasing gods and ghosts and knowledge that we lack the wisdom which lets us see clearly now.  In my mind Science and Religion are equally culpable since neither one is helping us learn to live happily and in peace with our surroundings but both are creating conflict between our consciousness and our world and each other.  

This is the closest understanding of GOD I have ever seen and also the closest thing to a practical way of perceiving the world that is separate from the idea of GOD as religion.  After watching that hour and four minute video I also see it would seem that science has distilled the evidence of NOT god to the same thing and in truth it is as monumental and insignificant as the vastness and the minutia of the universe:




Hows that for tl;dr?    And only the beginning of the thoughts that came to mind while watching that video, but if I believe anything I just said then none of it matters except this.

Don't know if any of it made any sense, so if some of you see half this  post suddenly disappear that would be me reading what I've been writing  on an empty stomach and full head.  Bad combo.  SO I'll let you all chew on that whilst I go chew on something myself then I sort out the rubble when I return.

[EverythingIBM]

Science is nothing like faith. You cannot propose ludicrous theories and get away with it. Every statement a scientist makes is scrutinized so carefully by hundreds and hundreds of stick-up-ass peers and tested robustly. Perhaps in the ****ing 1500s there was some unity between Church and science that caused some dumb theories like "The Earth is flat!" to be accepted but practises like that have all but disappeared thanks to a process called scientific method.

There's a fine line between OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY.

If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE, then you're living in a fantasy world called Jean Chretien's Liberal Montreal.

The notion of the earth being flat is something that arose later on, even the ancients knew the world was round (even if they did uphold mild religious beliefs), take a look at any ancient Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman documents for proof. So don't even try using that argument, that just shows arrogance to ancient knowledge. Why? Because as each generation passes, knowledge is FORGOTTEN.

A quick example is smoking. 400 years ago people knew it was bad and affected THE LIVER (with help of science WITHOUT philosophy), well, how come in this modern era of blooming science they didn't know? Because they were arrogant and mixed together fanciful notions of really strange things with what they called science.

[quadibloc]

If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE,

Of course evolution is science.

The facts of the fossil record, the facts about the DNA of different creatures, are all quite compatible with the common descent of all life. Furthermore, many creatures have characteristics showing they weren't engineered from scratch, but that instead nature improvised needed abilities from what would have already been there in their ancestors: the famous essay "The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould illustrates that.

Attempts to use science to argue against evolution, on the other hand, while sometimes superficially plausible, are still so badly done, so lacking in objectivity, impartiality, and honesty as to show exactly why Creation is no longer worthy of consideration as a scientific hypothesis.

It isn't science - it's the opposite of science - when you start with the religion your parents taught you as a little child, and try to shoehorn the whole universe to fit into it.

[EverythingIBM]

Of course evolution is science.

The facts of the fossil record, the facts about the DNA of different creatures, are all quite compatible with the common descent of all life. Furthermore, many creatures have characteristics showing they weren't engineered from scratch, but that instead nature improvised needed abilities from what would have already been there in their ancestors: the famous essay "The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould illustrates that.

Attempts to use science to argue against evolution, on the other hand, while sometimes superficially plausible, are still so badly done, so lacking in objectivity, impartiality, and honesty as to show exactly why Creation is no longer worthy of consideration as a scientific hypothesis.

It isn't science - it's the opposite of science - when you start with the religion your parents taught you as a little child, and try to shoehorn the whole universe to fit into it.

Stephen Jay Gould also proposed punctuated equilibrium because he didn't believe creatures could spontaneously macro-evolve. Read up on your bio 30 buddy.

EDIT:

Gould actually had a lot of interesting books in his collection. Someone who I don't like is Glenn Gould, ugh! Bach on a piano. Almost as backwards as macro-evolution.

AND, I never even said the word "creation," that's not my counter-argument... so, anyone who disagrees with macro-evolution is a creationist? Interesting behaviour, but incorrect.

[gr1m]

There's a fine line between OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY.

If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE, then you're living in a fantasy world called Jean Chretien's Liberal Montreal.

The notion of the earth being flat is something that arose later on, even the ancients knew the world was round (even if they did uphold mild religious beliefs), take a look at any ancient Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman documents for proof. So don't even try using that argument, that just shows arrogance to ancient knowledge. Why? Because as each generation passes, knowledge is FORGOTTEN.

A quick example is smoking. 400 years ago people knew it was bad and affected THE LIVER (with help of science WITHOUT philosophy), well, how come in this modern era of blooming science they didn't know? Because they were arrogant and mixed together fanciful notions of really strange things with what they called science.

Sorry but what does anything you said have anything to do with what I said?

[ch_123]

Okay hold the phone for just a minute.  This discussion can have certain merit provided that we don't end up arguing semantics when we think we are arguing concept.  How exactly for the purposes of the discussion at hand are we defining "religion"?  "Science" is a little less open to interpretation, but even from the brief exchange that I have chimed in on I have noticed several different possible perceptions of what we are referring to with the word "religion."

Are we defining it as specifically the Judeo-Christian organized church as a political entity?  Any philosophical view which holds that something beyond our current consciousness is perhaps in play besides chance and the laws of physics?  The idea that there is more to reality than what we currently experience?

The latter two really.

How are we defining GOD? as the Judeo-Christian father figure holy trinity old guy with a white beard up in the sky? or any conceptualization that we are no more than temporary arrangements of atomic particles that for reason bound in science just so happen to be and that there is no more or less than that?  Or any organized groupthink with some prescribed doctrine of behavior?

Any god, whether deistic or theistic.  

If we are here at this small community can agree that it is not necessary or harmful that others have a different code of ethos or sexual preference as individuals and think that we can coexist without having to be all of one mind, then to attack a system of belief that can not actually be refuted through hard evidence is just as foolish as it is to staunchly defend one that cannot be supported through the same means.  The whole exercise is futile on either side as what is ultimately lacking on both ends is substantiated evidence that is irrefutable proof that faith is or isn't justified.

Do I need to disprove the existence of a monster who lives underneath my bed?

I'm with Bertrand on this one...

And the issue is not that different people have different viewpoints on things like sexuality. It's that narrow minded religious oafs seem to be a leading promulgator of pointless bigotry in the world.

All in all it appears to me that it is of little consequence to us here and now if there is or isn't a GOD of any sort.  And further more, it is of equally little consequence to pursue the ever elusive horizon of knowledge that will forever be out of reach to science just as the zealots are forever out of reach of their GOD.

In terms of practicality to our current, not future, existence, is the pursuit of the understanding of the universe any more useful than looking to the Heavens for a GOD?  Do we really think the modeling of the space between quarks is adding to the benefit of the human condition?  I deeply believe that we cannot hope to understand our surroundings as long as we count ourselves separate from them.

It's more than just scientific matters. It's a whole way of looking at things. Do you want to believe in a model of the world that can be rationalized and explained, and whose validity can be proven by scientific means, or do you just want to accept some bull**** that has no real basis other than "Oh, I believe - it's my faith, man", because most of the evil in the world occurs when people stop caring about the why and how and start accepting whatever crap is flung their way.

If you want a definition of science, it's the pursuit of truth. Truth exists, God may well not for all we know.

Really the only thing that matters is what is now and we are so busy chasing gods and ghosts and knowledge that we lack the wisdom which lets us see clearly now.  In my mind Science and Religion are equally culpable since neither one is helping us learn to live happily and in peace with our surroundings but both are creating conflict between our consciousness and our world and each other.

I grew up and live in a country where religion has led to unspeakable horrors perpetrated over hundreds of years... I can barely imagine what the people in the Middle East have to put up with. To say that science is no better than religion is ludicrious.

[Input Nirvana]

God lives quite happily in my keyboard.
She tells me things.
She says she wants to have multimedia keys added and a snazzy lime green paint scheme.

[ch_123]

There's a fine line between OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY.

If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE, then you're living in a fantasy world called Jean Chretien's Liberal Montreal.

The notion of the earth being flat is something that arose later on, even the ancients knew the world was round (even if they did uphold mild religious beliefs), take a look at any ancient Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman documents for proof. So don't even try using that argument, that just shows arrogance to ancient knowledge. Why? Because as each generation passes, knowledge is FORGOTTEN.

A quick example is smoking. 400 years ago people knew it was bad and affected THE LIVER (with help of science WITHOUT philosophy), well, how come in this modern era of blooming science they didn't know? Because they were arrogant and mixed together fanciful notions of really strange things with what they called science.

You need to stop huffing glue, bro.

[Rajagra]

I propose that in that way our "scientific Evidence" is a faith based system also- and also implemented to allow us the illusion of "control."

Science is a self-correcting belief system. Religion is a self-perpetuating belief system. I know which I'd rather be a slave to.

[Voixdelion]

 1 ...Do I need to disprove the existence of a monster who lives  underneath my bed?

 No.  But then again I am not asking you to.   Lets say for a moment that you did think there was a monster under your bed.    The thing is that I am just open minded enough to the possibility that for all I know there may actually be one there which is outside of my realm of perception; I may not believe myself, but I allow for the possibility since if the monster does or does not exist it is irrelevant.  The point of fact is that if you believe one does, whether I do or not is of little consequence to me, even if you are RIGHT since I apparently am not affected by it.  If you are wrong it is even less important to me, even if you behave according to what the monster in your mind is telling you to do.  
The reality that I must for practical purpose deal with, is that you believe there is one and I am better off addressing that reality and the resultant behavior than worrying about how to prove that monster does not exist.  If I tried and failed to changed your mind then the flaw is either in my method (I MYSELF can't find the possible way to alter your perception which can possibly be altered), your mind (your perception cannot be possibly be altered because it is damaged or purposefully closed to alteration), or in my perception of the truth (your perception is correct, and mine is insufficient to perceive what you do.)   If we are in search of truth, we can only find it for ourselves and not others, and your truth whether I perceive it or not is real to you and therefore relevant.  The way I interact with you can only be productive if I account for that difference, and is likely to be more productive than attempting to alter your truth, especially by means that have already failed.  

2 ....It's that narrow minded religious oafs seem to be a leading  promulgator of pointless bigotry in the world...

Thank you for making my point.  Religion in and of itself is not inherently bad.  It is those people who use none of the other tools at their disposal, like independent thought and self reliance and unhindered perception (which can easily be hindered by independent thought and self-reliance) that do the most damage.  Which means that those who strictly limit their acceptance of reality to what can be proven by scientific method only are indeed very similar to a religious zealot that chooses to ignore those other factors.  Surely at some point you have experience a "gut feeling" or had an intuition that turned out to be correct despite the inability to prove it?  That is part of a spiritual awareness that often sees more clearly than our physical selves do, and very often we ignore that input rather than allowing it to be weighed in with the data we gather from our 5 senses, or worse- what we have been taught. Very few people really analyze the fundamental things we learn at an early age, some of them by accident, and those who do invariably find things that they decide are incorrect after really looking at it.  

I got a very exclusive and expensive and extraordinary education at my high school (all girls, secular, non boarding). At my 20th reunion this year, while discussing the value of the good book learning we had been afforded by our circumstances, another member of my class made the statement that "Education can be broadening in that it can provide opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be present, but education can be limiting in that it can reinforce many of the (wrong) things you think you know."  Actually, now that I think about it, she was our class Valedictorian.

3 ...It's more than just scientific matters. It's a  whole way of looking at things...
....If you want a definition of science, it's the pursuit of truth.  Truth exists, God may well not for all we know...

Truth exists and God may or may not.  That is just it.  Whether he does or doesn't is just as likely to be discovered in the lifespan of a man as is the possibility that we shall in that same lifespan be able to find Truth through the application of science, because as you say "it is more than that... it is an entire way of looking at things."  RELIGION has been a large part of the discovery of Truth for countless people, even hand in hand with science, arguably more successfully than science has done alone.  It would be highly irresponsible to dismiss religion as a whole because of zealots or those who twist and manipulate the faith of others for their own ends.  Buddhism is often classified as religion, often as philosophy, and not as science, but it is known by those who practice as "the way" - a vehicle to truth.  It is a method in practice to find truth in every conscious moment rather than at the end of a life or from attempting to know everything about the space between quarks.  There are people who have found Truth who know nothing at all of physics and also nothing of religion at all.  Perhaps it is the fact that they were unfettered by such impractical trivialities that they were able to do so.

...I grew up and live in a country where religion has led to  unspeakable horrors perpetrated over hundreds of years... I can barely  imagine what the people in the Middle East have to put up with. To say  that science is no better than religion is ludicrious.

Science is most certainly in its infancy in terms of the horrors that have come about due to mindless pursuit of knowledge in ITS name, and one needn't look to sci-fi to find them but only to our own history.   And it has worked as many wonders as well.    I do make the claim that single-mindedness in the pursuit of Science is just as harmful as Blind Devotion.  Either is an abdication of personal responsibility, but that wasn't actually the point I was trying to make at the time.  

 I had actually been trying to point out that the pursuit of the understanding of the universe  is just as POINTLESS as seeking the Holy Grail in terms of the time we have in this iteration of spirit (and I use Science -the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that from nothing comes something but is nothing -  as my foundation for the idea that there is more to our energy than what we are right now.  I think our awareness is limited to the vessel of that energy in whatever form it may take.)  My point was that as we live and breathe now neither one of those things is likely to yield the key to Truth, nor even better daily existence, and that the seeking of Truth through "standing on the shoulders of giants" in the manner that the fella in the video is talking about is equal folly as focusing on "life after death in the kingdom of heaven" since that time in the future has little bearing on what is going on around us.    

The guy in the video even states that all this knowledge will have to be rediscovered in a whole new way.  Probably the most significant thing he states in terms of something actionable is what he says about us being witness to "a very special time"  (which would be in accordance with some spiritual or religious prophecies as well).   It is very possible that we are at a crossroads in evolutionary space, where there are more tools at our disposal than ever before to "advance" as individuals, as a species, as a consciousness.   To nitpick over whether ones neighbor uses the same tools as oneself is asinine and misdirected attention.    
 
SO - @ Gr1m:
In response to the statement at the bottom of the video, I must say this lecture was interesting but did not convince me that GOD - or my understanding of GOD - does not exist.  However, I have always been perfectly in agreement with the notion that there is not one "manlike father figure who has created the universe" that some of the Catholic folks have placed in charge of their lives; I am more comfortable with the Stephen King painted notion of a Turtle that vomited up the Universe as valid than that.

Let me be clear in stating that I don't believe in a controlling OTHER of any sort who manipulates reality like a marionette for their own amusement.  I am of the mind that a larger whole is more likely.  That my consciousness drives my body and that there might be a gazillion other consciousnesses driving theirs around in a universe that exists in the space between the quarks of the protons that make up the cells comprising my toenails contemplating exactly the same thing.  For wont of a better analogy, I like the way the movie "Men in Black" paints the picture.  I think its probably closest to the truth of anything, and in the end, matters just as much as anything the fella was lecturing about.  (Sorry, I can't his remember his name... )  

The way I figure it is, if there is an awareness that I shall be privy to at some point that exists beyond this one, then I ought to behave in a manner that will not leave me regretting then what I do now.  If there isn't and I still behave in a manner I would not regret, or at least try to, then I haven't really lost anything if I don't actually have that opportunity to regret.  But if I act as if the alternative is true, and am wrong, then I shall have the unpleasant task of reckoning with myself to deal with.  So what is to come matters much less than what I do now since there is no way to anticipate with 100% surety what will come, but I can 100% affect what I do now.          

[Voixdelion]

Science is a self-correcting belief system. Religion is a self-perpetuating belief system. I know which I'd rather be a slave to.

Its the being a slave part that is problematic with either.  I think what each of us is attacking here is not the God of science or the God of religion but the people who are limited by their devotion to anything.

[Voixdelion]

I'm with Bertrand on this one...

.

from that same page though:  Peter Atkins said that the core point of Russell's teapot is  that a scientist cannot prove a negative, and therefore Occam's razor demands that the more simple theory (in which  there is no supreme being) should trump the more complex theory (with a  supreme being).[3]  He notes that this argument is not good enough to convince the  religious,because religious evidence is experienced through personal  revelation or received wisdom, and cannot be presented in the same  manner as scientific evidence. The scientific view is to treat such  claims of personal revelation with suspicion.


Here is the fallacy I was referring to.  Science has dissallowed any other measure of evidence than by their own definition.  The most truthful and provable thing that science can claim is that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence of God.  Which is not the same thing as there being none at all.   The personal weight which one attaches to that information is highly subjective.

(good workout today, guys- thanks!)

[itlnstln]

Damn, and I started this topic over a year ago.

I'm so proud to see this thread I birthed grow up to be a strong, able-bodied topic. *sniff*

It's religion, though.  It's not too hard to get people riled up over pure idiocy.

[Voixdelion]

Damn, and I started this topic over a year ago.

I'm so proud to see this thread I birthed grow up to be a strong, able-bodied topic. *sniff*

It's religion, though.  It's not too hard to get people riled up over pure idiocy.

Of course it isn't.  If you think about it, without idiocy there is very little riling at all.

[kishy]

Its the being a slave part that is problematic with either.  I think what each of us is attacking here is not the God of science or the God of religion but the people who are limited by their devotion to anything.

Right, I like this.

I consider myself atheist (I subscribe wholeheartedly to no particular religious theory or any part of one which also rules out being agnostic) and hold no belief in any particular anything. I believe that, with the evidence we have, evolution appears to be the most likely way we got to be how we are.

I think what religions suggest (yeah, all of them) is pretty ludicrous, but I'm open to the idea that there may be (or may have been in the past) a creator of some kind, a superior being. I don't believe in the existence of one, but at the same time I don't believe it's an outright impossibility.

I do believe this: if there is a creator still hanging around up there keeping an eye on us, he/she/it would be very content to know that nobody believed in him/her/it if it meant we we stopped disagreeing, arguing, fighting and waging wars over it.

(look at every single war that substantial information is known about. trace back the causes. religion and beliefs are always in there, if not as a cause then as a catalyst. even if it wasn't a real cause, it was made into one by people doing things 'in the name of god' and similar)

[wellington1869]

Damn, and I started this topic over a year ago.

hey, this is our go-to thread when we're having a slow week
which was how it got started, IIRC

[gr1m]

What I don't get is how people can believe in God when it's clearly an attempt to give a human face to a cosmic mystery. God is just an easy way to put an end to a string of "I don't knows".

how life started - we think we know
how Earth was formed - we think we know
how the universe was created - we think we know
how the big bang happened - we think we know
how do quantum fluctuations happen - we don't know (or do we?)

It can easily become:

how life started - God, end.

You can put the "we don't know" anywhere in that list and eliminate the rest of the list with the word "God".

[ch_123]

If we are in search of truth, we can only find it for ourselves and not others, and your truth whether I perceive it or not is real to you and therefore relevant.  The way I interact with you can only be productive if I account for that difference, and is likely to be more productive than attempting to alter your truth, especially by means that have already failed.

Nonsense. Truth is an objective entity that exists separately from our ability to comprehend it. The people of ancient Greece believed that the Sun was a god pulled around in a chariot by a lesser god. This represented the sincere reasoning of a very rational and logical people. Was it true?

Often religious people will say that religion answers questions that science cannot answer. But in the vast majority of cases, this covers things where science's ability to not answer them is an assertion (eg. the question of where the universe came from) or explaining things that only need to be explained if the underlying religion was right in the first place (eg. what happens after death)

Surely at some point you have experience a "gut feeling" or had an intuition that turned out to be correct despite the inability to prove it?  That is part of a spiritual awareness that often sees more clearly than our physical selves do, and very often we ignore that input rather than allowing it to be weighed in with the data we gather from our 5 senses, or worse- what we have been taught.

Gut feelings tend to reflect your own experiences and understanding of a situation, but at a level where you don't consciously realize the thought process that you went through. But to say that they are somehow 'spiritual' or above rational thought is wrong.

Truth exists and God may or may not.  That is just it.  Whether he does or doesn't is just as likely to be discovered in the lifespan of a man as is the possibility that we shall in that same lifespan be able to find Truth through the application of science, because as you say "it is more than that... it is an entire way of looking at things."  RELIGION has been a large part of the discovery of Truth for countless people, even hand in hand with science, arguably more successfully than science has done alone.  It would be highly irresponsible to dismiss religion as a whole because of zealots or those who twist and manipulate the faith of others for their own ends.  Buddhism is often classified as religion, often as philosophy, and not as science, but it is known by those who practice as "the way" - a vehicle to truth.  It is a method in practice to find truth in every conscious moment rather than at the end of a life or from attempting to know everything about the space between quarks.  There are people who have found Truth who know nothing at all of physics and also nothing of religion at all.  Perhaps it is the fact that they were unfettered by such impractical trivialities that they were able to do so.

I don't think you can just look beyond the bad parts of religion. To this day, all sorts of bad things and downright stupidity is perpetuated because people hide behind the mask of blind faith, and all the rest of us are expected to follow the act.

If people do things for 'rational' reasons, then those reasons can be debated and shown to be wrong if necessary. With faith, people are right because they say they're right, and no one is allowed to do anything about it because it's 'important' to people or something. Whatever.

Truth is, I'm not really interested in what religious people believe, I'm interested in why they believe it. The constant battle between reason and what often boils down to stupidity is something that matters to me - because if people can be led to believe in God because the priest says so, then they'll believe or do anything. As Kishy pointed out, religion is a control mechanism, one that has been scarily effective at that.

I had actually been trying to point out that the pursuit of the understanding of the universe  is just as POINTLESS as seeking the Holy Grail in terms of the time we have in this iteration of spirit (and I use Science -the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that from nothing comes something but is nothing -  as my foundation for the idea that there is more to our energy than what we are right now.  I think our awareness is limited to the vessel of that energy in whatever form it may take.)  My point was that as we live and breathe now neither one of those things is likely to yield the key to Truth, nor even better daily existence, and that the seeking of Truth through "standing on the shoulders of giants" in the manner that the fella in the video is talking about is equal folly as focusing on "life after death in the kingdom of heaven" since that time in the future has little bearing on what is going on around us.    

The guy in the video even states that all this knowledge will have to be rediscovered in a whole new way.  Probably the most significant thing he states in terms of something actionable is what he says about us being witness to "a very special time"  (which would be in accordance with some spiritual or religious prophecies as well).   It is very possible that we are at a crossroads in evolutionary space, where there are more tools at our disposal than ever before to "advance" as individuals, as a species, as a consciousness.   To nitpick over whether ones neighbor uses the same tools as oneself is asinine and misdirected attention.

There are some paths to the truth that are more accurate than others. I don't think that just because science isn't going to discover the truth in the immediate future doesn't lend validity to the ideals of religious faith. You make it out that science is some sort of unprovoked attack on religion. What about Galileo?

Here is the fallacy I was referring to. Science has dissallowed any other measure of evidence than by their own definition. The most truthful and provable thing that science can claim is that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence of God. Which is not the same thing as there being none at all. The personal weight which one attaches to that information is highly subjective.

But what else is there? "Let's make up some stuff and force everyone to believe it". That's what religion boils down to in the end.

Ultimately you're reasoning against reason itself, and if you can't see why that's bad then you've proven pretty much everything I've said.

[ch_123]

hey, this is our go-to thread when we're having a slow week
which was how it got started, IIRC

In fact, it's starting to repeat itself at this stage. I suggest all who haven't already read from the start should do so.

[wellington1869]

I thought MW promised to 'lay into us' with his shocking value system? I was looking forward to that

[wellington1869]

In fact, it's starting to repeat itself at this stage.

i dont know, we've never had a stripper from MENSA join the discussion before. I'm finding her posts fascinating. But I think everyone's taking it easy on her cuz we're all still hoping she'll break into a naked keyboard dance at some point  Voix? Would you like to oblige us and get that over with so we can get back to fighting about religion?

[wellington1869]

i think we should petition tim to come back to gh. we need more true believers around here. for us to poop on.

[ricercar]

There is no rational argument for ... following any organised religion.

Rabid generalization is general.

John Doe goes to church so his parents will continue to give him money. John Doe is rational, yet follows a religion.

[ch_123]

I suppose we are talking about sincere faith as opposed to opportunism, or conforming to social norms.

[wellington1869]

I suppose we are talking about sincere faith as opposed to opportunism, or conforming to social norms.

well, even the sincere (and pascal) would argue that their decision to embrace faith (and abandon reason) was in fact a rational one. Based on weighing the pros and cons of salvation versus eternal damnation vs impossibility of god in a kind of prisoner's dilemma rational calculation. At least, thats how pascal saw that it was rational for him to believe in christian magic. He calculated that if god didnt exist, he had nothing to lose, but if god did exist, then he had everything to lose, and so since it cost him nothing to believe, he rationally deduced that he should believe.

So thats a case where a reasonable person rationallly decided to believe sincerely. Sort of.

[Voixdelion]

Nonsense. Truth is an objective entity that exists separately from our ability to comprehend it. The people of ancient Greece believed that the Sun was a god pulled around in a chariot by a lesser god. This represented the sincere reasoning of a very rational and logical people. Was it true?

Did it make them less than they were because they believed it to be? Seems like they managed some pretty scientific accomplishments despite the handicap.   How are we better served by what we know?

Often religious people will say that religion answers questions that science cannot answer. But in the vast majority of cases, this covers things where science's ability to not answer them is an assertion (eg. the question of where the universe came from) or explaining things that only need to be explained if the underlying religion was right in the first place (eg. what happens after death)

Sorry - you lost me there.

Gut feelings tend to reflect your own experiences and understanding of a situation, but at a level where you don't consciously realize the thought process that you went through. But to say that they are somehow 'spiritual' or above rational thought is wrong.

If that is what I said (I am not sure it is)then it is not what I meant.  Only that there may be a level of perception that is currently not scientifically quantifiable and used that as an example of non-conscious realization which may be applicable to a sense of spirituality.

I don't think you can just look beyond the bad parts of religion. To this day, all sorts of bad things and downright stupidity is perpetuated because people hide behind the mask of blind faith, and all the rest of us are expected to follow the act.

Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science.  Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous.  Michael Crighton's books have a recurring theme of scientists acting on a course of unwise behavior because they CAN without pausing for a moment to wonder if they SHOULD.  Right now much of my vegetable garden is in mortal peril and useless for consumption because of some sort of herbicide that is either in the commercial compost I purchased or being carried by drift on the wind.  By the same measure as religious zealots there are those who would sacrifice the well being of many in pursuit of knowledge, for example (and here's a can of worms, sorry) animal experimentation.

And here again I can state that faith is not the problem but the manipulation of faith by man.  By rational man.  It is man that is the malevolence, not faith.  

If people do things for 'rational' reasons, then those reasons can be debated and shown to be wrong if necessary. With faith, people are right because they say they're right, and no one is allowed to do anything about it because it's 'important' to people or something. Whatever.

Once again, your focus of frustration is not faith, but stubborn and pig headed individuals who are unable to think for themselves.

Truth is, I'm not really interested in what religious people believe, I'm interested in why they believe it. The constant battle between reason and what often boils down to stupidity is something that matters to me - because if people can be led to believe in God because the priest says so, then they'll believe or do anything. As Kishy pointed out, religion is a control mechanism, one that has been scarily effective at that.

If that's true and you really do want to know why, read the Tolle book I mentioned earlier.  the very best explanation I have found of that is in the early chapters of that book.  He has a very clear picture of this type of mass insanity, and what's more a potential cure for it.  I have read a great many things but this particular book was singular in its simplicity and explanation of the human condition.  It was something that gave me some hope that we may not be doomed to destroy ourselves if we can pull our heads out of our collective butts in time.

There are some paths to the truth that are more accurate than others.

Wouldn't all be accurate if they arrive in the same place?
 If life came with instructions and a map I imagine we'd all get there sooner, but what can you do?  

 

What about Galileo? don't think that just because science isn't going to discover the truth in the immediate future doesn't lend validity to the ideals of religious faith. You make it out that science is some sort of unprovoked attack on religion.

 
I personally have no problem with science, nor was I attempting to lend creedence to the validity of anything.  I chose to address directly those points being made using science as a weapon against religion.  The ideals of religious faith are dependent upon the faith in question, and the validity of an ideal to begin with is a subjective measure since what is ideal is subjective.  I had hoped to point out that obsessive science is equally narrow of focus and equally as pointless as obsessive faith.  

 

What about Galileo?

What about him?


 

But what else is there? "Let's make up some stuff and force everyone to believe it". That's what religion boils down to in the end.

Ultimately you're reasoning against reason itself, and if you can't see why that's bad then you've proven pretty much everything I've said.

Not quite.  I am making a distinction to help focus your hostility at the proper recipient. Your target here isn't religion or faith, it the politics of CHURCH you have a bone to pick with.  And well you should.   I just think its important to note that it isn't belief in God that makes people stubborn or stupid.  Its just that God is a common excuse for the behavior of those that already are.

[kishy]

Your target here isn't religion or faith, it the politics of CHURCH you have a bone to pick with.

Erm, that looks a bit...not so right.

Religion != faith.

Religion is an organized group of people subscribing to a particular belief. It incorporates 'the church' (whichever one it is) by the nature of what it is (and accordingly, issues pertaining to 'the church' pertain to the religion itself, but not necessarily the faith shared by members of the religion).

Faith is having a belief in something without necessarily subscribing to a particular anything.

Agnostics, if you ask me, have a type of faith without religion.

[Voixdelion]

i dont know, we've never had a stripper from MENSA join the discussion before. I'm finding her posts fascinating. But I think everyone's taking it easy on her cuz we're all still hoping she'll break into a naked keyboard dance at some point  Voix? Would you like to oblige us and get that over with so we can get back to fighting about religion?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

You'd never get the keys unstuck and then it would be all my fault.:laugh:

(and remember, I didn't say I was actually a member, just qualified.- as likely are the majority of people here from what I gather)

[Voixdelion]

Erm, that looks a bit...not so right.

Religion != faith.

Religion is an organized group of people subscribing to a particular belief. It incorporates 'the church' (whichever one it is) by the nature of what it is (and accordingly, issues pertaining to 'the church' pertain to the religion itself, but not necessarily the faith shared by members of the religion).

Faith is having a belief in something without necessarily subscribing to a particular anything.

Agnostics, if you ask me, have a type of faith without religion.

The only part of that I might adjust is that while the Church is an organization under a religious umbrella, I wouldn't necessarily equate the two.

And are you really only like 21?  (based on the last years comment about being a 20 year old)  
If so you are to be commended.  I wouldn't have guessed that by the way you conduct yourself.  Kudos.

[kishy]

The only part of that I might adjust is that while the Church is an organization under a religious umbrella, I wouldn't necessarily equate the two.

True, I didn't mean to completely equate them, just to say that the church is definitely a component of religion rather than the other way around. Churches can't exist without something to worship, but something to worship exists so long as free thinking exists.

And are you really only like 21?  (based on the last years comment about being a 20 year old)  
If so you are to be commended.  I wouldn't have guessed that by the way you conduct yourself.  Kudos.

20 still, in fact.

Thanks, I've actually received similar remarks elsewhere as well. It's nice to know my attempts to communicate in some...erm...presentable?...manner don't go unnoticed

[wellington1869]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

You'd never get the keys unstuck and then it would be all my fault.:laugh:

well then, maybe I should dance naked with my MS 7000 gracefully balanced on my head.

[ch_123]

Did it make them less than they were because they believed it to be? Seems like they managed some pretty scientific accomplishments despite the handicap.   How are we better served by what we know?

You're completely missing the point I was making. You were trying to make an argument about the relativity of truth. But truth is not relative, it is absolute. Some is either so or it is not. A simple binary operation.

If that is what I said (I am not sure it is)then it is not what I meant.  Only that there may be a level of perception that is currently not scientifically quantifiable and used that as an example of non-conscious realization which may be applicable to a sense of spirituality.

Why is it not scientifically quantifiable?

Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science.  Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous.  Michael Crighton's books have a recurring theme of scientists acting on a course of unwise behavior because they CAN without pausing for a moment to wonder if they SHOULD.  Right now much of my vegetable garden is in mortal peril and useless for consumption because of some sort of herbicide that is either in the commercial compost I purchased or being carried by drift on the wind.  By the same measure as religious zealots there are those who would sacrifice the well being of many in pursuit of knowledge, for example (and here's a can of worms, sorry) animal experimentation

The idea that you need religion to have morality is ludicrous. It implies humans are so stupid and devoid of empathy that they need the wrath of some magical tooth fairy to keep them in place.  

And here again I can state that faith is not the problem but the manipulation of faith by man.  

Once again, your focus of frustration is not faith, but stubborn and pig headed individuals who are unable to think for themselves.

Not quite.  I am making a distinction to help focus your hostility at the proper recipient. Your target here isn't religion or faith, it the politics of CHURCH you have a bone to pick with.  And well you should.   I just think its important to note that it isn't belief in God that makes people stubborn or stupid.  Its just that God is a common excuse for the behavior of those that already are.

My problem is not only with religion, but faith within of itself. When you brainwash people from the earliest age to believe in something that there is absolutely no accountability for, all sorts of bad things happen. All those bad people may have had nothing do with the values of religion, but the people who followed them did.

If a scientist says that x is so without explanation, then people laugh at him. If the preacher says the same thing, people must believe him, because religion is just correct a priori without need for explanation. Faith is a vehicle for stupidity of the most insidious kind, and the bad things that happen are inevitable.

By rational man.  It is man that is the malevolence, not faith.

People are inherently. It seems like you're saying that faith is incompatible with the human condition. Which I agree with, incidentally.

[quadibloc]

Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science.  Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous.

Yes, but that doesn't lead to me to be hostile to, or even suspicious of, science.

Muscles can be used to punch people in the face, but that doesn't make muscular dystrophy a good thing.

And here again I can state that faith is not the problem but the manipulation of faith by man.  By rational man.  It is man that is the malevolence, not faith.

Generally, I would agree with this point. But with a few caveats.

Sometimes, when people burn witches or slay heretics, it isn't because some bad person has cleverly manipulated them, using their religious belief. Instead, even the ringleaders sincerely thought what they were doing was right, because the interpretation of that religion's scriptures involved was not particularly tortured or tendentious.

So I'm not going to take a position that could easily lend support to the politically-correct attitude that "true" Christianity and "true" Islam are all rainbows and light and fluffy bunnies - and it's only dishonest priests or imams who came later that messed things up.

Muhammad led attacks on peaceful people who just weren't Muslims, killing some, selling others into slavery - and taking a couple of wives for himself among the slaves.

Yes, Jesus is rather more exemplary, but the scriptures of Christianity do tell us, for example, that women are such foolish creatures that it would be mistaken policy to let them be preachers.

I don't think that "faith" is bad, though, but the faith that I don't think is bad is rather narrowly defined. Belief that life has meaning, that other people matter, that right and wrong are real - that sort of thing.

Faith in the teachings of a revealed religion, though, while it can often be positive instead of negative, is inherently dangerous, inherently a way to let people be manipulated - and I call that credulity.

[ch_123]

I don't think that "faith" is bad, though, but the faith that I don't think is bad is rather narrowly defined. Belief that life has meaning, that other people matter, that right and wrong are real - that sort of thing.

How are these things mutually exclusive with a lack of religion?

Religion/faith/whatever you want to call it has a funny habit of taking credit of all the good things in life, and blaming all the bad things on a lack of it. It's kinda like a bloodsucking leech really.

[timw4mail]

i think we should petition tim to come back to gh. we need more true believers around here. for us to poop on.

Show Image

Um...hi.