BS: Science without Religion..............

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:30 AM

Fair enough, Mick.

Stigweard, I agree, government without religion would be much better than what we have now.

An idea of what it might be like if Jesus were to walk our streets, comes by way of an Episcopal priest, from back in 1975. He wrote a little book, which, imo, makes a big impact, called "The Alleluia Affair." In it, every Jesus on crosses everywhere, came to life, pull themselves off of the crosses, go out into the world and come to some very sad conclusions about the state of humankind. Despite the sadness, it is a very uplifting and, in some ways, prophetic book. I highly recommend it. If your local library doesn't have a copy, there are inexpensive copies available on line at AddAll.

There is a parphrased version of it at click

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST,Bee
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:17 AM

Christians in the form of Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door about twice a year. I'm polite, they are members of our small community. Two men came once when I was stacking firewood. I said I'd be happy to talk if they'd help me with the wood while we spoke. They left forthwith and speedily. More recently, a woman and her children came. She said "Can I speak to you about - oh look! What kind of ducks are those?" And we proceeded to have a lovely talk about wildlife in the area. Much better!

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:16 AM

I agree Wolfgang. The thread is maturing just as I hoped it would. There have been some excellent posts. And some real thought provocation. It is exactly what I desired it should be. Excellent post, BTW. You beat me to the punch on those further Einstein quotes. I was saving them for a lull in the discussion.

I have not had to delete even one post. When a subject as potentially divisive as this one is being discussed in a rational, edgy way, yet remains civil, it kind of makes the case for very limited moderation, eh?

Maggie, I simply wanted to know if you read the article. Seeing as it was one of the predicates for the discussion, I had hoped you had, but it seemed as though you didn't. So I asked. Not sure why that would be considered inflexibility. It was simply a question.


kat, our current disagreement has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I would like to stay on topic, so this will be the last reference to it in this thread. Sorry you took offense to the remark.

All the best,

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:06 AM

"Religious fundamentalists among the Christians are a fringe phenomenon with no political power whatsoever."

These days Christian fundamentalists in the USA call themselves 'Evangelical' and they were largely responsible for voting in GWB, a Christian fundamentalist who was told by God to invade Iraq.

A new thread called Government without religion might be appropriate. Government without religion is what we need right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 09:48 AM

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
   

(Both quotes from Albert E. as well of course)

I live in a culture in which there is much less quarrel between believers of a supernatural force and unbelievers. Religious fundamentalists among the Christians are a fringe phenomenon with no political power whatsoever. Atheists are much more frequent than in the USA. Both groups rarely proselytize.

I think twice in my long life Christians have come to my door to bring me the word of God as they understand it. Atheist too are quite tolerant and mostly silent about their unbelief. In my daughter's class of 20odd pupils there are at least 6 atheist parents I know of (including me) and we all send our kids to religious instruction at school.

The agressiveness of (some) secular humanists in the USA I could never understand. The Dawkins of the target article is not my man (though I like all his other books). My man is rather the S. J. Gould speaking of the non-overlapping magisteria of religion and science. Religion (or just as well a nonreligious worldview) deals with 'ought' and science deals with 'is'.

Like Dick says, religion has no place in science (though, but that is something completely different, it has a place in an individual scientist). Newton was one of the last men to introduce God's action into physics. His equations did not lead to stable planetary motions in the long run, so he had to introduce the concept of God pushing the planets every couple of centuries back into the right places. That is 'the God of the gaps' in its worst form.

A scientist has to work (whatever she privately believes) as if there was no God but just nature and its laws. To fill one of the many remaining gaps in the knowledge with supernatural action or interference is doomed from the beginning.

On the level of 'ought' (what should we do or better not do) I tend to agree close to 100% with a liberal Christian. There is therefore no reason at all to quarrel with him about his differing worldview. The only problem I encounter are believers who cross into the 'is' (or 'was') level of statements about the world. Statements of fact about the world coming from a religious point of view have no place in a rational discussion. I cannot take serious believers who cross that line and argue for/against one theory (let's say evolution) starting from what is written in some book.

Wolfgang

(Mick, how many posts have you had to take out to keep this debate so civil and interesting, or was it the mere threat of doing it that has so far made this one of the best threads in a long time?)

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:56 AM

By the way, I believe that were Christ about today, he would be in the streets and very radical.

Interesting. If he were to start walking this earth I think he would be ostracised and ridiculed by the majority of those who have spent a lifetime believing in him. They unfortunately are the very people who do not take kindly to having their beliefs questioned. They may fully expect to meet him one day when they are dead but the thought of bumping into him flipping burgers is not part of their teachings.

They have not been brought up believing that is a possibility so they do not look for him. The irrationality attached to meeting him in an afterlife does not extend to the irrationality that he could pop down whenever he chooses.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:48 AM

It's taken all that time to get to the core of the matter- you DON'T need religion to have spirituality. Einstein's religious beliefs in any case were probably Spinozan- that is, God is indistinguishable from the sum total of the universe, and has none of the characteristics of the Abrahamic personal God.

My own feeling is very close to Stigweard's in that I see the human (or animal) soul as a process of the mind. This has great explanatory power- things like what happens to you before you were born (you existed, but YOU didn't exist) and what happens when you die (YOU cease to exist, but the elements that underlay that consciousness are still there), why my friend John hasn't got a personality (soul) any more, even though "he" walks and breathes (his mind (soul) was damaged irretrievably by oxygen starvation), why simple chemicals can alter the personality (soul).

As for religious observances, no problem (see kosher chicken thread) as long as they impinge upon the believer only, and they don't try to impose them on society at large (see under Intelligent Design, Moslem dress codes, abortion laws, Israeli marriage rules, Oner Nation Under Bush etc.).

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Grab
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:40 AM

Thanks for that, Kat.

There *are* atheists and agnostics who wish to prevent people following a religion (or to persuade them not to) because they truly believe that religion damages a person's ability to make rational decisions. Richard Dawkins is maybe the best-known example.

I have to say that on many levels they're right. Morality is basically the situation of avoiding harm to others (by action or inaction). If your religion follows that rule, and you know every tenet of that religion, then you're fine. Trouble is that remembering every corner of a religion is *hard*. But if you have the reasoning power to think "what decision will have the best outcome for other people?" then you should be fine.

And this also assumes that absence of harm is the cornerstone of the religion. That's where organised religion all too often falls down - the Catholic church's "every sperm is sacred" policy on birth control is a classic example of that. I'm with Richard Bridge on this one - if a religion can't open its doors to rational discussion and admit errors by the (all-too-human) clerics who make up its rules, then it's not deserving of followers. It then lays itself open to the charges of "fairy tales" - and that accusation is *valid* at that point, because the basis for the religion then has about as much basis in truth as Little Red Riding Hood.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:17 AM

Interesting article, but in my opinon it's conclusions were totally wrong.

I do not believe in God, Yaweh or Allah. I believe that religious fundamentalism whether practiced by Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush is in the process of destroying our world. I do believe in science and art as manifestations of the spirituality of man - part of the quest to find our place in the universe.

"I just think it is silly to believe the universe thinks.
Well, I'm of the opinion it does think, and humans have long recognised the fact it thinks. It's just they have trouble articulating how it thinks; some put this down to God or pixies or whatever supernatural being they choose to believe in, some dogmatically pursue theories that rely on empirical evidence only.

We know the universe thinks because we think. Our very being is made from the raw materials the rest of the cosmos is made from - the same molecules and elements that make stars, comets, planets and galaxies. If at the most basic level we are simply the result of self-replicating molecular chains coalesing together to form complex biological machines, if our thoughts and emotions are simple a series of electrical impulses firing neurons and jumping synapses, we can think, see and feel.

We and life on our planet are the universe made conscious - and we can contemplate ourselves and our environment. This thought in itself is quite awesome in the truest sense of the word (as opposed to Bill and Ted's sense). It doesn't require a divine being to create us, it provides a far more sound basis for a moral and ethical framework than any religion which by it's very nature is trying to forward it's own agenda. It respects the sanctity of all life whilst acknowledging the role of science and the arts in our development.

This whole idea is based on what many would call cold, hard science, but the spiritual dimension to the concept is evident, and far more powerful that anything you could be told to believe by an priest or vicar or imam or rabbi - it is self-revelation in it's purest form. It provides a context for everything that has occured since mankind first contemplated the moon and sun and wondered what it all meant. This concept provides a context to our place in the great scheme of things that religion struggles to provide but strangely enough, sounds very religious in it's own right.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:08 AM

Oy vey!

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 12:40 AM

But you knew that

No, I did not. It was a fair question based on your postings. I have been as respectful and non-devisive as possible. Choosing to hold a grudge will not contribute much to what promises to be a good discussion. If you cannot put aside our differences, how do you expect others to put aside intolerance?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 12:00 AM

Mick,

I'll jump in here--I haven't time to read the thread since I first posted, or the article. But I did all but the thesis in a MA in philosophy--I feel well enough acquainted with the subject of religion and science (I was studying environmental philosophy) to make the remark I made without the context of a specific talking point you started with.

A little flexibility, please, Mr. Moderator, to allow for the material that people already possess in their heads. You'll find it adds to the richness of the discussion.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 11:51 PM

Oy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST,Bee
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:52 PM

Out of curiousity, I just read the 'chicken' discussion, and didn't really see very many comments I would call 'derisive' or 'condescending'. Perhaps some of the comments might be described as 'irreverent'. And there, I think, is where conflict arises often between the religious and the agnnostic/atheist individuals. Common politeness requires one to be respectful towards others, and that includes their beliefs, of course. But I don't think unbelievers should be expected to hold others' beliefs 'in reverence', and that may mean questioning practices we see as foolish, harmful or intolerant.

Deities in their multitudes have seldom been good for women: I think I have reason to question their followers. Note that even in the situation that spawned this discussion, it is the women of the households who will be most inconvenienced.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:47 PM

As a secular humanist who is sufficiently "tolerant" of religion to actually belong to a church so I can support the work it does in the community, thus maximizing my own efforts, I would say that anyone who equates religious people with those who believe in "fairly tales" hasn't a clue as to what religion is all about. This, I feel, is the sort of unthinking intolerance that feeds the kind of decisiveness that is further weakening the already fractured progressive movement in this country and leaving us all vulnerable to a total take-over by the most power-hungry fundamentalist faction of those people they scoff at.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:31 PM

My favourite Einstein quote.

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:26 PM

That is my comment Mick... The article is fence-sitter blather....

It says nothing useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:15 PM

I want a discussion with Mudcatters with regard to society in general, which includes their attitudes. I presume they are reflective of society. But you knew that. Parse it anyway you want, katlaughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:12 PM

Am I understanding you right, in that you wanted a discussion about/with Mudcatters who are secular and derisive, etc.? I thought you meant society in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:44 PM

I am not suggesting for a minute that it isn't the Christian fundies that are in power in this country, nor am I suggesting that the secular/anti religionists have the same power. What I am troubled by is the type of rhetoric I hear out of the secular folks here abouts, that lead me to believe that if they held the power, they would do the very same thing. It seems to me that people of good faith and honorable intent, without regard to how they view each others personal beliefs, can build bridges and become powerful within society. How I worship should not be the object of derision, if I worship should not be the object of mockery, I shouldn't be held accountable for the practices of some Christians. Imagine if I held all Pagans accountable for those that practice animal sacrifice?

I guess what spawned this thread was the condescending, and sometime derisive, attitudes that many of you who see religion as something for weak minds. When I read the Hecht article, flawed though it is, it seemed a very good jumping off place for a decent discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM

One point the writer of the article made is that one reason (perhaps the primary one?) that the rhetoric gets so heated nowadays is because of the public stance taken by our US government. I suspect that if, as Guest 8:38 implies, our government today were "profoundly secular" instead of being 'Christian' - and worse, not the kind of Christian secular people can respect - the religous right would be agitating in the same way and louder.

I think, in other words, if our government made a point of dismissing all religious input and was contemptuous of 'believers' there would be an uproar greater than there is today.

If our government, on the other hand, were balanced as I think it has been in the past, i.e., some government officials articulated religious beliefs and others made a point of telling us that their private beliefs were just that - private - I don't think it would become an issue.

Interesting comment about the Episcopals. Since January I have been the part time secretary of a local Episcopal church. Since I'm not a 'churched' person I haven't attended a church other than to hear some friends of mine sng (Think KT!)in a good 40 years or more. I found it surprising to learn that the Episcopals make a point of admitting they don't have the snswers and indeed distrust easy answers. In fact, I have heard the rector aver something and then add, But that's heresy so I'm not supposed to say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:29 PM

I think this is the critical issue in focus: extremism requires intolerance, whether the extremism is that of a materialist, an atheist, a fascist, a religionist or even a physicist.

And the only sane position under the law where religion is concerned (I believe) is one of tolerance -- within the boundaries of not harming others by tolerating, for exampole, religous cannibalism or some such whacky practice.

In dialogues on civic matters, I guess the same is true -- the minute religious issues are injected for reference, the game collapses in a shattering of factions and divisions.

One good question to raise, perhaps elsewhere is why it is that religion is so divisive. I think the reason is that by its nature it CANNOT be objective, and cannot be genuinely shared (although it can be agreed upon in words, or not). It is by nature a highly personal, unique contemplation. To even organize it is risky and to try and make it into some objective standard (i.e. that should be accepted by the whople group AND those outside it) is unworkable.

Even fuzzy secular topics, conversely, can be objectivized to some degree -- economics, for example, in that anyone can see if prosperity is increasing or bankruptcy is looming.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: mack/misophist
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:14 PM

Our European friends seem to have missed a few things about the fundamentalists. They more or less control large stretches of this country. They are well organized. They are very well funded, both by the rank and file and by a group of wealthy businessmen. Their religious status often allows them to violate election law with impunity. They virtually own the ruling political party. They take the biblical advice to be 'cunning as serpents' to excess; see 'stealth candidates'. Several of their groups are openly working towards a theocracy with biblical (same as Islamic) justice. Now add to this the fact that their policies tend to destroy the environment and create poverty. Is it no wonder we fear them? Christians are OK. But I classify these people as Satanists. The bad kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:04 PM

What is "intolerance" on the part of "anti religionists?" I don't know of any atheists/agnostics, or "non religious" folk who want to prevent anyone else from believing/practicing whatever they like - until said practice involves others. Which is where "church & state" issues arise. Arguing against religious points of view is not intolerance; punishing or preventing the practices arising from those points of view is, and I don't know of anyone seriously attempting to ban religious practice. Would be grateful for correction, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM

I am not speaking of intolerance as much as motivation. Presumably the anti-religionists do not believe they will burn in hell if they don't destroy every semblance of religion etc.? What end do they desire and how do they wish to achieve it? I would appreciate it if you would include examples/links etc. Yes, there is much intolerance, I agree, but I don't think the fervour is quite so rabid, at least I haven't known of any examples of such. It is important to note, imo, we are talking of extremists no matter the "side." In the US, the Christian extremists are more noted than any other, imo, which makes them a greater force.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:52 PM

The fundies of any religion have no motivation to bring that to bear

I would agree with that statement if it were directed at the anti religionists as well. I have seen just as much intolerance on their part as on the part of the religionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:50 PM

mick would you be 'troubled' by a leader who did not believe in an unseen higher being and if so why?

Fair question.

I would not be troubled by a leader who did not believe in a higher being. That is not my criteria for who I follow. My criteria is the value system of that person with regard to civic life, economic views, International diplomacy, etc. Quite frankly, I care less if they are religious, secular, or anything else. What I want to know is that they share certain values that I have. These would include a respect for the working classes that are the basis of society and the foundation of a sound economy, a belief that anytime the pendulum of power swings too far in either direction our world is in peril, a desire to live within the community of nations with respect for the value of all peoples, and so on. I believe that the basis for my values lies in my own spirituality, but I do not require that others believe the same.

In short, what one is speaks louder than what one says s/he is.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:47 PM

What I really want to foster is a respect for one another's views.

That's the crux, isn't it? The fundies of any religion have no motivation to bring that to bear. Many progressives have goals of Good and tolerance. How do they convince the fundies to embrace such a concept when the latter's religions preach hellfire and damnation if they don't tow the line?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:40 PM

I'm with you, Mick: I get tired of the us Versus them crap.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:39 PM

I did say, I have no knowledge of this person.. for what it is worth. I, personally, have not met any pagans whom I would classify as fundamentalist, so I went looking. I do know pagans who will refute, vociferously at times, claims of fundie Christians, as to what pagans believe and practise. I don't consider that defense to be fundamentalist, though, just an attempt to enlighten/get the record straight, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM

mick would you be 'troubled' by a leader who did not believe in an unseen higher being and if so why?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:23 PM

I am not sure what qualifies this person as an authority, but I will take your word for it. For what it is worth, I was using the term in a purely personal way, meaning I just used to denote a pagan who would be intolerant of others views. I have met pagans such as these who literally mocked my beliefs, even though they are a melding of Catholic and some views that I would describe as nature based.

Perhaps the use of the term "disgusting" crossed the line, but I do find the statement made by Mrzzy to be very troubling. I would take issue with GUEST. I didn't say Mrrzy's post was troubling. I was very clear that I found a statement within that post troubling. My rhetoric wasn't the best, but the essence of my concern remains.   I agree totally that one only needs look at the intolerance of certain Fundamentalist Christians in the US, the North of Ireland, the Taliban in Afganistan, the Red Guard of China, the Nazi's in Germany, the Cambodian Killing Fields, and on and on, to see the effects of folks with a "shouldn't have to put up with......" attitude taken to an improper degree. It's the old purity of thought bullshit we experienced in the 60's and early 70's.

What I am saying, and it is based on rhetoric I see on Mudcat, is that I am troubled by the intolerant views I see expressed by many in the secular community. History is full of examples of it in religious communities, but it is also full of liberal religious people that reject this type of philosophy. What I really want to foster is a respect for one another's views.

Polarization, in the form of Red State/Blue State, Nationalist/Loyalist, Secular/Religious, Pro Life/Pro Choice, seems to me to be the enemy. It is causing a stratification in my own country that is worrying this old street activist.

How's that for a rambling post?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:58 PM

Beautifully put, Graham. Thank you, for that last bit, esp.

Don, I was in Unity for years. Loved the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary and the practical application.

Amos, thanks for the clarification.

At first, fundie pagans sounded like an oxymoron, then I went looking for such a thing on google. I have no knowledge of this person, but this is what a so-called Neo-Pagan Fundamentalist has to say about tolerance:

5. A Pagan fundamentalist is rabidly tolerant, on principle. By that I mean that we do not criticize people for their religious choices, or criticize other religions for the acts of some of their followers. That means no indulging in that fave Wiccan hobby, Christian-bashing. Nope, none of that. Yes, there are obnoxious and vicious people in the world. But a Pagan fundamentalist knows three things about other people's religious choices, and s/he knows them down to the bone. They are: Click to read more.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Grab
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:49 PM

"We" is "humans". Yes, it's fairly woolly. But then, religion is (or should be) a deeply personal experience.

If you had to ask me my religious beliefs, I guess it'd be "God is good". And as far as I can see, any religion that goes further than that is limiting the power of God. If your religion claims to have some list of God's "responsibilities" like a contract for a job, then you're not really believing in much, are you? And nor are you believing in any particular powers for God.

I've heard the phrase "God of the gaps" used where religious people are worried that the more science finds out, the less unexplained stuff there'll be to attribute to Divine Provenance. Oh no! They've found that they've hired a God to do all this work personally, and then it turns out he's worked out some physical processes that'll do the job for him! Sue the lazy bastard! And never mind the infinite wonder of what he dreamed up to make it all happen...

That's the whole problem for me with fundamentalists, "born-again" Christians and anyone else who believes in the literal truth of some book. *Humans* write books. They might say it was divinely inspired, but they might not have been listening at the right time, or they might have used the wrong word, or the word might have changed meaning since then. For the last one, the word "virgin" in the New Testament describing Mary is a particularly good example, since research suggests the Hebrew word used merely meant "young/unmarried woman". Oops! And the Jewish insistance that the Torah must never be changed, even down to the style of handwriting used - sorry, but that's just daft.

And that's also where organised religion gets me down. As a coming-together of a group of people who believe the same thing, I can't imagine anything better. Sadly, I also can't imagine anything *rarer* in organised religion. Again, the bloke (or occasionally woman) doing the talking is a fallible human being, no matter how far up the religious organisation they are. As a result, every last utterance must be assessed for whether it fits what *you* believe. If you get the feeling that they're digging deeper into the results of your beliefs, then that's great. But if they're saying "you must do this under penalty of being thrown out of here" - that's the furthest thing from God that I could possibly imagine.

Most lower-rank ministers/priests/whatever that I've met or seen on TV have fallen into the first category, of talking about what it means to be a fallible human being and still trying to do the best you can. But most of the higher-ranking ones seem to fall into the second category - they're making rules without any contact with the individuals who'll be following them and without any thought as to whether the rules really lead to goodness in the world. The Catholic church's ban on condoms is a classic example of this kind of attitude, which I can only say is the purest form of evil imaginable, not because of the specific issue of birth control but because of the ivory-tower way in which this ruling was put together without caring about its impact.

I guess I've followed her advice about "If you like religion and you don't strictly believe in God, it may be time to attend a church or temple that doesn't either." Music and outdoor activities are my church. Literally. For one example, there's a particular place in the Scottish Highlands which for me is more holy than all the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples you're ever likely to find. And I have little time for the anaemic hymns in the Christian church, but the joy from singing with other people or experiencing performances with them is pure goodness. As I said to start with, "God is good", and if the world is to have any spiritual meaning at all then the reverse also has to apply - "Good is God".

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:44 PM

Kat, I believe you mean "presumptuous" rather than "presumptive" which is applied to evidence or propositions which appear true or reasonable on their face.

Definitions of presumptive on the Web:

having a reasonable basis for belief or acceptance; "the presumptive heir (or heir apparent)"
affording reasonable grounds for belief or acceptance; "presumptive evidence"; "a strong presumptive case is made out"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


As to the article, I think it was a noble effort and not badly written. Since it is an essay in a humanistic proposition, I guess it can be granted some slack if it seems wooly in places. I agree that people like Dawkins would much rather be writing more about evolution and biology (he has written five books on it, I think) than on writing books refuting superstitions about scientific subjects. And therein is the key to the thing.

There is no reason to mix physics and metaphysics, nor to mix any other scientific endeavour with religous issues. It is rational to keep religious beliefs as a private matter between oneself, one's DIvinity (in whatever form) and one's co-religionists.

The minute this boundary is broken by seeking to make religious doctrine or religiously derived moral propositions into a justification for controlling the lives of other people over whom one has no natural authority to dictate, a breach of the social contract has occurred and the doctrine of mutual forebearance has been violated. Thus extremism of the Muslim flavor and extremism of the Christian flavor are both candidates ofr being pilloried because of this violation of boundaries.

In a workable social contract no citizen has or should have the right to impose religous thought on another.

Scientific thought is entirely a different matter. It is not imposed, it is reported and to be valid requires repeatability of observations. It is OPEN to disproveability in its nature and in fact SEEKS it. That's the core difference.

There is no contradiction between being devout as an individual and being scientific as a thinker, and the quote in the article from Carl Sagan offers one view of why.

As to whether the world is profoundly secular or not, I would offger as bet, if ity could be counted up, that the number of secular dialogues (what to eat, how much money, how machines should or do work, employment, organisms, politics health, other species, sciences and their topics) probably outnumbers the religious dialogues of all stripes in any given 24-hour cycle on planet Earth, among humans of all nations and races, by a factor of at least 10 to 1. Probably much more. To put it another way, hundreds of billions of people discuss secular matters from dawn to dusk, while the number who discuss religious issues from dawn to dusk are in the hundred-thousands at best. I would submit this qualifies the world as profoundly secular.

But every one of those people ALSO has some religious thoughts or concerns (even if atheistic). And the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in keeping Congress the hell out of religious practices is well-founded and based on good lessons hard learned from history -- the government of practical affairs among humans should be clearly kept free of religious practices or principles because these topics are too divisive. Therefore they should be strongly encouraged as private practices or the practices of private groups, and strongly discouraged from trying to step across that boundary.

Them's my two bits worth, podnuh.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:41 PM

I also don't FIND it disgusting even.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:39 PM

When one uses rhetoric like "I just don't see the point, in today's already divided world, of putting up with grownups who still believe in fairy tales" , it leads me to wonder what would happen if folks that thought like that were in power.

You only need look at the US where folks who think the reverse ARE in power. If their lack of faith hasn't made them make an almighty fuck up of the world then it must be their faith (following your logic mick.)

I don't fing mrzzy's post disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:29 PM

I have re-read the article. The argument (at least mine) on the chicken thread was about whether religion should not somehow be limited when asking us to belive or do the irrational? Does it not then become contrary to the public interest? The article does not address this.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:24 PM

Thank you Don - I've read it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:24 PM

I know I don't have a bit of problem with the second sentence of Mrrzy's post. But the first one is exactly what I worry about. It is so intolerant as to be disgusting. A tolerant view would be to say that folks have a right to their belief system, whether it is based on a Supreme Being, Nature, or nothing at all. When one uses rhetoric like "I just don't see the point, in today's already divided world, of putting up with grownups who still believe in fairy tales" , it leads me to wonder what would happen if folks that thought like that were in power. What would constitute not putting up with us? Isolation? Purity of thought training? Would we use some sort of Revolutionary Guard to purge the offenders? One needs only look into history about 60 years to see a number of scenario's where these things occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:24 PM

I didn't say I wanted them dead, I just don't see the point of humoring them.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM

Mrrzy, belief in fairytales need not be a capital offence.

Back soon

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:19 PM

Mick, that should be "counsellor" in the USA and something entirely different in teh UK but I am now about to read the bible according to Don FIrth (joke) and revert.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:17 PM

I guess I just don't see the point, in today's already divided world, of putting up with grownups who still believe in fairy tales - and base additional differences on differences among their various invisible friends. I especially don't see the point of following the suggestion in the article that atheists join specific religions that allow free-thinking -why not just be a freethinker?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Mooh
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:09 PM

I double checked the Gandhi quotation above and it appears accurate but that I slipped a "t" into morality, hope that wasn't Freudian. Commerce could be business and morality could be ethics (according to the source I Googled), I suppose depending on translation?

I, as others, don't agree with the "profoundly secular world" statement, so much that flows from it is also suspect.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM

Beware! Another one of my massive screeds.

In the interests of full disclosure:   I don't attend very regularly these days, but I am a member of Central Lutheran Church in Seattle.

I grew up in a family that was not especially religious. We attended church occasionally, but not always the same one. My father was of a somewhat philosophical bent, and my mother was a seeker. She investigated a number of belief systems, including Eastern religions, and eventually settled on Unity. Not Unitarian, but Unity (in the interest of brevity [!], I won't try to explain, I'll just link to information in case anyone is interested). I often went with her. Suffice it to say that it was not fundamentalist in any way, accepted the idea that much of the Bible is allegory and metaphor rather than historical fact, and emphasized the teachings of Jesus as a practical approach to living. I considered myself a philosophical atheist and went with my mother mostly to humor her, but found that the minister said a lot of good things about life in general. Among other things, I think the only time he ever mentioned the word "sin," he defined it as "falling short of our own potential as human beings." This ties in very nicely with one of my favorite quotes by Rabbi Zusya: "When I die, I know God will not ask me, 'Why were you not Moses? God will look upon me ask, 'Why were you not Zusya?'"

Then I got married. Barbara was raised in the Lutheran church and was fairly involved in church activities. I sometimes wondered, because we had learned that we both believe pretty much alike:   neither of us believes in an anthropomorphic God and generally figure that man created God in man's image—which, unfortunately included all the potential human weaknesses and pettiness that the creators themselves embodied. Our (Barbara's and my) concept of God is that God should, perhaps, be spelled with two "o's"—as in "Good." A concept of truth, love, fairness, and all the many things that enhance life and harmony. Not some all-powerful physical entity residing in some other dimension, and definitely not some stern, vengeful, easily offended "Father Figure" on steroids. Interestingly enough, it turns out that many members of the congregation at Central seem to believe pretty much as we do.

Central Lutheran Church has had a couple three or four pastors since I began attending with Barbara. The first seemed to be more of a philosopher than a minister (he often took parts of his sermons from passages in Lord of the Rings and from "Prairie Home Companion." He and I had many good philosophical discussions. Then came The Activist. He managed to get himself thrown in jail a couple of times for things like standing on the railroad tracks to block the train that was bringing nuclear warheads to the Trident submarine base at Bangor, Washington and taking part in sit-ins when tenants were being evicted from low rent housing so some developer could build high priced town-houses and condominiums on the site. I admired Pastor Jon immensely. Lots of people did. He practiced what he preached. Now, we have two pastors:   a young woman (who once held up a Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It does not contain answers;   it contains questions!") and a very large black man who wears an ear ring, and who cruises the city informing the homeless and indigent that they can get a good meal at the Central Lutheran Church parish house, and fear not, no one is going to try to shove a sermon down their throats while they're eating. This church emphasizes community service. It also provides space for things like AA meetings and various other kinds of support groups, and it houses the offices of the national director of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship. I like what this church does, and I have no problem supporting it.

Am I a Christian? I have no idea. Do I believe in the divinity of Jesus? In the sense that we all have a "divine spark" (whatever that is), yes. Do I believe in the miracles that Jesus is supposed to have wrought? I don't know. I kinda doubt it. It's part of the standard hype that gets included in stories about all important religious figures. His main massage was that we shouldn't fight, and we should try to be a whole lot nicer to each other—take care of each other. I find that hard to quarrel with.

Science. I love it! I've had very little formal scientific training (chemistry in high school, a couple of astronomy and general science courses at university), but I read avidly and have a bookshelf full of books like Michio Kaku's Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds, writings by Hawking, Gribbin, Feynman, and others, along with Isaac Asimov's, both fiction and non-fiction, and Carl Sagan's books. Do I believe that the earth was created in seven literal days in 4004 B.C., and that Adam and Eve are actual historical figures? Not hardly. Do I believe that the universe came into existence with the mysterious "Big Bang" some 12 billion years ago? I find it hard to grasp, but it looks at this point that that's the way it happened. Do I believe in evolution? Of course! How can one not? The evidence is overwhelming!

On the one hand, I think that there can be no reasonable quarrel between religion and science. For the True Believer, science explains how God did it. Carl Sagan once said, "God is in the process of being born. Life is the Universe's way of knowing itself." Now this may sound like I'm doing a brief for "intelligent design." Not so. If challenged, I think I can produce plenty of evidence indicating that, rather than intelligently designed, the universe was quite conceivably designed by an Idiot!

On the other hand, for the non-True Believer—the secularist (and when it comes down to it, Barbara and I probably classify as a secular humanists more than anything else)—with one exception, I can see no real reason for animosity toward religion, and it's a pity and a shame that many liberal and progressive people of a secular bent refuse to work with or otherwise have anything to do with equally liberal or progressive religious groups who, politically anyway, believe exactly as they do. Some time back, religious and political conservatives put aside their many differences, turned their attention toward their common goals, and began working together, and that's why the political / religious Right are in the cat-bird seat right now. Would that secular and religious progressives could realize just how smart that tactic was, and join forces as the Right did!

The exception is when particular religious groups try to gain secular / political power so they can force others to abide by their rituals and beliefs. And this is very much on the agenda of the religious Right right now ("America is a Christian country!"), just as much as it is on the agenda of groups such as the Taliban. THIS is why secular progressives and religious progressives had better set their differences aside and start working together, otherwise they may find themselves forced to bow before someone else's concept of God.

To both the religious fundamentalists who feel they need to have all the answers laid out for them, all cut and dried, with no uncertainties, and for the secularists who believe they know all they need to know and that religion and everything about it is pure hog-wash, I would say that if you can't handle a little mystery and ambiguity in your life, you're in pretty sad shape.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:56 PM

Noted, Councillor. Please note the only condition for moderation. Personal attacks not allowed. Spirited debate on all that is entailed in this subject is fine and encouraged. If I violate that, feel free to call me on it. Let's carry on with the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:54 PM

Well, I just read the entire article, and I must say there's far too much there to address briefly. (I have company tonight, so I will attempt to get back to it tomorrow)

I will say that the opening sentence jarred me a bit. "We live in a profoundly secular world, ..." Oh, really? Could'a fooled me.
I know that's not the point of the article, but it set the tone for some valuble insights interspersed with bad examples and just plain shaky reasoning about some points.
The overall notion....that we should be able to coexist, is not terribly profound, but as she says, certain forces are testing it these days....

Well, anyway...more later as I work thru the embedded assumptions and slightly questionable intermediate conclusions.

(BTW...I just attended a festival where the American Atheists had a booth set up, and I wasted a bit of breath trying to tell them that literature praising Madeline Murray O'Haire was counterproductive)

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Mooh
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM

Politics without pricnciple
Wealth without work
Commerce without mortality
Pleasure without conscience
Education without character
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice

Gandhi, I think, and not sure if it's accurate.

Peace, Mooh.