 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Science without Religion..............
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 12 Sep 06 - 06:29 AM Richard, no post of yours has been deleted. You must have posted in the wrong thread. I am going to leave Graham's posts as the last word in our debate. I think his words make the point better than I can. Back to the matter at hand, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Grab Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:41 AM (Split to avoid possible complete deletion of post if moderated as personal.) You seem hung up on the fact that I am moderating this thread for abusive behaviour or attempts to hijack it off topic. Eh? Check my posting history on Shambles' threads about my views on moderation (summary: as a mod myself in other places, I've got no problem trusting moderators not to make personally-biased decisions, and to be smart enough not use their moderation ability to squash things they don't like hearing). I just suggested that as a moderator, you might feel that you're acting as the chairman of a debate, but you weren't behaving as a chairman. If that's all you're moderating on, that's fine by me, and that's the last I'll say on this topic. But you're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Again. I have taken positions, such as the one I just posted. You've taken a position, sure. But in the course of this thread, you have *never* stated that position. The most you've done is a one-paragraph response to TIA, and the original post in which you quoted someone else's essay without stating your own opinion on the topic, except by criticising the essay. If you're prepared to debate, please start debating - the first step in debating is to state your position, and the second step is to accurately read what other people have said, rather than just what you want them to have said. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising, but your complete misrepresentation of what I've said has really left me with no choice other than waving it in your face. And yes, that's the last I'll say on this. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Grab Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM You have every person of faith neatly packaged up into a box, ignorant folks who were brainwashed from youth and now are trapped in a prison of brainwashed bliss. Nope - check my previous posts. You're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Again. Where is the problem with parents, good parents, teaching their children their value system? Absolutely no problem, so long as the children have the option to decide for themselves when they're old enough to make a judgement on that value system. As to your contention that no one should have any religious rules imposed on them unless they choose them, please tell me where that isn't the case. Moonies. Some branches of the Church of Latter-day Saints (and especially the Fundamental branch of same, the boss of which is currently in jail for enforced marriage of children). David Koresh's crew, until the Waco screw-up. Various schools of Islam, especially the ones which approve of transporting their kids back to Pakistan for arranged marriages. Various African religions practising female genital mutilation. Those are a few I can remember from the news - I'm sure I can find some more with a bit of research, if you'd like. Think about the number of friends you have that consider themselves lapsed Catholic, or non practicing Jews. Yep. On that score, I have complete respect for those people's families and religious teachers, in accepting that not everyone will choose the same path to spiritual fulfillment. Who would make these informed choices for folks that you advocate? Eh? Having said that people must have the right to make informed choices about their religious observance, you've somehow confused this with me telling other people what to do and making that choice for them. You're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Again. philosophically you have no right to suggest that anyone should choose the tenets that I wish to follow. Eh? Did you not read any of my previous posts, in which I stated the exact opposite? You're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Again. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM That's odd. Either I posted to the wrong thread or I've been moderated for no reason that I can see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:52 PM ...??? Not Amos, but Little Hawk....what? Has been certified? :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Sep 06 - 08:42 PM Er - my mistake. Not Amos, but Little Hawk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 08:41 PM Well it is slightly more on topic. But you throw so many incorrect premises out there, it is hard to know where to begin. Lets try this. First off, you betray an arrogance that is hard to take. You have every person of faith neatly packaged up into a box, ignorant folks who were brainwashed from youth and now are trapped in a prison of brainwashed bliss. Who would make these informed choices for folks that you advocate? Who would be the one to attach value to this religion and no value to that? Where is the problem with parents, good parents, teaching their children their value system? As to your contention that no one should have any religious rules imposed on them unless they choose them, please tell me where that isn't the case. Think about the number of friends you have that consider themselves lapsed Catholic, or non practicing Jews. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that somehow people in this world will be so brainwashed by growing up in a religious family that they are powerless to change their lives. Factually that is wrong, and philosophically you have no right to suggest that anyone should choose the tenets that I wish to follow. The only thing a progressive society should do is to make sure that the laws for the common good aren't violated. As to the rest of your post, this is the last time I will say it. I have taken positions, such as the one I just posted. I will respond to the opinions stated by others. I am learning a great deal from the informed opinions of a number of folks here. I had hoped to be challenged and to be provoked to thought. That has occurred because I am not in this for the debate as much as for the discussion. You seem hung up on the fact that I am moderating this thread for abusive behaviour or attempts to hijack it off topic. I don't care if you like that, and I am not going to debate those things. And we are not turning this thread into a debate on that. This is the last I will say on the subject. If you don't like that, write someone a letter. But that is how it is on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Grab Date: 11 Sep 06 - 08:37 PM Expose them in the media, yes; inform the citizenry of the positives and negatives, when they are interested, but do not try to force some official "take" on each religion/sect/etc. Yeah, that's where the problem of the "if and only if" comes in. In the real world it's probably not achievable, sadly, but it'd be nice if it were. In a lot of cases the media provides some checks and balances, but in a lot of others it doesn't. Jim Bakker fell from favour because of affairs and embezzlement, not because he was a lying toad. And Pat Robertson is still around in spite of inciting violence against non-believers. What gets me annoyed is that all schools and employers go through the whole equality thing, and breaking that gets you into big legal trouble. But the moment you say "it's religion" then some zealot can go round telling kiddies they're going to burn in Hell if they don't A good start would maybe be to apply the same standards of equality to religion as religion itself expects in other fields? Dunno how that'd work, but it's an idea for starters. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Grab Date: 11 Sep 06 - 08:18 PM Grab, your suggestion that somehow folks aren't smart enough to figure out what is proper and what is not smacks, with all due respect, of the same arrogance that the conservative Christians and the Taliban exhibit. I don't understand how it is that you feel that you or anybody can make these determinations. Smart I *didn't* say. What I *did* say is that in too many cases they aren't making an informed choice. If you choose your religion, then fine. If it's chosen for you (by parents or country of origin) then you're basically going to get brainwashed with that religion throughout childhood. And yes, I do use the emotive term "brainwashing" deliberately. The better ones won't, but the bad ones will. And the bad ones are almost universally the "fundamentalist" ones who hold that they're the only true path to Heaven and everyone else will burn in Hell forever, so they're the ones that really we need to be worried about. If you want to call me righteous in making a choice for others, then fine. In case I didn't make it clear enough above, my "righteous" attitude to what I insist should be the case is: everyone must be free to make their own choice when it comes to religious observance; and no religious rules must be imposed on anyone for any reason unless they choose to accept those rules. If that's a "righteous" attitude then I can live with that. In fact, I'd *really* like to see you argue against that position, Mick. My beliefs aren't the subject of this thread, Grab, except as I inject them into the debate... I have participated in this from the beginning. No, you haven't yet participated in the debate on this thread, Mick. Various people (including me) have stated our base positions/opinions, and discussion's gone on from there, in the collision of these belief spaces. But with the exception of a few lines in reply to TIA at 02:55, you've yet to state any kind of position, even though you've been very free in critiquing other people's positions. That's OK - we're all big boys and girls - but to call what you're doing "participating" is incorrect, because you haven't provided enough information about your position in order for any debate with you to take place. If you want a more formal debate between other people with yourself as the chairman, that's fine. The role of chairman is a valid way of participating in a debate - *but* it requires the chairman to take no active role in applying criticism. If you want to be one of the debaters, then you need to state your position in order that other people can apply the same kind of criticism to your beliefs that you do to theirs. Since you seem to want to be a debater, your beliefs *are* therefore essential to the topic of the thread, in the same way as mine, Kat's, Mrrr's or anyone else's. Let's make it clearer. Without stating your beliefs, you are merely point-scoring in arguing over semantics - you are *not* in any way carrying out a debate. Is that on topic enough...? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 07:18 PM Well, Richard, just for example, it is long tradition amongst Jewish families to hae a bris on the 8th day of a boy-child's life. The reason why is just that it has always been done that way. Although there are some arguments for circumcision, there is none except tradition to make it occur on a special day. On the other hand it does no harm to anyone to observe the tradition. But there is a lot to be said for tradition, voluntarily perpetuated, whether it "stands to reason" or does not, and that is surely part of the respect that humans must learn for each other -- to allow them to take on (or to cast off) traditions that are not harmful. There are other traditions or decrees which are more contrary to the general good, such as the stance of the Vatican on birth control -- established when the population of families was vital to the prosperity of farms, and therefore towns, at a time when the planet had 1/10th as many humans as it does today. Today, the policy is far less meet than it was once, IMHO and arguably harmful. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:48 PM Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Richard Bridge - PM Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:05 AM I think there is a consensus that the conduct of religions must be regulated by society to ensure that they do not harm (particularly out of irrational beliefs) those who are not their followers. I would go further: the conduct of religions should also be policed by society to ensure that they do not harm (particularly out of irrational beliefs) those who are their followers. Further, religions should not rely on pure dogma to purport to justify irrational requirements of their adherents. Religions should be prepared to be debated, should be prepared to hear the voices of their followers as well as of their priests and authorities. Heresy and apostasy should not be punshable as such. On this scale the irrationalities involved in keeping kosher cause less suffering, but Judaism like any other religion should be prepared to have its rules exposed to reason, and should be prepared for them to change according to reason. Did I miss something? Please correct me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:25 PM Mick you are not listening, and you are not checking. I did not construct the agreement I reported. I found it. Look. In many things society protects people from their own folly - but I spoke only of restraining those who might cash in on yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: dick greenhaus Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:13 PM "Another future for religion is that it keeps its special status, but serves us better. For that, atheists might consider joining rationalist branches of established religions." To which I can only say "Wha?" Look, fellers, if you have a need that can't be satisfied my the material world, go ahead an believe. In whatever you choose to believe in. Those beliefs, though, don't seem to be a particularly sound basis for a system of ethics--there's a spate of historical evidence to the contrary. What keeps me from killing you for your cow (assuming that I want your cow) is a recognition of written and unwritten understandings that if I do, I'll duffer for it. "Social contract", anyone? When that system of understandings break down (see Croatia, Russia, Afghanistan, etc.) and people's innate ethical standards don't seem to prevent thaem from doing the unspeakable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM Fair enough on the correction, Jeri. I was not aware of that, in fact, at first I just wrote stem cell, and added the clarifier to make it clear. I will use embryonic in the future. You aren't going to ground me, are you? LOL. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:05 PM Having read the article it seems, to me, at odds with my visualisation of the world, and has little relevance to the way I choose to live my life. There is IMHO a huge difference between faith and religion. I perceive religion to be the interpretation of the words of various exceptionally good men, by other men who tend to interpret according to certain religio-political or financial agendas. I further feel that the messages have changed over the centuries to reflect the customs and mores of different times. Faith, on the other hand, is what a man constructs through life experience, as a belief system which enables him to make sense of the world around him. If that construct includes adherence to a religious order, I see nothing wrong in that, nor do I see anything wrong if it does not. I would venture to state that all of us have faith, whether it be in a divine being, science, or ourselves. Not all of us have a religion, because not all of us need one to teach us how to live. I do not subscribe to any church or creed, though I tend to believe in a divine being. Faith to me is a purely personal matter, which is unfortunately not acceptable to those who firmly believe in one "true" religion, so I am bombarded with calls to repent and join the ranks. In sixty five years, I don't recall one single case of an atheist, or a pagan knocking on my door to invite me to embrace his way of life. I do not mock the beliefs of others, nor do I seek to convert them to mine. There is room in this world for all shades of opinion and belief. I do, however, have serious issues with the existence of any organisation if the result is damage to persons who do not wish to embrace its ways. I would submit that, with certain notable exceptions, most organised religions either fall into this category, or have done so in the past, entirely due to the presence therein of a few fanatical fundamentalists. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:52 PM I'll drink to that, Jeri./ Spoken with your usual incisive and bright style. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Jeri Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:39 PM The good requires as much faith as the evil, and faith isn't only found in religions. People have to at least have faith that what they're doing is the right thing. Mick, I do have to comment that no one is doing 'fetal' stem cell research. It's a prejudicial term being used by those against embryonic stem cell research to make it sound more like abortion. The embryos used are days' old clumps of cells. Now, you can argue whether a fertilized egg had a soul or not, but in no way is it a fetus. Whether it's right to combine zygotes to produce what, in an ideal situation, might develop into a baby, is a valid question though. As to the subject, of course we can co-exist. We just have to refrain from bludgeoning people into agreeing with us, no matter what our beliefs are. We all need human interaction, but if I join a club, it's not going to be one based on beliefs, only similarities. I think sharing music, laughter, food and drink covers that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:35 PM Humans lean towards doing good more than bad because we are animals that need to survive. We have the brain power to know that if two men fight to death over a cow, one will win and one will eat. That is bad. But if those two men work together and buy a bull and breed the animals, they will both eat and for longer. That is good. Survival is in my opinion borne from the instinct to continue breathing. If a good or a bad decision influences the ability to survive the majority will opt for the good decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:16 PM There is one aspect in which some kinds of faith do seem to me to be a pre-requisite for the wholesom eexercise of ethics and other spiritual values. And that is, as a shield against the compression of one's spiritual center that is commonly dealt out by too much interaction with the rough edges of the physical universe (in the form of loss, pain, unconsciousness, trauma, and the creeping undermining of energy that often accompanies an aging body) OR the same compression often dealt out by the half-blinded or wholly insane members of our species who resort to violence, verbal and emotional abuse, obsession, extremes of control, extremes of antagonsim or other forms of human madness as a way of getting on in a world that has treated them too harshly or overwhelmed them entirely. (Sorry for the long winded description). When the basic postulates of faith are re-generated by group support, one can be helped to rediscover his own spiritual strength, restore his confidence in the face of adversity, re-connect with his or her own sourcehood in life, and shake off the blows. Left entirely on his or her own, this can prove to be much more difficult, and the individual whose trials have grown too great can just let go of any impulse to be himself and give in to being an asshole or worse. My opinion, FWIW, is that this is what lies behind those who abuse their own species and families, and is also the equation that lies behind those who abuse spirituality itself by turning it into an authroitarian, dogmatic or hyper-controlling machine instead of a source of refreshment and renewal of life-force. So it doesn't much matter to me if one finds this renewal by reaching for an iconic figure like Christ or Buddha, or by reaching out into some corner where they keep their own communication line to God, or by meditating on T.S. Elliot or Blake or R.P. Warren to find that center from which things get renewed. The ability to find that center at all is priceless, and that is why, to me, religion is so valuable to people and the main reason why it should not be cast out no matter how "superstitious" it may seem to others. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM What I meant, Big Mick, is that only the evil that religion does requires faith. The good it accomplishes doesn't. Not that it requires a lack of faith, just that faith is unnecessary to the good that people can do for each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: katlaughing Date: 11 Sep 06 - 03:58 PM Grab, you said, Sure, politicians do it all the time, but they have natural checks and balances in the form of the media and general public being able to see what they're doing and vote them out. Religion has no such checks. Maybe it's time it did? Keeping government/laws apart from religion works both ways. If we expect the government to step in and create "checks" and balances for religions, we would probably wind up with a State Religion and might as well throw out the Constitution. We have free will and as such we ought to be able to make up our own minds as to what we do and do not believe in. Yes, it would be wonderful to prevent any more Jonestowns or David Kuresh followers, but it is not for the government to do so. Expose them in the media, yes; inform the citizenry of the positives and negatives, when they are interested, but do not try to force some official "take" on each religion/sect/etc. Church and state must be kept separate, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 03:34 PM Fair enough, Mrrzy, but I am not sure what your assertion none of that good required faith means. Neither did it require a lack of faith. Faith may or may not have inspired these acts. What it did require was a desire to do good. I agree that in these modern times, religion is not required to do good. I have many more friends that don't share my religious beliefs than do. But I wonder, at its core, where these universal concepts came from. Sure, they developed over the millenia. Sure, most cultures have common beliefs in a lot of areas. But I find myself wondering what it is that spawned it in humankind. To your second point, is it really such a bad thing to question medical and scientific advance in light of ones ethics, morals or religious beliefs? If my respect for life is born of my religion or just intellectual questioning, is it not right to ask "At what cost?"? My example of fetal stem cell research, which I believe to be an exciting area of research, still asks the critical ethical question. Is it right to create a life, to destroy it, in order to save another? This is not a question to be answered with a simple affirmative or negative. It has huge implications. No matter what a person's morality is based on, this is legitimate and important stuff. To dismiss my questions because you object to the base from which it came, strikes me as intellectually intolerant and counter productive. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM Part of the problem is 'rules'. People join religions--or grow up within them--and religions are not smorgasbords. Within the 'confines' of any given religion there are rules. People are expected to take the 'whole nine yards' and there is seldom room for non-acceptance of given items. Catholicism (for example) faced a real schism in both the hierarchy of the church and the membership of the church. Abortion was such an issue as were the issues and moralities to do with wars and even capital punishment. Many of the Church's decrees interpret or explain based on study of the main Book, but occasionally that flies in the face of social realities or beliefs that are not specific to the Church. And people wonder. Fundamentalism appeals to many folks because most of the debatable topics are presented as a "this is the way it is and if you don't agree the door's over there, have a nice day" kinda choice, which is really no choice at all. We can see with Islam that some people can use it to generate hatred. The same can be said of many religions, because of course if one's Diety has spoken directly to one's Oracle, how do you argue with that? Secularism today is not the result of a non-caring non-spiritual public. It is the result of people thinking for themselves, asking questions of their church representatives, receiving answers that aren't answers at all, and boom, Billy walks out the door because no one gave him an honest answer. Or, maybe the honest answer is such that the interpretation doesn't jive with the belief and poof, Billy keeps on walking. The 'angry God' of the Old Testament hasn't done much lately that cannot be ascribed to pandemics, human activity or science. Take away the Deity-cause of an earthquake and science gains power at the expense of the Diety's power. It was the Church in general that fought and continues to fight science. BUT, maybe that's a good thing in a way, because in the mad rush to solve all the world's ill with science, we have failed as a human race to temper the clinical aspect with spirituality or sense of caring for ourselves and others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM I would note that while religion/faith has done a lot of good, none of that good required faith; it could all have been accomplished through human interaction. Only the harm that faith brings requires faith, and that is why I have lost tolerance for it. And getting back to the main issue of science, religion, especially in the US, is getting in the way of real advances. Again, this is a bad thing. I heard on NPR somebody saying that while there were religious reasons to be anti-abortion, there were secular reasons against it too, but none were proferred. I wonder what they are... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM Grab, your suggestion that somehow folks aren't smart enough to figure out what is proper and what is not smacks, with all due respect, of the same arrogance that the conservative Christians and the Taliban exhibit. I don't understand how it is that you feel that you or anybody can make these determinations. This is a pretty good example of what the thread is really about, isn't it? Call it yin and yang or whatever, but when competing values get out of balance you get some mighty righteous folks who believe they can make the choices for others. They are very convinced that theirs is the sole path to enlightenment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:59 PM My beliefs aren't the subject of this thread, Grab, except as I inject them into the debate. Stay on topic. Stem cell isn't tossed as a grenade. I made it very clear why I put it in. No one is interested in this, fair enough. It was used as an example only. Stay on topic. I have participated in this from the beginning. Stay on topic. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM TIA, knowing your location helps me understand better. I currently live in the Philadelphia metroplex, but come from an area of West Michigan that is very much the same as you describe. Interesting that as a Catholic kid in a very conservative and Protestant area, I suffered at the hands of those folks as well. That is probably why I am so sensitive to the issue of tolerance. Where or whether someone prays isn't the point, is it? It is their actions. It is no crime for a public figure to base their decisions on their moral and religious convictions, so long as they made those convictions known as they sought office. I do agree with the non religious that if they make that a tenet of their seeking office, it would probably predestine their loss. I don't think that is fair, but it is what it is. Personally, when a politician wears their religion on their sleeve, it almost always precludes my vote for them. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM "Religion has no such checks" That's right. They can afford to pay cash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Grab Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:38 PM Are you suggesting that you or some body should have the right to determine that? Depends. I'd really like to see it enforced by "people power", where informed people make a choice. But it's sadly all too common that you get what you don't deserve. Every boy-band has a following which they don't deserve based on any musical talent, whilst some fantastic musicians are in obscurity which they definitely don't deserve. :-) And various religions enjoy a level of popularity which by any measure (especially that most important measure, happiness) is out of any proportion to the benefits they provide versus the artificial strictures and impediments they place on people. I would see no problem at all with an organisation (maybe a newspaper or suchlike, but possibly governmental) which created a "rationality league table" for the various sects of the various religions, in the same way as schools have performance league tables. In fact I'd say that this is long overdue. Maybe this could provide a basis for "informed consent" on the part of people who join various organised religions? Ultimately though, as Richard suggests, some kind of line in the sand to say "this behaviour is unacceptable in this country's society, regardless of religious belief" would not be unacceptable to me. I don't see any fundamental problem in a law which prevents future Jonestowns, IF AND ONLY IF it is constructed in such a way that no reasonable belief system can be compromised. I don't think that's unachievable - there are plenty of other crimes with substantial grey areas (for killing it's legendary) and the world seems to manage to solve them. And there really aren't many worse crimes than the manipulation of people for your own ends. Sure, politicians do it all the time, but they have natural checks and balances in the form of the media and general public being able to see what they're doing and vote them out. Religion has no such checks. Maybe it's time it did? Incidentally Mick, quit tossing "issue grenades" like stem cells to stir the pot! ;-) Things are going fine without that one... Anyway, since you mention it, what *are* your beliefs, Mick? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: TIA Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM Hmmm. Big Mick, perhaps we inhabitat different parts of the world. Central PA is decidedly more religious than secular. Every public gathering of any type seems to involve prayer or some statement about God Bless ______. And, BTW, I have never objected. I can only imagine the reaction if I were actually to ask that we leave God out of this meeting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:18 PM Mick it is your right to say god is god and the maker of all things. GUEST 1:44 PM Where was it I said that? This isn't about what I believe, other than my opinion in a discussion. Nor did I say I objected to others beliefs. What I said was that I resent the very same treatment that agnostics, atheists, pagans, et al resent. My concern is for tolerance of these various views. We won't be swinging this debate to just my views. It isn't about my philosophy. You don't know what that is, and we don't have time to try and put that together here. LOL. Amos and Mrrzy, I would agree that religion has certainly spawned its share of heinous acts in this world. I would also postulate that ones faith based values has spawned much good. I would wager that one finds much more of that. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:07 PM Then, TIA, your experience is different than mine. I, too, am put off by any kind of fundamentalist that seems to think that only they have the answer. But I am just as put off when a discussion is going on, and the non religionists speak as if I am not there in very condescending tones. Happens all the time. I too eschew labels. My beliefs and personal code are based on much reflection. My religious community is just that. I would disagree with you on the statement re: living in a profoundly secular world. I think it is apparent that the world is more and more secular. Finally, your statement with regard to being spoken to in denigrating tones is exactly what I often get when I simply indicate that I have a faith based perspective. Before we can even get into the discussion of my decidedly non traditional Christian/Pagan views, I am relegated to the corner. Richard Bridge, you speak of consensus, yet I don't see a consensus at all. It's an old debaters trick. Your "policing" idea has been tried already. It is part of the reason there was an American Revolution. The idea that anyone should be able to protect me from myself with regard to religious beliefs, based on your idea of what harms me seems ludicrous. Are you suggesting that the only religions that should be allowed are those that meet criteria established by some governing body? Grab, you speak of faith communities being "not deserving of followers". Are you suggesting that you or some body should have the right to determine that? The best of this thread, IMO only, so far, seems to be found in the comments of Amos, Paul Burke, Stigweard, Wolfgang, and a few others. They have given me much to ponder, and I appreciate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST,Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 06 - 02:00 PM Well said, Amos. However, I believe that attacking the root of the problem would yield better results than the constant pruning of the many individual outcroppings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM I would suggest to Mrrzy that it is not belief per se in supernatural elements, but the use of those beliefs to justify unethical acts, which defines where religiosity often becomes a problem. Why would you care what an individual's internal dialogues consisted of, whether between himself and himself, himself and a God, or himself and his sainted mother (may she rest in peace and why is she still talking to me in my head?). It is what he, as the gatekeeper, allows to come out of those dialogues into the external world populated by others that defines whether he is responsible for right action or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM Mick it is your right to say god is god and the maker of all things. It is equally someone elses right to say god is a fairytale/outdated/irrational/unbelievable. Because the person who says the latter is not god fearing and is stating their belief. Your premise for a discussion won't wash while you continue to take objection to the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:43 PM Wal, it's a tough question Paul. It is my personal belief that humans have an inherent spiritual side, and that concepts like justice, ethics, aesthetics, and truth have an innate individual source, not some external paternalistic one. But that's just me and my own opinions. I do not, in fact, consider religion has any sole claim over ethics in human relationships, because I have found in experience that wherever religion falls back on doctrine, it does a poor job of ethics, and ordinary human compassion often does a much better job -- individual responsibility and compassion are far better guides, in my view, than the dictates of ancient shepherds or even ancient Creators. Thus, Einstein made a very hard call when he wrote FDR about the possibility of an atomic bomb; and Truman made a very hard call when he chose to use it. These were (as far as I know) not decisions made by some manifestation of the Almighty, or by dowsing the New Testament, although they may have been aided by general prayer, who knows. These men acted on their own sense of right action and consequences, and I am sure their sense of compassion also caused them to mourn the decision or at least the necessity for it.,. As I understand it, the invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was attributed directly to the Almighty's voice, by GWB, and I have heard no genuine-sounding statements of compassion or regret from any of his devout camp. (Stop me before I thread drift!). To put this another way, again referring to the notion of keeping religiosity off the commons where civic issues are debated, an individual has to take responsibility for believing what he believes. If he is not willing to be responsible for his decision to believe certain things, then he is to that degree abrogating his responsibility to act in keeping with his own inherent sense of ethics and compassion, and this quandary has provided much great literature as well as real melodrama in life. (E.g., Aquinas, Becket, and the Salem trials for random examples). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: TIA Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM I've just read the article, but don't know quite how to comment on this thread since I completely disagree with the premises of both: This thread: "...the need of these {secular} folks to attack those of us who have religious beliefs and faith at every opportunity..." I just don't see this as a remotely valid description of the current world. The article: "We live in a profoundly secular world..." Again, does not describe this world. So, where to take a discussion that starts with these?????? As one who refuses any label that describes my worldview on matters outside of the realm of science (specifically to avoid the "us versus them crap" that JR rightly denounces), I have found that it is only the self-avowed religious who ever have a problem with this stance (and are wont to call me a "nonbeliever" or "atheist" in denigrating tones). The atheists never have a problem with my position. In fairness, I must point out that the vast majority of religious persons also respect my stance. I'm simply pointing out that among the few who object, it is ALWAYS the religious. Hence my bafflement at, and rejection of, the premises above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM I'm at work - no cookies. Will check tonight. The references were to things that ought not to be tolerated. It is my opinion that belief in the supernatural nowadays causes so much harm that it ought no longer to be tolerated, the way bullying is no longer seen as Boys will be boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:17 PM Mrr, I would like you to put all that into the context of the thread. I am not sure how I am also intolerant of bullying, violence in most forms, and many other harmful things fits into this discussion. The same can be said about the rest of your points, with the exception of the last one. As to the last one, it is completely intolerant and contains a gratuitous assertion, namely your reference to personally held religious beliefs as outdated nonsense. When one uses gratuitous assertions, they can be just as gratuitously rejected, hence they offer nothing to the discussion. So please try to give us context on these things, in order that they can add to the discussion. I assume you got my PM? All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:07 PM Mick - I am also intolerant of bullying, violence in most forms, and many other harmful things. It bothers me that people still believe that people are special, other than animals (we may be interesting animals, but animals just the same). It bothers me that while the Constitution says No religious test for office, atheists cannot hope to be elected. It bothers me that atheism is widely believed to be incompatible with morals. It bothers me that faililng to continue putting up with such outdated (hmm - I shouldn't say "nonsense" but what is the right word?) is viewed as intolerant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Paul Burke Date: 11 Sep 06 - 12:08 PM "The Lord, thy God, is a just God." Presumably irrefutable if you apply somebody's idea of justice, which of course is a sociological, not a religious, concept, and is relative and varies from time to time and place to place. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Game theory. Beware of defaulters. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Which is why you can blow it out and send a dozen of the non- believers to hell at the same time. "Look you unto the lilies of the field. They neither toil, neither do they strain. Yet verily, Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." Archaeology might be able to throw some light on Solomon's raiment for direct comparison with lilies using a gloriometer. Physical measurements can be carried out to evaluate work done (=force x distance moved) by lilies. It is anticipated that this study may lead in the longer term to significant improvements in the efficiency of the genus Liliaceae. But seriously. If you regard the religious magisterium as the field of the ethics of human interrelationships, you have to have some mechanism to enable different interpretations of correct relationships to achieve a working agreement. Is this mechanism religious or not, or is there a separate ethical magisterium? In other words, has religion (= the posit of a non- physical external rationale for human existence) got anything to say that is both true (reference required for truth) and a consequence only of itself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:48 AM This thing is only the idea. The reality is yet to come. There is NO proof that Earth exists, let alone proof that it was created. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:47 AM You must first establish that there are any real phenomena that science can not discuss, and that religion can. "The Lord, thy God, is a just God." "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." "Look you unto the lilies of the field. They neither toil, neither do they strain. Yet verily, Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." Just a few off the top of my head, apologies for any misquotes. Of course you inserted the word "real" in there which is a complete weasel, because of course, religion and science can go to the barricades about real issues like evolution versus young-Earth creationism, so th e non-overlapping part does not have to apply, really; but it is my opinion they SHOULD be non-overlapping. People get uncomfortable with non-coherent or contradictory data, though. If a person holds simultaneously in his mind the belief that the principles of Darwinism are correct AND that the species were created on the nth day by the hand of an Almighty, does he suffer from dissonance? Or does he find some higher plane from which to view the contradictions comfortably? Or does he just subdivide, holding belief (a) on Monday through Friday, belief (b) on Sunday, and on Saturday concentrate on sports? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Donuel Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:39 AM I know evangelicals who are proud to say they believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. One was quick to add however that he insists upon "correct" science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:33 AM Sorry for the misspellings (which I prefer to call typos). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: GUEST Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:32 AM The article has moments. I do not quite accept the premise because religion is based on belief and science is or ain't, and unless one IS a scientist, there isn't too much to argue about. (True, we can say that the gene count is wrong or that the REAL distance to some fading star in the cosmos is not what people think or that this or that should be possible (other dimensions that have innhabitants)), but the truth is that very few people will have any idea what they themselves are talking about. I think in many ways religion is similar. People talk about it without any real way of puuting into words what they think of their religious beliefs. I suppose that then makes the 'Reader's Digest' versions (Bible, Koran, etc) such hot sellers. Policy as set by those books mean people don't have to think. Just follow the policy. Similarly, we all accept that light travels about 300,000 km/sec, and then having said that don't know where to go with the info. That statemnet BTW is a belief for most of us, because most of us would have no way to design a method of proving it. God is much like that, IMO. Good thread, Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Paul Burke Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:08 AM The idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" sounds very grand, but I don't think it holds water. You must first establish that there are any real phenomena that science can not discuss, and that religion can. The works of Oliver Sacks show that science can study many phenomena that spome people would describe as spiritual. So, like the "God of the gaps", the religious magisterium is doomed to create its territory from the leftover bits not YET covered by science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Mooh Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:52 AM Stig...God did not tell Shrub to invade Iraq. That's a lie anyone can see, but the Shrub garden been skilled at blinding people. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Big Mick Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:46 AM Stigweard, Wolfgang, and Amos all provoke a lot of pondering in one of the great dilemmas of our time, IMO. The dilemma is fetal stem cell research. Hang with me for a moment on this before anyone lapses into their stock responses. In the main, this technology, IMO, holds the potential for the greatest advances in medical science and human health and longevity in history. But it also poses, IMO, a conundrum of classic proportion. Ultimately, when talking fetal stem cells, one must create life to destroy it, to save life. I don't take the classic Roman Catholic line on this, but at its core, isn't this what we are talking about? For what it is worth, I want us to pursue this technology, but the Science/Religion/Ethics piece fits here well. One cautionary note. I don't want this to be a thread about stem cell research. I introduce it into the conversation to be used as an example of one such problem that fits within the topic. Others are welcome to introduce other examples. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion.............. From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM I think there are TWO core points to this issue. One is that (as so beautifully expressed by Wolfgang) religion and science have different magistera, and so, too do those who work in social inventions and religion; because religion begins to corrupt when it becomes a social phenomena seeking to expand its boundaries. Many religious groups with clear cognizance of those boundaries do wonderful well and help each other. The recognition of these non-overlapping magistera is critical to the success of science AND critical to the success of a society that is not uniformly of some religious belief. There is another side of it, which is essential and is reflected in one of the EInstein quotes here, which is the question of "ethical insight" and to what degree it must inform scientific progress -- not the experimental or analytical conduct, but the choice of paths. There are three choices in looking for guidelines which can steer the movement into unknown areas (for example, into nanotechnology or genetic science). One is the purely mechanistic scheme of pursuing anything that seems to have importance, although that still doesn;t answer how you choose direction. From this perspective, if you could find a research path leading to a thermonuclear device the size of a watch fob, you should do so. A second choice is the convention of moral judgement, trying to live by agreements about the general nature of things that should and should not be done. Mostly these are moral codes of agreements about conduct and often they aren't very informative about how to deal with brand-new situations. The third one is to develop a keen sensitivity to the ramifications of choice, learning to project consequences as well as possible and simultaneously develop your own keen sense of "right action". This may mean staying open to spiritual ideas without any religious overtones to them -- ideas like "knowing" or "intuition" or "aesthetics" or "ethics" as innate and spiritual values. These are nowhere near as easy as simply espousing moral codes that someone else handed down through time. But although they are much mor edifficult they often end up being richer, and certainly more rewarding, because they require that the scientist who uses them be willing to always take a new look at what he is doing. This, it seems to me, is an attitude a lot more closely aligned with truth and the nature of existence then any set of static solutions being brought forward "because it was". A |
