quote:Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.
Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.
Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.
So I ran across this article while reading the times over my rice crispies this morning and I'm not quite sure what to think of it. On the one hand I agree with much of the sentiment.
quote:“I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
That one for instance. In that sense, I have very little respect for religion. (Mind you, I said religion, not people who are religious. I have a great respect for many people who are religious.)
But on the other hand, I don't want scientists to sink to the level of many evangelicals. Nor do I want science to become a religious dogma. Science is not a religion, it is a method. A method for determining the validity of certain hypothesis. A method for figuring out how the world really works and just what we are capable of doing in it.
Were it not for the fact that certain well supported scientific theories are at violent odds with many dearly held religious beliefs I don't think there would be any problem for science and religion coexisting in the world.
Aside: This may sound like it's at odds with my saying earlier that I have no respect for religion, but it's not. I have no problem coexisting with many things I have no respect for, nor problem respecting the people who practice such things. As an example I offer sadomasochism. I have little respect for it, but I don't feel like I can tell anyone they can't do it. And I have friends who are into it that I respect greatly. --Yes, I know many of you are going to be offended by this comparison, but it's how I honestly feel and I can't think of any other way to put it out there, so please try not to take it as an insult or an assault on you. It's not meant that way.
But here we run into the crux of the problem. The religious people who's beliefs are challenged by scientific theory treat science as a religious dogma. They are starting to attempt to make it a religion, when it's not, it shouldn't be and the vast majority of scientists know it shouldn't be. But when scientists painstakingly careful and meticulous analysis of how the world works gets attacked as if its religious theory... how do they react to that? How do they respond? Their carefully collected evidence is often ignored, called fake or bull or irrelevant. They don't have any argument besides that evidence. And if people won't even examine it, that leaves science with nothing. And what's worse, they didn't set out to attack the religions now attacking them. They set out to figure out how the world works, and they feel like they've found out.
The other issue is that much or all of what we take for granted in our day to day life was made possible by careful scientific inquiry matched with engineering application. If the disrespect many of the religions out there show science spreads from just the ideas that conflict with their beliefs to all scientific inquiry then we may not only slow our forward progress, but stagnate and then go tumbling backwards.
So I feel like this conference, scientists wanting to fight back against religion using religion's own weapons is a natural reaction. Even if I think it's the wrong one, I can see where they are coming from.
I dunno if I can think of a better one though. Especially in regard to many religion's blatant attacks on scientific teaching in schools. What do you folk think?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sounds to me like the the scientists, and yourself at this point, ARE making science a religion or politics. Either you can convince others of the importance of the science or you do not. Otherwise, your "scientific objectivity" is meddling in ways you accuse others of; prosylitising by brainwashing. In other words, "you don't believe the science? Well, I'll MAKE you believe in the science."
At least religious people will be able to point and say, I told you so.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Sounds to me like the the scientists, and yourself at this point, ARE making science a religion or politics. Either you can convince others of the importance of the science or you do not. Otherwise, your "scientific objectivity" is meddling in ways you accuse others of; prosylitising by brainwashing. In other words, "you don't believe the science? Well, I'll MAKE you believe in the science."
At least religious people will be able to point and say, I told you so.
But you could make the argument that after scientists say they will make you believe in science, they follow it up with data, studies, and experiments to prove it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Aside from the fact that I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, if this is scientists fighting back using religion's own weapons they have a whole lot to learn.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:scientists wanting to fight back against religion using religion's own weapons
What weapons, exactly, are these which are both "religion's own" and in use by the scientists at the convention?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Javert, it doesn't matter. How about show data, studies, and experiments as the methods of proof? Then, you know, let people decide for themselves? Oh yea, that has been done already. Guess the next best thing is force and intimidation. After all, we know how righteous science is and the truths it holds.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Sort of what I meant. I wasn't taking the "MAKE" to mean the same thing as "force". Following along with the idea of, if I can show you proof that something is true, you will believe it. Thus, I "made" you believe it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The biggest two weapons religion seems to have these days is a pulpit and a suicide bomber jacket.
What I think is perhaps somewhat silly about this argument, is that it presupposes that science and religion are diametrically opposed to each other. How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process? If science as a religion demands that people be athiests, you're in trouble. Also, doesn't that mean government funding for science projects has to go away? No more NASA?
It just strikes me as a silly argument that we should be going for one or the other. Besides, scientists have much more important things to do than worry about, like curing cancer and finding an unending non polluting power source. The status quo of science vs. religion has been a thousand years in the making, and they certainly can't argue that progress hasn't been made since the Dark Ages. We've come a long way. Throwing a hissy fit at the dawn of the 21st century isn't going to gain them any additional traction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”
Why can't we have more like him, and fewer Dawkinses?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:After all, we know how righteous science is and the truths it holds.
As opposed to . . .? Surely you not claiming that religion is inherently "righteous" or full of "truth". Or are you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:After all, we know how righteous science is and the truths it holds.
As opposed to . . .? Surely you not claiming that religion is inherently "righteous" or full of "truth". Or are you?
Well, mine is. I can't really speak for everyone else.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It sounds more like a free-for-all of Scientists against religion.
Many religious people do great damage to their cause by treating everyone else like lost, wandering idiots. Many "scientific" people do the same. It sounds like a group of Scientists (whatever that means-- it's a vague and almost useless label) wants to organize and treat other people like idiots en masse.
To characterize religion the way they do in the passage you quoted is insulting to an awful lot of religious people-- the vast majority of the ones I've met are pretty thoughtful about it.
One of the real problems I have with these supposed experts is that, if they were so damned smart, they wouldn't have to reduce their opponents to cliched stereotypes, engaging in what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" ("you only say that because you were systematically indoctrinated"), to score their points. There *is* a knowledge that comes from (among other things) faith and revelation-- it's called "wisdom" and, judging by the quoted passages, these men seem to lack it.
It is only fair to note that many religious objections to scientific evidence amount to the same thing, and that these "scientists" may be as representative of scientific thought as those religious are of religious thought. In my house, science and religion get along grandly and I know we are not alone in that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ultimately, if someone will not yield to a rational argument, then they have started a process of irrationality which can only end in appeal to the gun. That's what rational argument is for; it allows you to settle disputes without force. If you won't recognise the validity of it, then - if the issue actually matters - at some point you're going to have to fight. An appeal to 'faith' is an appeal to irrationality, and morally it is precisely equivalent to an argument from superior firepower. It's worth remembering that the notion of cannon as "The final argument of kings" dates from the same period as the religious wars that wracked Europe.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I mean, geez, has no one listened to "Hemispheres" lately? </Rush fan>
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process?
None, on the issue of the existence of a god. That they are able to compartmentalise sufficiently to accept the scientific method on questions not touching their faith is not relevant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ultimately, if someone will not yield to a rational argument, then they have started a process of irrationality which can only end in appeal to the gun. That's what rational argument is for; it allows you to settle disputes without force. If you won't recognise the validity of it, then - if the issue actually matters - at some point you're going to have to fight.
Just thought you'd like to know you are practically quoting St. Louis
quote:I must either reason with him as one man to another or else thrust my sword through him as far as it will go.
That having been said, I disagree with your definition of "faith", but you probably knew that already.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, KarlEd, it was a jab at science taking on a moral equivalancy to religous beliefs. If science becomes as self-reverential (and I believe in some respects it has) as religion, how are they at all different?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dr Krauss is wrong. St Louis is right. What of it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Actually, KarlEd, it was a jab at science taking on a moral equivalancy to religous beliefs. If science becomes as self-reverential (and I believe in some respects it has) as religion, how are they at all different?
Let's see you cure cancer by praying, then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dr Krauss is wrong. St Louis is right. What of it?
Nothing... I just found it interesting.
and Dr. Krauss is right. In fact, one of the things hammered into me by my Physics instructors in my undergraduate career was precisely that-- the Question of what is supernatural is definitionally out of the realm of science, which is a tool for studying and predicting nature... the natural.
The fact that C.S. Lewis later confirmed this for me is one of the *reasons* why I listen to him more than I do you, KoM.
And last I checked, Science wasn't curing cancer either, only excising it and praying it didn't grow back (pun intended).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
King of Men is hardly the first to make those in this thread.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Quite true, twinky. But he's claiming to be representing the ultimate in rational thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process?
None, on the issue of the existence of a god. That they are able to compartmentalise sufficiently to accept the scientific method on questions not touching their faith is not relevant.
Again, I don't see how those issues bump into each other really. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. It's not in the equation. Where does it say in my science textbooks that God doesn't exist? Are you saying that because science can't prove God exists, religious people would denounce it? I don't think you are, because you'd have to realize how ridiculous that would be coming from people of faith, so I have to ask for clarification of your point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
King of Men is hardly the first to make those in this thread.
Nope, the quote in the first post does that well enough.
quote:“I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
I have already made the actual arguments I'm going to make. You posted a quote from some authority figure disagreeing with me, without any argument either by you or him; Jim-Me posted a quote agreeing with me, without argument either by him or St Louis. Since neither of you posted any argument, what would you have me do? Ignore your posting completely? Repeat what I already said? By all means tell me what you think my course of action should have been.
And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
I have already made the actual arguments I'm going to make.
As to why Dr. Krauss is wrong? I never saw them... but, then again, I don't make a habit of reading all your posts.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself."
I do. Maybe not on issues, but definantly on the appeals to authority. KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Where does it say in my science textbooks that God doesn't exist?
In the basic, foundational principle: You should not believe things you have no good evidence for.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You should not believe things you have no good evidence for."
You know, I don't know a lot about science. However, I am pretty sure I have never read that in any explanations of the scientific methods or foundational principles.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That's not a basic foundational principle of science. Not making final decisions based on a lack of evidence either way, however, is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Free for all, or only free for some?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I never saw them... but, then again, I don't make a habit of reading all your posts.
Well then, what the devil are you complaining about?
quote:KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
One more time. I explained why appeals to faith are wrong. I also explained why the scientific method leads to a non-belief in any gods. Could you please point out where I made any appeal to authority while doing so? Could you also please point out where anybody made any arguments in response, except of course for "Appeal to authority! No, it's a blanket statement! Who cares, I didn't read the post anyway!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: That's not a basic foundational principle of science. Not making final decisions based on a lack of evidence either way, however, is.
Thanks Jim Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself."
I do. Maybe not on issues, but definantly on the appeals to authority. KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
I think you are confusing a claim about factual truth with a claim of moral authority. Those are two very separate things in my mind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
It's not passive at all.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Free for all, or only free for some?
For you, we'll need a security deposit. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Just thought this bore repeating.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "You should not believe things you have no good evidence for."
You know, I don't know a lot about science. However, I am pretty sure I have never read that in any explanations of the scientific methods or foundational principles.
Usually it's phrased as "You should attempt to falsify"; but I prefer my formulation. In any case, can we not agree that this is just common sense?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
It's not passive at all.
I don't care what you call it; please stop doing it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The worst part of the whole "Turning Science into Religion" period of our history was the Sectarian wars that followed. Biologist vs Astro-Physicist, Geneticist VS Geologist. It was a brutal time.
Fraternity Brother against Fraternity Brother, and with every generation, further and further splintering of the sects. Everyone remembers when the Bio-Chemists broke off from the greater Chemistry sect with such biological violence that the Nuclear Chemists were completely exterminated.
However that violence was overshadowed by events like when the Archeologist buried every Egyptologist is a mass Pyramid outside of Peru. Oh the inhumanity of that act.
It was only the spawning of ever increasing waves of economists that drove the remaining scientists together againtst this common deadly, and useless foe of all mankind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, let's see. You have been asked, repeatedly, to stop taking pot-shots at religion in every remotely related thread. You not only have refused to so so, but have taken some rather disgusting cheap shots at people going through rough times.
So I don't feel much obligation to obey your demands.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As you wish. Since you are not going to debate honestly, there will be no debate. Have a nice day.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
The only thing I'll comment on here is that I find it insulting that the tone of the article suggests that it's somehow ridiculous or unbelievable that an atheist could receive a spirituality award. Just because we don't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that we are not spiritual people. In this world, too many people equate "spirituality" with "religious beliefs." They are not one and the same.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Just thought this bore repeating.
And once more for good measure. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Since you are not going to debate honestly, there will be no debate.
Promise?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Oooooh boy do I love the first page of threads like this. Everyone expressing themselves so eloquently and passionately. Then in page 2, the eloquence starts to get kind of tiring, but the passion is still going strong. Come page 3 or 4, most attempts at eloquence are long forgotten. Around page 5 or 6, peoples passions will boil over, resulting in some nasty things being said and numerous violations of the ToS. Before the thread ever reaches page 7 it will either be locked or drop off the first page into oblivion. Good times, good times. You heard it here first.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:The only thing I'll comment on here is that I find it insulting that the tone of the article suggests that it's somehow ridiculous or unbelievable that an atheist could receive a spirituality award. Just because we don't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that we are not spiritual people. In this world, too many people equate "spirituality" with "religious beliefs." They are not one and the same.
I like you.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I posted a rather stylish, witty rejoinder to KoM and hatrack chose that moment to go down.
I'll take that as a hint. Though I'd really like to point out that without a rock hard, agreed upon starting point such as divine authority, there can be no debate either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
That was sarcasm, wasn't it?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Where does it say in my science textbooks that God doesn't exist?
In the basic, foundational principle: You should not believe things you have no good evidence for.
That's more a principle of philosophy than science. You often conflate philosophical arguments that you buy into and good science. You need to learn to compartmentalize your beliefs better
'You should not believe things your have no good evidence for' is a philosophical value judgement. You take as an axiom the thought that 'you should not believe...' without telling us why we shouldn't believe it. I don't buy your premise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
All right, here's why : Without such a premise, we wouldn't have science at all - we'd still be stuck with Aristotle.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
As for KOM, Ill be honest I find him to be a bit more on the respectful side if you address is arguments specifically rather then getting mad from a personal standpoint. I fully agree that KOM can be more rude than is conducent to discussion, and I can see why it's obnoxious to discuss religion with him, but I do think he is a smart man, I've enjoyed some of our exchanges.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Dan, that was fantastic.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The first step is education. People who don't understand science often find it unbelievable, and religious people who don't understand science sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to support their beliefs.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that entropy precludes evolution, or that because science isn't certain on a lot of things, it makes more sense to believe in religion, which is always sure, as though it were one or the other.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That makes absolutely no sense.
Assuming you and TL are addressing me, of course it makes sense. If we have no common ground, no common, arbitrary dogma such as "reason is valid" we can't argue and we're back to stabbing swords "as far as they will go", again.
Saying reason is valid because it's reason is just as circular as saying God's word is valid because God said so.
You can't fool me... it's all Turtles, all the way down...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
Buddhism. For one example.
edit: I should clarify. If one's definition of god is sufficiently big then "godlike figure" would only describe one aspect of god. In that case "god" could include spiritual elements that coincide with Buddhism.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The first step is education. People who don't understand science often find it unbelievable, and religious people who don't understand science sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to support their beliefs.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that entropy precludes evolution, or that because science isn't certain on a lot of things, it makes more sense to believe in religion, which is always sure, as though it were one or the other.
I don't disagree at all... except that I *do* find that this absolutely works in reverse as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
Buddhism. For one example.
Ok Ill disregard the majority of Buddhists who do in fact worship dieties. Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
To be honest I actually think I can agree with Buddhism being an example of spirituality devoid of a diety. How do you mesh these beliefs with science?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: All right, here's why : Without such a premise, we wouldn't have science at all - we'd still be stuck with Aristotle.
Einstein initially used thought experiments to come up with general relativity. Some scientists believed them enough for years until they were able to actually get some hard evidence to confirm his theory. Science has to rely on some measure of belief without hard evidence in order to progress.
However, I made a mistake in my response. I took your statement more generally that it may have been intended. I thought you were making a blanket statement about life in general, not merely restricted to the realm of science. My apologies.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Buddhism. For one example."
Explain more please. I am still just as interested in the concept of believing in human spirituality without at least believing in an afterlife.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
What he said.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
Why is this any more or less likely than an eternal diety that needs no origin?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I don't disagree at all... except that I *do* find that this absolutely works in reverse as well.
Would you please expand on this idea? I'm not sure specifically what you mean, and I don't want to sound snarky by putting a spin on it.
I'll save snarky for later Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: You need to learn to compartmentalize your beliefs better.
I keep hoping that science and religion will come together in exciting or lucrative ways.
Actually, I think science and religion come together quite frequently with favorable results. For example we have Bible-believing scientists who have been scoffed at for clinging to their theories of catastrophism, but within the last 20 years have started to gain some respect. It was this community that theorized that petroleum may have origins other than diatomaceous marine deposits and predicted the discovery of oil in non-traditional locations. The discovery of petroleum relatively close to the surface and in isolated cells may prove to be very lucrative.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The first step is education. People who don't understand religion often find it unbelievable, and science-focused people who don't understand religion sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to convince themselves no one should believe it.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that evolution precludes God, or that because Religion doesn't produce quantifiable results, it makes more sense to disbelieve in religion in order to believe in science, as though it were one or the other.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BlackBlade,
Something "spiritual", to me, is something that is incorporeal and/or immaterial. Imagination is spiritual. The arena of mind is largely spiritual (although it may be housed in a material matrix in the brain). If I think of a cake, it exists spiritually even before I bake it.
Spirituality does not require a god-like figure at all, though such a figure is very often a product of human spirituality. (Or many, perhaps most, believe it's the other way around.)
I believe my life has a very important spiritual aspect to it that in no way requires there to be any sort of godlike figure. It could very well be, even, that there is an afterlife of some sort (for all I know) but that doesn't require a God any more than the existence of this Earth requires one.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Buddhism. For one example."
Explain more please. I am still just as interested in the concept of believing in human spirituality without at least believing in an afterlife.
What is wrong with a (theoretical) belief that something spiritual is born when intelligence reaches a point of self-awareness, and that this spiritual entity ceases to exist when the matrix which sustains it collapses?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
Why is this any more or less likely than an eternal diety that needs no origin?
You misunderstand that was a question of clarification not a challenge.
Karled: So for you does the spiritual remain a deeply personal experience without universal application?
Example: You think of a cake and for you its true that it tastes good if cooked properly but to others the cake might taste terrible.
BTW thanks for the personal example, I enjoy learning others perspectives on what we all experience.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What is wrong? For me it all sounds so pointless. If I (personally) don't see any future beyond this life then there is no reason for me to have any life - period.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own.
However, to me, the only spirituality that has universal applicability is that which can be rationally demonstrated and consistently replicated. Mathematics is one example. I'm not sure if there are any others, actually. Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own.
However, to me, the only spirituality that has universal applicability is that which can be rationally demonstrated and consistently replicated. Mathematics is one example. I'm not sure if there are any others, actually. Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
Thanks again Karl, that explains alot. I might have questions later.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"misguided assumption" is pretty strong words. Perhaps even fighting words. I VERY strongly disagree with everything you have said.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: What is wrong? For me it all sounds so pointless. If I (personally) don't see any future beyond this life then there is no reason for me to have any life - period.
That's sad. I have no such problem finding a reason to live. To me, my life itself is justification enough for me to live it. I find it enjoyable, and I find the lives of others enjoyable. And I find the enjoyment others have in their lives enjoyable, so I want to see them enjoy their lives as much as I do mine. That is what love is, to me.
If this life is all there is, then my life becomes all the more precious to me, and so does yours become precious to me. This moment itself, you and I connecting in communication, is a beautiful and precious thing. The fleeting nature of it only underscores the importance of enjoying it while it lasts. It's a terrible tragedy to let the possibility (or even probability) of an end destroy the enjoyment of what is now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
That's interesting to me, because in my experience, the more one learns about and participates in the scientific process, the more sense it makes. The more one learns about and questions religion, the more illogical leaps and omissions one must make to continue on.
I believe that it is important to note that science invites questioning, and becomes stronger each time something previously understood is clarified, each time new answers are found, each time a something previously believed to be true is shown to be false.
Religion accepts no such revisions, questioning, or correction. It insists that it is correct, and cannot stand if shown otherwise. In fact, religion sets itself up in such terms that it is impossible to discredit it within its own worldview. Its ideas are not open for discussion or debate, they simply ARE.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow: While its possible for you to lump science all together as they are bound by a singular method, I think you do a discredit to this community when you try to lump religion together in such a manner as you have. You are assuming there is a unifying premise behind religion. To be honest I do not think such a principle exists.
Therefore your conclusion that religion as a whole invites no revisions/questions/debate/discussion, I just think you are dead wrong.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
One of the things that's bugging me in the whole "science v. religion" debate that no one seems to touch on is that while I find no issue with the scientific method, almost exclusively conclusions are based on incomplete scientific data.
Basis: I am a Catholic engineer who believes in evolution.
Problem: Evolution is not completely 100% proven. There is a whole ton of very authoritative data on the issue, but there will always be holes where certain things either don't make sense, or the data is just missing.
Basically, through the very nature of science itself it is basically impossible to completely prove anything, because there's always the possibility that we missed something, didn't take something into account, some assumption was not quite right etc...
So the problem comes when scientists keep claiming "this is absolute truth because science says so" when in fact science doesn't say so. At best science will have a lot of evidence that points in one direction and no evidence that points in another direction.
Consider the aerospace field (of which I am a part) even when we theoretically know the equations that govern a particular phenomena they always rely on a certain amount of assumptions (even if it comes down to: We assume that solar wind doesn't have a noticable effect on the flight of a 777) that leave open the possibility that things aren't quite as we think they are. If I had a nickel for every time we've had to revert to experience-based data over basic physics I'd be a rich man...
The problem is that many within the science community already use "Science" as a religion and many of those are the kind of bad scientists who knowingly ignore data, skew it to draw bad conclusions and such.
I'm not saying that it's appropriate for religion to teach that the scientific method is wrong (and I haven't found that to be the case) but I do think it's appropriate for everyone to be taught to question any conclusions be they religious or scientific or neither.
With the number of scientists with solid data backing them up out there claiming both that Global Warming is and is not happening, or that it's our fault or not, or that galactic cosmic radiation is likely to destroy the chances of interplanetary travel or not, how can anyone blindly say that "science" in and of itself is some kind of be-all-end-all?
Much as it's silly, Southpark's recent stint on atheism had a lot of great points weasled away in there.
My basic summary: Science can never give us 100% answers. Religion aknowledges that decisions need to be based on less than 100% answers. Even founding decisions on scientific bases requires a certain leap of faith, even if it's only that the 0.000001% of unknowns isn't going to bite us in the end.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "misguided assumption" is pretty strong words. Perhaps even fighting words. I VERY strongly disagree with everything you have said.
The fact that I can believe one person's (or even one group's) personal spiritual experience is not evidence of universal applicability triggers in you a "fight" response just underscores for me how the assumption of universal applicability is responsible for the majority of wars in human history. To me this is evidence of its misguided nature.
I'm sorry if you are offended by my feelings on the matter. I'm being honest and as polite as possible, and I don't think I'm even skirting the TOS at this point.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Considering how much I absolutely hate the "now" and have hated it from my teenage days, recognition of something more than "now" is the only thing that saved my life. If I wasn't "eternal spiritual" then I would be a nihilist. For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm sorry if you are offended by my feelings on the matter. I'm being honest and as polite as possible, and I don't think I'm even skirting the TOS at this point."
I am not sure what the TOS has to do with what you have said. There is nothing against the "rules" that you have said. I, also, am saying what I honestly believe. As such I believe there is a universal truth where you don't. I believe it so strongly that any statement that my beliefs are "misguided" can't help but come across as offensive.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Errr, wow. I'm religious and disagree with pretty much everything you just said.
Edit: In response to:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering how much I absolutely hate the "now" and have hated it from my teenage days, recognition of something more than "now" is the only thing that saved my life. If I wasn't "eternal spiritual" then I would be a nihilist. For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
Sorry, it was 2:42 PST...you're in a different time zone I'm sure.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
apologies for the double post, but I just saw MC's latest:
If I thought all religion were as you describe then I would agree with you. However, I find that the religions that I value and respect are those that in fact welcome questions and doubts. In my experience it is only through questioning religion that we can grow in it. Perhaps there are certain "absolutes" about which religion is based, but even those in my experience tend to not be as absolute as is problematic.
perhaps I can be proven wrong yet, but so far the most any questioning has done for my faith is to mold it around a bit rather than break it. Though I'll admit that there are many that would take issue with the fluidity of my beliefs, and that the type of religion you describe bothers me for the same reasons it seems to bother you.
The flexibility for example to believe that maybe the various miracles in the bible happened as described, and maybe some of them were pure coincidence of perfectly explainable natural phenomena and maybe some of them were natural phenomena that were instigated by a higher power is crucial to my stance on religion.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't see a 2:42 post, unless there is another designation you can point out.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
See, now I'd call those "strong words" as well as being short sighted, but I wouldn't fight you over them. I'd be happy to debate them, though.
I don't consider myself materialistic. I might be delusional, but no more so than any other human being might also be, yourself included.
Also, before you put too much emphasis on my "now", I am referring to the life we know about as "now", not "this very instant". I had some pretty crappy teenage years, too, but I don't think it was a belief in an afterlife that got me through them. Rather I think it was a belief in my own self-worth, and in the hope that my suffering wasn't permanent.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, my view of life hasn't changed much as an adult. The biggest difference is perhaps I have more of any ability to control my own destiny. Other than that, everything I have hated when I was a teenager still exists as ever. We just pretend we are all grown up.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:As such I believe there is a universal truth where you don't.
See, you're not reading very carefully. I don't believe that there is no universal truth. I just don't believe that personal spiritual experience alone is a reliable method for learning it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
To me, learning a principle whether it is religious or scientific in nature is kind of a spiritual experience.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: While its possible for you to lump science all together as they are bound by a singular method, I think you do a discredit to this community when you try to lump religion together in such a manner as you have. You are assuming there is a unifying premise behind religion. To be honest I do not think such a principle exists.
Therefore your conclusion that religion as a whole invites no revisions/questions/debate/discussion, I just think you are dead wrong.
I certainly don't profess to be an expert on every religion in the world, so if I overstated my beliefs, I apologize.
Within the bounds of Christianity, which I am fairly familiar, and to my understanding of other religions which I am less familiar, I believe my statements are accurate.
Each Christian believes certain things, largely depending on their denomination and upbringing. These things are not open for debate. Jesus was the Son of God, God is good, if you don't follow certain rules you go to hell, our faith is Right and others are Wrong, etc.
If you show a scientist evidence that a previously held belief is incorrect, a good scientist will examine the new evidence and if it is strong enough, change her mind. If a Christian tries to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, and that Jews are not God's chosen people, forget about it.
Science says, "I believe this is right because all the evidence I see makes this the most likely case. If other evidence shows something else, I will examine it and revise my answer."
Many religions (at least the ones I most strongly disagree with) say, "This is the way things are, because we say so. If you don't agree, you're wrong."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
To me, learning a principle whether it is religious or scientific in nature is kind of a spiritual experience.
To me, all learning is a spiritual experience.
Is the experience of discovery the same as the experience of learning? I'm not sure. To me they are somewhat different but both are spiritual experiences. But for me, discovering something on my own has rewards above and beyond learning something someone else discovered (though I don't make the comparison to in any way devalue the latter).
However, not all spiritual experiences are truthful. I believe people can have intense spiritual experiences that are lies and delusions. That is demonstrably so, although one might disagree with me on semantics. That is why I do not believe spiritual experience alone is a reliable method for ascertaining the truth of a given premise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From Dan:
quote: I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
Yup. From Karl:
quote: I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own. (snip) Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
I think we all have our own way to connect with the Divine. Each is a little different. We gather in communities because their is value in communion with others (and the Divine that is to be found in others). And I understand the desire to help others find a way to make that connnection, should they choose. But I have never understood (from a religious perspective) why it is important to expect other people to fit our particular mold.
Also from Karl:
quote: That's sad. I have no such problem finding a reason to live. To me, my life itself is justification enough for me to live it. I find it enjoyable, and I find the lives of others enjoyable. And I find the enjoyment others have in their lives enjoyable, so I want to see them enjoy their lives as much as I do mine. That is what love is, to me.
If this life is all there is, then my life becomes all the more precious to me, and so does yours become precious to me. This moment itself, you and I connecting in communication, is a beautiful and precious thing. The fleeting nature of it only underscores the importance of enjoying it while it lasts. It's a terrible tragedy to let the possibility (or even probability) of an end destroy the enjoyment of what is now.
Good heavens, yes. And, for me, those moments, those connections, that "beautiful and precious thing", that love, is where I find God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, this is presumptious of me, I know, but I can'tr believe that God wants us to live in a "now" that is hateful without trying to change that. He came so that we might live more abundantly after all. Let me know if I can help.
MC:
quote: Each Christian believes certain things, largely depending on their denomination and upbringing. These things are not open for debate. Jesus was the Son of God, God is good, if you don't follow certain rules you go to hell, our faith is Right and others are Wrong, etc.
Well, only two of those at all. Only one, really absolutely without some clarification. For me. I assume that I would qualify.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, kmb, it is only because God did help me learn how to live more abundantly that I care about life. He basically told me: Don't worry, this isn't all there is.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
That's interesting to me, because in my experience... Religion accepts no such revisions, questioning, or correction. It insists that it is correct, and cannot stand if shown otherwise. In fact, religion sets itself up in such terms that it is impossible to discredit it within its own worldview. Its ideas are not open for discussion or debate, they simply ARE.
I think that is a very shallow view of religion. I can point out instances where Catholic dogma was challenged, refined, and eventually changed.... and that is one of the most insistently correct and authority-rich religions around.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
I would say that they are vastly different experiences.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Because I just saw your later post...
well, obviously some of those statements-- I mean, if I didn't think Jesus was, in fact the Son of God, I wouldn't be a Christian, now, would I?
That doesn't mean I can't still listen with an open mind about the question. In fact, I would put forth to Christians that if you haven't listened with an open mind to the alternative, your faith is sorely lacking. I would say that an unquestioned faith is a faith that has never been tested, which is a faith that has never been applied to anything. Jesus himself doubted ("my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?") for any Christian to pretend that they are beyond doubt is arrogance bordering on blasphemy, IMO.
As my therapist put it, talking about another subject entirely, "you can't say 'yes' until you can say 'no'."
Basically, while I love Shepherd Book dearly as a character, I utterly disagree with him. You do "fix faith", in so far as you try to refine and improve your understanding of it, just as you do with science. I might go so far as saying that the process by which "Faith fixes you" is exactly that process of understanding it more deeply.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
I would say that they are vastly different experiences.
Yeah, the classroom learner exercises faith in the teacher and in the discoverer. The discoverer exercises faith in his senses, and in the instruments and tools at his disposal and in a set of standard methods and practices. Sounds a bit like religion to me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jim-Me, can you elaborate. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I would say that they are more different in degree than in kind. Both are forms of discovery, though I can definitely see where the former might give a greater sense of accomplishment than the latter, but even that is a subjective judgement. Right?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The student is being led down a path and has an expected result. If they don't duplicate it, the assumption is that they performed the experiment incorrectly.... to the point that they probably get a bad grade on their lab if they don't produce the desired result (as I did more than once). The scientist performing the initial experiment *should* be approaching it with a completely open mind. His first thought on achieving an un-sought result shouldn't be "well, I just did it wrong... we know the right answer" but rather "huh... I wonder why *that* happened."
I don't even think it's so much a difference in degree as in mindset going in.
Note: I am not saying that there is anything wrong with how science is taught at any of the levels I have experienced it (up through undergraduate).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
Well said.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks Jim-Me. I agree with that for the most part. I think we were looking at the comparison from different levels, though. I would now say that there are both similarities and differences in the two experiences, depending on what, specifically, you are comparing about them.
quote:Yeah, the classroom learner exercises faith in the teacher and in the discoverer. The discoverer exercises faith in his senses, and in the instruments and tools at his disposal and in a set of standard methods and practices. Sounds a bit like religion to me.
Skillery, I think this underscores how the mutable definition of "religion" in these discussions serves more to muddy the waters than to clarify much. I can "agree" that it sounds "a bit like religion", but that doesn't mean that it is anything like "religion" as it is used in most other contexts on this forum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering how much I absolutely hate the "now" and have hated it from my teenage days, recognition of something more than "now" is the only thing that saved my life. If I wasn't "eternal spiritual" then I would be a nihilist. For those who find happiness in living, I either find them delusional or materialistic.
This does not have anything to do with what's true. And in any case, if you really can't manage to stand on your own two feet and enjoy life without a Big Brother in the sky to help you, I have absolutely zero sympathy for you. Get some Prozac.
quote:Assuming you and TL are addressing me, of course it makes sense. If we have no common ground, no common, arbitrary dogma such as "reason is valid" we can't argue and we're back to stabbing swords "as far as they will go", again.
Nothing arbitrary about it. The society that believes in reason and experiment has better guns than the ones that don't.
quote:However, I made a mistake in my response. I took your statement more generally that it may have been intended. I thought you were making a blanket statement about life in general, not merely restricted to the realm of science. My apologies.
Nope, I intended it to apply everywhere, because it works. Or do you believe in Russell's Teapot and the IPU? Because that's where you end up. As for Einstein, to whatever extent people held GR as more than a tentative hypothesis before experimental evidence came along, they were wrong.
quote:I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
Religion does nothing of the kind; it delegates the answer to Big Brother. That's not an answer, it's a cop-out. And science answers both: 'Why' is whatever you make of it.
quote:Problem: Evolution is not completely 100% proven. There is a whole ton of very authoritative data on the issue, but there will always be holes where certain things either don't make sense, or the data is just missing.
Can we please stop having to deal with this sophomoric non-issue every time evolution (or for that matter god) is mentioned? This little factoid that nothing can be 100% proven is totally without interest outside of philosophy courses, because nobody actually lives like that, nor should they. At some point you have to say "This is as proven as something gets" and actually make a damn decision. You can't go around acting on the possibility that we all live in the Matrix, even though it's possible in principle; that way madness lies.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: At some point you have to say "This is as proven as something gets" and actually make a damn decision. You can't go around acting on the possibility that we all live in the Matrix, even though it's possible in principle; that way madness lies.
I completely agree. And that choice is an absolutely dogmatic, arbitrary and unprovable one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, because your method for deciding what is proven can be tested empirically. Science works: It does in fact allow you to kill your enemies, live without backbreaking work, and generally have a better life than our ancestors.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I think that is a very shallow view of religion. I can point out instances where Catholic dogma was challenged, refined, and eventually changed.... and that is one of the most insistently correct and authority-rich religions around.
That tends to be the exception though, wouldn't you agree?
I suppose that a large portion of the discussion centers around what people find important.
I personally feel that cooperation, mutual understanding, working for the betterment of all humanity, among other things, are highly valuable. I believe that to a large extent, many organized religions work against these things. They operate in a worldview in which their group is the most important, some even going so far as to say that those who are not their group are of less worth, and may even be the enemy.
Organized religion is very good at separating US from THEM. And that is a foundation upon which I do not believe humanity can prosper.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: At some point you have to say "This is as proven as something gets" and actually make a damn decision. You can't go around acting on the possibility that we all live in the Matrix, even though it's possible in principle; that way madness lies.
I completely agree. And that choice is an absolutely dogmatic, arbitrary and unprovable one.
I don't think that's the case, at least not in the same way that believing Jesus was the Son of God is dogmatic, arbitrary, and unprovable. When you get right down to it, when a scientist says we "know" something, he's mostly including the implied "as far as we can tell from present demonstrable knowledge." There is rarely such an implied concession to inherent doubt when talking about religious "truths" people hold.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: ...but that doesn't mean that it is anything like "religion" as it is used in most other contexts on this forum.
Depends on how you spell Discoverer.
If there's a God we should hope that he's a darn good scientist.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Advantageous" is not "right". You appear to be conflating "better in combat" with provably correct. While that goes for, say, my kung fu style, it means absolutely nothing when getting down to factual assertions. It's still and arbitrary and dogmatic stance.
Besides, religion offers advantages, too. Most notably high troop morale and a general spirit of cooperation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right, however, is advantageous. You cannot make a good weapon out of bad physics or chemistry.
As for high morale, I'll take a machine gun any day, thanks kindly.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"This does not have anything to do with what's true. And in any case, if you really can't manage to stand on your own two feet and enjoy life without a Big Brother in the sky to help you, I have absolutely zero sympathy for you. Get some Prozac"
You know, the irony is this is the attitude of other people that proved to me at a young age exactly how worthless life was. It isn't about "standing on my own" as much as "zero sympathy for you" that created my views of living. Now it is true that there was more than human relationships that helped shape my ideas, but it was a factor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You should please note that there is an 'if' in that sentence, which is up to you. To assume the if is true when you are arguing in favour of is circular reasoning. In any case, your depression or lack of it is utterly irrelevant to what's true.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sorry, but your "if" doesn't save you. The idea that you even have an "if" is disgusting.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
...and if our God happens to be a scientist, and if our objective as religious devotees to that God is to believe everything that God believes and know everything that God knows and do everything that God does, then isn't God's science necessarily a part of that religion?
If our definition of religion puts limits on the knowing and doing part, then I'll side with the scientists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then. Since you apparently cannot exist without some kind of outside affirmation of your worth, even by an imaginary being, fine. Go to your nihilism, then, and good riddance. But that's a side issue. You will still not have said anything about what is actually true.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Its not about "outside affirmation of your worth," but about the worth of ANYTHING - even Truth as you define it. Believe me, if I went into nihilism, I would be taking you metaphorically, if not really, with me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What of it? I'm getting tired of saying this, but your inability to value things for their own sake does not say anything about truth.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Your science doesn't say anything about truth either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes it does. I'm sure you are going to come up with some nonstandard definition of 'truth' which it can reasonably be said that science doesn't address, but I won't play word games. If you're going there, I will not follow.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
bet you that you will.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But that's a side issue. You will still not have said anything about what is actually true.
Neither have you... you're only talking about what's practical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No; truth is always practical, and therefore the test of practicality is a way to truth. Knowledge is power, if you like; but only if it's true knowledge. There's no power in memorising the names of nonexistent demons. Hence, if a given bit of knowledge gives you power, it is true.
Edit : In any case, the distinction doesn't matter. A truth that can't be found by empirical testing may exist, but then so may the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Who cares? If your 'truth' cannot be separated from the FSM, then it is of absolutely zero value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Its not about "outside affirmation of your worth," but about the worth of ANYTHING...
What do you mean by "worth" in this context? Is it not, in its simplest form, just an attribute you choose to recognize?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hence, if a given bit of knowledge gives you power, it is true.
Edit : In any case, the distinction doesn't matter. A truth that can't be found by empirical testing may exist, but then so may the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Who cares? If your 'truth' cannot be separated from the FSM, then it is of absolutely zero value.
by that standard, most religions are definitely true... hell, even the FSM empowers a lot of people-- humor is a very powerful tool.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No; truth is always practical, and therefore the test of practicality is a way to truth. Knowledge is power, if you like; but only if it's true knowledge. There's no power in memorising the names of nonexistent demons. Hence, if a given bit of knowledge gives you power, it is true.
Edit : In any case, the distinction doesn't matter. A truth that can't be found by empirical testing may exist, but then so may the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Who cares? If your 'truth' cannot be separated from the FSM, then it is of absolutely zero value.
I just want to further point out the extent to which many segments of engineering/science in fact find your "truth" to be next to useless in that even when we theoretically know the full equation governing something we often can't use it because of computing power limitations and the like. So in essence all of our planes fly on extrapolated experimental data, which in fact deviates from our theoretical "truth" of what fundamental physics says should happen.
I used evolution as the extreme example, but there's plenty of other areas where things aren't as clear cut as there, where "science" is a lot more faith than most people realize, etc.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... It's not faith when you can actually see it working.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think religious people don't see their religion working?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hence, if a given bit of knowledge gives you power, it is true.
by that standard, most religions are definitely true... hell, even the FSM empowers a lot of people-- humor is a very powerful tool.
Sorry, I should have specified: Power over the physical universe. Opium dreams do not count.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"What do you mean by "worth" in this context? Is it not, in its simplest form, just an attribute you choose to recognize?"
Nope.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You think religious people don't see their religion working?
Again I refer you to the cancer cure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is it not, in its simplest form, just an attribute you choose to recognize?
Then what is "worth?" Are you asserting that there is an empirical and universal standard of "worth" out there?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you asserting that there is an empirical and universal standard of "worth" out there?
I don't think there's an empirical standard of worth, but I think there is a universal one for some non-trivial definition of universal.
The reason for the last clause is that I believe this universal standard contains room for different individuals to find different worth in different things. However, there are things that universally do not have worth, even if some people prefer them, and there are certain rankings of worth (not linear or 1-dimensional rankings) that are universally true even if not universally recognized.
It's the reason we speak of "values" when we speak of morality - due esteem, and all that.
I think the implication that lack if empiricism renders something an "attribute you choose to recognize" is problematic. At the very least, such premise isn't empirically supported.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You think religious people don't see their religion working?
Again I refer you to the cancer cure.
Not really a fair comparison. Where does science explain the meaning of life? Science would tell you there isn't any, except to survive and procreate, but that isn't good enough for many of us. But science can't go any further than that, God can. Science doesn't have the answer for everything, neither does religion. Sometimes there's overlap.
I won't bother getting into remote prayer Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Not really a fair comparison. Where does science explain the meaning of life? Science would tell you there isn't any, except to survive and procreate, but that isn't good enough for many of us.
Well, that's just too damn bad, isn't it? Again: Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you are allowed to make up your own. If you aren't prepared to accept the answer honestly, don't ask the question. In any case, you are putting up a strawman version of what science (more accurately, atheist philosophies) actually says about meaning, which might be better summarised as "Find your own".
In any case, come to think of it, I've seen a lot of 'meaning of life' stuff bandied about here, but nobody seems to actually put anything into it. Just how does religion give a meaning to life? What is the answer you lot are shouting about science not giving?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, there are things that universally do not have worth, even if some people prefer them...
Like...?
quote:Science would tell you there isn't any, except to survive and procreate, but that isn't good enough for many of us.
Ironically, I was just having this exact same discussion on Ornery last week.
And no, materialism does not mean "there is no meaning to life;" it means that materialists simply recognize that "meaning," as a personal value, has to be identified by the person in question and not imposed by an outside arbiter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Not really a fair comparison. Where does science explain the meaning of life? Science would tell you there isn't any, except to survive and procreate, but that isn't good enough for many of us.
Well, that's just too damn bad, isn't it? Again: Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you are allowed to make up your own. If you aren't prepared to accept the answer honestly, don't ask the question. In any case, you are putting up a strawman version of what science (more accurately, atheist philosophies) actually says about meaning, which might be better summarised as "Find your own".
In any case, come to think of it, I've seen a lot of 'meaning of life' stuff bandied about here, but nobody seems to actually put anything into it. Just how does religion give a meaning to life? What is the answer you lot are shouting about science not giving?
Well, alright then. Explain how "find your own" and religion AREN'T related. Religion for many, hell, I'd say almost for everyone is a quest for meaning in their lives, whether they are actively looking for it, or it is thrust upon them. If science's answer to "what is the meaning of life?" is "What are you asking me for? Figure it out yourself," and if we accept that religion IS a pathway to finding that answer, then I wonder how you can deny that religion really is the "Why" in the questions of the universe.
"Too damned bad" isn't really an acceptable answer. If I can't accept the answer that science gives me because it isn't complete enough, who are you to tell me that as a human being I have to accept that, and I can't search for more? Even now we're arguing philosophy and not science. Science can't explain this stuff. Science, at least thus far, can't identify the gene in my genome that explains why I want to know more than science can tell me.
Religion hasn't given me the meaning of life, you'll have to ask people much more religious than I for an answer to that. You're talking about a grey area of science, and stating things as fact that I don't think most people accept as fact.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm happy if religion can answer someone's question about what the meaning of their life is, so long as it doesn't try to dictate what the meaning of my life is, and so long as it doesn't tell them that the meaning of their life is to cause trouble for everyone else.
I think "figure it out" is a lot better answer than "rid the world of those who disagree with you."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Where does science explain the meaning of life? Science would tell you there isn't any, except to survive and procreate, but that isn't good enough for many of us. But science can't go any further than that, God can.
Umm, first, as others have said, "Science" doesn't even address the "meaning of life", so please stop misrepresenting science by saying that it does and falls short. Beyond that, sure, "God" can give you a thousand answers, (quite apparently he does, with little regard to their compatibility), but that doesn't mean any of those answers is rational, supportable, or other than pulled out of some human philospher's hind-quarters. Now I'm not saying none of them is, but anything that comes down to "God says so" as its basis for truth cannot be said to be a universal truth because God answers nothing universally. Therefore, religious "answers" are extremely subjective answers at best, and pipe-dreams at worst. And yes, I know you can point to a hundred million Catholics or a billion Christians who will agree with you on some specifics but sheer numbers don't make a shared delusion any more than that.
Note also that I make a distinction between what is "spiritual" and what is "religious". I'd agree that "Spirituality" tries to answer the "why". All religion does, in terms of a quest for truth, is to help people reinforce their commitment to one possible answer among many equally valid answers.
quote:I won't bother getting into remote prayer
Thank god. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sorry, I should have specified: Power over the physical universe. Opium dreams do not count.
The Crusades, The Inquisition, the preservation (and hoarding) of Greek knowledge throughout the dark ages, establishing the human trinity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as the basis for Western thought, Publishing Copernicus, Condemning Galileo, the Spanish influence in America, (especially Polish) Resistance against the Soviet Union... and that's *just* Catholicism.
I'd say that's remarkable power over the physical universe.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
And you're arguing that this power came from Catholicism and not from science and technology? I'll grant that the abuse of this power came from religion, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Umm, first, as others have said, "Science" doesn't even address the "meaning of life", so please stop misrepresenting science by saying that it does and falls short.
I think the issue is that KoM refuses to acknowledge that this is the valid realm of Religion and that, for the vast majority of people, Religion answers this question powerfully.
As for KoM's question about the meaning of life... my religion says that meaning is "Love" and that fact alone, to me, makes it more inherently powerful than all the scientific understanding in the world.
But I'm admittedly a romantic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that, for the vast majority of people, Religion answers this question powerfully.
I would assert that religion answers this question for almost no one, but that the people who think it does have simply incorrectly identified the source of the answers they think they have.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: I believe:
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion does nothing of the kind; it delegates the answer to Big Brother. That's not an answer, it's a cop-out. And science answers both: 'Why' is whatever you make of it.
Wrong.
Why are we? Science does not answer that question. Science in its purest form offers no reason why we exist. It states how we came to be in our present form, but does not say anything about the why of it, because that is something beyond the realm of research and provability.
Science can not prove the non-existance of God, nor can it prove the existance of God. However, to say the evolution leads one to the conclusion that we are here just by chance, by pure physics and natural reactions alone, so there is no reason for our existance--that is a philosophy. Philosophy, like religion, answers the big Why questions.
So if you wish to debate the existance of God, using your philosophy versus others people's faith, and using science as the jumping off point for that debate, good.
If, however, you wish to point out that science has proven there is no God at all, please don't sully Science with that bad philosopy.
Remember the last part of my original quote? Something about people who use science to answer Why looking foolish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However, there are things that universally do not have worth, even if some people prefer them...
Like...?
Like delight in the pain of others.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And you're arguing that this power came from Catholicism and not from science and technology? I'll grant that the abuse of this power came from religion, though.
You want to blame the bad actions on it without giving it credit for enabling the actions? that's rather trying to have it both ways, isn't it?
I mean, if you (collective "you") aren't willing to acknowledge the power of attitude, morale, and motivation -- things nearly all religions provide in droves-- then I can't really argue the point, but I'd say that you are the ones missing out.
quote:I would assert that religion answers this question for almost no one, but that the people who think it does have simply incorrectly identified the source of the answers they think they have.
From what I know of you, Tom, I think you are saying, essentially, that "it's all in their heads." You may be right. But, you yourself have worried publically at our ability to produce the intangibles I speak of once all religion has been actually proven false. Whether the power of these intangibles is really from within them or from an actual entity somewhere (and as has already been pointed out, some religions don't even have a "god" figure... just a spiritual "way") is irrelevant to the efficacy of that power.
I wouldn't ordinarily make simple, practical efficiency the test of "truth", but KoM has and, by that standard, I find that all religions have an abundance of truth... if only in the power of uniting their followers to a common cause.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'd agree that "Spirituality" tries to answer the "why".
As does a great deal of human philosophy.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Too damned bad" isn't really an acceptable answer.
And "I don't like it" isn't a refutation. The universe is what it is, created or otherwise, regardless of your feelings on the subject.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, kmb, it is only because God did help me learn how to live more abundantly that I care about life. He basically told me: Don't worry, this isn't all there is.
Honey, there is a world of difference between knowing that there is more than this and absolutely hating the now. There is a purpose in this life, too. Again, if you want to chat about this more, please feel free to e-mail me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:And "I don't like it" isn't a refutation. The universe is what it is, created or otherwise, regardless of your feelings on the subject.
That wasn't what I was saying. "Too damned bad" and "figure it out yourself" aren't answers, they're signposts. Claiming that I don't like an answer that isn't really an answer isn't much of an accusation. Furthermore, I never had anything to say about the universe at large, just my place in it. And I challenge you to point out where it says what I'm suppose to do in the universe that is what it is.
quote:Umm, first, as others have said, "Science" doesn't even address the "meaning of life", so please stop misrepresenting science by saying that it does and falls short. Beyond that, sure, "God" can give you a thousand answers, (quite apparently he does, with little regard to their compatibility), but that doesn't mean any of those answers is rational, supportable, or other than pulled out of some human philospher's hind-quarters. Now I'm not saying none of them is, but anything that comes down to "God says so" as its basis for truth cannot be said to be a universal truth because God answers nothing universally. Therefore, religious "answers" are extremely subjective answers at best, and pipe-dreams at worst. And yes, I know you can point to a hundred million Catholics or a billion Christians who will agree with you on some specifics but sheer numbers don't make a shared delusion any more than that.
Note also that I make a distinction between what is "spiritual" and what is "religious". I'd agree that "Spirituality" tries to answer the "why". All religion does, in terms of a quest for truth, is to help people reinforce their commitment to one possible answer among many equally valid answers.
I think from a purely biological point of view, we're hardwired to survive and procreate. I don't think it's a leap to say our biological purpose in life is to do just that.
So far as answers go, you're out of the realm of what is measurable. Of course everything is subjective, because it's entirely possible that there are six billion answers to the question. Your purpose or meaning in life might not be mine, or it might be. Or it might be that we get it wrong entirely and make up our own meaning of life. I never claimed otherwise.
What is the "shared delusion?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Like delight in the pain of others.
And yet that delight is clearly motivational to some people; they will go to some lengths to achieve it, indicating that to them this is something of value. Heck, I'd argue that the success of YouTube and Napoleon Dynamite are both directly contingent upon the popularity of schadenfreude.
------
quote:Whether the power of these intangibles is really from within them or from an actual entity somewhere (and as has already been pointed out, some religions don't even have a "god" figure... just a spiritual "way") is irrelevant to the efficacy of that power.
And if that's where religion stopped, that'd be fine; everyone's entitled to whatever method helps them find their own purpose. But most -- perhaps even all -- religions also come with dogmas and theologies; these are ancillary costs that you pay for using religion to answer the philosophical question of "what is my purpose in life" that you do not have to pay if you just use philosophy in the first place. It's like buying one of those enormous Craftsman power-drive socket sets with the bonus Phillips head to tighten up the screws on your chair; it's not only cheaper but easier to just get a screwdriver, unless you anticipate having to "answer questions" that you'll need both a metric and an English socket set to resolve (and even if you did, it'd still be better to buy a high-quality dedicated socket.) And given the role religion plays, imagine if people who'd chosen to pay for the whole socket set went around demanding that all screws in the world should be replaced with hex bolts, because those are clearly superior fasteners.
[ November 22, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I'm not sure what you mean my ancillary costs. Could you explain that more, please?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are restrictions on your behavior -- and, in theory, your beliefs and conclusions -- that are usually incumbent upon your belief in a given religion. How many Muslims would enjoy a quiet drink? How many Jews would love to be able to cook on Saturday? How many gay couples would really, really like to get tax benefits in Wisconsin?
If the advantage of these behaviors could be demonstrated individually, that'd be one thing. But in almost all cases, they proceed instead from the presumption of granted authority; in other words, by accepting that a given religion is "true," you also typically accept that its assertions about other ethical and behaviorial issues are also true, and are left to reconcile that acceptance with your perception of reality.
This is a very high cost to pay.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And if that's where religion stopped, that'd be fine; everyone's entitled to whatever method helps them find their own purpose. But most -- perhaps even all -- religions also come with dogmas and theologies; these are ancillary costs that you pay for using religion to answer the philosophical question of "what is my purpose in life" that you do not have to pay if you just use philosophy in the first place.
I don't really disagree with that, except that I think I view religion and philosophy as much more similar, or even mingled, than you do (I could be wrong there, though).
Again, I wasn't the one who made utility the acid test of truth. But I think even its detractors... in fact especially its detractors... would have to admit that religion is a powerful tool-- whether as opiate of the masses or the igniter of firebrands...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is a very high cost to pay.
Whether great responsibility comes with great power is a matter of debate, but if TSR has taught me anything it's that great power comes with a greater price tag. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:What is the "shared delusion?"
I'm referring to anything a group of people believe that is not true. I'm not saying, here, what that is, specifically, because I don't know the truth about God anymore than anyone else does. But let's supposed that Jesus was just a man like any other and had no more divinity than you or I. It doesn't matter that a billion or more Christians believe this in terms of whether it is true or not. If it's a delusion and masses of people believe it, it is a shared delusion. There is no "safety in numbers" when it comes to what is really true. A thousand mistaken people are still mistaken even if they are not alone in their mistake.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yet that delight is clearly motivational to some people; they will go to some lengths to achieve it, indicating that to them this is something of value. Heck, I'd argue that the success of YouTube and Napoleon Dynamite are both directly contingent upon the popularity of schadenfreude.
You're giving an example of your definition of worth to refute my definition. Yeah, I get that you don't think worth is universal - that's what started this whole portion of the discussion. Citing an opinion of something that is not universal and calling it worth is simply reasserting your definition.
I suppose I could respond by reasserting mine, but there doesn't seem to be much point to that. Suffice it to say that, according to my definition of worth, the mere fact that some people value something does not mean that the something has value.
Just as the mass of a 1-kg ball is still 1 kg whether the mass is measured correctly or not, the worth of delight in the pain of others is still zero, whether others measure it correctly or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, those restrictions (and some religions are more strict than others) are presumably to make our lives better. We (at least I) don't think of it as a price to pay, but rather a way to make choices that will make our lives richer. For your first two examples, anyway. Those Muslims who abstain from drinking and Jews who refrain from cooking on the Sabboth would, I assume, believe that they are better off by following those rules. As for your third example, that is a case of the government imposing religious beliefs which I agree is wrong, but is not quite the same thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*amused* Tom, if you're going to try to make points about the limitations Judaism places on its adherents, Shabbos is probably not the way to go.
Shmuel would know better than I, but my impression from other formerly-religious Jews is that kashrus is a far bigger issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think I view religion and philosophy as much more similar, or even mingled, than you do (I could be wrong there, though).
I'm absolutely certain that you do, since I consider them to be nearly exclusive epistemologies.
quote:if TSR has taught me anything it's that great power comes with a greater price tag.
Well, as I've pointed out, if you ALSO need to turn some sockets, then the combo socket-and-screwdriver set may not be a bad buy. If, for example, you find yourself drinking regularly and feeling lonely, joining the LDS church to support you in kicking the habit and forcing you to keep the company of others is a way to kill multiple birds with one stone. Of course, then you've got a few sockets out there which are for turning weird sized bolts that previously existed and no longer do, and a few sockets which don't really fit modern metric bolts but kind of do, and a few sockets that simply don't work -- but part of your purchasing agreement prevented you from buying sockets from other companies.
-------
quote:Tom, if you're going to try to make points about the limitations Judaism places on its adherents, Shabbos is probably not the way to go.
I was deliberately not trying to identify the restrictions I thought were most onerous, meaningful, etc. for any given faith. I was simply trying to point out obvious behaviorial restrictions that seem to lack secular motivations.
-----
quote:Just as the mass of a 1-kg ball is still 1 kg whether the mass is measured correctly or not, the worth of delight in the pain of others is still zero, whether others measure it correctly or not.
It's fine that you claim that there is an external measure of worth. In fact, I've said on this thread that this is the primary function of religion: it gives people who need to believe that values are externally arbitrated a hypothetical authoritative arbiter. Sadly, that doesn't actually cause the arbiter to exist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[Edit:] On second thought, I'll skip continuing this debate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's fine that you claim that there is an external measure of worth. In fact, I've said on this thread that this is the primary function of religion: it gives people who need to believe that values are externally arbitrated a hypothetical authoritative arbiter.
Or it tells us what the actual authoritative arbiter has decided on a myriad of issues.
quote:Sadly, that doesn't actually cause the arbiter to exist.
Sadly, your stating otherwise doesn't cause him not to exist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rivka, I know many observant Jews who would disagree with you. Surely you would not argue that all Jews who observe the Sabbath always find all of its restrictions a "welcome respite?"
I know it's supposed to be welcomed with that attitude, but that in and of itself is another example of a non-natural behaviorial requirement.
------------
quote:Sadly, your stating otherwise doesn't cause him not to exist.
Very true. But since there's no empirical evidence that such an arbiter does exist, or that his decisions regarding "worth" affect values in our observable reality, such an arbiter actually becomes an irrelevance in any discussion of observable reality.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*points to edit*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Very true. But since there's no empirical evidence that such an arbiter does exist, or that his decisions regarding "worth" affect values in our observable reality, such an arbiter actually becomes an irrelevance in any discussion of observable reality.
This is quite simply and absolutely observably not true. It is of great relevance and has led to trillions and trillions of specific decisions being made in specific ways throughout history.
Beyond that, I refuse to indulge your demand for empirical-only reality.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
At the risk of jumping in between Tom and Dagonee, I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion and that this is so patently obvious that everyone who doesn't agree is an obscurantist with his or her head in the sand.
I submit that that is an unsupportable position and it's the only one I am here concerned to deny.
I just want to be clear what I am arguing and what I am not arguing... as there are other arguments going on all over the place.
Edit: though I feel obliged to point out that I have the exact same reaction as Dagonee to Tom's last statement.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Summarizing:
I disagree that empirical reality is the total of reality and empirical truth the total of truth.
BUT
If, together with KoM, you are going to make efficient impact on history and evolution the standard by which something is judged to be true, Religion is clearly as true, if not more so than Science. Religious truth itself is obviously not empirical, but to deny that its effects are empirical is aboslute hogwash.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:What is the "shared delusion?"
I'm referring to anything a group of people believe that is not true. I'm not saying, here, what that is, specifically, because I don't know the truth about God anymore than anyone else does. But let's supposed that Jesus was just a man like any other and had no more divinity than you or I. It doesn't matter that a billion or more Christians believe this in terms of whether it is true or not. If it's a delusion and masses of people believe it, it is a shared delusion. There is no "safety in numbers" when it comes to what is really true. A thousand mistaken people are still mistaken even if they are not alone in their mistake.
Alright, I see what you're saying about the definition of "shared delusion," but I wonder how that pertains to religion at large. You can't prove or disprove any of it, so where does the word delusion enter into the fray?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: At the risk of jumping in between Tom and Dagonee, I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion and that this is so patently obvious that everyone who doesn't agree is an obscurantist with his or her head in the sand.
I submit that that is an unsupportable position and it's the only one I am here concerned to deny.
Okay. Let me revisit one of the quotes from the original NYT article:
quote:“Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
Is it your assertion that religious knowedge is "higher than" -- that is, superior to -- scientific knowledge?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is quite simply and absolutely observably not true. It is of great relevance and has led to trillions and trillions of specific decisions being made in specific ways throughout history.
Ah. But the existence of the arbiter is irrelevant to those decisions; the belief in the existence of the arbiter is relevant, and obviously we need to take into account the fact that some people believe there is one.
Whether the arbiter actually exists or not has no observable effect.
---------
quote:I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion...
Science IS inherently more true than religion, for a given value of "true." Perhaps those people who disagree define "true" differently.
quote:If, together with KoM, you are going to make efficient impact on history and evolution the standard by which something is judged to be true, Religion is clearly as true, if not more so than Science.
Except that "religion" is not responsible for those developments. As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Edit: to Twinky--
Nope, my assertion is that that quote is a misrepresentation of religious thought.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It isn't describing religious thought, though; it's describing how religious knowledge is portrayed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
Religion isn't really about miracles. We have always been able to contact God "efficiently"; God, in contacting us, balances efficiency with free will.
What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion...
Science IS inherently more true than religion, for a given value of "true." Perhaps those people who disagree define "true" differently.
True.
(LOL)
I really mistated my position there, in my own definition, which is a pretty inexcusable lapse. Scientific truth is certainly more empirically provable than religious truth.
However, as I said, at some point, you have to start with base assumptions which are every bit as unprovable as religious truths... some assumptions which, in fact, are known to be false-- such as "human observation is a reliable data gathering source." Now we can take steps to minimize error and they are largely successful, but, again, things like "reason is valid" are unprovable... I dare say say "mystical"... assertions.
KoM tried to get around this by saying that science produced practical results and I responded that religion did as well.
quote:Except that "religion" is not responsible for those developments. As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science? What great art exists, inspired by the periodic table? When have people rallied to the banner of Quantum Mechanics as they have rallied to the banner of justice or freedom? I can only think of one world leader who has stood on the Frankensteinian platform of creating an engineered, empirically better world... and, by Godwin's smile, I am ashamed to be the first to invoke his name.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It isn't describing religious thought, though; it's describing how religious knowledge is portrayed.
I'm assuming you mean "conveyed" there... and I still stand by my assertion that it's an inaccurate, loathsome, stereotype that doesn't account for a significant portion-- I believe a mojority-- of the religious community.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, I do mean "portrayed."
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: What great art exists, inspired by the periodic table?
Not the periodic table, but as an example, there's tons of fractal art.
Added:
quote:When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science?
When was the last time someone waged a just war in the name of any religion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
In what way do you think our understanding of God has improved? I'm genuinely curious about this, especially since I thought you believed He was completely ineffable.
-------
quote:some assumptions which, in fact, are known to be false-- such as "human observation is a reliable data gathering source."
You know, I'd argue that this isn't actually axiomatic for the scientific method. Even though we normally take it as a given, there are whole branches of predictive science for which human observation is considered to be impossible. Far more axiomatic is "if something happens, it has a physical effect."
quote: When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science? What great art exists, inspired by the periodic table?
You're arguing that it's harder to inspire people with fact. No question about it. I'll refer you back to the "authoritative arbiter" thing as another example of the same phenomenon. But, again, I would be reluctant to use evidence of the effectiveness of belief as proof of religion.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
And let me be clear in case the point I was driving at with Tom isn't.
The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation... the very concept that men (individually and collectively) should be free... all are based in the religious concept that all men are equal before God (or, if you prefer, the Universe). That is absolutely an assumption and nothing else. It is not unique to Christianity, but it is certainly a stronger concept in Judeo-Christian cultures than in others. There is no scientific or empircial reason for valuing human life at all, much less one as much as the next. Many tyrants and societies haven't valued human life at all. Many more haven't valued human freedoms. Western society has... and that concept has, rightly or wrongly, driven the course of history throughout the world.
Can science match that?
And again, I have only glancingly brought "love" into the equation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation... the very concept that men (individually and collectively) should be free... all are based in the religious concept that all men are equal before God (or, if you prefer, the Universe).
That's fine, although they could just as easily and far more reliably be based on the philosophical concept that all men are entitled to equal freedoms, which is derived from a stronger set of hypotheticals.
Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that if we could disprove the existence of God, there'd be no reason not to have slavery.
In other words, I think appealing to a universal arbiter like that is at best a sort of lazy shorthand, and is at worst an attempt to claim universality for a statement which is in no way universal.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I do mean "portrayed."
Then I've lost you. Can you rephrase that, because I dont understand what you are saying?
quote:Not the periodic table, but as an example, there's tons of fractal art.
there's also "guitar hero". I'll take Michelangelo and Bach for now
Less flippantly, that's a pretty good response, but the fact that it is combined with the gulf it leaves shows, I think, what I am getting at. I'll let it sit.
quote:
quote:When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science?
When was the last time someone waged a just war in the name of any religion?
What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
You know that it's possible to come up with a materialist argument for ethical behavior, right? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, again, I would be reluctant to use evidence of the effectiveness of belief as proof of religion.
As would I. It is, however, proof that religion passes the test that KoM has set in trying to say that science is self-evidently true because of it's empirically useful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But religion didn't do those things, Jim. A belief in religion did those things. Unless you're going to give God the credit for the Sistine Chapel, and not Michelangelo.
What you're arguing is that religion is an effective motivational device. What KoM's arguing is that religion is a terrible epistemology. You're talking past each other.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom, you might consider some of the moral victories that religion helped bring into existance.
The extinction of slavery
The Renaissance. (progressive religion triumphing over oppressive religion)
Classical Music
To name a few, not only that how can you gauge efficiency? Are people more able to try myriad ways to contact God? I would say so, whereas in days passed you had to do so within the confines society laid out. Are you omnipresent? Can you observe all that can be observed? If you could I think you could begin to address the sheer numbers of miracles that occur, as well as decide on whether there are more or fewer taking place today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you might consider some of the moral victories that religion helped bring into existance
My argument is that religion has, at its most effective, actually supplemented philosophy in these situations. When we haven't been able to find a compelling enough philosophical justification for something, we've allowed religion to fill the gap. I find that rather lazy -- and dangerous, since it can (and has) cut both ways.
quote:If you could I think you could begin to address the sheer numbers of miracles that occur, as well as decide on whether there are more or fewer taking place today.
That wasn't my question. My question was, to put it another way, "what have theologians done for you lately?"
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that if we could disprove the existence of God, there'd be no reason not to have slavery.
No. What I'm saying is that the idea that men shouldn't be slaves is not empirically provable.
I understand you can make ethical arguments for freedom and morality without bringing in God. that's not what I'm getting at. It should be noted that I am here treating science as separate from philosophy. Philosphy is not empirical, though it is rational.
What I'm saying is that religion, not science, has historically been the strongest force in defence of freedom and justice... Science does *not* suggest that men should be free-- that is an assumption or a philosophical conclusion-- but it is not a scientific fact. I'd be surprised if science had, or even could, reach that conclusion.
That religion can and has been used to oppress freedom or remove justice is conceded.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
I seem to have missed a lot of debate, so I'm going to jump in again here, since this is the perfect setup for the question I was driving at with Lyrhawn. What does justice matter if empirical truth isn'y the only truth?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The extinction of slavery
Ridiculous.
quote:The Renaissance. (progressive religion triumphing over oppressive religion)
I think you are thinking of the Reformation, there; and it is not a good thing. Or perhaps you think Galileo enjoyed house arrest?
quote:Classical Music
Brought about by very secular princes, thank'ee.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to double post but Tom are you suggesting that the principles encompassed in folks respective religions have no influence on the product?
By that logic Michaelangelo would have been able to paint something as equally monumental as the Sistine Chapel had he believed in something else entirely, say he was a scientific purist.
I think Handel's Messiah is a good example of what emotions are invoked through the music medium. The words that inspired the music are right there with the music. Buddhist music is certainly influenced by the principle of meditation, I doubt they developed simply because people believed in something.
Just as different elements when they burn can yield a different colored flame, I think religion when it comes to art and music influences different kinds of notes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that's not what I'm getting at. It should be noted that I am here treating science as separate from philosophy. Philosphy is not empirical, though it is rational.
This, then, is the heart of the problem: it's definitional. As some of the people have been using the word "science" in this thread, it's not as closely synonymous with "empiricism" as it is with "rationality." Religion, in this usage, is fundamentally arational, if not outright irrational.
quote:Tom are you suggesting that the principles encompassed in folks respective religions have no influence on the product?
No. At the very least, the cultural influence on an artist will help determine his production.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But religion didn't do those things, Jim. A belief in religion did those things. Unless you're going to give God the credit for the Sistine Chapel, and not Michelangelo.
What you're arguing is that religion is an effective motivational device. What KoM's arguing is that religion is a terrible epistemology. You're talking past each other.
Well, science, or scientific principles, didn't develop technology either... engineers did that. Anthony Fokker developed the synchronized forward firing machine gun... not Newtonian Physics.
All I'm trying to say is that KoM says that the assumption that Reason is Reasonable is not an assumption because reason has a quantifiable impact on history. The same can be said of religion-- it has had a quantifiable impact on history.
What I'm aruging is that efficient impact on history isn't a valid method for determining if something is true or not. If that leaves me talking past him, I apologize. I am addressing several of you guys and I have, perhaps, gotten derailed despite my efforts to the contrary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
In what way do you think our understanding of God has improved? I'm genuinely curious about this, especially since I thought you believed He was completely ineffable.
Because we can't understand a thing completely doesn't mean we can't understand anything about it.
Honey, do you really want me to summarize thousands of years of theology for you? Can it wait till Monday?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Ridiculous.
So abolitionists were not motivated by the new lights of the Reformation? BTW thanks for in depth response.
quote: think you are thinking of the Reformation, there; and it is not a good thing. Or perhaps you think Galileo enjoyed house arrest?
No thats a separate event, also influenced by religion. Or did you think the Renaissance was in no way influenced by religious devotion. Galileo? He was arrested by the Catholic Church the very oppressive religion I mentioned earlier. No offense to modern day Catholics intended. It was Christian principles that eventually won out against non Christian principles. But I am sure you will have a field day with that last sentance. Real ChristiansTM?
quote: Brought about by very secular princes, thank'ee.
Oh please, this is almost intentionally inaccurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, science, or scientific principles, didn't develop technology either... engineers did that.
Except you're comparing scientific epistemology here to non-epistemological "religion." What would you say constitutes the religious "process?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So abolitionists were not motivated by the new lights of the Reformation?
No, they weren't, actually. The successful ones were influenced by humanist thinkers.
quote:Or did you think the Renaissance was in no way influenced by religious devotion.
Influenced, obviously; but you were making the much stronger claim of caused.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This, then, is the heart of the problem: it's definitional. As some of the people have been using the word "science" in this thread, it's not as closely synonymous with "empiricism" as it is with "rationality." Religion, in this usage, is fundamentally arational, if not outright irrational.
That's probably it then... we've already ascertained that you and I have a disocnnect here. As has been already mentioned, many religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't really have a "god" figure... they are "ways". I think Philosophy has much more in common with Buddhism than with Particle Physics... maybe more than with abstract mathematics, as well but those are getting pretty close together interms of the continuum I'm envisioning....
with "." representing a unit of whatever distance.
But that assumption that Science="Rationality" and Religion="arrationality" is precisely what I am objecting to in the original post.
I hope this doesn't mean we have to start swordfighting now Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think Philosophy has much more in common with Buddhism than with Particle Physics...
Most philosophers I know would agree that the useful bits of Buddhism are more of a philosophy than a religion. Heck, I suspect Buddha would agree with that.
A religion that's been rigorously derived from one or two axioms and doesn't rely on authoritative statements is, as far as I'm concerned, a philosophy with a fan club. In fact, in my experience, the ways in which such religions differ from philosophy are precisely the ways in which they're least interesting.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What would you say constitutes the religious "process?"
It certainly varies, but common elements seem to involve meditation, sacrifice, humility before aged wisdom, and a lot of navel contemplation Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: No, they weren't, actually. The successful ones were influenced by humanist thinkers.
Could you clarify what you mean by humanist? Do you have evidence that all the successful ones were non Christian humanists? I think the burden of evidence is against you but you are welcome to correct me.
quote: Influenced, obviously; but you were making the much stronger claim of caused.
By influenced I mean it would not have happened without religion.
Could you state what you think caused the renaissance to occur?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A religion that's been rigorously derived from one or two axioms and doesn't rely on authoritative statements is, as far as I'm concerned, a philosophy with a fan club. In fact, in my experience, the ways in which such religions differ from philosophy are precisely the ways in which they're least interesting.
Consider me a member of the Catholic Fan Club then. Maybe I'm not as rigorous as you would like me to be, but that's really how I view my religion... excepting that I obviously take a more generous view of authority than you. I believe greatly in questioning authority-- unlike a lot of people who encourage that (and this is *NOT* directed at anyone in this discussion), however, I question authorities to learn from their answer, not to challenge their authority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Consider me a member of the Catholic Fan Club then.
We must be using a different definition of "rigorously derived." But I understand what you mean, in broad strokes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I do mean "portrayed."
Then I've lost you. Can you rephrase that, because I dont understand what you are saying?
I'm not really sure how else to say it.
quote:“Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
The speaker isn't saying anything about what religious thought and knowledge are, and this particular quote is not about what the relative values of scientific and religious knowledge are; the speaker is saying that we are raised to respect religious teachings more than scientific learning.
I've omitted the part where he says that he thinks this is wrong and that he's sick of it, which is a judgment on the relative values of those two kinds of knowledge, insofar as they can be compared. I omitted that because I'm specifically interested in the question of whether we really are raised to accord more respect to religious teaching than scientific learning. I think we are.
quote:
quote:Not the periodic table, but as an example, there's tons of fractal art.
there's also "guitar hero". I'll take Michelangelo and Bach for now
Less flippantly, that's a pretty good response, but the fact that it is combined with the gulf it leaves shows, I think, what I am getting at. I'll let it sit.
Guitar Hero is awesome, but I don't understand your second paragraph at all.
quote:
quote:
quote:When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science?
When was the last time someone waged a just war in the name of any religion?
What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
My response to this is essentially the same as Tom's in his 2:41 PM post, though I'll further add that I've never asserted that empirical truth is the only truth. I do think, however, that there's a world of difference between a philosopher exploring the nature of justice and a preacher asserting that God has told him what justice is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: No, they weren't, actually. The successful ones were influenced by humanist thinkers.
Could you clarify what you mean by humanist? Do you have evidence that all the successful ones were non Christian humanists? I think the burden of evidence is against you but you are welcome to correct me.
It's like this: Religious objections to slavery have been around since forever. Only when secular thinkers began to think the same things did anything actually get done.
quote:
quote: Influenced, obviously; but you were making the much stronger claim of caused.
By influenced I mean it would not have happened without religion.
Could you state what you think caused the renaissance to occur? [/QB]
The Church, weakened by schism, lost its power to enforce the ban (more social than legal, it's true) on usury, leading to a more capitalistic economy, and therefore rich people with a need for prestige. At the same time the population dropped sharply due to the Black Death; that meant that there was no longer a need for large amounts of labour to be tied up cultivating marginal lands, so agriculture became more productive per capita, leading to a larger surplus overall. Finally, new technologies came along. The only role of religion is the negative one: The fourteenth century was so horrible, and the CHurch so obviously corrupt, that Christianity lost a considerable amount of its stifling hold on the imagination.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:I'm not really sure how else to say it.
the speaker is saying that we are raised to respect religious teachings more than scientific learning.
I think we are.
Ah! I got you now. I didn't read the initial quote that way, but I still disagree. I was absolutely taught to view empirically proven knowledge as surer knowledge. The best way I coud describe it is that Religion (and Philosophy) deal with what I would label "wisdom" (on the spur of the moment) whereas science deals with knowledge of the physical world. I was taught, by both my scientific and religious instructors, to respect them each in their domains... and Dan Raven evidently was, too.
Thomas Aquinas, certainly the most influential Christian theologian of the post-Roman world, taught that if a scientific fact and a religious, even scriptural, teaching were in conflict, the religious interpretation must be incorrect. He could hardly say fairer than that and the Catholic Church, though it sometimes forgot it had, endorsed his view.
quote:Guitar Hero is awesome, but I don't understand your second paragraph at all.
I was saying that fractal art doesn't reach the level of "greatness" ascribed to other art and that I would let your point stand because of it. I am, by no means, an expert, or even a hack, at visual art critique... but I haven't heard anyone mention fractal artists with Pollock or Church, much less Da Vinci or Monet.
quote: I do think, however, that there's a world of difference between a philosopher exploring the nature of justice and a preacher asserting that God has told him what justice is.
I totally agree.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
And I gotta go workout and then go home... I'll be on later tonight, if anyone wants more of me Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: It's like this: Religious objections to slavery have been around since forever. Only when secular thinkers began to think the same things did anything actually get done.
Completely disagree. Slavery was often justified with the misapplication of principles espoused by Christianity,
"Take care of those who are not as fortunate," which is a Christian concept (not saying exclusive, but certainly encouraged)
coupled with
"There are lesser races, and they don't know how to take care of themselves, and are in fact less happy then they could be as slaves." Nowhere is this found in Christianity. In fact its closer to the crazy concept of Eugenics which had lots of supposed scientific backing.
quote: The Church, weakened by schism, lost its power to enforce the ban (more social than legal, it's true) on usury, leading to a more capitalistic economy, and therefore rich people with a need for prestige. At the same time the population dropped sharply due to the Black Death; that meant that there was no longer a need for large amounts of labour to be tied up cultivating marginal lands, so agriculture became more productive per capita, leading to a larger surplus overall. Finally, new technologies came along.
This is an interesting description of its origins. I can't offer any counter arguments at this time, you will have to permit me to study up on some of your particulars before responding to this specific point.
However I do have to disagree that Christianity had nothing but a stifling effect on the creativity and thought of the renaissance. Or were you saying the possibilities of the renaissance would have found greater elbow room outside the paradigms of Christian thought?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
For one thing, people might have been able to publish their theories without fear of getting burnt at the stake, so yes.
quote:Completely disagree. Slavery was often justified with the misapplication of principles espoused by Christianity,
Indeed, and this was still true in 1860. But you are apparently missing all the religious people in earlier eras who also disapproved of slavery. The point is that we had 2000 years of Christians arguing both pro and con; then 60 years after the Enlightenment, boom, no more slavery.
On the subject of Crusades, the religion only leads to the choice of goal; it does nothing to actually accomplish that goal. To illustrate, consider that both sides of the Crusades were equally religious; therefore, whichever side you consider to have won, it cannot have been their religion that helped them do so. Oddly enough, in fact, the side with better military technology, leadership, and organisation tended to win; none of these things emanated from religion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Indeed, and this was still true in 1860. But you are apparently missing all the religious people in earlier eras who also disapproved of slavery. The point is that we had 2000 years of Christians arguing both pro and con; then 60 years after the Enlightenment, boom, no more slavery.
But the enlightenment was in fact a look back into what Christianity really said. Widespread reading of the bible clearly showed that the priests were wrong in many of their long held traditions.
quote: On the subject of Crusades, the religion only leads to the choice of goal; it does nothing to actually accomplish that goal. To illustrate, consider that both sides of the Crusades were equally religious; therefore, whichever side you consider to have won, it cannot have been their religion that helped them do so. Oddly enough, in fact, the side with better military technology, leadership, and organisation tended to win; none of these things emanated from religion.
The crusades are a ridiculous example as religion could not really be used to back either conflict. You cannot effectively demonstrate through scripture, why the Christian God would feel it important that Jerusalem be taken back. Now you might argue, "Well the Pope said God wanted it." (I have no idea if this is so) The lack of success suggests that that was not so, (though not necessarily).
You can perhaps use Old Testament passages to back up a crusade but then we are not being Christian are we?
The side with better military technology, leadership, and organization tended to win? And can you trace where all the thinkers who championed all those ideas that ultimately lead to the victory got those ideas from? Even if we disregard that, again I don't think the crusades were a war of right vs wrong anyway, so why should God through religion effect the result at all?
The only war I can assert that I think its LIKELY God would get involved is if one side who is virtuous is in an unprovoked manner attacked by an entity bent on destroying them. When was the last war we had where that was true?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You have some misconceptions about the Crusades.
Several of them were successful in various senses. Heck, the first Crusade created a Kingdom of Jerusalem (a Christian one) that held Jerusalem itself for nearly 100 years and existed in the area for nearly 200 years. Most Europeans who were around when the First Crusade happened died thinking it was a splendid success (assuming they thought it a good idea in the first place).
The Popes instigated several of the Crusades, and sanctioned almost all of them. It isn't a matter of him saying "God wanted it", its a matter of him saying to specific people "God wants you to do this". This was no vague support, this was a full on drive by the largest organizing force in Christianity in the world (especially before the Orthodox schism became complete). The man many Christians (particularly in Europe) believed had the ear of God was telling everyone God wanted this, and that it was wholly supported by scripture.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
From the last couple pages of posts, I've derived the fact that we all pretty much agree that doing good things for other people, creating art, and thinking about new stuff is Good.
Killing people, stifling creativity and the advancement of human knowledge, and working for the detriment of society on the whole is Bad.
Organized religion has, at times, been both Good and Bad. I think if it were Good all the time, and kept out of the Bad actions, those of us who currently have problems with organized religion wouldn't care so much.
Believing in Santa Clause might cause people to waste a little time and money, but that's most of the negative effects. If Santa Clause told Christian children to fight against the heathens, work against human rights, and hold back scientific advancement, it wouldn't be a cool thing to teach kids about.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Mankind seems to have a need to latch on to any great idea and take it way too far - so far that it transforms the original great idea into something horrible, and makes them look like fools in the end. It is clear they've done it with Christianity, countless times. Some have done it with Islam. Now some are doing it with science too.
What I don't understand is what science fundamentalists think will happen if science is transformed into some counter-philosophy to battle other religions. Doesn't it seem rather likely that, in such a free-for-all, the other religions are going to win? I'd suspect that the transformation of science into a religion is pretty much the only way, at this point, to get the world to reject science.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Several of them were successful in various senses. Heck, the first Crusade created a Kingdom of Jerusalem (a Christian one) that held Jerusalem itself for nearly 100 years and existed in the area for nearly 200 years. Most Europeans who were around when the First Crusade happened died thinking it was a splendid success (assuming they thought it a good idea in the first place).
Right... which proves that Islam is not a good religion for getting things done. You are kind of missing my point, there; the riff on the Crusades was in response to Jim-Me's assertion that religion was a good tool for power.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering the contemporary state of Islam elsewhere, I think it proves no such thing . I'm not even responding to you, though, or much in the flow of this thread, but to a misunderstanding of the Crusades in BB's post.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not sure what misconceptions you think I have about the crusades. The only one I was not certain on was whether or not the pope actually instigated the crusades.
quote: The man many Christians (particularly in Europe) believed had the ear of God was telling everyone God wanted this, and that it was wholly supported by scripture.
See I think its you who have the misconceptions, or rather you are ignoring something you are probably aware of. Christians at this time had neither the teaching that they should think for themselves, nor the means to do so. The scriptures were not available to anyone but monks and up. Therefore if the Pope said something a combination of fear and ignorance prevented anyone from being able to effectively protest.
Therefore its no surprise a monk really got the protestant movement going as only church officials had access to the Bible and were privy to its words.
Had the Bible always been available to people its doubtful the Catholic Church could have exerted the control and pursued the goals it did at this time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What I don't understand is what science fundamentalists think will happen if science is transformed into some counter-philosophy to battle other religions...
I'm curious, Tres: what do you think constitutes "science fundamentalism?" An over-insistence on reality?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The scriptures were not available to anyone but monks and up.
this is true because of woeful literacy rates, not because of some Catholic conspiracy. The scriptures *were* readily availible to anyone who could read... it's just that the majority of literate people in western society were clergy and nobility.
KoM, if religion is so ineffectual, why on earth do you care about it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Let me be more explicit. In several cases Crusades accomplished their stated goals. That this is only for a time is not particularly relevant. Saying the Crusades had a 'lack of success' is perhaps true overall, but hardly true when we point at specific Crusades, especially the first.
Your mistakenness on the availability of scripture has already been pointed out. Furthermore, you have yet to show intent to deceive on the part of any of those you seem to be suggesting were misleading the populace.
As for the Catholic church's control, it is obviously unclear what effect wider literacy would have had, but given we have extremely good ideas of where its power stemmed from (ties to imperial legitimacy, significant quantities of land and people working for it, effective communications, et cetera), and most of those relied not at all on illiteracy in the populace, your assertion seems more grounded in your personal beliefs about what would happen than any scholarship.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I care about what's true. I care about religion for the same reason I would care if myriads of people were going around asserting the existence of Santa Claus: It's just not true, dammit, and you are cluttering up mind-space that you could be using for something valuable. And finally, do the digits 911 mean anything to you?
(And before you go off on how that makes religion effective, it doesn't. The jihadists can be as suicidal as they like, they aren't getting anywhere without someone else very kindly inventing jet aircraft.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
fugu: How about this,
"We must root out the press or the press will root us out."
I believe a cardinal said that soon after the creation of the printing press. But don't believe me until I can locate a name, I have the book were its listed but not at my apt and I am having difficulty finding it on the internet as it is an obscure one.
----
I had nothing to do with literacy, the bible was not permitted to be translated into any other language other then Latin, on pain of death. Good luck finding that tenant within the Bible itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Why are we? Science does not answer that question. Science in its purest form offers no reason why we exist. It states how we came to be in our present form, but does not say anything about the why of it, because that is something beyond the realm of research and provability.
There are two answers: First, science does say why, namely, "Because our universe has physical laws (see Appendix A) favourable to the formation of planets and abiogenesis, and also Ug was slightly luckier than his brother Glug and didn't get eaten by the lion, otherwise it would have been Neandertals asking the same question." Second, you're quite right, there is no why. Deal.
And third, religion doesn't answer the question either. "Why are we? God created us. Why is God?" You've just put the question at one further remove; a clever sleight-of-hand, possibly, but no answer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To whoever asked on the previous page for a just war started by religion, I'd put forth the Crusades. Maybe not always just in their prosecution, but certainly just in their intent.
quote:There are two answers: First, science does say why, namely, "Because our universe has physical laws (see Appendix A) favourable to the formation of planets and abiogenesis, and also Ug was slightly luckier than his brother Glug and didn't get eaten by the lion, otherwise it would have been Neandertals asking the same question." Second, you're quite right, there is no why. Deal.
And third, religion doesn't answer the question either. "Why are we? God created us. Why is God?" You've just put the question at one further remove; a clever sleight-of-hand, possibly, but no answer.
Goes back to what I was saying earlier. First of all, your first answer there is evolution, which is basically survive and multiply, which is exactly what I said earlier that science gives us for an answer when you tried to shut me down. I'd be curious as to your explanation of the differences.
Second, why isn't there a why? Why do I have to deal with that? You, and I think it was twinky earlier, aren't giving me an answer at all. Saying "Deal with it" and "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it," aren't answers, they are cop-outs. Because science works on a basis that really can't accept the existence of a God (because there's no data points on God, science has to exist in a vaccuum), it therefore automatically discounts any further value to life. Just because you say all high and mighty that there isn't anything higher in purpose in life doesn't mean I have to deal, it just means you could really, really suck in your scientific search for it, and I have to take over for your failure and look elsewhere. It's really quite arrogant and condescending, to sit on high and deal out judgements on the purpose of humanity just because YOU with your little beakers and test tubes can't find it. I'm not saying it's in religious text or a burning bush, but declaring for everyone that their life has no purpose, so suck it up, just because you can't hold one up from a lab result is narrow, damned narrow minded. I am perfectly willing to deal with the fact that YOUR life has absolutely no purpose other than evolutionary factors, but don't presume to judge for everyone else. It might just be that I, and the rest of the world, will never find a higher purpose in life, but hey, at least we can say we tried. You gave up and went home.
Third, you skipped a giant, GIANT step there. "Why are we? God created us. Why did God create us?" You have to either be as dense as Mercury, or incredibly dishonest to misrepresent religion's role in a search for a reason for life. The question is why we are here, it's not usually as big (well, not for me anyway) to figure out how God came to be. God IS. DEAL.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm curious, Tres: what do you think constitutes "science fundamentalism?" An over-insistence on reality?
I think fundamentalists "over-insist" upon a reality defined by certain principles they have taken as their end-all and be-all fundamental beliefs. They believe that these fundamental beliefs are rigid, universal, and necessary in all areas of life. Those who take an alternative way of viewing the world are seen as a threat.
Science fundamentalists, in the way I was referring to them, would be those who do this in regards to fundamental beliefs that they consider to be the foundations of science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To whoever asked on the previous page for a just war started by religion, I'd put forth the Crusades. Maybe not always just in their prosecution, but certainly just in their intent.
The current American action in Iraq could easily be described as "just in its intent." A democratic Middle East is a worthy goal.
Worthy intent is insufficient.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Just because you say all high and mighty that there isn't anything higher in purpose in life doesn't mean I have to deal...
That wasn't actually my question, though it's King of Men's. My question is: why does there have to be a "higher purpose" that comes from an external source? You have repeatedly suggested that you take this as axiomatic -- that the "maybe there is no purpose" answer is unsatisfactory to you, for reasons you have yet to put forward.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: God IS. DEAL.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Science fundamentalists, in the way I was referring to them, would be those who do this in regards to fundamental beliefs that they consider to be the foundations of science.
My fundamental belief is that things which happen have physical effects. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion, but Dan, KoM, and Lyrhawn touched one something I've been thinking about a bit lately.
I don't think it's proper to ask "why?" in a scientific context, unless there is an observable agent involved. It seems to me that "why" implies an actor with some intent. We ask "why" specifically to determine that intent. "Why are we here" is not a question science can answer (short of a deity physically arriving on Earth and holding a press conference).
On the other hand, "How did we get here" is a question science is capable of answering, because it deals with a sequence of physical events. I'd argue that when someone asks "why" in a scientific context, they usually mean "how".
I say usually because it'd be fair to ask, in a scientific way, "Greg, why did you shoot him?" But as I mentioned earlier, the agent in question is present and observable. There are situations, however, where it is not clear to me whether "why" is a proper question or not, such as when dealing with a group of people. Linguistically it makes sense to ask, "Why did the mob tip the car over," but does a group like this necessarily have collective intent? I don't know, but I do think that question itself is scientifically answerable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering the printing press was invented well after the ninth crusade, even were that quotation true you would be hard-pressed to use it to show anything about deception or lack thereof among the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior.
If you intend that to be a demonstration of the Church's inability to be as influential as they were without lack of widely available texts, several things to notice: the church's power had waned somewhat in this time even without the printing press being in existence. Even after the printing press was created the church retained extraordinary power in most of Europe. Despite availability of the printing press and localized translations of the Bible (more covertly in some places) available everywhere, the places that split off were places that politically benefitted from the separation.
I'm not defending the church's positions as correct positions, but I see no reason to doubt most in the church hierarchy were devout in their actions, whether or not those actions also furthered temporal ends, and there is even less reason to doubt that the church held significant power in Europe for hundreds of years due to its organizational capabilities and the power structures that found those capabilities essential far more than any lack of dissemination of scripture. As states in Europe relied less on those organizational capabilities, the church's power waned.
I could find no reference to even permutations of the significant fragments of your quotation online, btw.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I had nothing to do with literacy, the bible was not permitted to be translated into any other language other then Latin, on pain of death. Good luck finding that tenant within the Bible itself.
My point was that this is both patently false and irrelevant-- virtually eveyrone who was literate at the time was literate in Latin anyhow. As Fugu points out there *were* common language translations of the bible availible in many languages... many sanctioned by the Church herself. Hell, the Latin translation itself was an attempt to bring the bible to the people... note the title "The Vulgate", as in "vulgar". It was not considered mysterious, but universal. Wycliffe's translation was condemned, rightly or wrongly, for being heretical and incisive of disorder -- it was literally causing riots-- not for being a vernacular translation as many are led to believe.
It's true that the common people didn't have much access to the bible, but this was much more due to their relative lack of education than any supposed concerted effort to remove them from scripture by the Catholic Church.
What *was* forbidden in 1408, in response to the Wycliffe Bible, was translating the bible without the Church's sanction. Note that taking the act of forbidding it impliies directly that before that time it was allowable.
Perhaps in my previous attempt at brevity I was too vague, as I was trying to make a fairly narrow point.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My fundamental belief is that things which happen have physical effects. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
What demonstration could I give you that isn't itself a physical effect?
Besides, having fundamental beliefs doesn't make one a fundamentalist. Rather, I think it is the way that you approach those beliefs, and the way you approach alternative views that conflict with those beliefs. For instance, you aren't a Christian fundamentalist just because you have a fundamental belief in the Christian God.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: The current American action in Iraq could easily be described as "just in its intent." A democratic Middle East is a worthy goal.
Worthy intent is insufficient.
Oh, now you're adding stipulations. Well alright then, I'd challenge you to show me a war PERIOD, regardless of what started it, secular or religious sources, that was just 100% of the time.
Yes, there were some atrocities during the Crusades, nothing outside the norm of the times, but still, not good. But the Crusades were a response to a couple centuries of Muslim aggression. They'd burned their way across North Africa, turning a thousand and change churches into either rubble or Mosques, and had crossed into Spain. The Crusades were a retaliation, not wars of aggression. Specificaly, the reconquista was a war for survival.
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: That wasn't actually my question, though it's King of Men's. My question is: why does there have to be a "higher purpose" that comes from an external source? You have repeatedly suggested that you take this as axiomatic -- that the "maybe there is no purpose" answer is unsatisfactory to you, for reasons you have yet to put forward.
Whether there is or isn't a higher purpose to life doesn't really matter. The point is, science doesn't have the answer (one way or the other) if there is one. So saying "there's no higher purpose. Deal." As KoM said and you defended, isn't honest. Maybe someone can state this better than me. The point is, that many millions, billions even, of people are struck by a natural search for a higher purpose in life, it's a question of human nature, and it's something science can't measure.
How do you scientifically explain man's need to explore? Columbus didn't need to find North America, we don't need to go into space, we don't need to dive to the depths of the ocean, but we feel compelled by something unexplainable to do these things.
The search for a higher meaning is something science can't explain, let alone answer. Therefore the answers they may try to give just aren't good enough. And by the way, neither you nor KoM have said "MAYBE there is no answer." I've even said that there might not be one, but that doesn't stop us from searching. KoM's "Deal" position is that I have to accept what he gave me for an answer, and I reject that. If I come up short in the end, I come up short, but that doesn't mean I have to stop looking by any means.
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: Pot, meet Kettle.
That was tongue in cheek, but you got the point didn't you? If I said God exists, and you have to deal, are you just going to shut up and do it? Doubtful, since that tactic hasn't really worked very well in the last 2,000 years. So when KoM, and maybe you, tell me that I can't find anything more, and that I have to deal with it, I don't have to accept that. It just means that you two have accepted something less, and that's your choice, just don't push your beliefs on me. You're bordering on science as a religion when you do that, I believe.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, why isn't there a why? Why do I have to deal with that? You, and I think it was twinky earlier, aren't giving me an answer at all. Saying "Deal with it" and "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it," aren't answers, they are cop-outs.
They are indeed answers. They're just answers you don't like.
2-2=0. Hold on, you don't want it to be zero, because you feel that's a cop out answer. You think 2-2 should be more meaningful.
How about: 2-2=BLORK BLORK is a mysterious force which doesn't obey math's rules, yet gives you an answer which you enjoy.
Now you've got an answer that satisfies your objections, but what good does that answer do you?
Many people, including me, don't see how the answer follows, because by what we understand as the rules of math, 2-2=0 [Dear math nerds, please play along]. In order for your answer to be meaningful, you have to convince a whole group of people that BLORK applies in this case. 3-3 DOES equal 0, because you don't really give a rip about 3. We should just trust you on BLORK.
That's a poor analogy, but hopefully it gives a little perspective of how an your objection sounds to an atheist.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not adding stipulations, you simply interpreted what it means to be a "just war" more narrowly than I meant it. At a minimum, justice should be evident in both the intent and the outcome, if not the actual prosecution due to the nature of the beast.
quote:And by the way, neither you nor KoM have said "MAYBE there is no answer."
All I've said is the fact that you dislike the idea of there being no answer doesn't mean there is one. I haven't said that there isn't one, nor that we shouldn't look for it.
Also, I say the thing you're claiming I haven't said in the part of my post you just quoted. There's no point in me addressing the rest of your post, since it's directed at a position I haven't taken.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MC -
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
If you want to stick with your terminology then fine, they ARE answers, but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT answers. If you want to use a math problem then fine. X-Y=Z. What's X? What's Y? What's Z? If you're serious, that science really has some sort of formula for the meaning of life, then let's see it. Or, if the meaning really is what I said it was before (When KoM mistakenly tried to correct me), then again, I'll say that science doesn't have the tools to answer my question, anymore than it can answer the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
They're answers I have zero proof of their truth. Accept them if you want, maybe they are good enough for you. And I'm not even saying they aren't for me, just trying to make a point.
twinky -
Alright then, with that definition, there has NEVER been a just war. Atrocities always happen in war, even if they are a one time thing, there's no clean war. So singling out religious wars seems a little silly.
For the what, third time? I never said there definetely is one. I just said that you can't rule one out, and you can't find me one, with scientific means. So whatever mumbo jumbo I want to use to try and find one is my perogative. Accepting that science can't find me one and then saying there obviously CAN'T be one I think turns science into religion. I believe there could be one, but science isn't involved in finding it, and if I come up short in the end, so be it.
Much of it is direct at KoM, who I directed most of my original post at.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nobody is objecting to people searching for a meaning to their lives. But religion goes from "I want a meaning" to "There exists a god", and usually from "There exists a god" to "You must worship as I do or else". Bing! That does not follow!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright then, with that definition, there has NEVER been a just war. Atrocities always happen in war, even if they are a one time thing, there's no clean war. So singling out religious wars seems a little silly.
That's exactly how I felt about the statement to which I was responding, when I made the original comment.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...if I come up short in the end, so be it.
Here's what I'm getting at: why is not finding a "higher" meaning or purpose to life "coming up short?" Why is that a failure of some kind?
The only reason you've given for this is that you don't like the idea of there not being a "higher" purpose; I'm asking you why you don't like that idea.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: MC -
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
That's not a problem with the equation, that's my point. The meaning of life is not just outside the realm of science, it's outside the realm of human knowledge. There IS no meaning of life, in the sense that it isn't a fact, it isn't a descernible thing.
I'm happy if you want to think about stuff and come to some conclusions. I think that there is meaning that each person can attribute to things, but that meaning is not a thing, it's not a FACT, it's their own way of lookin at the world.
I just wish more religious people realized that their way of looking at things might be great for them, but it isn't REAL in the same way that 2-2=0 is real for everybody.
To some people, religious beliefs make their life better, but when they decide that those beliefs are universal truth, which should apply to everyone, I get upset. Any number of beliefs and feelings and rules and motivations may well make an individual's life more meaningful, but they don't necessarily make my life, or the lives of a lot of other people more meaningful, so they shouldn't be imposed upon us by force.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:anymore than it can answer the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
But it does answer that question, to wit, "Because goodness is a human-invented quality which does not influence random chance".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where're all the religious people who're supposed to be backing me up? I don't even go to church anymore!
Okay one at a time:
KoM -
Bull. You said flat out on the previous page that there IS no meaning to life, other than the evolutionary process. And your little line of thinking is a gross generalization of faith.
What about those who are merely spiritual, and don't follow an organized religion, but still believe in God? What's your attack for that?
quote:Originally Posted by KoM- But it does answer that question, to wit, "Because goodness is a human-invented quality which does not influence random chance".
lol, that doesn't answer the question, that explains why you don't think the question should be answered at all. You keep avoiding the subject by trying to devalue the question away to nothingness.
twinky -
quote:That's exactly how I felt about the statement to which I was responding, when I made the original comment.
Sorry, when you said specifically religious wars, it threw my perception of the question. I guess I'm a little more generous in my naming what is and isn't a just war. I'd call the American prosecution of WWII a just war, but not the German side. The war as a whole may or may not have been just. Individual crusades were just I believe, and I think as a whole whether they were just and true, they were justified, regardless.
quote:Here's what I'm getting at: why is not finding a "higher" meaning or purpose to life "coming up short?" Why is that a failure of some kind?
The only reason you've given for this is that you don't like the idea of there not being a "higher" purpose; I'm asking you why you don't like that idea.
Depends on who you are. I personally believe there is something more to my life than just breeding and surviving the elements. If I fail to find something higher, than it means I was wrong, and usually human beings equate being wrong to failure, and thus "coming up short." Perhaps we're getting more tripped up on diction than we need to be.
There might just NOT be a higher purpose to life. And I don't necessarily like or not like it, I haven't said either way. All I've said is that YOU, and KoM, can't tell me one way or the other, because neither of you know for sure, and neither do I, so KoM telling me to "Deal" with his supposed 'truths' is bull. Truth, in this case, may or may not be universal, which doesn't match scientific truths which ARE universal between people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: MC -
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
That's not a problem with the equation, that's my point. The meaning of life is not just outside the realm of science, it's outside the realm of human knowledge. There IS no meaning of life, in the sense that it isn't a fact, it isn't a descernible thing.
I'm happy if you want to think about stuff and come to some conclusions. I think that there is meaning that each person can attribute to things, but that meaning is not a thing, it's not a FACT, it's their own way of lookin at the world.
I just wish more religious people realized that their way of looking at things might be great for them, but it isn't REAL in the same way that 2-2=0 is real for everybody.
To some people, religious beliefs make their life better, but when they decide that those beliefs are universal truth, which should apply to everyone, I get upset. Any number of beliefs and feelings and rules and motivations may well make an individual's life more meaningful, but they don't necessarily make my life, or the lives of a lot of other people more meaningful, so they shouldn't be imposed upon us by force.
I don't believe it's outside the realm of human knowledge. You're doing the same thing you're against. Do you see the similarity between Group A saying "The value of Y is X" and Group B saying that "There is no value to Y."
To some people, the meaning of life IS a fact to them, in the exact way that science has no REAL facts, just theories that are proven so much to the point where we accept them as fact. Personally I don't even agree with that usually, but who am I to tell someone that their personal meaning to life is total crap, or that their life has no meaning. Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Saying "Science has decided that life has no meaning" is just as forceful as someone throwing the Bible at you, you're just throwing a text book at them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] Where're all the religious people who're supposed to be backing me up? I don't even go to church anymore!
Lately I don't either. Most of us are tired of talking to king of men, but I felt like it wss worth opposing him on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because I, frankly, didn't have much else to do. Yesterday and today have been much different, and I feel like I've mnade my point well enough that I am ok withdrawing from the argument at this point anyhow.
but thanks for sticking up for us Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Let me reiterate this: just because some external authority has not declared that your life has meaning does not mean that your life lacks meaning. People make their own meanings, and it would be incredibly arrogant to suggest to someone that the meaning they've made for themselves is worthless.
Which is exactly what people do to atheists all the time, I need to point out. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Let me reiterate this: just because some external authority has not declared that your life has meaning does not mean that your life lacks meaning. People make their own meanings, and it would be incredibly arrogant to suggest to someone that the meaning they've made for themselves is worthless.
Which is exactly what people do to atheists all the time, I need to point out.
Clearly you don't need any convincing. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're joking, but no, I don't. I've conclusively proved to my satisfaction that my life has meaning to myself.
Anything else is just frosting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Bull. You said flat out on the previous page that there IS no meaning to life, other than the evolutionary process. And your little line of thinking is a gross generalization of faith.
Bit of a confusion of levels, there. There is no meaning imposed from outside, and no reason to believe there is one. But individual human lives have whatever meaning their owners assign to them. And I do not see where I said anything about evolution having meaning; it doesn't, it's just stuff that happened.
quote:What about those who are merely spiritual, and don't follow an organized religion, but still believe in God? What's your attack for that?
Well, why the devil are they believing in something with no evidence in its favour?
quote:That doesn't answer the question, that explains why you don't think the question should be answered at all. You keep avoiding the subject by trying to devalue the question away to nothingness.
Well, what of it? It's up to you to show that there's some reason for bad things to happen to good people. Just because you asked the question doesn't mean it's a good one, or even one that can be meaningfully answered. It's only a difficult question in a universe that has a benevolent god in it - there's a huge set of assumptions wrapped up in the mere question, and I don't share those assumptions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I've conclusively proved to my satisfaction that my life has meaning to myself.
How did you prove this? Can you demonstrate this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Well, what of it? It's up to you to show that there's some reason for bad things to happen to good people. Just because you asked the question doesn't mean it's a good one, or even one that can be meaningfully answered. It's only a difficult question in a universe that has a benevolent god in it - there's a huge set of assumptions wrapped up in the mere question, and I don't share those assumptions.
Nah I don't have to prove anything at all, not to you anyway. Haven't you been listening?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, why are we even having this discussion? If you won't argue your side, go away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How did you prove this? Can you demonstrate this?
Sure. Given that "meaning" is a concept relevant only to my "internal context," which I define as my own thoughts (as generated by the interaction of my "perceptive context" (my sensations) with the "external context" (physical reality)), and given that it is impossible to share or precisely duplicate internal contexts with other people under our current technology, it becomes obvious that "meaning" is something which I must choose to define for myself.
So the question "does my life have meaning" is one that I have to answer for myself, barring any evidence that "meaning" can be determined by an outside force or possesses intrinsic external value.
Given that, the simplest answer is this: if I am the only person who can decide whether my life has "meaning," then that is at least one purpose of my life: I am, to quote George Bush, "the decider." No one else can determine meaning for me; whether my life has meaning is therefore a decision I alone can make; ergo, I perform an exclusive function for myself, and thus have value to myself.
This is a bare minimum, but I think it suffices.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, why are we even having this discussion? If you won't argue your side, go away.
You can't prove your side either.
Shall we walk out together? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's kind of the point. In the absence of evidence, atheism (for this debate, non-meaningfulness) is the rational position. To say "X exists, but I don't have to prove it, and you can't prove it doesn't", is not serious debate. If you can't support your position any better than that, is it not time you re-examined your belief in it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems pretty strange to me to attempt to divorce belief from religious belief, as in suggesting that it's not religion that's relevant to improvements in humanity, it's belief or something along those lines.
To the people that believe in the religions, the distinction is trivial at best. Seems pretty presumptuous to suggest, as is common from both theist and atheist sides of this sort of discussion, that the believer doesn't really know what they think.
-------------
Reading this thread, I asked myself the question: would I rather live in a world today which lacked the advancements in the past six-thousand years in religion, or lacking the advancements in the past six-thousand years in science?
I'm aware of how futile and hypothetical such a question really is. So often-almost exclusively, in fact, over that long a period-have religion and scientist been embodied in the same mind, that removing one would produce a profound change in some of the most important people in history. While recognizing that, I would rather live in a world that has the current blend of religious sensibilities overall, and lacks the current blend of scientific knowledge overall, than the other way around.
---------
quote:In the absence of evidence, atheism (for this debate, non-meaningfulness) is the rational position.
Wouldn't agnosticism be an even more rational belief?
---------------
I believe most people define 'purpose', as it relates to this discussion anyway, as something further than what they decide for themselves. They may make the decision to believe in a Purpose themselves, but that Purpose isn't theirs in the sense that they didn't originate it. Just as assigning all such purpose to an otherwordly/supernatural/divine Creator seems rather herdlike, assigning all such purpose to one's self and suggesting that's all that matters seems rather prideful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Wouldn't agnosticism be an even more rational belief?
In a word, no. We cannot, given our current telescopes, decide whether there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto. Should we be agnostic on the subject? If there is zero evidence in favour of a proposition, then it is not rational to say "We'll leave it open".
quote:Just as assigning all such purpose to an otherwordly/supernatural/divine Creator seems rather herdlike, assigning all such purpose to one's self and suggesting that's all that matters seems rather prideful.
This is a really pathetic 'argument', if that's what you meant it to be. "Your position is prideful! You must be wrong!" If you think there is some external purpose, fine, produce evidence of it. Until you do, it's not 'prideful' to disbelieve in it, it's just common sense. You would not make any such argument concerning the existence of leprechauns ("To deny the existence of leprechauns seems rather prideful..."); why do you think it's a good one concerning purpose?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, that's kind of the point. In the absence of evidence, atheism (for this debate, non-meaningfulness) is the rational position. To say "X exists, but I don't have to prove it, and you can't prove it doesn't", is not serious debate. If you can't support your position any better than that, is it not time you re-examined your belief in it?
There's what, three thousand years of collective evidence? It just isn't scientific evidence.
You'll never be satisfied until God parts the clouds and pokes you on the shoulder, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In a word, no. We cannot, given our current telescopes, decide whether there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto. Should we be agnostic on the subject? If there is zero evidence in favour of a proposition, then it is not rational to say "We'll leave it open".
In fact, I think it's very rational to 'leave it open'. I trust that sort of rationality more than yours, which apparently is simply faith in a sufficiently high probability.
---------
As to the rest, I was talking to Tom and others, not you. I should have been more clear on that, so it's my mistake. Seeing as how your stated purposes for these sorts of discussions have frequently been lies, I try to avoid talking to you.
But to tie up this particular loose end, Tom was suggesting that such a purpose was enough for him, and that's all that matters. I was pointing out that it seemed to place a seemingly prideful amount of certainty in one's self.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Seeing as how your stated purposes for these sorts of discussions have frequently been lies, I try to avoid talking to you.
Liar.
quote:There's what, three thousand years of collective evidence? It just isn't scientific evidence.
None of that 'evidence' would stand up to two minutes' scrutiny if you weren't already determined to accept it. That's precisely why I call for scientific evidence: The theists have repeatedly and uniformly shown that they will lie, cheat, and distort to make you give them money - er, I mean, accept their worldview.
quote:But to tie up this particular loose end, Tom was suggesting that such a purpose was enough for him, and that's all that matters. I was pointing out that it seemed to place a seemingly prideful amount of certainty in one's self.
Conversely, insisting that a god not only exists but loves you in particular, so much that it is willing to put up with all your foibles for all of eternity, that's humble? Or, for that matter, insisting that your life must have some Grand Eternal Meaning (tm), and cannot possibly be a mere accident? The accusation of pride cuts both ways, or it would if it were any good as an argument. Being just an ad hom in disguise, it doesn't cut at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I'll talk about this with Tom or someone else. I won't because your stated intentions for arguing these sorts of things so frequently doesn't match your methods, egregiously enough that I think you're lying. Thus, I try not to talk about it with you. Don't always succeed, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:None of that 'evidence' would stand up to two minutes' scrutiny if you weren't already determined to accept it. That's precisely why I call for scientific evidence: The theists have repeatedly and uniformly shown that they will lie, cheat, and distort to make you give them money - er, I mean, accept their worldview.
Why so hostile? Bitter?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why so evasive? Afraid?
Methinks the lady doth think too little.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:While recognizing that, I would rather live in a world that has the current blend of religious sensibilities overall, and lacks the current blend of scientific knowledge overall, than the other way around.
Really? This baffles me -- even leaving aside the thought that you'd rather die of polio than be free of Sharia law.
Are you perhaps confusing "religious sensibilities" with "ethical sensibilities?" Because the two are not synonymous.
quote: I believe most people define 'purpose', as it relates to this discussion anyway, as something further than what they decide for themselves.
This is emotional weakness and intellectual laziness, as far as I'm concerned. Why would someone need to invent something to reinforce his own conclusions about his "purpose?" At the end of the day, he's just drawing from his own perceptions, experiences, and reasons anyway; why try to elevate them to a universal standard, if not to sidestep the demanding process of comprehension?
quote:Just as assigning all such purpose to an otherwordly/supernatural/divine Creator seems rather herdlike, assigning all such purpose to one's self and suggesting that's all that matters seems rather prideful.
I submit that the opposite is true. After all, my purpose is my own; your purpose is your own. It's only if you believe that some external authority has determined both of our purposes that you start thinking that you're entitled to tell me how to live my life. Who is more prideful: the person who's decided how he wants to live, or the person who's decided how he wants everyone to live?
It's not that I think I'm the only person smart enough or just enough to figure out why I should be alive; it's that I think I'm the only person able to give myself purpose. Even if someone else were to persuade me of another purpose, I would still have to be persuaded; their argument would not force me to accept their proposition. At the end of the day, my life has intrinsic meaning to myself, and thus has meaning; to me, trying to insist that my life has meaning to the Universe is far more "prideful" than saying "Hey, I personally care about being alive."
-------
quote:There's what, three thousand years of collective evidence?
More accurately, there's something like eight thousand years of collective non-scientific "evidence," much of which conflicts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Given that "meaning" is a concept relevant only to my "internal context," which I define as my own thoughts (as generated by the interaction of my "perceptive context" (my sensations) with the "external context" (physical reality)), and given that it is impossible to share or precisely duplicate internal contexts with other people under our current technology, it becomes obvious that "meaning" is something which I must choose to define for myself.
I don't think I agree with your first given, and I think your second given may be inconsistent with your position on qualia. Your second given is also problematic if God exists and can understand you completely.
However, even given those two things, the only thing you can conclude is that "meaning" for you cannot be determined by another person. But you are jumping to the conclusion that you can choose how to define it. Isn't it also possible that meaning, for you, is a given that you can't choose to alter - something that neither you nor anyone has any choice about? This is an especially important possibility if you believe choice is merely a convenient illusion - that we don't really have free will. If that is the case then you would not be the decider when it comes to meaning. It would mean you could not just decide that your life has meaning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Really? This baffles me -- even leaving aside the thought that you'd rather die of polio than be free of Sharia law.
Don't have a whole lot of time right now so I can't examine your whole post but, yes, I would rather die early of polio instead of live to 75-80 in a world where I could commonly be burned for a witch, heretic, captured in war and put into slavery, or draw an unlucky number at human sacrifice time, yes.
Of course religious and ethical sensibilities are not one and the same. But they mesh together quite a bit, and some (most) of the greatest embodiments of the kinds of ethical sensibilities you're no doubt referring to were religious people, either weakly or strongly.
Here's where we get into the pointless discussion of whether or not some of the greatest advocates of humanism, mercy, and tolerance would have done so without religion, or been replaced by others who would've done so. You might suppose they would. I suppose that it's impossible to simply make a clean incision in someone, taking such an enormous part of their lives out, and leaving the rest in as though it would've stayed the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But you are jumping to the conclusion that you can choose how to define it. Isn't it also possible that meaning, for you, is a given that you can't choose to alter - something that neither you nor anyone has any choice about?
This is absolutely a possibility. If I merely face the illusion of choice rather than choice -- if I'm merely thinking that I'm sentient, for example -- then that's the case.
But if that's the case, then I still have to act as if I'm sentient, since from my perspective -- which is the ONLY perspective to which I have access -- I'm a sentient being.
This may not be true in an "external context" -- but it's actually a prerequisite for any concept of an "internal context."
In other words: if I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man, I shouldn't bother worrying about being a butterfly until I wake up.
-------
quote:I would rather die early of polio instead of live to 75-80 in a world where I could commonly be burned for a witch, heretic, captured in war and put into slavery, or draw an unlucky number at human sacrifice time, yes
Except here's the thing: all those things you just listed were simply consequences of alternative religious thought. They weren't necessarily less correct religious thought; they were just less advanced ethically.
The cure for polio sprung out of an improved understanding of biological science. Are you saying that we no longer burn people at the stake because we have an improved understanding of God?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)