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

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 11:51 PM

Oy.

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: 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: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 01:08 AM

Oy vey!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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 - 01:32 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:57 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.