Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Didache on February 09, 2009, 02:25:03 am
-
A few of you may be familiar with the NY times best selling book , "Misquoting Jesus" that came out a few years ago that deal with how over time scribes changed the text of the bible. well guess what... Ehrman is at it again! In his latest book "Jesus Interupted" Ehrman will deal with the contradictions in the bible that scholars have known about for years but us avergae folks dont. anyways heres the link enjoy! :)
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061173936/Jesus_Interrupted/index.aspx
-
A few of you may be familiar with the NY times best selling book , "Misquoting Jesus" that came out a few years ago that deal with how over time scribes changed the text of the bible. well guess what... Ahriman is at it again! In his latest book "Jesus Interupted" Ahriman will deal with the contradictions in the bible that scholars have known about for years but us avergae folks dont. anyways heres the link enjoy! :)
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061173936/Jesus_Interrupted/index.aspx
Well seeing as the Bible is a collection of different books written by multitudes of writers over a span of several hundred to thousand years, re-translated multiple times and gathered together by churches usually at their own discretion, of course there's going to be contradictions.
One important thing to note though, is most of the contradictions are between the Old Testament (Jewish scripture) and the New Testament (Christian Scripture) I forget the passage, but there is one statement in the New Testament that basically declares the new scripture to replace previous laws and customs of the Old Testament. So while they're all included in the scripture, not all of the older statements are considered law by current Christians. This is one reason for the many denominations, seeing as most people will pick and choose which rules they wish to follow.
As for me, I'm Lutheran, haven't been to a sermon in 2 1/2 years, and don't care how anyone else wants to be religiously unless it conflicts strongly with others.
-
And the Compendium was getting along perfectly peaceably until February 9 at 02:25:03 AM. I thought rainbows were proof we'd never have to go through this again...heh heh heh.
Newer members can probably look forward to debate conducted with full passion.
As for the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments Fou, there's a part in the New Testament (Matthew 5:17) in which Jesus is reported as proclaiming himself the "fulfillment of the law of the Prophets," according to the King James translation at any rate. It's really odd, seeing as Jesus goes against specific Old Testament provisions such as the stoning of prostitutes. I always viewed Jesus as the ultimate white-hat rebel anyway.
-
Is this serious? It sounds like he's just plugging someone's book...>_>
I'm fairly sure there's already a religious thread, right? I remember ignoring it not too long ago...
-
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,3151.0.html (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,3151.0.html)
For threads that are just pictures, links, or in this case blatant advertising please us that thread.
And V I haven't seen a thread in a long time, I do wish they'd come up again they're a fantastic read!
-
I HAVE NO RELIGION EXCEPT FOR THE SACRED HIGH POWA OF THE VIDEO GAME CHURCH. ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS HIGH GOD PAC-MAN, IN WONDERFUL ARCADE LAND, THE NINTH LEVEL OF HEAVEN. HOWEVER, HIGHER THAN THIS IS THE REALM OF RPG. OH ALL MIGHTY PAC-MAN, SEND EVERY ONE OF US HUMBLE CHRONO COMPENDIUMITES TO THAT LEVEL!!!
[/stupidity]
After realizing religion is just another thing for people to bother me for, I dumped it. (HINT: I was Jewish.)
I am now lacking a religion, which I believe is called being Agnostic.
-
Well, if it's going to actually be a thread, then...Religious I am not, but would probably describe myself as openly agnostic. Faith interests me as a concept. People who believe and have a religious fervor especially. Not in a way an atheist might in order to rebuke them (stereotype, huzzah!), but more in a way that I enjoy seeing someone so devoted to something and believe in something that, when you get down to it, is make believe. They don't require proof and there's something beautiful in that, I think. I would love to one day travel and, not study, but maybe just experience some of the different faiths of the world.
-
The flying Spaghetti monster is often misquoted as being swedish.
-
Religion is oppression, and faith is a psychological disorder.
There.
Edit: Faith in your own human potential is exempt unless delusional. Even then, maybe you'll prove that something that seems delusional is, in fact, possible, like people who invented airplanes or did extraordinary things.
-
Religion is oppression, and faith is a psychological disorder.
There.
Edit: Faith in your own human potential is exempt unless delusional. Even then, maybe you'll prove that something that seems delusional is, in fact, possible, like people who invented airplanes or did extraordinary things.
A little....sweeping...of a comment? Human intepretation of religion can lead to oppression, I would say is a more true statement. i don't know if true is the right word there. Regardless...I try to lead a "to each his/her own" policy, but like everyone else I'm not perfect. i was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school through high school. I do not practice now, but really should I feel.
Z, i'm not trying to break balls or yell atcha...I think i'm more hurt than anything else....faith has done a lot for me. i'm not trying to say I'm better/worse.....high road/low road.....my initial reaction was "faith takes balls. grow some." I think that's a little infantile and crass for the situation. Maybe "dating takes balls. grow some" is more appropriate for that comment. Is the Catholic Church responsible for some heinous shit in histroy? You bet. Name someone who isn't...
what I mean is at it's base, it's a beautiful thing to me. No matter how bad you fuck up...NO MATTER HOW BAD...find yourself to be remorseful and God will forgive you. God loves you. Stop stealing each others crap, stop fucking each other all the time without committment, stop killing each other, espeacially stop killing each other over nothing, don't let money/sex/drugs/booze/clothes/etc/etc/etc become the "God" in your life that runs your life, honor your family...I'm paraphrasing and starting to rant but, these are good things, are they not? Are these not things we can all live by, whether they go by Commandments or Common Decency?
As for Agnostics, my feeling about them is "I believe in something, but don't have the balls to tell anyone what"Again, infantile and crass...but I'm not perfect 8) Oi...to each their own...if you find happiness in anything you will be envied.
Sheeit, I KNOW i could be a better person. it's not eve up for debate, so don't take this as some elitist crap. jjust trying to say my piece, which was, at it's core, religion is a good thing that has been distorted by the innane imperfections of humans. if you made it this far in the post, than I hope you understand. And yea, I guess i could've just typed that bit there, but I felt the need to go all out on this one.
-
Stop stealing each others crap, stop fucking each other all the time without committment, stop killing each other, espeacially stop killing each other over nothing, don't let money/sex/drugs/booze/clothes/etc/etc/etc become the "God" in your life that runs your life, honor your family...I'm paraphrasing and starting to rant but, these are good things, are they not? Are these not things we can all live by, whether they go by Commandments or Common Decency?
I could agree with most of it except for the sex without commitment bit. I don't care if anyone (even me) has sex without being committed...Of course, as long as both parties are aware of said circumstances...>_>
I also don't care if people do w/e drugs or drink, but I'd rather them do it in a way that doesn't impact me like, y'know, not doing it while they're driving or something. Otherwise, go ahead & do whatever you want with your body...just remember, you only get one...! Unless you're Hindu...? Or turn cyborg...? Or use some of that fancy stem cell magic...? :lol:
-
And the Compendium was getting along perfectly pleaceably until February 9 at 02:25:03 AM. I thought rainbows were proof we'd never have to go through this again...heh heh heh.
Newer members can probably look forward to debate conducted with full passion.
As for the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments Fou, there's a part in the New Testament (Matthew 5:17) in which Jesus is reported as proclaiming himself the "fulfillment of the law of the Prophets," according to the King James translation at any rate. It's really odd, seeing as Jesus goes against specific Old Testament provisions such as the stoning of prostitutes. I always viewed Jesus as the ultimate white-hat rebel anyway.
Well, not that I know the text off hand, but I'm assuming the word there is teleo. In that case, it definitely does not mean going against, but really fulfilling or completing.
I can explain the concept of the Law as opposed to Grace, and all that, if you guys want me too. Much to the chagrin of ZeaLitY and Lord J I'm still a rather staunch Christian (and Lutheran - I describe myself as 'religious but not spiritual', heh), and seeing as my father's a theologian, have a pretty good understanding of the underlying theological beliefs which most people either don't understand or get confused.
Of course, it is true that what exists as a 'bible' is made out choice and selection over the years. The main criterion in this is the selection of words that follow a single trend, that are unified in message. This might seem arbitrary, but if you are working with such a complicated concept as a religious system, one must take such things as best exemplify the central core of the belief. This would be so in any field. For example, if you were to select books on archaeology, you'd hardly wish to include the likes of the pseudoarchaeologists who claim that civilization originated on Atlantis and that sorta crap. In Christian works the gnostics might be viewed as such extreme outliers. They might be an interesting academic exercise to examine, but have no useful basis when trying to understand the core views.
As for mistranslations and misquotes, that's one that's been brought up often and, though I'm not sure of this man's credentials, is usually a statement made by people who have very little understanding of languages and manuscript traditions. The manuscripts of the Bible are amongst the most secure of antiquity, and scribal copying is far more accurate than you might imagine... as, indeed, is our ability to reconstruct errors. This ability increases manifoldly with the possession of multiple manuscripts, something that cannot be said, for example, with Aeschylus, but with the Bible is copious. Maniscript errors and alterations of that sort, misinterpretations and what not, at least on the basic level, can be almost wholly discounted when speaking of the Bible on purely academic grounds. If you really wish to see the discrepencies, all you've gotta do is get a Greek version of the NT with a full scholia on the bottom. It'll mention each and ever manuscript difference. This is the case when you're reading any ancient work in the source language.
Are there contradictions? Difficult to answer. I would think yes there are, because in that he's right. There are slightly different views on the matter by different writers. It's plain from the text that even in the generation after Jesus there were manifold different views on the matter. This is the case with anything. However, much of the difference that is evident in the NT is not one of theological distinction, but a difference in style, world view, and philosophy. For example, Paul has remarkably Stoic overtones that aren't evident in the gospels; Luke writes as someone incredibly well trained and versed in ancient Classical Greek.
I'll continue this later, as now I've gotta run off to class. But the issue of 'picking and choosing' of which laws to follow is not so clear cut, and at its heart what I would call true Christianity is not a system of law. This is the concept of the fulfillment of the law. The idea is that the law of the Old Testament is impossible to follow, and the judgment levelled by this is death. However, Jesus by His death takes the place of the just death (a sort of scapegoat), therefore rendering the application of the Law done. This is what Faith does. Imagine if someone before a court of law was convicted, and sentenced to death. Now, imagine another person standing up and saying they would take the sentence of death in that person's place. This is the concept we work by.
Jesus was not a rebel. He was a reformer. He reformed - look at the word literally, re-form - what had become confused and based on a law which no one could ever fulfill.
-
I can explain the concept of the Law as opposed to Grace, and all that, if you guys want me too. Much to the chagrin of ZeaLitY and Lord J I'm still a rather staunch Christian (and Lutheran - I describe myself as 'religious but not spiritual', heh), and seeing as my father's a theologian, have a pretty good understanding of the underlying theological beliefs which most people either don't understand or get confused.
Hooray for fellow Lutherans on a message board.
Very good insights Dan (Didn't quote all due to massive quotes being annoying). I really should sit down one of these days and give the scripture a full read through. To date the only books I've completed reading are Genesis (In a failed attempt to give it a full read though which ended a quarter of the way through Exodus) and Revelations (Which is easily one of the most interesting reads in existence and possibly the most controversial to its meanings at times).
One thing I find interesting is the attitude of Lutherans compared to other protestant denominations and Catholicism towards other walks of life. Baptists and many other protestants seem to be the most vehement in regards to going on the warpath over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, and Catholics seem to concentrate on defining right and wrong in what seems to be PSAs from the Vatican. Lutherans on the other hand, don't seem to be up in arms over anything in modern society, or if they are it's not as well documented.
More annoying that zealous Christians, on the other hand, are zealous athiests who instantly brand anyone with a drop of faith to be idiots. No attempts to listen to reasonings or beliefs, just instant idiocy for anyone who believes that the universe and all life within it was made by something other than science.
-
Well seeing as the Bible is a collection of different books written by multitudes of writers over a span of several hundred to thousand years, re-translated multiple times and gathered together by churches usually at their own discretion, of course there's going to be contradictions.
Heh, I might actually be work with Prof. Ehrman if I get accepted to UNC Chapel Hill's program this fall.
While I haven't read his books, there is a historical truth to what he is generally saying. St. Jerome first translated the Bible into Latin (the common language at the time) using as original of texts as he could obtain. However, since then, the majority of other translations and retranslations have been based on Jerome's translation, the septuagint (aka, Greek translations of old testament), etc. It wasn't until Martin Luther that there was a serious return to original sources (and one might note, Luther was not a fan of the book of James). Even then, the practice of retranslation original texts has not been strictly followed since. However, I would have to depart from Ehrman there; the texts are fairly stable and show little to no signs of intentional modification.
Certainly, large sections of the gospels have been misquoted (I am assuming he limited himself to the Gospels, since the other books of the New Testament do not include direct many statements by Jesus, unless one counts the vision of Saul and the book of Revelations). However, by in large, the New Testament and the Old Testament are the two most "accurate" historical records in existence. I say "accurate" only in the preservation of original form; accurate in terms of spiritual or historical truths is something I am not here commenting on.
For one, the modern and commonly accepted books of the bible we cited as being divinely inspired and referenced by early Church fathers. If I am recalling correctly, the books commonly held to be canon were established as early as the second century. Additionally, even if a single original text did not survive, the entire new testament could be reconstructed based on the quotations provided by Church fathers. However, that is not the case; the earliest texts date from the first and second centuries (though to be fair, there is debate in historical circles regarding this; some place the earliest texts at the 4th century or later). Additionally, there are quite literally hundreds of copies of the texts (many complete, some not) dating from early periods as well.
To put this into perspective, most historical records from this time period exist in small numbers (10~30 copies, if we are lucky, usually less) and those records are of late origin (usually the earliest copies date to around 300+ years after the events, but 1000+ years is hardly uncommon).
Then of course there are the extra-canonical texts (Apocrypha, etc). Jerome excluded books that were not written in the original language (such as Greek books of the old testament) and those that were of limited acceptance. These books of the bible were not said to have been irreligious, rather they did not hold the same authority as more reliable works. They were said to still potentially be valuable resources. However, as time went on, these books were included less and less, until we get to the modern era in which most Christians are unaware of them and disregard them when they are so aware.
There is another consideration that is important to this matter; that of linguistics. It is incredibly difficult for a later writer to mimic earlier writing styles. The bible shows few to no such traces (I only qualify the statement because I am far from an expert in the field). To offer an example; words change meanings fairly often; it is a common mistake of manufactured and altered works that words are used to mean something that, at the intended time period, would not have meant that. Static as we use it today means without change. The original Greek word from which we get Static means something closer to "unceasing chaos and revolution." And of course, revolution as something that means change is a fairly modern definition as well. Other markers of tampering are in lettering, spelling, grammar, etc.
Something to note, is that Ehrman is approaching a historical issue from a non-historical background (he is a Religious Studies professor, as opposed to History professor). While this should not look ill-favorably on his work, it should raise the expectation in the reader to find collaborations with historians, citations of academic historical works, etc. A different perspective is often invaluable in academic study, but one has to be extra careful in working significantly outside one’s field of expertise (and in turn reading works by individuals outside their field of expertise).
One thing I find interesting is the attitude of Lutherans compared to other protestant denominations and Catholicism towards other walks of life. Baptists and many other protestants seem to be the most vehement in regards to going on the warpath over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, and Catholics seem to concentrate on defining right and wrong in what seems to be PSAs from the Vatican. Lutherans on the other hand, don't seem to be up in arms over anything in modern society, or if they are it's not as well documented.
Heh, studying the various Christian sects and how they split off, merged, and changed over the years is incredibly fascinating. Lutherans were the first wave of reform from the old Catholic church and though quite different at the time, compared to later revolutions they are still fairly similar. The anabaptists were after that and tended to break with traditional whole hog (said by someone who grew up in a Baptists church). Luther had a respect for tradition and seemed to generally want tradition to conform to scripture, but anabaptists saw tradition as inherently flawed.
Then there are those of the evangelical movement. You can generally tell how radical a church is by what they define spiritual gifts as. These groups include Vineyard churches and others that are generally seen a "ultra conservative" and "anti-this or that." I actually find it hilarious that the most radical Christian sects are seen as the most "conservative."
Anywho, Methodists (of which, as of yesterday, I am now counted among) are also a fairly peaceable bunch. Started by John Wesley, the sect generally says that changes should be made only after due consideration (so don't throw out tradition hastily, but don't cling onto tradition either). They also generally have the approach of: "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
-
More annoying that zealous Christians, on the other hand, are zealous athiests who instantly brand anyone with a drop of faith to be idiots. No attempts to listen to reasonings or beliefs, just instant idiocy for anyone who believes that the universe and all life within it was made by something other than science.
(http://i36.tinypic.com/bzpyx.jpg)
I've yet to see where there's reason in "the mystical tribal sky deity image created all this in the blink of an eye, loved us though promised hell for disbelief, then left a load of contradictory evidence just to make things interesting."
Zealous religious people rape, murder, oppress, and carry out holy wars on terra firma for promise of heaven. Zealous atheists want people to care about THIS world.
-
I'll continue this later, as now I've gotta run off to class. But the issue of 'picking and choosing' of which laws to follow is not so clear cut, and at its heart what I would call true Christianity is not a system of law. This is the concept of the fulfillment of the law. The idea is that the law of the Old Testament is impossible to follow, and the judgment levelled by this is death. However, Jesus by His death takes the place of the just death (a sort of scapegoat), therefore rendering the application of the Law done. This is what Faith does. Imagine if someone before a court of law was convicted, and sentenced to death. Now, imagine another person standing up and saying they would take the sentence of death in that person's place. This is the concept we work by.
So do you then acknowledge that the god you worship is not just? The system you describe here is not just (nor terribly loving). Why believe in, why worship, why follow, such a cruel and wicked deity?
-
(http://i36.tinypic.com/bzpyx.jpg)
Hmm... Where have I seen that before? (Someone help?)
-
After much experiences in life, skepticism of religion in general and exposure to the religions of other cultures, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to truly explore the spiritual nature of existence and to come at peace with ones own existence in this universe is to explore the antipodes of your own mind and find some truth within.
Prayer, meditation, entheogenic drugs - all accomplish this task alone and in combination. The goal of all three is to induce a temporary chemically altered state of mind with the idea that the experience will bless oneself with insight that could not be gleaned from everyday life. Entheogens + meditation are an especially effective combination, which perhaps explains their predominance in religions and secular culture.
Belief in an external god and adherence to a strict set of religious doctrine is not necessary to live a spiritual life. And none of them are necessary to live a meaningful life. A person must derive their own meaning in life since the universe/god does not ascribe any. It is my observation that the people that constantly look for answers outside of themselves in some higher power are consistently disappointed with the results. If polled, they claim to live a happier life due to the influence of that higher power, but inside they are still clinging to ephemeral existence and in fear of inevitable death.
-
Zealous religious people rape, murder, oppress, and carry out holy wars on terra firma for promise of heaven. Zealous atheists want people to care about THIS world.
Most wars have been over land not religion. Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.
Atheists commit crimes too. Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel. Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists. Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.
-
Most wars have been over land not religion. Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.
Today, this is the famous Islamic excuse. "It's all politics, not religion." Yes, because I'm sure that the suicide bomber is happy to blow himself up for no other reason but to help some friends and their political aims. It may be politics at the top, but people who are killing innocents are doing so because of religious urges. It's not an "excuse" when it facilitates the crime. We call this being an accomplice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice) or accessory in our justice system, and religion is guilty as charged.
You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.
Atheists commit crimes too. Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel.
Putting words in my mouth. Humans commit crimes. Religion facilitates and enables a great deal more. In fact, the entire Middle Eastern conflict is a problem of religion hardcoded into the region by centuries of conflict. Europe was wise enough to just drop the fucking problem after suffering religious wars of its own for hundreds of years, although there's a resurgence of tension due to Islamic immigration.
Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists. Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.
You missed this one. Can religious people who think the end of the world is coming actually give a sincere damn about improving it? Or about life in general? To me, this life is all I have. My quality of life centers around humanity and the planet's health. I don't dream of some fantastic little paradise created just for me, nor do I assume that things are going terminally downhill towards a confrontation of believers and non-believers, or that one third of humanity's going to die because of a lack of faith, or any other of this crap that absolves religious people of their responsibility towards humanity and the planet.
This life is all we have (speaking from empirical evidence and reason, not what some stoned "prophet" wrote on a bored day in Corinth two thousand years ago). This world is all we have. And religious people are fucking it up. They're killing each other and innocents in service of religious ideology; they're condemning people to lives of guilt because of their sexuality; they're repressing basic human sexuality; they're oppressing women en masse; they're sabotaging scientific advancement due to outdated, unfounded spiritual beliefs; and worst of all, they're stripping themselves of the one thing that's allowed humanity to come as far as it has: reason. You can be the most functionally logical person in the world, like a scientist or a philosopher, and still ultimately be irrational at the core of your thought because no matter how much the world around you makes sense with science, your entire life revolves around pleasing a mythical being that somehow defies logic. And that unravels the whole ball of yarn.
Zealous atheists are zealous because freedom of religion is a lie. Atheists are the least electable group of people in the United States, and are renowned across the world for being absolutely hated with the most vile passion by religious people. We are a despised minority. In this country, I don't use money that's free from religion; I use "In God We Trust" currency. I swear on a contradictory book of depravity called the Bible to take an oath in a courtroom or for some other official function. My President affirms a belief in God to take presence in the office. We don't even have equality. And you know why?
Because I think that given the scientific evidence, it is overwhelmingly likely that God does not exist.
So yes; I do want people to use their brains and not accept flawed morals and savagely oppressive modes of thought drilled into their minds since childhood. I do want people to examine evidence for God dispassionately and arrive at their own conclusions. I do want people to understand just how incredibly ridiculous religion is and how instrumental it's been in facilitating some of the worst excesses of human evil. And I do want people to focus on making this world better, rather than assuming it's all going to blow up and condemning anyone who doesn't agree. And in a world where people believe in the most inane, contrived crap because a religious text littered with inaccuracies, contradictions, and outright fictions merely told them to, that makes me an apparent villain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-TlRi_uj4
-
Don't have much time before work, so I'll just hit the most blatant fallacy in your laundry list of complaints about Christians. I say Christians and not religious people, because aside from the atrocities commited by Islam, that's all you complain about in your post.
Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists. Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.
You missed this one. Can religious people who think the end of the world is coming actually give a sincere damn about improving it? Or about life in general? To me, this life is all I have. My quality of life centers around humanity and the planet's health. I don't dream of some fantastic little paradise created just for me, nor do I assume that things are going terminally downhill towards a confrontation of believers and non-believers, or that one third of humanity's going to die because of a lack of faith, or any other of this crap that absolves religious people of their responsibility towards humanity and the planet.
Wrong. Just plain wrong. God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.
There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them. (See chart below)
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/FouCapitan/1233733505724.gif)
-
God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.
Call me when the actions of your religious comrades match up with their apparent beliefs and scripture.
There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them. (See chart below)
Go fuck off. You came out with guns blazing against "zealous" atheists and apparently cannot believe that the phrase "religious war" was invented because yes, Virginia, religion has facilitated atrocities. You are part of the fucking problem. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion)
-
Religious debates are funny.
I'm Christian (I think. Maybe Lutheran. Hard to tell the difference from all the names and crap). But! I only call myself that because I hold certain beliefs that really have no scientific founding. I will not argue them or push them on anyone, I will not go to war or beat someone up because some crazy pastor told me to. My reason? Modern churches are crazy.
Here's my own little horror story...
My family used to attend Calvary Lutheran Church and school regularly. After the fifth grade we had to move to a different city and were too far away to make it to sermons. So, after a few months, we get a letter from the pastor, asking why we haven't attended his sermon recently and where we are currently worshiping. Polite, friendly, concise, just seemed like he was worried about us. The next month, we got another letter from him. Since we didn't reply to the last one, he assumed we had abandoned the faith completely and that our 'immortal souls' were in immediate danger.
So basically, he condemned a whole family (including two young children) to hell because our parents had to work on Sunday, we lived too far away to take a bus, we were too young to drive ourselves (10 year olds can't get a license last time I checked), and we didn't respond to his letters.
After searching around, I saw that most churches here are pretty much the same. They want numbers for their register, they want money. They don't care about the fact that it's just as easy to keep up your beliefs and studies at home, without invading the lives of others.
(I even have the letter scanned if you need proof)
So. Modern organized religion? Bullcrap. Having your own faith, yet still keeping an open mind? Fine by me.
-
I don't believe scribes have changed that much, although maybe in the New Testament. Because there is a huge contradiction in the Old Testament. There are two verses that say that some other guy killed Goliath and not David. I believe they are in Ezekiel and Proverbs. I remember because I went to a Christan school untill High School, and I found it one day but my teacher told me to shut up and never question, being a an outspoken Muslim there.
God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.
Call me when the actions of your religious comrades match up with their apparent beliefs and scripture.
Actually Z they are right. It's actually a common misconception of Christians. After the Rapture the Earth will be reformed into an even better paradise than heven. Heven is more of a temporary setting until after the rapture. But you will not receive anew body or anything like that, I'm trying to remember what the actual message was but I know that earth and the now are important to the Bible.
There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them. (See chart below)
Go fuck off. You came out with guns blazing against "zealous" atheists and apparently cannot believe that the phrase "religious war" was invented because yes, Virginia, religion has facilitated atrocities. You are part of the fucking problem. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion)
Well your both sorta wrong here. Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions. But they were completely wrong to come in like that.
-
Actually Z they are right. It's actually a common misconception of Christians.
What I meant was that for a Christian people, Americans sure have no issue polluting the hell out of the environment and being a waste-generating consumerist culture.
Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions.
I was religious, once. It took time, but I read and researched my own experience, acknowledged contradictions, inanities, etc. and concluded, as many others have, that God almost certainly doesn't exist.
-
Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions.
I was religious, once. It took time, but I read and researched my own experience, acknowledged contradictions, inanities, etc. and concluded, as many others have, that God almost certainly doesn't exist.
Ooo, I know this too. That's because the only way to sway one's opinion or beliefs is with more evidence of your belief than they have of theirs. But that's not arguing. THANK YOU AP PSYCH!
-
You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.
*sigh* ZeaLitY, careful. Please don't go making gross claims of revisionism, especially as you are NOT an historian. Thought will back me up on this one, as will the vast majority of mainstream historians throughout history. Since you are in the minority in that viewpoint amongst the scholars, it is that, more than anything, that must logically be claimed revisionism.
Or, let's look at it another way. Revisionism means something has been altered, that the view was one way and people have attempted to change it. Now, as far as I have ever seen reading historical documents, almost no one ever considered religion to be a primary cause of wars. Herodotos didn't; Thucydides didn't.
I am baffled, actually, at how you can make this statement which, really, would not hold up in academic circles. It might be your own view, but you must remember, those who insist that Atlantis was a real place also complain about the 'revisionist' historians that understand how foolish they are being. Now I'm not saying this out of any sort of religious agenda, but it's simply 'fact' (which I put into quotations as any query into history is by neccessity biased by the observers... we really can't have entirely objective history.) But as close as we can get, your argument holds no logical grounds, is not accepted by any real portion of historians. I don't see how you can be so adamant in it.
See, it is true that such things occurred, but to place it on the shoulders of religion is taking a simplistic and skewed approach, putting forward a thesis and finding only those facts which agree with you... a decidedly unscientific approach. There is no evidence for this. That is, you can say 'well, where there was religion, there was this.' But that's not a solid argument. Where there was atheism, there was that, too. Just because two things exist coincidentally hardly means that one proceeds from the other.
Sufficed to say, for as much as this may anger you, religion is by no means the cause of all those things. I will grant you that it might be argued to be a co-conspiritor... that is, where those things arose, religion also was present. Yet such a claim then is that religion and oppression are children of the same social factors, rather than one the cause of the other. Now I will grant that there have been holy wars, and wars over religion. That is undisputable. But that religion is neccessarially the cause of these things is absolute hogwash, and an entirely unscientific statment. The very fact that those things have arisen for reasons of racism and myriad other causes show that religion alone does not cause it, and as such the root of them lie in something different. Oppression existed under Greek democracy as well, heck, each of those things you mentioned existed and in cases were sanctioned by it. That alone is a logical death-knell to your argument. For your argument to hold one must proceed one from the other, which it doesn't.
So honestly? As at least partially an historian (which, ZeaLitY, you are not), I am not the revisionist, nor is any other in saying this. As a professional in a nearly allied field (that of literature, in which at least the ancient history is recorded), you are the gross revisionist in holding that. And I have at my side just about every reputable and respected scholar. And don't bring up the likes of Dawkins... he's a scientist, not an historian. What, would you expect Kagan to suddenly start spouting off about biology? Hardly.
So look again at the concept of revision. It means something has been rewritten. And yet I'm looking at texts older than anything you can possibly read, and yeah, what I say is not the revision. It is indeed easy to throw that word around, but really consider... are you only saying it because it is contrary to your world-view? What are your own biases on this? Because you must certainly have them. We all do. Consider that maybe your objectivity is very clouded.
After all, and here's perhaps the strongest argument against what you said. This concept of 'cause' is extremely outdated. I don't think such simplistic causal models of cultural progression are much used anymore. In some ways, to speak as you do is decades behind the times. That's perhaps the main problem with what you say. It's as though you were trying to make a statement about modern physics by appealing to Aristotle's laws. A nice try, and it might win you some followers amongst the layman, but amongst the scholars it holds little strength.
As to the changes of who killed Goliath, that may well be. I can't pick the verses off hand, but I have read them before. As I recall, it's difficult to sort out things like 'brother of Goliath' or what not, but all the same, those stories do rest in somewhat legendary grounds.
-
Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation? Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change. Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time? Again, could be wrong.
-
Most wars have been over land not religion. Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.
Today, this is the famous Islamic excuse. "It's all politics, not religion." Yes, because I'm sure that the suicide bomber is happy to blow himself up for no other reason but to help some friends and their political aims. It may be politics at the top, but people who are killing innocents are doing so because of religious urges. It's not an "excuse" when it facilitates the crime. We call this being an accomplice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice) or accessory in our justice system, and religion is guilty as charged.
You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.
Atheists commit crimes too. Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel.
I kinda find this offensive. The only problem the Middle East has is there damn conservatism. They are so much more Republican and Conservative in their beliefs than Christians (except Christan Rep.s were incredibly smart this year, no time for that though haha) that they use religion in their government (which by the way god isn't just, he is moral). Not to mention that they are being lied to. Most people in the Middle East under the age of 30 can't read their own language (really, my family is from the middle east) so they believe that the people at the top who read them their religion are being honest. They are being manipulated into doing the bidding of the higher ups by "quoting scripture", when they stop halfway through almost every line. And anyone with a brain from the middle east left already. And to be honest Europe created the problem in the Middle East, but since they changed their ways (which this is also ironic but no time for that) they see them as immoral and horrible people.
Also if you look through any history book you will know that God is racist. He doesn't love everyone, or at least thats what the Europeans and the Neo-Muslims lead us to believe. And frankly can you call Judaism a religion, I mean no hell?
Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation? Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change. Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time? Again, could be wrong.
Yeah your wrong the problem with him is that the Catholic Church said there are several things you have to do to go to heaven, but he only found like two in the Bible.
-
Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation? Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change. Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time? Again, could be wrong.
Close. Very close, but not quite. This is a hairy distinction that most don't know. Yes, the Romans have the concept of transubstatiation. They believe in an actual transformation. But as for being symbolic and not phycial, those are the Protestant churches, such as the Baptists (the Lutherans really aren't a Protestant church.) What these two represent are the philosophical Aristotelians (truth is in the thing, so the bread must change) and the Neo-Platanists (what we see is only a reflection of universal truths.)
Lutherans are neither. They throw aside the philosophy in matters of faith, and are in fact pragmatic Occamists. It says this is the body and the blood? Fine, that's what it is. It doesn't change to the eyes of inspection, but neither is it a symbol. If God has chosen to call it that, that is what it becomes. It is not different, in some ways, than this question. What does Hamlet say? You will likely quote me Shakespeare. But the real, historical, scientific Hamlet never said such a thing. Yet all the same Hamlet DID say it. Alright, that's a weak analogy, but the point is made. Truth is not always in the verifiable truth, and can sometimes exist just in where something is located.
Essentially, Lutherans just go the simplest route. It's said, so it is. Totally irrational, of course. But hey, faith's not meant to be rational, nor for that matter emotional.
As for the exact points on the 95, I'm not quite sure on what they were exactly. I should ask my father. Reformation history is something he's well acquainted with. But just to clarify one thing: it was no act of fierce rebellion to nail the theses to the door. That was sort of the town message board. It wasn't particularly dramatic.
Oh, and of course, ZealKnight, Luther did have trouble with works-salvation such as was taught by the Romans of the time. To Luther, it was all sola gratia, by grace alone. That is, no good works can earn one heaven. Try that one out, eh? I think Lutherans are the only ones, even amongst the Christian sects, that believe that. We don't even believe one can say 'yes' to God, only 'no.'
See, I think a lot of confusion regarding Christian religion, even internal to the faith, arises because people mistake the morality for the theology. They say 'well, they're not following this tenet' and 'they are hypocrites.' Quite wrong, or right only if one think that it is a system of laws one must follow. That's not what Christianity is. Yes, there's the elements of morality, but the sum of that is only 'love your brother.' Of course, pervading the entirety of the scriptures is the knowledge that one really can't achieve that. So what comes out of the scriptures is that reading of one being justified by faith alone. As such, this concept of works does not make a Christian. So when, say, ZeaLitY says that we do not follow what our scriptures say, he is actually quite wrong. All our scriptures say is 'believe and be saved.' This of course is not a license to do whatever one wills, but if one does not willfully reject that, then one has salvation. That is what is said to be the Christian's freedom. We really have no set of laws to follow at all.
-
I didn't really want to get involved in this thread except to put in my two cents which I already did earlier, but I feel compelled to comment on this:
which by the way god isn't just, he is moral.
Isn't it incredibly presumptuous to say that you know anything about the true nature of god?
-
Wasn't Luther being pissed off at the sale of indulgences the main idea of the 95 theses? Or was that just one of the theses? (Oh wait, ninja'd by Krispin on that one I guess)
Transubstantiation is kinda fun. Technically makes us Catholics cannibals, doesn't it? The Spanish conquistadores came over to the New World, saw people being sacrificed, and said what the hell? And then the native peoples saw the eucharist, and said what the hell? True story, I think -- I remember reading somewhere that the people of Peru took Catholics for vampiahs.
-
Daniel he might have used a word wrong and exaggerated the issue but even still he holds true. If wars didn't start for religion and it was a just a grab for slaves or territory. You said so yourself religion was a co-conspirator, the gasoline on a fire. I am not a historian, I deal in logic and mathematics, but even I know that the clash of beliefs, not just religion, is on of the most common factors in war/conflict.
-
I didn't really want to get involved in this thread except to put in my two cents which I already did earlier, but I feel compelled to comment on this:
which by the way god isn't just, he is moral.
Isn't it incredibly presumptuous to say that you know anything about the true nature of god?
God himself of course.
-
Wasn't Luther being pissed off at the sale of indulgences the main idea of the 95 theses? Or was that just one of the theses? (Oh wait, ninja'd by Krispin on that one I guess)
Transubstantiation is kinda fun. Technically makes us Catholics cannibals, doesn't it? The Spanish conquistadores came over to the New World, saw people being sacrificed, and said what the hell? And then the native peoples saw the eucharist, and said what the hell? True story, I think -- I remember reading somewhere that the people of Peru took Catholics for vampiahs.
Oh, I'd believe it. The Romans weren't too happy with them either. That much I know from reading Tactitus. Apparently, though it was obvious to him that they didn't start the great fire of Rome, they nonetheless deserved their fate of being tortured and killed. Supposedly because they were life-haters. Hmm...
And yeah, Kebrel, probably exaggurated too much - I do do that - but thinking back, that's probably what should be gleaned out of what I said. If anything we can term it one of the co-conspirators.
-
... wow. Fast moving topic.
Um... I don't think much of religion. I know that a lot of people warp the teachings of their religion to their own usage (thou shalt not kill... unless thine enemy doth be a heathen. then shoot them up.), but... religion just freaks me out. I don't get into it much. Believe what you want to believe, so long as you let me do the same.
Personally, I believe that there is some being higher than this life, but I don't know what or why. I don't know what happens after this life, and I'd rather not know. No fun in knowing what's coming to me, eh?
-
God himself of course.
No, I meant that it is impossible to know whether or not god is benevolent and just or malevolent, just as it is impossible to obtain any objective certainty that god exists in the first place. Often I hear people of western religious faith wrestling with the concept of "god works in mysterious ways". They try to rationalize why a just god would allow a mother of three and a devout Christian to die with her children in a highway car crash while he lets a pedophile and murderer get away with his crimes. They say "oh well, god just works in mysterious ways and it would be presumptious for me to doubt him". Well, they overlook that it is presumptuous to assume that god even gives a damn about them or about the human race in the first place. Often they fall back on the concept that this life doesn't matter, and what really matters is that ones actions will be judged by god in the afterlife. But it strikes me as incredibly anthropocentric to even consider that a divine being that created this unimaginably vast universe would even be concerned with the life and death of individual humans, much less be benevolent towards us.
It is a personal decision of mine to never trust anyone in life that tells me that they speak for god. Have you seen that douchebag who claims he is the reincarnation of Jesus? Man, I forget his name. Maybe I'll google it in a bit.
-
I'm really not for ANY religion. People believe in this "god" that supposedly created the world. Yet if you think about the obvious things, let's see...Diseases, illnesses, corruption, etc etc...I suppose that was ALL part of his PLAN as well? I just think every religion is pointless and doesn't do any help to the world, in fact, most of the time I see religious people they act arrogant beyond belief because they believe in someone that could be completely made up. Hell, I don't know if it's just where I live or everywhere, but apparently Christians and people who don't have a religion have separate cemetery rules?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI - This is the perfect video to show for this.
-
Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions.
I was religious, once. It took time, but I read and researched my own experience, acknowledged contradictions, inanities, etc. and concluded, as many others have, that God almost certainly doesn't exist.
Ooo, I know this too. That's because the only way to sway one's opinion or beliefs is with more evidence of your belief than they have of theirs. But that's not arguing. THANK YOU AP PSYCH!
I got a 5 on the AP Psychology test, thank you very much.
-
Because I think that given the scientific evidence, it is overwhelmingly likely that God does not exist.
I'm not targeting you ZeaLity, but rather using this non-contextual snipet to juxtaposition my thoughts on the matter.
Building empirical evidence against a supernatural entity is moot. I think it's fair to reject the existence of such a being, but one can't build a case against it -- it can't be done. Put simply, there's much more productive things to do.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI - This is the perfect video to show for this.
ALL HAIL THE JUG OF MILK! His Holy Dairyness shall smite all nonbelievers!
Seriously though, he goes from a very good argument that the answering of prayer is an illusion to the conclusion that therefore god itself is also an illusion - which is a logical fallacy. Both the Christians from my earlier example and this atheist seem to ignore the possibility that a god could exist that just doesn't give a damn about whether we live bountifully or die horrible deaths. A viewpoint that I find particularly appealing, since I am thoroughly disgusted by anthropocentrism on many levels.
It is easy to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of prayer, but it is another thing to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of god. In light of that, this guy seems to have made this video with the sole purpose of pissing Christians off in mind.
-
There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them. (See chart below)
Go fuck off. You came out with guns blazing against "zealous" atheists and apparently cannot believe that the phrase "religious war" was invented because yes, Virginia, religion has facilitated atrocities. You are part of the fucking problem. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion)
Look Z, I don't want this discussion to lead to any personal animosity between us. My statement quoted was merely pointing out that neither of us will change over this argument, no matter what opinions are stated. With that said, the argument becomes pointless, and only leads to throwing out insults at one another and breeding unneeded anger, which your "Go fuck off." reply really drove home, and quite frankly makes me think less of you as a person, which I didn't want this discussion to do.
The entire point I'm trying to make here is that the worst things about beliefs is the hatred that individuals throw into it. Whether it's Muslims hating Jews, Christians hating Muslims, or Atheists hating Christians, it's all despicable behavior. I respect your beliefs for one obvious reason that anyone with good sense can agree with. We don't know what's right or wrong in religious respects. There's no proof of anything, just beliefs. There's no proof of God, there's no proof of Bhudda, nothing. In all fairness I could be wrong just as much as anyone else in what they choose to believe, and that is the ultimate failure in choosing to follow one religion.
I believe there is a greater force in this world beyond our understanding, and I call it God. That's all. I don't know any concrete characteristics of Him, I just know of words and scriptures that others have left behind. Some of them make a lot of sense, like don't kill people, don't cheat on your wife, don't steal stuff from others, love your fellow man, follow the laws of the land, and numerous others I haven't the time or patience to list.
Bottom line, I'm sorry if I insulted you Z, and let's try and keep this discussion open minded and civil. I don't rape murder and pillage in the name of God, so please don't treat me like I'm part of the worst of religious peoples.
-
Let's remember one thing shall we?
Religion = hate.
Simple. For example, I am a Christian, you are a Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Christian that doesn't follow my way of Christianity, etc. You automatically suck because you aren't following my form of religion and will go to hell.I am not like this, I'm just showing an example of how religion chats end up.
For your information, I believe in God, because I cannot fathom bacteria becoming a monkey. Hell, God makes more sense than half the shit scientists cough out each and every day. Do I force my beliefs on someone? No. I am not a radical. I practice my religion in my own home, and I keep it there.
Now, someone lock this thread before everyone starts killing one another. Please.
And one last thing, first person to scoff at my beliefs, go fuck yourself you radical. The world needs less of you.
-
evilution = religion
evolution = science
-
For your information, I believe in God, because I cannot fathom bacteria becoming a monkey.
I'm sorry nightmare, I respect your position fully, but I don't think that is a very good reason to believe in god. Just because you cannot fathom something (despite the whole of observable evidence supporting it) is not a good enough reason to throw your arms up and say "God did it". My point is that whenever someone supports theology over science when they are talking about something that science can observe - theology loses. Every time. If someone believes in god, they should do it for theological reasons, not for what they perceive as a scientific reason.
-
I am a Christian, you are a Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Christian that doesn't follow my way of Christianity, etc. You automatically suck because you aren't following my form of religion and will go to hell.
Ha ha, Miami Jack comes to mind when I read that.
Personally, I am not like that either. I honestly strive to be open-minded (two girls I know were once Wiccans, the other, IIRC, falling back to Christianity, while the other, I cannot truly say, other than she has never in her life been a Christian, and is not one now), even as far as refusing to follow the common Christian in religiously condemning homosexuals (as I said in another thread, a girl I'm friends with, but not one of the aforementioned two, is a lesbian, though one of the other two and a third I know also are).
Wow, so many statements in parentheses. *sigh*
-
I'm really not for ANY religion. People believe in this "god" that supposedly created the world. Yet if you think about the obvious things, let's see...Diseases, illnesses, corruption, etc etc...I suppose that was ALL part of his PLAN as well? I just think every religion is pointless and doesn't do any help to the world, in fact, most of the time I see religious people they act arrogant beyond belief because they believe in someone that could be completely made up. Hell, I don't know if it's just where I live or everywhere, but apparently Christians and people who don't have a religion have separate cemetery rules?
First, in response to religion not helping the world: Red Cross, Salvation Army, Compassion Child, etc.
Religion helps the world quite a bit. The issue, however, generally isn't if religion helps the world, it is if it helps more than it hurts. As I think most would generally agree, Zeality's stance is that it hurts far more than any help could ever make up for, whereas Daniel and I generally maintain the opposite.
Second, on the topic of disease and illness, why do you view those as bad things? How is a disease that feeds off your body any different, fundamentally, than you feeding off the planet? You don't like disease and illness, few people do, but does their existence indicate a flaw in the system? Bacteria can cause illness but bacteria are also necessary for life; you currently house a veritable crapload of bacteria and they are helping you. Indeed, if it wasn't for foreign bodies along the lines of viruses and bacteria, human life would be impossible (since we'd be lacking mitochondria, and even beyond that we wouldn’t have the intestinal bacteria that helps us process food). Viruses, though potentially deadly, have a mutagenic effect; they promote evolution by introducing new sections to our DNA.
In a changing universe, evolution is desirable, and so disease is desirable. The real question seems to be, is a changing universe fundamentally bad?
The problem with your approach is that the universe would seem to be perfectly suited for its current state regardless as to if there is a god and if there wasn't. You say X is bad, I say X is necessary for this marvelous universe and therefore X is good. But neither definitively links to the divine.
Third, yes, some sects of Christianity do have specific cemetery rules. For example, usually only members of a certain church can be buried in that church's graveyard (if there is one). However, that is a practice that to my understanding has largely fallen out of practice... though, some religious sects also strictly oppose cremation, or endorse it, depending on their religious tenants.
Let's remember one thing shall we?
Religion = hate.
It is very true; religion does equal hate. However, it should be noted that hate is not itself inherently evil.
I hate being sick, for example. I hate it when companies rip off the common worker/customer. I hate it when governments do not serve the people that they govern. Are these bad forms of hate?
Now, if I said I hate people with six fingers, you might say that such is a bad form of hate (though if I told you a six fingered man killed my father and I specifically hate that one, you might be more understanding of such hate).
Most human concepts can be good or bad based on the circumstances.
Religions generally say that "X is good" and "Y is bad." Many also then go on to say that one should love that which is good and hate that which is bad. Hence, religions promote hate. However, any and every stance that says some things are desirable and some things are undesirable promotes hate. Atheism = hate, insofar as atheism promotes the idea that religion is bad and non-religion is good. It doesn't mean that the hate itself is bad or misplaced, however.
Though on the topic of evolution; unfortunately it is one of those things that in generality seems absurd but in specific is more reasonable. I say unfortunately because it is usually talked about in generalities rather than specifics, making it usually seem absurd.
You say you can't fathom bacteria becoming a monkey. When you put it like that, it is quite understandable to believe such. One of the hardest things for me to understand was the jump from single to multiple celled organisms. Until I learned that certain single celled organisms alive today can form colonies, with specific cells within that colony performing specific actions. While not a singular entity, I can better imagine a single celled organism developing into that, and that developing into a multi-cellular organism, than I can imagine bacteria evolving into monkeys.
This isn't to say that you should thus believe evolution; rather, the absurdity decreases when one looks at the stages of progression rather than comparing two extremes. I find that the absurdity decreases to such a level as to be perfectly reasonable and convincing, but others might not agree based on the same evidence.
Building empirical evidence against a supernatural entity is moot. I think it's fair to reject the existence of such a being, but one can't build a case against it -- it can't be done. Put simply, there's much more productive things to do.
Just to qualify that statement (which I agree with), one can build a case comprised of empirical evidence against the existence of a supernatural entity, or for it, but such cases can never be conclusive for the simple reason that there can inherently be no controls.
It is quite fair to accept or reject the existence of such a being. But it is quite unfair to insist that one's own choice is the only potentially valid choice.
Wasn't Luther being pissed off at the sale of indulgences the main idea of the 95 theses? Or was that just one of the theses? (Oh wait, ninja'd by Krispin on that one I guess)
Transubstantiation is kinda fun. Technically makes us Catholics cannibals, doesn't it? The Spanish conquistadores came over to the New World, saw people being sacrificed, and said what the hell? And then the native peoples saw the eucharist, and said what the hell? True story, I think -- I remember reading somewhere that the people of Peru took Catholics for vampiahs.
I'm not 100% positive, but I am fairly certain that the 95 theses contained more than just the sale of indulgences. That was just the impetus that started him on the road to everything contained therein. For example, I am pretty sure he rejected the catholic practice of confession as well. But that itself was the first step in a line of rejecting any and all forgiveness of sin that was Church based on not God based (among which the sale of indulgences was included).
Also, that is hilarious; I had never thought about the Jesuits in that light. Though cannibalism was one of the earliest offenses applied to Christians (though it was usually specifically baby flesh and blood that Christians were said to consume, because cannibalism itself wasn't abhorrent enough apparently).
Though, while the evidence is quite sketchy, there were some gnostic sects that may have done just that. The sources are always biased, but even Christians accused other Christian sects of consuming flesh and blood (though the one that comes to mind was attributed with consuming aborted fetuses and placenta).
-
Personally, I believe religion was made for people to have something to believe in, something to do. And often it served a specific purpose, for example, the Jewish Kosher. This was made because, at the time, certain foods being eaten together were deadly. Thus, they made it so eating those foods together was against their religion for safety purposes. That may not apply today, so therefore I have no religion, as I don't need one.
This is how I see Monotheism.
Judaism, The first one. Had some flaws, but it was pretty cool overall.
Christianity, the sequel which is much more popular, with many fanboys, but not nessisarily better than the first.
Cathlicism, Which pretty much just repeated Christianity.
... I'm not even going to talk about the others. You see, I see them all like a sequence of movies. But I do see most things weirdly like that, so, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. Now that I've given the thread some strangeness... ALL HAIL MIGHTY GOD PAC-MAN.
-
Judaism, The first one. Had some flaws, but it was pretty cool overall.
Christianity, the sequel which is much more popular, with many fanboys, but not nessisarily better than the first.
Cathlicism, Which pretty much just repeated Christianity.
Ah yes, Catholics; those who follow the teachings of Cathol.
<.<
>.>
I've never quite understood why some people consider Catholicism to be separate from Christianity. Curiously, there are even some Catholics who do this.
-
evilution = religion
evolution = science
For your information, I believe in God, because I cannot fathom bacteria becoming a monkey.
I'm sorry nightmare, I respect your position fully, but I don't think that is a very good reason to believe in god. Just because you cannot fathom something (despite the whole of observable evidence supporting it) is not a good enough reason to throw your arms up and say "God did it". My point is that whenever someone supports theology over science when they are talking about something that science can observe - theology loses. Every time. If someone believes in god, they should do it for theological reasons, not for what they perceive as a scientific reason.
Congrats, you get the go fuck yourself award.
Listen, I read up on science, I learn about science, I just hate science. To me, science is for people who want to spend their lives studying and never doing anything fun.
Not the profession for me.
Besides, what's easier to tell a child, that through centuries of evolution, bacteria became fish which in turn grew legs and lungs that in turn began to evolve into other creatures until early man was created, then they evolved into man? Or God made everything in seven days?
To summarize it: I believe in God so I can ignore science.
-
Science is what lets you experience this world. If you hate science, become an Amish in the Kalahari Desert and see how long you last. If you drove a car today, thank science.
-
I am of the opinion that science explains exactly HOW God did everything.
Religion: God did it. 'Nuff said.
Science: Here's how it was made.
Me: God did it, and here's how He did it.
EDIT: One comma too many.
-
Science is what lets you experience this world. If you hate science, become an Amish in the Kalahari Desert and see how long you last. If you drove a car today, thank science.
No, God gave man the idea to make cars. >_>
Ugh, I get science. I just hate LEARNING ABOUT IT.
Science ruins fantasy. As a writer, I prefer fantasy over science. Though science fiction is fun.
-
Pretty much all around circle of nothing is right because no one can agree on anything all together.
-
To hate science is to fear oneself and nature. Religion or not, one should cultivate his/her curiosity -- not shun it.
To quote the late Dr. Sagan:
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-
In all the religious debate people open up, we see something that isn't seen elsewhere. Yet this is the only time I have ever lost respect and been disappointed in someone nightmare.
A dislike in learning science is fine, in fact its normal, not everyone finds is fun or interesting. But to hate science and what it brings is to be, against Humanity and all of are accomplishment. Whether god gave the idea of the car or we learned ourselves we still have it and we use that knowledge to not only better ourselves but everyone around us. It explains new things and best of all opens new mysteries all the time.
How could it then destroy fantasy? Its just that fantasy it never true, and doesn't have to be true to be great! In fact perhaps science could even create fantasy just look at movies and books, because of science we have them to tell us of our stories of high fantasy, neo-Sci-fi, and kung fu action. You don't have to understand it, in fact I doubt anyone one person earth understands it all but you can't deign it.
-
To hate science is to fear oneself and nature. Religion or not, one should cultivate his/her curiosity -- not shun it.
Quite agree.
Science is what lets you experience this world. If you hate science, become an Amish in the Kalahari Desert and see how long you last. If you drove a car today, thank science.
Actually, Science is what lets one understand this world. Science has nothing to do with experiencing the Moonlight Sonata or playing Chrono Trigger (though science could certainly be applied).
Also, if you drove a car today, thank a Scottsman first. Then thank science.
-
The Entity should just drop the temp and kill all of us hu-mons off. That would solve this debate.
-
Congrats, you get the go fuck yourself award.
I find it remarkable that my entire post was cordial with regards to you, but it is in a thread about religion that conjures up such spiteful and hateful remarks from people. Nowhere in my post did I say "believing in god is stupid" or "you are stupid for believing in god", I said that believing in god for a perceived flaw in a scientific theory (even though no such flaw exists) is not a very good reason to believe in god compared with believing in god for a theological or philosophical reason. I myself also believe in god, although my entheogenic inspired perception of "god" is so vastly different from that of any world religions that it is almost pointless to even refer to such a concept as a "god".
But since I was cordial to you, and told you that I fully respected your position, and you responded with "go fuck yourself", you have successfully closed down any future cordial discussion and I can confidently reply to the following quotes in a manner that is more fitting.
Listen, I read up on science, I learn about science
Apparently not well enough.
To me, science is for people who want to spend their lives studying and never doing anything fun.
For most scientists, they love what they do and so they consider it "fun". I can relate though. I worked as a scientist for two years in a genetics lab doing the same damn thing every day and it became mind numbingly boring after awhile. I too realized that a job in a lab was not for me, and thus decided to go down a medical path. Something which would be much more rewarding to me. My point is everybody has an ideal place in the world, just because you don't find science fun doesn't mean other people waste their lives doing it.
And from a theological perspective, if you truly admire god - would it not be one of the ultimate acts of praise and worship to want to study and be fascinated by the nature of his grand creation? That's one of the reasons I will never understand many religious people's aversion to science.
Besides, what's easier to tell a child, that through centuries of evolution, bacteria became fish which in turn grew legs and lungs that in turn began to evolve into other creatures until early man was created, then they evolved into man? Or God made everything in seven days?
And the grand finale:
To summarize it: I believe in God so I can ignore science.
It is astounding to me that people think god and science are not compatible. It is also astounding to me that in discussions about the existence of god the theory of evolution is inevitably brought up by people that neither fully understand nor care to understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory in no way has anything to do with whether or not god exists, it just has to do with the concept of life changing over time. I ask you, why couldn't god exist and evolution be his intended way to create life? Is it not a perfect act of creation, that (to quote The Origin of Species) "endless forms most beautiful are continually being evolved"? Is it not an ideal act of creation to employ a mechanism in which life can be adaptable to a changing environment? So that god doesn't have to say "oops, I screwed up" and pop new life-forms into existence after a global extinction event? From a theological perspective, isn't evolution a testament to the power and knowledge of a divine creator?
-
The Entity should just drop the temp and kill all of us hu-mons off. That would solve this debate.
I'm sorry, I don't get this reasoning... People are arguing over something so they should all die, argument solved?
...Yeah I definitely don't get that...
Also it was only a matter of time before science found its way into a religion discussion. The two always find each other, like Godzilla and the military.
I don't see the point in going against science. I mean, you get facts, and then okay, what's the point in arguing, they're facts. Facts by definition can't be wrong. The problem is when theory tries to present itself as fact, and this happens all the fucking time. We get the big bang theory, we have some supporting evidence, but nothing concrete and absolute for it. So now there's a theory that has a good chance of being true, but is not 100% and cannot easily be studied for more answers. But now this theory throws itself around as fact, saying here I am, I'm truth, stop believing in this because I replace it.
Now I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the facts, and I'm not going to go to wiki-itmustbetruebecauseireaditontheinternet-pedia to scavange support for my argument. This is just a layman's point of view on it.
So all in all science is good, but theories and discoveries sometimes take themselves too seriously. How often does it seem like we're at the pinnacle of science only to discover we were dead wrong about something? It's less evident looking back only 10-20 years, but go back 100 years and see how much technology, laws of physics, universal exploration, and even knowledge of our own planet has changed. Every decade to every year we're discovering something new, and many times it totally debunks something old. So basically, science in itself is prone to error, so it shouldn't be defended as though its not. A bit of skepticism doesn't hurt.
Even evolution hasn't found solid ground completely. Yeah, I'm a Christian who isn't completely against the theory of evolution, surprise surprise. If you think this makes me hippocritical, fuck yourself. There's obviously changes occuring within a species through gene selection and survival of the fittest. Monkeys to men though? Somehow I still doubt that's exactly what happened. If mankind evolved so smart and dominant, why didn't any other species on earth? Several other species have had ample time to evolve, and there are plenty of other intelligent animals on the earth, but none come close to mankind. The most advanced use of tools outside of humanity is seen in otters using rocks and some monkeys using sticks. So why only humans? We're special, we're insanely advanced compared to the rest of the planet, and have been so for as long as history records. Even thousands of years before recorded history we find tribal remains that used handmade weapons and tools to hunt and gather, still far beyond any other animals.
So why is humanity special in this aspect? Why do we create, imagine, write, type, dominate and so on? We can go with Lavos' influence, or just shug our shoulders and say God did it. Either way science hasn't found the answer yet (or if it has I haven't heard it yet).
-
To summarize it: I believe in God so I can ignore science.
To scoff at this sentiment does not make one a radical whom the world needs less of. You reject all that all the beauty and good in the universe out of your supreme laziness. You reject knowledge itself. That is a radical position.
Tell me how the world would be better if it were populated entirely by lazy, actively ignorant people. Describe this utopia of yours for me.
-
I'm sorry, I don't get this reasoning... People are arguing over something so they should all die, argument solved?
...Yeah I definitely don't get that...
[/tongue-in-cheek]
-
I'm sorry, I don't get this reasoning... People are arguing over something so they should all die, argument solved?
...Yeah I definitely don't get that...
[/tongue-in-cheek]
[/overmyhead] :lol:
-
So all in all science is good, but theories and discoveries sometimes take themselves too seriously. How often does it seem like we're at the pinnacle of science only to discover we were dead wrong about something? It's less evident looking back only 10-20 years, but go back 100 years and see how much technology, laws of physics, universal exploration, and even knowledge of our own planet has changed. Every decade to every year we're discovering something new, and many times it totally debunks something old. So basically, science in itself is prone to error, so it shouldn't be defended as though its not.
I often hear people say this, but the problem with this is that it presupposes that there has been zero or next to zero progress since several hundred years ago. It presumes that in that time we have observed nothing substantial about objective truth. I can go to the doctor now and have great confidence that I will be cured of an illness, whereas 100 years ago - not so much. I have great confidence that hundreds of years from now atomic theory, cell theory, and other basic scientific theories will not be greatly changed because they have allowed us to effectively predict and advance technology. Every modern technology that we have today is based upon the scientific theories that led to the creation of it. They are clearly representative of objective truth.
The whole of scientific progress is like observing a giant jigsaw puzzle that is the universe. The big, major pieces have already been placed and we can be confident that they will not be moved. The smaller, more intricate pieces might not fit exactly the way we originally thought - but we can already see what the overall big picture is.
I agree with you though, the nature of a scientist should be that of an individual who is optimistically skeptical. Old theories should be continually retested and old presumptions should be continually re-examined. In all my science education I never once heard a professor utter anything close to that sentence, which is truly a shame.
If mankind evolved so smart and dominant, why didn't any other species on earth? Several other species have had ample time to evolve, and there are plenty of other intelligent animals on the earth, but none come close to mankind.
Evolution does not proceed in a particular direction, and human beings are not the pinnacle of evolution anymore than any other animal is. It seems like you are using intelligence as a measuring stick of evolutionary progress to justify an anthropocentric worldview (although I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you). I could just as easily say that there are plenty of animals out there with a superior sense of smell, but humanity doesn't come close in that regard. Why pick intelligence as a characteristic with which to judge the superiority or inferiority of all other species by?
I get what you're saying though, I just felt like going off on a tangent :D. Our level of intelligence is a unique trait to be sure, but don't underestimate the cognitive faculties of other animals. There are many animals that have cognitive abilities that do indeed overlap that of human beings. Our intelligence was clearly an adaptive trait in the past, but who is to say that it will be in the future? For all we know we could nuke ourselves to extinction and life will continue on as it always did, forgetting humanity and our "superior" evolutionary status.
EDIT: On re-reading what you posted, I now think you were asking why our superior intellect was such a rarity? Well, I won't get too in depth into primate evolution and the number of things that first had to develop in order for our intelligence to develop, but I would submit for argument the concept that many other traits besides intelligence have (for all we know) evolved once or only a few times in the long history of life on earth. Just because we were probably the first doesn't mean that we will be the last.
-
For all we know we could nuke ourselves to extinction and life will continue on as it always did, forgetting humanity and our "superior" evolutionary status.
This is my greatest fear; that mankind would so easily and willingly give in to Entropy.
Tell me how the world would be better if it were populated entirely by lazy, actively ignorant people. Describe this utopia of yours for me.
Not to be a smart-ass, but methinks The Time Machine's future 'utopia' is somewhat similar to what you are describing.
-
How often does it seem like we're at the pinnacle of science only to discover we were dead wrong about something?
How much farther would we be if our government for the last eight years hadn't been a religious shill? Federal funding for stem cells is the most obvious example.
It's less evident looking back only 10-20 years, but go back 100 years and see how much technology, laws of physics, universal exploration, and even knowledge of our own planet has changed. Every decade to every year we're discovering something new, and many times it totally debunks something old. So basically, science in itself is prone to error, so it shouldn't be defended as though its not. A bit of skepticism doesn't hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You really blew the lid off the scientific method, there. Of course it's prone to error; humanity is prone to error. And while science fixes itself and move on, religious people cling to the same ridiculous beliefs and largely selectively ignore the scientific evidence that contradicts their religion. Mormons ignore the DNA evidence contradicting their idea that Native Americans are descended from Lamanites. Catholics continue to revere reliquaries filled with fake relics. Muslims accept the record of the life of Muhammad as infallible. Buddhists have their incredible sweeping generalizations about the nature of the universe. Shintoists believe that spirits inhabit objects. And don't even start on the hilarity of Hindu or new age religion. And every region believes in the soul, which has yet to be scientifically proven.
You're all deluded. Science dares to say "I don't know, so let's find out" instead of "I don't know, but I heard from my preacher that Jesus raised some guy from the dead; that sounds pretty cool, so yeah, God exists."
If mankind evolved so smart and dominant, why didn't any other species on earth? Several other species have had ample time to evolve, and there are plenty of other intelligent animals on the earth, but none come close to mankind.
Because we got here first, and because evolution takes place over thousands of generations. This is like asking "why were we born on Earth?" Because Earth had an environment suitable for abiogenesis. Religious people say that Earth was created for us, but we were created from Earth's conditions.
As for that revisionist stuff, Lord J Esq illustrated well in the last two religious threads how deeply the faith-diseased people of this forum think that religion is a net positive for humanity. Arguing that is futile. If you honestly believe religion has been good for humanity, despite the millennia of sexism, war, rape, enmity, ignorance, and oppression, God help us. We do not need religion to be charitable, or friendly, or have ethics. Nor do we need religion to have human curiosity, ingenuity, and achievement. For every Church-sponsored research of the Middle Ages, there was a Galileo put down.
-
I agree with you though, the nature of a scientist should be that of an individual who is optimistically skeptical. Old theories should be continually retested and old presumptions should be continually reexamined. In all my science education I never once heard a professor utter anything close to that sentence, which is truly a shame.
That brightened my day. After watching Star Trek: TNG for the past couple months, I found my way to some information on speed of light. Turns out, as it stands nothing with mass (or at all, I can't remember) can go faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). That ruined my hope to see a warp engine before my time is up. Someone needs to fix that...prove that things can go faster than the speed of light.
-
That brightened my day.
Glad to be of service good sir :D. I personally am not very optimistic for our species. I too would love to see something like that, but I think the probability that war/famine/disease wipes us out before we have the chance to leave this planet for other worlds is very high indeed.
I was just thinking, it is amusing to me that when I posted a thread about the spiritual uses of entheogenic drugs there was no great outcry from Compendium members (a position that I think is even more despised than atheism in this country because it explores the concept that spiritual experiences can be created chemically and not through divine intervention), but a simple thread about skepticism in Christianity quickly turned into a huge verbal holy war.
-
How often does it seem like we're at the pinnacle of science only to discover we were dead wrong about something?
How much farther would we be if our government for the last eight years hadn't been a religious shill? Federal funding for stem cells is the most obvious example.
I'm not touching into politics with a ten foot pole in this thread.
If you honestly believe religion has been good for humanity, despite the millennia of sexism, war, rape, enmity, ignorance, and oppression, God help us.
Was that a joke? :shock:
-
Fiery as ever, ZeaLity. But, I'll have to say that Religion can be used for nothing more than a tool. It is not 'evil' for it is not a tangible entity; it is simply convenient to control people with, and justify otherwise unethical actions. That said, there is nothing wrong with Religion -- a way of life -- insofar as it does not interfere with the intellectual curiosity and freedoms of others. (which, I'll admit doesn't have a good track record for adhering to this.)
-
You know, after typing my last post, I honestly asked myself, "Why do I believe in God?"
Every time I said it was because I hate science, it felt wrong. I had always said I believed in God because of my hate for science, but today felt different. I looked at myself, my father had us go to church for about two years, in which I hated it, but I still had this sinking feeling of God within me. Why did I believe in God?
Every year, on my birthday, my mother says to me, they we are whatever age I turned ie, she said last year that we were nineteen. Not only that, but my father says I was born at 12:30 AM, while my mother says we(there's that "we" again) were born at 12:33 AM. I finally asked her today why she said that, first time I ever asked mind you.
On December 29th, 1989 at 7:00 AM, my mother went into labor with me. At around 11:30 PM, after hours of labor, I had still yet to be born. Doctors learned that my umbilical cord had begun strangling me, slowly killing me. Doctors attempted to get my mother to make one final push, hoping to quickly give birth to me. My mother's heart was failing however and was unable to do as they asked. They gave my mother time to rest, for fear that anymore struggling would kill her. However, on December 30th, 1989, at 12:29, my mother passed away at the age of 26. Doctors quickly did an emergency c-section in order to save my life. At 12:30 I was removed from my mother, declared a still-born.
My father left the room at that point, heartbroken. He blamed God for every mistake that happened. Doctors weighted and cleaned me and sewed my mother back up. Out of nowhere, at 12:33 AM, I cried. Around the same time, my mother's heart began beating once more.
After hearing this, I asked my mom if she knew what death was like. She shook her head, and only said "The only thing I remember was Him giving you to me. Then I woke back up."
I don't know what to say, but my dad tells me that everything my mother said was true. So I guess I believe in God because without him, my mother and I wouldn't be alive today.
-
That brightened my day.
I was just thinking, it is amusing to me that when I posted a thread about the spiritual uses of entheogenic drugs there was no great outcry from Compendium members (a position that I think is even more despised than atheism in this country because it explores the concept that spiritual experiences can be created chemically and not through divine intervention), but a simple thread about skepticism in Christianity quickly turned into a huge verbal holy war.
Your way is interesting and positive; it's like self-exploration, and there's nothing in there about ignoring science, following an outdated moral code, or anything else. What you're doing seems to be chemically-assisted introspection and reflection. While I probably would never explore that through chemical means (no offense; maybe it'll change), I am very interested in states of mind and being aware of my own thought processes and feelings; it comes with an interest in experience in general. I describe Spring rains to people as a "spiritual experience" (I'll go outside to drive somewhere or just be out when it rains in spring and summer), and I consider things like what John Keats felt as he wrote of the nightingale to be examples of that, too. I want those moments of experience. I wrote about it recently here (http://zeality.livejournal.com/22872.html).
That said, there is nothing wrong with Religion -- a way of life -- insofar as it does not interfere with the intellectual curiosity and freedoms of others.
Perhaps to an extent. But if 100% of humans decided to tune out, turn off, and drop in to something like an Amish way of life, then the whole of humanity will have stalled. How wonderful that a group of virtually agnostic, forward-thinking people got this country in motion rather than the Puritan bastards who predated them in settling America. The more people who care about this world and move with an open perspective, the faster we'll all benefit and move forward.
-
Your way is interesting and positive; it's like self-exploration, and there's nothing in there about ignoring science, following an outdated moral code, or anything else.
Ah, I can see that. I just honestly expected (and admittedly cringed at the thought) that the thread would explode into a huge fight like this one did since I think it is equally offensive to people of western religious faith (if not more so) than atheism.
What you're doing seems to be chemically-assisted introspection and reflection. While I probably would never explore that through chemical means (no offense; maybe it'll change), I am very interested in states of mind and being aware of my own thought processes and feelings; it comes with an interest in experience in general.
Yes, it is certainly not for everyone as such experiences can be downright terrifying at times, especially when you pass the introspective boundary and experience ego-death. But for sure, experiencing such a huge deviation from normal human consciousness has definitely been one of the more valuable experiences of my life. I saw some kids talking about how they were going to go buy 40x Salvia divinorum extract for fun at Zebrahead off of Fry St. in Denton (you know the place, right? It's over by where the Tomato used to be). I thought to myself, "those dumb kids have no idea what they are in for". I almost stopped them, but then I decided to let them learn the hard way and have the holy plant shatter their consciousness into a million pieces and then put it back together again. It would make them think twice about abusing it next time.
I describe Spring rains to people as a "spiritual experience" (I'll go outside to drive somewhere or just be out when it rains in spring and summer), and I consider things like what John Keats felt as he wrote of the nightingale to be examples of that, too. I want those moments of experience.
I think that a spiritual experience can be defined as any deviation from normal consciousness that gives one great admiration of existence, and great introspection into the self. Whether caused by a Spring rain, triggered by entheogens, or experienced while attending a religious sermon - it is no different.
Because I have experienced powerful and awe inspiring visions I am much less critical of people of religious faith than you are, because I know how life-changing such experiences can be. The brain is hard-wired to believe what it experiences - so to a person that has experienced a rush of calm and peace wash over them while they are praying to god, it only affirms their belief in that god and their connection to it. I, however, would attribute it to a release of serotonin, a neurotransmitter known to produce such sensation and to be released during episodes of prayer. The very neurotransmitter that is curiously enough molecularly mimicked my most entheogenic drugs. But I don't attempt to denigrate their experience, because I know what it is like to experience it and then some.
It is when closed-mindedness and zealotry takes a religious individual over that I have a problem with them. You can't even have a conversation with people like that. It's like talking to a wall.
-
Even if they're the nicest people in the world, they're still foot soldiers of repressive regimes. The nicest Mormon can treat his wife like a goddess and be respectful of others, but he pays tithing to and stands as an example supporting an organization that feels women should be child-bearing machines and "relief society" members who cannot hold the Priesthood or positions of authority. Ditto for a lot of others.
It's like being a cook for the Nazis. You didn't personally kill any Jews, but you were a cog in the machine that did. This is why religious people who wish everyone would get along are still guilty. Through their own actions and affiliation, they legitimize the full reach of their religion.
-
It is when closed-mindedness and zealotry takes a religious individual over that I have a problem with them. You can't even have a conversation with people like that. It's like talking to a wall.
To be fair, closed-mindedness and zealotry can take individuals of many persuasions over. Politics is another obvious one. But people can be rather petty too; I've seen people shut down like that over which restaurant to eat at or what movie to watch.
Like Socrates, recognizing that one does not know anything (for certain) is the key to wisdom.
-
To be fair, closed-mindedness and zealotry can take individuals of many persuasions over. Politics is another obvious one. But people can be rather petty too; I've seen people shut down like that over which restaurant to eat at or what movie to watch.
No, I didn't mean that religious people were solely susceptible to closed-mindedness and zealotry - but since I was talking specifically about how I am tolerant of religious people because I understand the intensity of spiritual experience, I thought it would be clear that I was bringing up the exception to that rule by talking about closed-minded zealots.
Since we are discussing religion, I didn't find it necessary to include a statement that other people can become just as closed-minded and zealous as those of religious faith.
EDIT: And for that matter, I speak of "religious people" as if they are inherently different than myself. Perhaps in their beliefs, for sure - but we are all just attempting to understand our place in this universe. My door to spiritual experience is unlocked by tryptamines and phenethylamines, aided by my knowledge of biology and chemistry and mediated by meditation. I see no inherent difference in this and with people that attend church, read the Bible, or pray for a spiritual experience (except the obvious difference in intensity of that experience).
-
Even if they're the nicest people in the world, they're still foot soldiers of repressive regimes. The nicest Mormon can treat his wife like a goddess and be respectful of others, but he pays tithing to and stands as an example supporting an organization that feels women should be child-bearing machines and "relief society" members who cannot hold the Priesthood or positions of authority. Ditto for a lot of others.
It's like being a cook for the Nazis. You didn't personally kill any Jews, but you were a cog in the machine that did. This is why religious people who wish everyone would get along are still guilty. Through their own actions and affiliation, they legitimize the full reach of their religion.
So with that respect you pit the Mother Theresa in with the Spanish Inquisition. Guilty by thin association. I don't follow that mentality. I believe one's actions define what they are, not one's fellowships. When I worked at a car rental company I rented a vehicle out to the head of an organized drug syndicate. True story, he and 20 others were arrested and put imprisoned for organizing the biggest meth ring in western Colorado. Now I dealt with him personally but that doesn't make me any bit responsible for his actions. Just as one man going to church, praying for world peace, and learning to love his neighbors through God's guidance doesn't make him responsible for fucking nutballs blowing up abortion clinics, picketing soldier's funerals, and beating homosexuals to death in an alleyway. Especially if he condemns such actions.
Now you'll prolly turn this around and say that religion itself was responsible for these atrocities, and I say...
BULLSHIT
People are responsible for evil. An evil person will do evil things no matter what they fucking beieve, and even if they believe in nothing they'll do it. All attributing evil actions to religion does is give them a half assed excuse for their wrongdoings, and gives you a half assed excuse to hate on religion as a whole when it's INDIVIDUALS who fuck everything up for humanity.
Edit: I'm starting to hate the broken record of this thread, but seriously generalizations over anything piss me off.
Edit 2: Making this my last post in this thread. Pretty much said all I have to say on the entire subject.
-
Now I dealt with him personally but that doesn't make me any bit responsible for his actions.
Totally different situation. You probably didn't know he was a drug lord, and since he could obtain a car anywhere, it's not like your action enabled his evil. That was also your job.
Going to church and endorsing an entire belief system and text that worships ignorance, represses women, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. is voluntary. No one forced you to go there. But unlike helping a drug lord get a ride to the next city, you're legitimizing and adding to the power of an unethical organization. This is why a number of people believe in God but say things like "fuck organized religion; spirituality should be personal." Part of a church? Part of the problem. Although it's not like those people who still believe in God are much better.
Just as one man going to church, praying for world peace, and learning to love his neighbors through God's guidance doesn't make him responsible for fucking nutballs blowing up abortion clinics, picketing soldier's funerals, and beating homosexuals to death in an alleyway.
No. You're part of a congregation that spreads the influence and affirms the power of religion as a tool for evil, just as every practicing Catholic is one more voice behind Pope Benedict's hateful bullshit.
-
Christian's/Catholic's whatever really need to re-read the bible on the whole homosexuality thing. People are killing them because it says in the Bible something about it being bad and they take it so literally that they'll abolish any person that is like that. Fuck, I've even heard priests say that it's not okay to be homosexual.
Either way as people said, the point stands. People commit the evil but they blame God or the religion because "IT SAID TO DO IT IN HERE SEE LOOK!"
-
I don't know what to say, but my dad tells me that everything my mother said was true. So I guess I believe in God because without him, my mother and I wouldn't be alive today.
I'll ignore the faulty logic of this statement for the time being. I'm more interested in your choice in interpreting those events. I'll even ignore that divine intervention is unnecessary for explaining the events you describe. Your delivery was very traumatic, and yet both you and your mother survived. You chose to assign to God responsibility for surviving, when had you not been at a hospital surrounded by doctors (whose knowledge comes from science) that very well may not have been that outcome.
Even more curious, you hold God responsible for your unlikely, yet not impossible survival, but not for the trauma in the first place. Why wrap the umbilical chord around your neck? Why make your mother's heart too weak for the troubled labor? Assuming an intervening deity, the near death you both experienced are just as likely to be the result of divine intervention as your survival.
-
Even if they're the nicest people in the world, they're still foot soldiers of repressive regimes. The nicest Mormon can treat his wife like a goddess and be respectful of others, but he pays tithing to and stands as an example supporting an organization that feels women should be child-bearing machines and "relief society" members who cannot hold the Priesthood or positions of authority. Ditto for a lot of others.
It's like being a cook for the Nazis. You didn't personally kill any Jews, but you were a cog in the machine that did. This is why religious people who wish everyone would get along are still guilty. Through their own actions and affiliation, they legitimize the full reach of their religion.
ZeaLitY, those are bad grounds. Democracy, the one to which you belong, and science as well, has done some oppressive things. Many of the sciences we use to explore the world came out of those very sorts of systems which you abhor. In making use of them, in being a part of them, you are doing the selfsame thing. Your logic in this is grievously flawed, or else you're in denial about your own belief system. If you think Science doesn't do these things, you're about as far gone in 'delusion' as the most ardent religious footsoldier. You have to understand the flaws and virtues of the system to which you belong, not just sit back and say 'THEY belong to oppression; I belong to the free.' This I'm good and they're not dichotomy is the very one which birthed all such terrors as you condemn... yet you are willingly making use of it because you think Science has given you this moral high ground. But it doesn't. No matter how right it may be, it can still be used as propoganda, it can still be used to propogate an oppressive system, and in speaking as you do, you're playing right into that.
So ZeaLitY, I pronounce you guilty of all the holocaust experiments. Of the testing of mustard gas. Of the oppression of the workers in the factories for the sake of progress. For the destruction of Melos by the Democracy of Athens. Because these are the systems to which you belong, and as such you yourself should share in the blame of their mistakes. You are propogating those beliefs. You are making use of Nazi techology in every endorsement of space exploration. You are buying into an oppressive system. Call this bullshit? Fine, bury your head in the sand because you don't like the facts. But every time you speak as you do, you do so as a radical and entirely halt of logic, and your beloved science has in your hands each and every hallmark of a faith.
Don't like the logic, don't play around with it. You cannot have it both ways. If you do, then you're being self-righteous without logical grounds for it. Ignoring the logical facts because they would otherwise condemn you... you cannot do this and call yourself a scientist. If you call yourself a scientist, you cannot logically condemn the religious without condemning science.
I would like to add that very many of the best and brightest people of history have been deeply religious, whether artists or scientists. Some have even had a mystical type of religion. I know this sounds anathematic and illogical to you, ZeaLitY, but all that means is that there's a problem with your paradigm, and if you're a good science you'll have to adapt it rather than being stubborn in your hatred.
Because Mozart was religious. Bach was religious. So was Milton, and Shakespeare. Homer was and Hesiod and Aeschylus. Many of the great painters were. Pythagoras was indeed a mystic as well as a scientist. And if some of the later scientists were unsure of the organization of it all, many of them were all the same deists. Bare fact shows you that discovery/advancement and religion are not seperate, and can go hand in hand. Indeed, look at me. You've seen the poetry I write. You have seen how I think and query. I do so as much and as deeply as you. And yet I am still deeply religious.
All you can answer with that is a rather logically weak 'but you're still held back.' Really? Well, none of the evidence shows that. All that is is the cry of someone who's theory is fallen and is trying to edge around the facts so that his theory isn't crushed. Dawkins, Sagan, these guys are wrong in that they are not good social commentators. They might be brilliant scientists, but their ability to comment on history and the like is severely weak. This is especially so when they talk about religion as a delusion... a power word that is the harbinger of rhetoric sophistry, and sophistry is the art of making the weaker case the stronger.
So careful how you set yourself out. Do not stand by something just because it is how you want to see things. This way of going about this, indeed this the way you are going about things, is the most unscientific thing imaginable: you are taking a conclusion and making the facts fit. You assume religion does this, and are only viewing the facts that fit it. And no matter how many examples are shown to the contrary, whether humanitarian efforts or what not, you simply cannot countence your view and paradigm being challenged. If there's a revisionist tendancy about, it's coming from that side. You are taking a very partisan view of things, ZeaLitY. You think you have some moral high ground, but it's all built on very light sand. For all that you tell yourself your comments are justified, that does not make them justified. Yes, yes, 'just look at all this it does!' but you make so many logical errors in that! For one thing, you have no proven in any way that the one follows neccessarially from the other. You are listing a set of events, and that hardly makes for an argument, at least not a cogent one. I could list any number of events and common oppresions and ascribe them to whatever I like. That is hardly useful. That it is religion itself that is the cause, and not some other thing working through it, you have in no way shown. For example, say an atom bomb was dropped on a city. A million people die. There is pain and suffering. Where is the responsablity? Why, the atom bomb! It killed the people. It caused suffering! And every person who has ever worked on nuclear technology is equally responsible. But wait a second, there's serious logical problems in that! After all, it was not the bomb that is responsible, but the people who ordered it dropped. And as for the researchers, those who saw themselves working to the advancement of energy techologies... are they to share the guilt when their intent was for good? In part this is what you are constantly doing: you are mistaking the means for the cause; in condemning religion rather than those who misuse it.
Indeed, seeing as there are those who are religious and not like that, it cannot be. Yet you choose to ignore the facts in favour of your belief. You talk about repression, but Christianity espouses stoic principles, which were the basis of our rights and freedoms we hold dear today: how is saying 'everyone is equal before the eyes of God' an oppressive commentary? You see, and this is the error of a great amount of your belief, you are entirely unaware of the context of just about any of this. You are, as it were, a novice in your knowledge of history and ancient works. Hold back a second. Hold back and consider that it might be your own view that is laced with prejudice and misunderstanding, and even oppression. It may not be what you would like to see, but since when has seeing what you 'like' to see been the endeavour of a scientist?
Your paradigm is flawed. There is no logical proof whatsoever that religion is the cause of anything you say here, only a means. And if it is a means, so are many other things you choose not to reject. Since that is the case, you are being a hypocrite at best, and a bigot at worst, choosing who you wish to and not condemn by your biased like and dislike of the respective parties. And please, no bringing up 'but it caused this war' and 'it caused this injustice.' No. It was used as a means, but one can always find other causes, whether power or greed or whatever. In fact, it seems rather unlikely that a social construct rather than a human desire would stand at the base of an action. Your arguments falter because in the end they are so incredibly simplistic, they sound much like the 18th century theories on myth. For example, that everything in religion was based on natural phenomenae. I've heard this said a few times around here, but who amongst those saying that know that that theory was one that arose and was discredited in the acedemic community about a century ago? It seems like a nice simplistic answer, even as yours about religion seem absolutely logical to you. But in fact, it doesn't work. You're holding on to an outdated paradigm.
And I'd like to leave you with one thing. I have a friend who is an atheist. He's a bloody brilliant philosopher who thinks atheism is the way to go through philosophy, but is incredibly well versed in Christian teachings... indeed, one of his favourite books is Augustine's City of God. Mark, a full blow atheist. Doesn't belive God exists. Yet all the same, he will always defend Christianity against such atheistic arguments as you are making because he feels them to be entirely illogical and wrong. Because as he sees it, religion does have benefit. And just the other day he quoted me something interesting he read. This one thinker, also an atheist, who admitted that, far from being a boon to advancement, atheism is typically the hallmark of a dying society. That is what the evidence shows.
PS
If you think all the scientist arguments are logical, then your are assuming a sort of saintly priesthood to them. For example, Dawkins' arguments regarding God. The same argument can be made to disprove the existence of Dawkins himself. This is a form of reductio ad absurdum, a philosophical way of arguing. Watch this. If you think it's silly, you have to believe Dawkins' arguments are silly in the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis
That is not to say he's wrong when it comes to his science. But he's not a good philosopher.
-
... why do religion topics always get really deep?
I've already stated my view, but I'll say it again. Believe what you want to believe. Whether there is no god or there is a God (who may or may not wish to kill you as you are sinners with no chance of redemption) or there are many a god or... whatever. My problem with religion is the way that people seem to say that their religion is better than everyone else's and those who don't believe it are heathen bastards who are doomed to burn in hell.
Not all are like that, though.
I just wish that people would see that the diversity of our religious views makes the world interesting. What would the world be like if we all prayed to the same god/God/gods/lack of god and did the same things all the time? Sure, there would be more peace, but aside from being extremely boring (and people who didn't follow through with said religion would probably be punished) ultimately subsets would develop. And these subsets would become their own religion. And we'd be back to square one.
America was founded on the belief that all religions are equal and none shall be discriminated against for said religion. And I hold true to this.
EDIT: I actually have to write a paper using Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God', which details how 'unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen', which essentially means that you don't follow our God and you burn in hell.
-
*facepalm*
I second Nightmare's request to have this thread locked. It's looking like a serious problem could start at any time.
-
I don't know what to say, but my dad tells me that everything my mother said was true. So I guess I believe in God because without him, my mother and I wouldn't be alive today.
I'll ignore the faulty logic of this statement for the time being. I'm more interested in your choice in interpreting those events. I'll even ignore that divine intervention is unnecessary for explaining the events you describe. Your delivery was very traumatic, and yet both you and your mother survived. You chose to assign to God responsibility for surviving, when had you not been at a hospital surrounded by doctors (whose knowledge comes from science) that very well may not have been that outcome.
Even more curious, you hold God responsible for your unlikely, yet not impossible survival, but not for the trauma in the first place. Why wrap the umbilical chord around your neck? Why make your mother's heart too weak for the troubled labor? Assuming an intervening deity, the near death you both experienced are just as likely to be the result of divine intervention as your survival.
I had to rush that last statement because I was late for class, sorry.
Scientifically, what cause not only my mother's heart, but my own, to start beating? We were officially dead for 3 minutes (4 for my mom).
And since you asked, if there is a God, why didn't he just leave us to die? Why did he revive both of us? The doctors had already given up, they were just preparing us for the morgue.
I don't care if you don't believe me, what I didn't(and still don't) want to see is someone calling my mom a liar.
PS, my hated of science stems from my inability to ever complete a science class with a B or better. I have a problem when it comes to all the annoying work that you have to do. It's why I never want to be a scientist.
-
That is not to say he's wrong when it comes to his science. But he's not a good philosopher.
Stephen Jay Gould was a way better biologist. Dawkin's in-your-face attitude really grinds my gears sometimes. It's like he is living in Gould's shadow even after his death and is pissed about it so he has to make more publicity to make up for it. Dawkin's even took nit-picking shots at him periodically. Dawkins = douchebag.
*facepalm*
I second Nightmare's request to have this thread locked. It's looking like a serious problem could start at any time.
Why? Most of the posts in this thread are thought-provoking and intelligent. It is ironic that Nightmare voiced his opinion that the thread should be closed when he (and a few others) were the ones telling people to "go fuck themselves". Overwhelmingly, there have been many good philosophical positions in this thread and it has been an overall productive conversation.
If you can't take the heat then stay the hell out of the kitchen.
-
Scientifically, what cause not only my mother's heart, but my own, to start beating? We were officially dead for 3 minutes (4 for my mom).
It's not inconceivable. I mean, birth is a critical health function that causes trauma to both parent and child, so if complications are going to happen, they're going to happen there. What R_D was trying to say is, if God saved you, why did God let your hearts stop beating in the first place? Was he just playing a sick joke? "Haha, I'll stop their hearts for a while and then bring them back. Hilarious!"
I just wish that people would see that the diversity of our religious views makes the world interesting. What would the world be like if we all prayed to the same god/God/gods/lack of god and did the same things all the time?
For instance, instead of wasting a good portion of their lives praying to the wrong God, they'll have time for other pursuits. They may also pursue more meaningful things now that their lives aren't validated by "duh, you're going to go to heaven anyway." Lack of God is the key to doing all sorts of different, more meaningful things than praying to something that doesn't exist. Buddhists can get lives instead of demonizing the essential human quality of desire. Muslims can move on and stop forcing women to wear burkas. And so on. We shouldn't keep sexist and other oppressive practices around just because they give us variety.
America was founded on the belief that all religions are equal and none shall be discriminated against for said religion. And I hold true to this.
But America doesn't operate on that belief. God is on our currency and in our government. The Judeo-Christian God, even, which means that a lot of other people besides atheists are automatically ceremonially discriminated against.
If you think Science doesn't do these things
Religion virulently promotes ethical frailty and faulty reason; science does nothing of the sort. Both can tools of expression for bad people, but religion is proactive. Religion seeks to legitimize sexism, repression of human sexuality, discrimination against unbelievers, etc.
I would like to add that very many of the best and brightest people of history have been deeply religious, whether artists or scientists. Some have even had a mystical type of religion. I know this sounds anathematic and illogical to you, ZeaLitY, but all that means is that there's a problem with your paradigm, and if you're a good science you'll have to adapt it rather than being stubborn in your hatred.
They were religious because the entire world was religious in history, and if you said you weren't, you were burned at the stake, stoned, et cetera. And religion doesn't necessarily prevent artistry or invention; Thought here is a scientist despite the core of his belief being annoyingly irrational. It's still bad pool, and still an oppressive influence. I never argued that religious people cannot function as human beings.
you are taking a conclusion and making the facts fit.
Don't take me as living in a vacuum. Lord J and the others perfectly elucidated arguments in the past. I'm not going to copy and paste them.
Your paradigm is flawed. There is no logical proof whatsoever that religion is the cause of anything you say here, only a means
I'm not copying and pasting Lord J Esq. But let's take an obvious example:
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Yes, to you, this may only be a means of sexism, but when entire lives are founded upon religious doctrine, that's a pretty devastating and powerful means. Other examples are innumerable.
Yet all the same, he will always defend Christianity against such atheistic arguments as you are making because he feels them to be entirely illogical and wrong. Because as he sees it, religion does have benefit. And just the other day he quoted me something interesting he read. This one thinker, also an atheist, who admitted that, far from being a boon to advancement, atheism is typically the hallmark of a dying society. That is what the evidence shows.
Those poor, unfortunate souls. They don't even have faith in their own humanity. If it's their wish, they can go die in a ditch somewhere while the rest of us build bigger and better things. As a final:
how is saying 'everyone is equal before the eyes of God' an oppressive commentary?
Oh, if only Christians were Christ-like people. That'd be a better world than this, for sure. But it doesn't work, because religion is an irrational set of contradictions and outdated moral codes. It does not work. The proof is in the historical pudding.
-
Scientifically, what cause not only my mother's heart, but my own, to start beating? We were officially dead for 3 minutes (4 for my mom).
I don't know; I'm not a doctor. But I've heard of people who were declared dead not being quite finished with life yet before, and have no reason to assign it to divine whim. Indeed, when faced with a circumstance one cannot explain, the default answer is not "God did it", but "I don't know", hopefully followed with a "But let's find out!"
And since you asked, if there is a God, why didn't he just leave us to die? Why did he revive both of us? The doctors had already given up, they were just preparing us for the morgue.
I'm not sure if you are getting my point or not. Things looked bad for your mother and you, but you pulled through. It makes as much sense to assign divine intent to the unfortunate circumstances that led to your recovery as it does to assign divine intent to the recovery itself. Why one and not the other, in either case? And why, for that matter, assert that there was divine intervention at all?
I don't care if you don't believe me, what I didn't(and still don't) want to see is someone calling my mom a liar.
I have at no point claimed or implied that your mother is a liar. She had an experience that she chose to interpret in a particular fashion. There is nothing dishonest in that. That I disagree with her interpretation of events does not mean I deny her experiences or call her honesty into question.
PS, my hated of science stems from my inability to ever complete a science class with a B or better. I have a problem when it comes to all the annoying work that you have to do. It's why I never want to be a scientist.
I'll let those who have actually worked as scientist address the issue of how close to the real thing high school or college (I don't know what level of education you have) science classes are, but I will say this: Your lack of excelling in science class is no basis for dismissing the process of science, or all of the good it has done.
-
Scientifically, what cause not only my mother's heart, but my own, to start beating? We were officially dead for 3 minutes (4 for my mom).
I don't know; I'm not a doctor. But I've heard of people who were declared dead not being quite finished with life yet before, and have no reason to assign it to divine whim. Indeed, when faced with a circumstance one cannot explain, the default answer is not "God did it", but "I don't know", hopefully followed with a "But let's find out!"
Actually, I'm quite intrigued to know the scientific answer, I might start searching for an answer.
And since you asked, if there is a God, why didn't he just leave us to die? Why did he revive both of us? The doctors had already given up, they were just preparing us for the morgue.
I'm not sure if you are getting my point or not. Things looked bad for your mother and you, but you pulled through. It makes as much sense to assign divine intent to the unfortunate circumstances that led to your recovery as it does to assign divine intent to the recovery itself. Why one and not the other, in either case? And why, for that matter, assert that there was divine intervention at all?
My dad blamed God. I blame God for other reasons pertaining to my life, but since I just found this out, I haven't really delved on it. Forgive me.
I don't care if you don't believe me, what I didn't(and still don't) want to see is someone calling my mom a liar.
I have at no point claimed or implied that your mother is a liar. She had an experience that she chose to interpret in a particular fashion. There is nothing dishonest in that. That I disagree with her interpretation of events does not mean I deny her experiences or call her honesty into question.
That wasn't aimed towards you, it was aimed towards the others.
PS, my hated of science stems from my inability to ever complete a science class with a B or better. I have a problem when it comes to all the annoying work that you have to do. It's why I never want to be a scientist.
I'll let those who have actually worked as scientist address the issue of how close to the real thing high school or college (I don't know what level of education you have) science classes are, but I will say this: Your lack of excelling in science class is no basis for dismissing the process of science, or all of the good it has done.
I don't doubt the wonders of science, I was falsely placing my belief of God over science. I held the thought that you couldn't believe one with the other. I know that sounds stupid (it is), I just never wanted to believe evolution.
-
Nevermind. I'd written something, but I don't think my arguments will do much. Sufficed to say, ZeaLitY, your arguments were only ever judged well elucidated by you yourself, not by me, so recalling them means little. And as for the quote, well, I think it proves nicely my point: you are prone to taking things out of context and not understanding the cultural implications the cause and proceed from them. Until you are more professionally versed in such matters of ancient culture, I do not think there is any point continuing the argument. Your understanding of the whole matter of religion is based from an extremely narrow viewpoint of your current 21st century eye. Until you have a more historically wide mind, I don't think there's much I could possibly say. And by that I don't mean reading bare facts of history. I mean reading some actual ancient works, and trying to understand human culture, rather than just make a pontifical commentary by overlaying an ill fitting contemporary framework on the past.
-
Wow, lots of raw, soul-baring discussion here! Don't worry Shadow, it's all part of the act. Only in a religion thread can people start out with a "fuck you," and get a reply of "no, fuck you!" and then strangle each other, and everything still turns out okay.
Probably late to dredge this up, but Chrono Eric, I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement:
If someone believes in god, they should do it for theological reasons, not for what they perceive as a scientific reason.
Not that there's any way science can prove the existence of a God, but when I compare my own religious experience with that of many others, I think I'm a happier person for basing my belief on a logical framework rather than a purely theological one. Nothing special, just the basic "something outside of science had to result in the paradoxical introduction of matter into a closed system" argument. Since that's my basic assumption, it is my understanding that any religion, including my own, can only be an attempt to approach or commune with that creative force in some way, however tenuous and paltry. I think all humans have an urge to get to the very bottom of the creation mystery, and religion is one way to satisfy that urge, though it doesn't have all the answers, or even a significant fraction of them. Woe, indeed, that a lot of unneeded baggage has historically come with it.
The point I want to get to quickly is that a theistic religion automatically places certain expectations on the creative force that is supposed to have given birth to the universe. In some religions God is portrayed as gentle and loving; in others, a wrathful force that will surely smite the wicked. The religious are either explicitly or implicitly encouraged to pray to God for...stuff, I guess. However, sometimes God doesn't pony up with the stuff: a family member dies, a job offer doesn't appear, a Nazi war criminal gets away and lives a perfectly happy life in Argentina while the relatives of his victims get blown up by suicide bombers. And when something like that happens the religious may endure an intense psychological and emotional crisis as a result. The typical theological explanation that "God works in mysterious ways" is probably going to be devastatingly unsatisfying. The reactionary conclusion is often a.) God is capricious and utterly uncaring or b.) God doesn't exist. There's a certain despair attached to the experience. I've watched people go through that, and it's got to be one of the most heartrending things ever. I mean, the faith crisis-afflicted person's entire worldview is collapsing. People have committed suicide over that sort of thing.
I've never been through a crisis of faith and I attribute it to the fact that my personal logic led me to religion (or something like it, I guess -- a lot of fellow Catholics would probably count me out) as opposed to being taught what to believe. I walked into religion with the assumption that God created the universe and then...who knows what. Human experience points in the direction that God doesn't seem to be a galactic baby sitter, nor a wish granter. I like to believe that God rejoices when humanity advances and even welcomes challenges to it like the kind presented in this thread, and if it can express love, it did so by giving its creations utter freedom to choose between good and evil, but in the end, I know I'm just guessing at things like that. When a person is taught to believe that God has certain characteristics, and that individual builds his or her whole world around that belief, it's really setting the person up for a potential meltdown. That's why I worry about religion based purely on theology. Certainly, religious scholars can find all sorts of scriptural passages that provide them a circuitous way out of the dilemma, but it totally, totally, doesn't work for many laypeople.
However, I suppose I could be shortchanging myself of a rich, passionate experience by not going through a crisis of faith. More than a few writers seem to have been able to pull off wonderful works inspired by their raw agony as they've gone through it. Problem is, it can have lasting negative effects on a person's life.
-
Well, what I meant was (in light of the post I was referencing) that it is foolish to believe in god for the sole reason of a perceived hole in a scientific theory.
ie: "I don't understand how something happens - so instead of attempting to find an answer I attribute it to god."
My subsequent posts should have made it clear that I believe that science can strengthen and bolster ones faith. Here, I'll take the liberty of quoting myself since I think I made my position clear here:
It is astounding to me that people think god and science are not compatible. It is also astounding to me that in discussions about the existence of god the theory of evolution is inevitably brought up by people that neither fully understand nor care to understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory in no way has anything to do with whether or not god exists, it just has to do with the concept of life changing over time. I ask you, why couldn't god exist and evolution be his intended way to create life? Is it not a perfect act of creation, that (to quote The Origin of Species) "endless forms most beautiful are continually being evolved"? Is it not an ideal act of creation to employ a mechanism in which life can be adaptable to a changing environment? So that god doesn't have to say "oops, I screwed up" and pop new life-forms into existence after a global extinction event? From a theological perspective, isn't evolution a testament to the power and knowledge of a divine creator?
And from a theological perspective, if you truly admire god - would it not be one of the ultimate acts of praise and worship to want to study and be fascinated by the nature of his grand creation? That's one of the reasons I will never understand many religious people's aversion to science.
-
Oh, most agreed. I guess my own biases prevented me from linking that to the statement I quoted from you; studying evolution in elementary school was what got me interested in religion in the first place, but science adequately explains it, even if an amoeba popping out of inanimate goo is a veritable miracle by any stretch. Still, it makes enough sense that it could happen through sheer randomness without any outside forces so much as poking a critical atom into place, so Occam's razor weighs in favor of the purely scientific explanation. Where Occam's razor logically breaks down (rather, I should say, points in the unscientific direction, if it's possible to say such a thing) is the introduction of matter/energy into a closed system. It just can't happen. We owe our very existence to the fact that the law of conservation of mass/energy was once broken. The logical conclusion for atheists interested in the origins of the universe is that science will, one day, progress to a point at which we can actually make that happen in a laboratory, but in my view it would simply make us God, given that my definition of God is a force capable of creating something from nothing.
Thus, I guess the logic I'm operating with forces me to conclude that science has set mankind on the path to Godhood. Which is kind of freaky. Do you want the Powah?
-
Oh, most agreed. I guess my own biases prevented me from linking that to the statement I quoted from you; studying evolution in elementary school was what got me interested in religion in the first place, but science adequately explains it, even if an amoeba popping out of inanimate goo is a veritable miracle by any stretch. Still, it makes enough sense that it could happen through sheer randomness without any outside forces so much as poking a critical atom into place, so Occam's razor weighs in favor of the purely scientific explanation. Where Occam's razor logically breaks down (rather, I should say, points in the unscientific direction, if it's possible to say such a thing) is the introduction of matter/energy into a closed system. It just can't happen. We owe our very existence to the fact that the law of conservation of mass/energy was once broken. The logical conclusion for atheists interested in the origins of the universe is that science will, one day, progress to a point at which we can actually make that happen in a laboratory, but in my view it would simply make us God, given that my definition of God is a force capable of creating something from nothing.
Thus, I guess the logic I'm operating with forces me to conclude that science has set mankind on the path to Godhood. Which is kind of freaky. Do you want the Powah?
Is God merely the sum of His creative power? Is God omnipotence alone? :)
-
well, the problem with christians accepting evolution probably stems from its lack of presence in the Bible. Though, I challenge those to who take the Bible literally to explain why those stories have to be taken literally - I see two problems with this:
1) Impossible to understand.
If the Bible really described, say, the Big Bang, or the development of our solar system at least, how could ancient peoples really understand such a concept?
Could you ever explain how a microwave is built and functions to the Romans? No, they would never be able to understand - it is completely beyond them.
2) No trial of faith.
If the Bible consistently matched scientific findings, there would be almost no question of the existence of a creator. The problem is that if heaven and hell did exist, people would live in extreme fear over making any mistake. It would be the ultimate example of Big Brother. All fear, no faith. Pretty much defeats the purpose of free will in the first place. Imagine North Korea, but everywhere and to the extreme, with a soldier holding a gun to your back all the times, yikes.
Then again, arguing against a religion because its documents conflict with science is a meaningless endeavor to begin with... The religions of today haven't always existed, and a 1000 years from now who knows what kinds of faiths people will practice. The flaws in the religious doctrines of today have nothing to do with whether or not a creator exists in the first place...
I guess my final input would be that embracing science 100% over religion is fine but...
How do you know everything you believe about science? Sure you can simply repeat tests, come up with results and know but you can't check everything. To some degree you simply have to trust what others have said. I guess that would make atheism faith in people instead of a god. God might not exist, but everyone is deceitful to some degree. As long as people pursue their own agendas, they could theoretically bribe and intimidate their way into textbooks (again look at North Korea). I guess no "ism" can really be practical - they are all flawed.
I considered myself an atheist before reading this thread, but fuck it - no point in subscribing to anything - I'll just go with the flow 8)
-
Is God omnipotence alone?
I guess my own brand of logic traps me into saying "yes" to that, or at least whatever level of omnipotence is necessary to break the laws of physics with respect to introducing matter/energy into a closed system. God may have other characteristics (being sentient, exhibiting true love for its creations, existing in some kind of realm akin to the biblical conception of heaven, etc.), but I guess omnipotence is the only one we could possibly detect in the absence of subjective religious experiences. And even then, only through the effects of omnipotence, namely the creation of matter or energy where only a vacuum existed before.
How do you know everything you believe about science? Sure you can simply repeat tests, come up with results and know but you can't check everything. To some degree you simply have to trust what others have said.
It is pretty freaky. We have to believe that, since other people have claimed to verify these things, we could also do it if we spent the decades necessary to acquire the talent they have. That, too, is a kind of faith, albeit backed up by tons of literature (heh heh, yes, I see the parallel there).
I think when it comes right down to it, the major sticking point that atheists in the Sam Harris vein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)) have with religion is that, when theologians disagree on something, people tend to get uppity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm). I mean, seriously, were it not for things like the Spanish Inquisition, arguing against religion would have no purpose higher than trying to keep people from snorting pepper or something, and that's if you interpret religion as self delusion or something harmful in and of itself. I'd argue that the marginal benefit of trying to eradicate religion is waning as people become more enlightened and learn to satiate their spiritual cravings more responsibly, but then an abortion clinic gets blown up or a homosexual gets drug to his death with the Book of Leviticus as justification, or a woman in Somalia gets stoned in accordance with Sharia, and, well, damn, they still have a point.
-
Is God omnipotence alone?
The definition of a god, to me, is omnipotence. But that is relative...I'm sure people of today would seem like gods to people from a few thousand years ago...
It is pretty freaky. We have to believe that, since other people have claimed to verify these things, we could also do it if we spent the decades necessary to acquire the talent they have.
You don't have to believe everything. I for one do not believe the Heart & Stroke Foundation's recommendation of eatting margarine over butter; a recommendation born from the presumed unbiased studies in that area regarding saturated fats as evil. I also don't believe that fluoridating the water supply is benefiting the population; something that occurred because of presumed unbiased studies. Personal beliefs aside, there are conflicting studies on those two items.
-
Scientifically, what cause not only my mother's heart, but my own, to start beating? We were officially dead for 3 minutes (4 for my mom).
I am curious; if there was a scientific explanation for what caused your mother's heart and your own to start beating, would that lessen the spiritual value of the event?
I ask because this touches on one of those concepts that I generally disagree with: the belief that divine intervention must inherently have no natural explanation. While I would not claim that God is unable to circumvent the laws of the natural world, neither would I claim that he is incapable of using them.
Which in turn led me to ask my question of you. Even if every single wild-but-scientifically-valid supposition the scientific community proposes is true, would that exclude the possibility of God for you? (I qualified that statement since Scientists have been known to make wild-and-not-scientifically-valid suppositions before. James Watson and Richard Dawkins are two such individuals).
Of course, we would then have the Busy-Body God conception to work against. That is, the belief that anything "undesirable" that happens is evidence of either god not existing or god being a twisted individual. RD and Z ask why God "let" your heart stop. Which is of a similar vein to asking why God lets children starve in the world, why God lets people be murdered, and in general why God lets bad things happen.
Such stances are rather poor ones if one desires to disprove the existence of God; even a cursory consideration gives one two potential outcomes of the stance, either God exists and is a dick, or God doesn't exist. However, deeper reflection on these matters reveals a fundamental perception of God, which I termed the "Busy-Body God" conception. Essentially, there is a belief held by some that if God exists, and if He is good, then there should be no bad in the universe. However, such a conception defines "bad" by "I don't like it." Thus, they expect God to not only promote good in the universe, but to promote the very specific, limited view, good that they want.
Thus, RD and Z ask why God let your mother's heart stop, and your own. They see this as "not good," even cruel (if God exists). However, they fail to take long view of the subject and thus do not take into consideration various other factors that may have well made it "good." For one, perhaps if this series of events hadn't happened, you might not believe in God. Perhaps by coming close to death, your mother's life has been more meaningful and significant since. Perhaps many things; my point is, even when there are unpleasant events, we are not so limited (unless we choose to be) so as to be unable to imagine than even in the worst circumstances, some good could have come from it.
To offer my own experiences: I'm a cancer survivor. Sure, I could take the view that God caused my cancer, and I can also take the view that it is because of God that I recovered from it so well. But having cancer was a very formative point in my life and, looking back, I'd have rather had cancer than not. The experience changed me in a way that I doubt many other experiences could have, and I believe that the change was for the better. So I would maintain, even in giving me cancer, God was being good and kind.
Though to note, that requires the supposition that God “gave” me cancer. I would generally object to such a supposition, especially if one is using “gave” in the same manner that one might say “Bob gave the clamp to Susan” or “Hassem gave a sandwich to Pip.”
Religion virulently promotes ethical frailty and faulty reason; science does nothing of the sort. Both can tools of expression for bad people, but religion is proactive. Religion seeks to legitimize sexism, repression of human sexuality, discrimination against unbelievers, etc.
And, pray tell, what was eugenics but scientists attempting to legitimize sexism and racism? And what was Social Darwinism except science being misused to justify social inequality?
Admittedly, religious individuals have done horrible things. Scientific individuals have as well. However, you continue to attribute to actions of the individual to the whole in the case of religion, and you ignore the actions of the individual and their affect on the whole for science. Actually, you do that for everything else too.
That is the fundamental element of your arguments that make them so ineffectual; you apply a double standard.
Both Daniel and I, and I believe most thinking religious types, would admit that religious individuals have done horrible things and that the world would have been a better place if those things had not happened. However, just as you do not attribute the follies of individuals regarding science to the larger concept of Science itself, neither do we attribute the follies of individuals regarding religion to the larger concept of Religion itself.
In short, people can know the atrocities of religion and still believe that religion is good in the exact same manner that you can know the atrocities of science and still believe that science is good.
Nevermind. I'd written something, but I don't think my arguments will do much. Sufficed to say, ZeaLitY, your arguments were only ever judged well elucidated by you yourself, not by me, so recalling them means little.
While I could certainly be misreading what Z said, I think he meant that Lord J and others have had a positive influence so that his beliefs in certain regards are not exactly what they once were. In turn, I think he was then referring to and recalling Lord J's arguments, not his own.
Actually, I'm slightly surprised Lord J hasn't posted yet. I suppose that could be taken as a comment on the state of the thread.
However, your comments on Z's quote made me think of something. One of the biggest stones individuals throw at religion is modernocentrism. Religions, especially in the modern world, do not represent modern beliefs and that is a sin that the modern world finds unforgivable. The modern world is so certain in the truth behind its beliefs about humans and the world that any disagreement with that perspective is perceived as clearly a heretical belief that aught be burned at the stake (to put it dramatically).
Let us assume, for a moment, that the verse cited is clear proof of a larger theme in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that such a theme is one of "sexism."
Would a theme of sexism invalidate religion? Does a theme of sexism make religion into a harmful non-truth that aught be done away with?
If we believe that knowing the truth of the universe is far better than living in a lie, then a theme of sexism should have absolutely no influence on our perception of religion.
Let me stress that this is only following from the afore mentioned assumption. But if there is a fundamental truth in religion, and if that fundamental truth includes sexism, then is that truth a good one that we should accept and follow?
Now setting such assumptions aside, let me make it clear that I do not believe all religions do include sexism as a fundamental theme, and I would argue against the claim that sexism is inherent to religion. But the point being, the modern world faults religion for not agreeing with the modern world's perceptions; if the Modern World says W and Religion says Q, then Religion is wrong.
However, if we are not mere puppets of the modern age, but rather if we are independent thinkers capable of finding truth, then we come to a horrible possibility: the truth might be something we don't like, something horribly opposed to the world as we know it and accept it.
To move away from real-world religions, allow me to draw from literature and H.P. Lovecraft. Imagine, if you will, that the gods of the safe religion are weak things, Great Ones limited to the earthly sphere, and that beyond that there are higher powers. Imagine that the true gods of the universe are the Great Old Ones like Cthulhu or the Outer Gods like Azathoth and Yog-Sothoth.
If we are dedicated to finding out the truth, then we would be dedicating to Azathoth and Cthulhu, beings whose very existence is anathema to the modern world and all we hold dear and conceive of as good.
So the question is, in seeking truth, are we capable of setting aside the false conceptions of what we view and good and evil and take up the truth instead? If Cthulhu were truth, for example, could we follow him?
To return to the real world now, if Religion is truth, can we set aside modern assumptions and pick up truth?
Which is all a very verbose way of saying: just because Religion might disagree with modern perceptions, it does not follow that Religion is wrong or bad. One must first establish the truth of the matter before one can weigh perceptions, and in doing so one must entertain the possibility that the modern perception does not reflect the truth.
The modern world rejects sexism, and I believe this is rightly so (and I believe Christianity and other religions are in line with such a belief). But it is conceivable that the modern world is incorrect in this rejection. If in a search for Truth I discover that it includes sexism, is it better to adhere to the modern world’s rejection of sexism or to embrace sexism as a part of Truth?
The modern world says nothing on the subject of pants. It might be that in a millennia or two the humans of the future will marvel at how oppressive we were to pants, and they’ll wonder why it took the great pants revolt of 2045 to set the world straight. The point being, merely what the modern world believes may not be truth, especially when pitted against the beliefs of the past. Merely coming later in time doesn’t inherently mean we are ethically superior to the past; we may be equally blind to inequities in our own time, and we might misjudge the inequities of other periods. Faulting something else for not conforming to modern beliefs is improper until one has first established that the modern beliefs are themselves truth and not a product of the age.
Which is all to say, even if religion is all those things that Zeality says it is (a hateful, spiteful, evil, sexist, racist, and oppressive institution), that does not speak a single word on its truth or the existence of God. Until one can establish universal truths to base perceptions upon, citing deviations from the modern perspective is nothing but an appeal to emotion.
Not that there's any way science can prove the existence of a God, but when I compare my own religious experience with that of many others, I think I'm a happier person for basing my belief on a logical framework rather than a purely theological one...
Very wisely put. I didn't quote it all, but you are quite good at making your points, those points being poignant, and those points being eloquently stated. I think I've said it before, but when you speak on these sort of matters, you remind me a lot of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. Which considering that Lewis is my hero, I do mean that as a very high complement.
That's why I worry about religion based purely on theology. Certainly, religious scholars can find all sorts of scriptural passages that provide them a circuitous way out of the dilemma, but it totally, totally, doesn't work for many laypeople.
I've referenced this before, but the basic approach of John Wesley and Methodism can be summed up in the statement: "In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. And in all things, charity." I bring this up because I believe in it and I agree with you. Most of theology, to my mind, deals with nonessentials. Being unimportant, it’s nothing to fight over. And even when disagreeances are on essential matters, one should approach the disagreement with charity and good will, not pitch forks and torches.
Still, it makes enough sense that it could happen through sheer randomness without any outside forces so much as poking a critical atom into place, so Occam's razor weighs in favor of the purely scientific explanation.
Heh, actually, the more I learn about science, the more I realize Occam's Razor is bunk. It really does require fewer suppositions and factors to say that God instantaneously created humans whole cloth than it does to understand the scientifically accepted model of the development and processes of human life. Of course, the problem is that we have a lot of observable evidence for the scientific model. But to give you a taste of what I mean: we have DNA. Yay, DNA! Except that doesn't really control who we are, that job is up to RNA, which codes proteins. Okay, Yay, RNA! Except not all DNA produces RNA that codes proteins, yet changing that DNA can cause effects on the individual. So...Yay, DNA again? Ah, but then there is micro RNA that works on a smaller scale to influence DNA and RNA. And if you are female, you have two copies of the X chromosome. Except, only one is needed generally so the other copy is often switched off in a cell. Chromosomes. Switched off. To note, most/all calico cats are female for this very reason. One should generally expect to find any given X Chromosome to be switched off 50% of the time. Unless that chromosome might cause a problem in the overall body. Then that chromosome can be switched of upwards of 90% of the time. How? Why?! WHO!
Anywho, my point being, a system is almost always more complex than we realize. Thus, Occam's Razor doesn't really fit into science all that well.
well, the problem with christians accepting evolution probably stems from its lack of presence in the Bible.
I'd like to come out of the closet... I'm... I'm a Christian and an Evolutionist.
Actually, with the reaction of some Christians to me believing in Evolution, you would think I had told them I was gay.
I would argue that the problem with Christians accepting evolution has nothing to do with the bible (at least, not in origin) and everything to do with social interactions between Christians and Atheists. When Darwin first published the Origin of Species, there were Christians who rejoiced at it, claiming that the book illuminated the great and unseen tools of God. However, some individuals also used the Origin of Species and the concept of Evolution to beat religion over the head, claiming that it proved god didn't exist. Which relates back to an earlier part of my post;
"...if every single wild-but-scientifically-valid supposition the scientific community proposes is true, would that exclude the possibility of God...?"
Evolution tells us how life changed over countless ages, progressing from something barely recognizable as "alive" to humans and beyond. Nothing in Evolution precludes the possibility of God existing, creating the process itself, or indeed, even pushing it along in unseen and unseeable ways (again, I would largely argue that God can influence the universe in both natural and unnatural ways).
You might be interested in a book on this very topic. It was written by Dr. Francis Collins, the geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project, and he essentially argues why belief in God is acceptable from a scientific perspective. That is, he isn't trying to prove that God exists, scientifically, he argues that nothing in the Scientific Method, scientific research, or the Scientific Community precludes the potential for the existence of God and that Scientists can believe in God without impugning their integrity as a Scientist. The name of the book is The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
He also worked with Darrel Falk to write Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, which is a book taking the opposite approach. This book attempts to convince Christians that it is okay to believe in Science.
Though, I challenge those to who take the Bible literally to explain why those stories have to be taken literally - I see two problems with this:
Curiously, biblical literalism is a somewhat modern element in Christianity, especially as a widespread belief. Sure, there was simplicity in Christianity in the past (people believing that Heaven was a physical location in the sky, etc), but I would argue that that is different than literalism. To note, theologians and religious thinkers even as early as St. Augustine believed that the creation story recorded in the bible was metaphorical and not literal.
I considered myself an atheist before reading this thread, but fuck it - no point in subscribing to anything - I'll just go with the flow 8)
Heh, personally I'd argue that agnosticism is the only logically valid position, for generally the very reasons you stated. To be a theist or an atheist is inherently illogical to me (one can't know for sure, it is impossible to know for sure, so any conclusion inherently requires one to make a decision without complete information, so while the logical evidence might point to a specific conclusion, the evidence and logic will never reach that conclusion, so accepting such a conclusion requires a break with the evidence and with logic). But then, being a theist myself, that would make me illogical under my own belief, so I might not be the best to comment on such a belief either.
I guess my own brand of logic traps me into saying "yes" to that, or at least whatever level of omnipotence is necessary to break the laws of physics with respect to introducing matter/energy into a closed system. God may have other characteristics (being sentient, exhibiting true love for its creations, existing in some kind of realm akin to the biblical conception of heaven, etc.), but I guess omnipotence is the only one we could possibly detect in the absence of subjective religious experiences. And even then, only through the effects of omnipotence, namely the creation of matter or energy where only a vacuum existed before.
One of the interesting things about science is that it supposes universal laws that are eternal. To provide examples: the gravity on earth is a temporary state but the force of gravity is omnipresent throughout the universe. Pi = 3.14159265358979323846... because it does, there are no two ways around it. Matter and Energy, though interchangeable, cannot be created or destroyed; that law is eternal.
However, if one believes that God is omnipotent and that he did create the universe, one comes to a curious possibility; he created the laws of the universe as well. He could have made it so that pi = 3 even, or 2, or 4. He could have made it so that matter and energy could be created and destroyed with ease. He could have made it so that gravity is just a local phenomenon. Etc.
To note, I'd also generally claim that God had to create a "vacuum" for energy and matter to be created in. One might imagine pre-universe to be a sort of geometrical point. No width, height, depth, etc. Not even the space for things to exist.
-
And, pray tell, what was eugenics but scientists attempting to legitimize sexism and racism? And what was Social Darwinism except science being misused to justify social inequality?
Other, less dangerous flavors of human frailty. There is no Church of Eugenics; no far-reaching organization teaching humans from infancy to believe in irrational ideas; no promotion of questionable moral codes in government and life; no favorable protection under the law. Science...
1. Is founded upon reason and prescribes openness and willingness to change in understanding the natural world, and
2. Exists as a peer-reviewed field for volunteers.
Religion...
1. Is founded upon unreasonable, baseless assumptions about the universe, humanity, etc. including countless unethical rules or commandments concerning life, and
2. Aggressively promotes this through proselyting and indoctrination, even of children.
If someone wants to whip up the masses into a fervor with science, they're going to have to have damn good evidence. If they're going to do it with religion, they've got prepackaged imbecility ready from the get-go. Of course, we're dealing with ignorant people who can be manipulated, but at least science's aim is to enlighten them, not keep them where they are by solidifying their faith in the irrational.
that does not speak a single word on its truth or the existence of God.
The incredible unlikelihood of God's existence should be self-evident. It's only because people are taught as children, bound by social pressures, made to fear hell and invest validation in heaven, etc. that they give so much credence to religious ideas. And that's why popular religious belief will continue to erode as more reasonable people are emboldened to no longer tolerate ignorance.
-
I am curious; if there was a scientific explanation for what caused your mother's heart and your own to start beating, would that lessen the spiritual value of the event?
I ask because this touches on one of those concepts that I generally disagree with: the belief that divine intervention must inherently have no natural explanation. While I would not claim that God is unable to circumvent the laws of the natural world, neither would I claim that he is incapable of using them.
Why assert that there is divine intervention in the case of a naturally possible event? That is what Occam's Razor actually is about: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." If a situation can be adequately explained without a god, why suppose one?
Which in turn led me to ask my question of you. Even if every single wild-but-scientifically-valid supposition the scientific community proposes is true, would that exclude the possibility of God for you? (I qualified that statement since Scientists have been known to make wild-and-not-scientifically-valid suppositions before. James Watson and Richard Dawkins are two such individuals).
Science doesn't show that there is not, or cannot be a god. But it has shown that such an entity is unnecessary.
Of course, we would then have the Busy-Body God conception to work against. That is, the belief that anything "undesirable" that happens is evidence of either god not existing or god being a twisted individual. RD and Z ask why God "let" your heart stop. Which is of a similar vein to asking why God lets children starve in the world, why God lets people be murdered, and in general why God lets bad things happen.
Such stances are rather poor ones if one desires to disprove the existence of God; even a cursory consideration gives one two potential outcomes of the stance, either God exists and is a dick, or God doesn't exist. However, deeper reflection on these matters reveals a fundamental perception of God, which I termed the "Busy-Body God" conception. Essentially, there is a belief held by some that if God exists, and if He is good, then there should be no bad in the universe. However, such a conception defines "bad" by "I don't like it." Thus, they expect God to not only promote good in the universe, but to promote the very specific, limited view, good that they want.
It was not my intent to disprove the existence of god with my questions. I was probing at nightmare's understanding of god. He chose to attribute to god the good things that happened, but not the bad (within local scope. I'll get to the broader scope later) If I stab you and then treat the wound, should I be praised as a healer; should I be seen as good for my actions? nightmare was making an assertion about the goodness of God, but he was picking what to attribute to God from the preconception of God's nature being good.
Thus, RD and Z ask why God let your mother's heart stop, and your own. They see this as "not good," even cruel (if God exists). However, they fail to take long view of the subject and thus do not take into consideration various other factors that may have well made it "good." For one, perhaps if this series of events hadn't happened, you might not believe in God. Perhaps by coming close to death, your mother's life has been more meaningful and significant since. Perhaps many things; my point is, even when there are unpleasant events, we are not so limited (unless we choose to be) so as to be unable to imagine than even in the worst circumstances, some good could have come from it.
Believing in God is not virtuous.
While it is possible a greater good may come from any given bit of suffering, an omnipotent being must have the power to accomplish the same good without the suffering. Of course, that's assuming an omnipotent god. But given such an entity, for whom all courses of action are equally trivial, it is cruel to chose the course that does not have the least suffering.
The simpler solution still is that we live in a godless universe; unconscious and thus unconcerned with the trivia of a bunch of apes on a little rock somewhere. That not every event is caused by an intelligent entity, nor is it for any greater purpose. Some may find such a notion upsetting. I find it comforting.
To offer my own experiences: I'm a cancer survivor. Sure, I could take the view that God caused my cancer, and I can also take the view that it is because of God that I recovered from it so well. But having cancer was a very formative point in my life and, looking back, I'd have rather had cancer than not. The experience changed me in a way that I doubt many other experiences could have, and I believe that the change was for the better. So I would maintain, even in giving me cancer, God was being good and kind.
That is from your present perspective. There may come a time when you consider future events to outweigh any good that has come from the experience. I hope this doesn't happen, and am glad you have taken your cancer as an experience to grow from, but it is a possibility. And that's just in the scope of your life. What of the others you interact with? Are their lives enriched or degraded for the person you became? And the people who interact with them? Omniscience, if nothing else, must be convenient for determining such complex situations.
Though to note, that requires the supposition that God “gave” me cancer. I would generally object to such a supposition, especially if one is using “gave” in the same manner that one might say “Bob gave the clamp to Susan” or “Hassem gave a sandwich to Pip.”
Indeed, why assume divine intent at all?
However, your comments on Z's quote made me think of something. One of the biggest stones individuals throw at religion is modernocentrism. Religions, especially in the modern world, do not represent modern beliefs and that is a sin that the modern world finds unforgivable. The modern world is so certain in the truth behind its beliefs about humans and the world that any disagreement with that perspective is perceived as clearly a heretical belief that aught be burned at the stake (to put it dramatically).
This view is overly simplistic. Human knowledge has not been static over the last two thousand years. We have greater knowledge and perspective on many topics than the writers of scripture. Now, have we come to absolute truth on all matters encountered? No, not by any stretch, and this is the strength of the scientific world view: It grows with knowledge. I've seen creationists try to discredit science by pointing out things held to be true in an earlier time that we now consider false. What they fail to understand is that if you disprove something held by science, you make science stronger, not weaker, because you have added to our knowledge.
We presently have a paradigm designed to adapt and change as we learn. I do not think that this is necessarily true of religions in general, but I'm willing to take arguments.
Let us assume, for a moment, that the verse cited is clear proof of a larger theme in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that such a theme is one of "sexism."
Would a theme of sexism invalidate religion? Does a theme of sexism make religion into a harmful non-truth that aught be done away with?
If we believe that knowing the truth of the universe is far better than living in a lie, then a theme of sexism should have absolutely no influence on our perception of religion.
This is not true. If sexism is itself bad, and religion promotes it as good, then religion is at odds with what is true. Or put another way, the religion is false, and since our sincere desire is to know the truth, we must reject it as such. So yes, it must influence our perception of religion.
Let me stress that this is only following from the afore mentioned assumption. But if there is a fundamental truth in religion, and if that fundamental truth includes sexism, then is that truth a good one that we should accept and follow?
Sexism is true in as much as there is such a thing as sexism and it is practiced. But that a thing is true does not mean that it is good, simply that it is. To say there is sexism is an observation, not a judgment. But if we decide (as I believe we rightly have) that sexism is bad, and if it is true that there is sexism, we must have the courage to oppose it. Not every truth is eternal, and a bad truth can be supplanted by a good truth.
Heh, actually, the more I learn about science, the more I realize Occam's Razor is bunk. It really does require fewer suppositions and factors to say that God instantaneously created humans whole cloth than it does to understand the scientifically accepted model of the development and processes of human life.
I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor. Gods are unnecessary given our present evidence, so why add them? And adding them just causes a bigger problem: Where did such incredible beings come from? You then have to solve that problem. That saying "Poof God did it" may be apparently simpler (ignoring the begged question of who did god) that doesn't mean it's the preferable solution via Occam's Razor, as it adds unnecessary externalities.
Curiously, biblical literalism is a somewhat modern element in Christianity, especially as a widespread belief. Sure, there was simplicity in Christianity in the past (people believing that Heaven was a physical location in the sky, etc), but I would argue that that is different than literalism. To note, theologians and religious thinkers even as early as St. Augustine believed that the creation story recorded in the bible was metaphorical and not literal.
What defines a religion then? The beliefs of the laity, clergy and/or theologians? The text of the religion's holy books? The interpretation of one of the above groups?
Heh, personally I'd argue that agnosticism is the only logically valid position, for generally the very reasons you stated. To be a theist or an atheist is inherently illogical to me (one can't know for sure, it is impossible to know for sure, so any conclusion inherently requires one to make a decision without complete information, so while the logical evidence might point to a specific conclusion, the evidence and logic will never reach that conclusion, so accepting such a conclusion requires a break with the evidence and with logic). But then, being a theist myself, that would make me illogical under my own belief, so I might not be the best to comment on such a belief either.
Ultimately though, aren't we all agnostic? None of us can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there must be or must not be some deities sitting on the other side of human perception. I call myself an atheist and not an agnostic because, while it is true that I am in theory an agnostic, I am in practice an atheist, for without evidence of gods, I live as though there aren't any. Of course, this brings up the inverse of what has been brought up before: The existence of a god or gods does not imply that any present religion is true.
-
the basic approach of John Wesley and Methodism can be summed up in the statement: "In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. And in all things, charity."
Methodism really interests me; its adherents seem to have more liberal leanings on average than those of other Christian denominations, at least judging from my experiences as an undergrad at a college affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and having had an opportunity to canvass alongside a Methodist minister while I worked on the Obama Campaign. Walking around with a pro-choice minister, and having the opportunity to ask him stuff, was really something.
Still, a quick look at Methodism's Wikipedia article reveals that while the Methodist churches have functionally overcome sexism, there's still room for improvement on the valuing of homosexuals, and then there's the nefarious discouragement of drinking alcohol. 8) But kidding aside, I think the Methodist churches are generally going in a better direction than other, more static, religions.
-
I was giving this matter some thought, and to be honest, your statement that the proof is in the historical pudding caused me some aggravation. How, I thought, can that be, when all that I see of history shows otherwise? And surely my own study of history has yielded at least some more insight than yours, it having been longer and more detailed? But that is all moot if I cannot raise a compelling argument to contradict what you have said. Since you seem adamant that history has shown this the case, I suppose I must attempt to disprove that element of your argument.
However, I cannot strike at examples. That has been done and redone manifold times, and for each even you may bring up, and I a counter, it brings us no closer to a refutation of the other, and we only raise up a blazing passion of anger in our hearts as to the other’s view. So instead I will attempt to strike more at the heart of what you have said, and undermine the logic of your thesis. Since you have said that in the historical context religion has been shown cruel and oppressive, I must strike at your observation of history and society’s role in it.
The simplest way I have of doings this is by giving you a refutation by analogy. That is, to show you another example of a concept that I can set up the same way as yours against religion. If this holds method is then sound, but the conclusion is wrong, then it is obvious that you have made an error in your application of origin of oppression.
My exemplar to this will be government. And the examples need not be altogether long. To phrase things in a similar way to yours, but replacing religion with government, will go as follows. Government has been around wherever there has been oppression. Government has been the cause of numerous wars and slaughters, and has condoned tyranny over fast groups of people and over the sexes. At times, an oppression of thought and disallowance of freedom of speech. We have not been allowed to question certain governments, and what they say is law. Some leaders have been made infallible and benevolent in amidst their evils. At times, an even irrational pitch of cloistered self-righteousness is reached, like when liberty cried from the severed head s in the streets of Paris. Or when the mob of Athens called for an island’s destruction, or the Florentine’s demanded vengeance on the conspirators. We have seen even women set subservient through a legal, rather than religious, hierarchy. This example, which you are fond to apply to religion, is evident in the law codes of most ancient peoples. I am not familiar with all, but in particular I have some knowledge of the workings of Greek law, and in particular have read a defence speech written by Lysias in the 4th century BC. This, the defence of a man who killed another man for adultery with his wife, is a good example as it has elements of the relations between the sexes. It shows the codified laws and, through governmental institutions, places women at a lower rank, having essentially the legal rights of children. This, I am sure you would agree, is a sexist stance to take, and is something whose authority in this case is upheld by government - more specifically the law codes written upon the Athenian stele. Here there is no appeal to the gods or religion, but merely a court case within the bounds of state law. So sexism certainly exists under the auspices of government.
Therefore, these are all true statements regarding the oppression of government, even as yours concerning religion’s presence in these things is also true. And yet government remains unblemished in your view. Or, at least, the concept of government. You may be against Hitler’s Socialists, or rather unfavourable toward the not too distant American democracy of last year, but there are elements of government you think are true and pure, at least in ideal, and at times in practice. As such, I’ve reduced the argument against religion based on historical evidence to an absurdity by showing that the same argument can be made to destroy government or any other institution.
It might be worth noting here that a similar refutation was made about a hundred years ago against those who considered all religious belief based on natural phenomenae. This theory quickly fell out of vogue with serious scholars after it was shown that the same logical steps can be made to prove that, say, the seven generals of Napolean were not real but only based on natural phenomenae. It’s a similar method of refutation I’ve used here. The logical steps might seem to hold in your argument, but when those logical steps can be made to prove the absurd, then that means there must be something wrong with your initial suppositions. And that, as I am showing, has been the case with you. In your case, that religion is the ‘origin’ or even prime mover of evils in the world.
Now at this point we must ask an important question. Why can this analogy be made? Well, first let me address a likely counter argument. That is, that religion stands behind these things in the shadowy depths. This is an untenable argument. Whilst some elements may spring from religious doctrine, this is making the initial supposition that all these human institutions have their origin in religious ritual. In the same way that, as I have said, these simplistic models of societal adaption have long since proven in the academic circles entirely in-apt to model actual events, so too can you not simply claim religion as the forerunner to these institutions and from that base all your further points. As a specific case example I’d like to bring up those I am most acquainted with, the ancient Greeks.
In this case we have a culture in which, as I have already alluded to, there are no systems of laws that could be attributed to a god’s will. True, they were a religious people, yet nothing in their actions shows there to be a direct correlation. Indeed, it was not from the priesthood that they were taught morality, but rather they listened to the poets for such things. And all the same, much of their society bore the hallmark of those things you call oppressive, and sexist, and continued to make use of it until the society’s end. For example, the segregation of women in the house, something that I wrote a paper on a few years back. Lisa Nevitt, an archaeologist working on Olynthos and whose work I primarily used in my researched, likened the structure of the Greek house to the austerer examples of Islamic houses. Now this is a great question for your view on the matter: if it was religion that causes this, how can this group of so different a religion, and indeed far less influenced by any authoritative teachings - and who are more prone to argue from nomos, or ‘custom’ - act in such a similar way? How can religion be the fault? You might at this point be inclined to view such things as Hesiod’s Theogony, the origin of the gods, as a sort of Bible. And yet this is a dangerous leap to make. It assumes a certain Essentialist model to culture, meaning that you are applying your own world view upon an ancient culture and assuming them to have the same outlook on things. In part, I think this has been perhaps the primary flaw of your arguing process to date: you view things with an eye that all people at all times thought like 21st century North Americans. As such, since we in our culture behave one way, the ones in antiquity behaved in an analogous manner. However, in archaeology and literature alike it becomes plain that they did not think quite like us, and so to fit, say, a model of modern religious type upon them is rather impossible. So while some Christian takes the Bible to be the word of God, it does not follow that the Greeks took Homer, or Hesiod, to be the word of their gods. Indeed, many statements quite oppose this. Hesiod’s introduction, speaking the guise of the muses, that they know how to tell many lies to Men. Or the open criticism of the gods all point to a culture that, while certain religious, applied that religion in a far different way than we do. As such, there is no provable way we can say that religion is at the heart of these social doctrines that they adhered to, and we must conclude that one cannot follow in a simple or direct line from the other.
So finally we get to my thesis on why this is the case. Why I can make this analogy, and why religion as a system must be vindicated by anyone civilized. And also answers a possible rebut that religion might not be the cause but surely is a potent means to such oppressions.
Essentially, the reason I have been able to argue this as I have is that you have failed to account in your cries of oppression, and contrasting freedom of the individual or groups from that tyranny, for the concept that oppression is the inherent heart of the experiment of civilization. The basis of civilization, and its forerunner ‘community’ demands that the individual sacrifice some or even most of his or her individuality for the sake of the common tyranny. The impetus for this may come visibly from without, as in a political regime, or softly from within, as in religion or cultural modes of thought. But the motivation remains the same. The only escape is a return to absolute individuality, an anarchy, literally ‘that without rule.’
And that is why I am able to set this fundamental wedge into your argument about religion. That it oppresses, and in this is the origin and motivator of society’s evils, does not account for the very nature of society as something necessarily oppressive. We can be individual, but only so far: you are far less unique than you might like to think. Civilization is a construct whereby we are organized to think in various patterns by having them impressed upon us. We are taught to divide things into certain categories, and think in certain ways. Oppression, or better suppression, of certain characteristics, and segregation into role and order, are the things that make up the foundation of society and civilization. Now, you might not agree with the concept of civilization, but in that case, you must hold the same disregard for all the things which it entails. And I do not think you do.
But in some way you must ask why or if you even consider this oppression evil. Take for example your own tendencies to subjugation in setting up community about yourself: you declaim the religious, holding them as lesser, and also disregard the unintelligent as something less than you are. Already you in yourself naturally draw these boundaries and concepts of hierarchy that are the true initial stages to oppression and segregation. That you choose to put the boundaries at intelligence rather than gender or something else is really quite irrelevant, as those concepts of what makes better and worse lines of distinction are very much informed by your own social and personal development. The point is as a human you naturally do these things yourself: it is ingrained in your being. That you have chosen to shift your object of differentiation toward that which your current paradigm holds more acceptable is hardly, in the long view, a very enlightened method. The sum, though, is that if you are already setting the stages for segregations and oppressions of groups you disregard within your own community, and since you are doing this without a religious basis it is only plain that religion is but one of the many outlets of that base desire that seeks to oppress or conquer... a desire, I must point out, that is part of a competitive evolutionary process. So you cannot blame religion as the source. Blame - or rather understand, rather than point fingers - evolution and human nature. And as for the means, well, I will grant that that it most certainly is. It can be used to oppress. But as I have said, so are all the constructs of civilization which seek to organize, including government. If you consider religion a dangerous means to oppress, you must consider all the products of organized civilization under the same light, favouring none. All are weapons in the hands of the ill-willed, and blessings in the hand of the good-willed. Organized religion is just that: an organization within culture, oppressive only in so far as the suppression of basic humanity, supposedly for our betterment, is the work of civilization.
To sum, yes, religion can be a dangerous thing when misused. So can the institutions of government and school. So can the institutions of scientific inquiry. Most if not all of these things have been mis-used in the past. But ZeaLitY, we are a daring race. We take great leaps into peril, and oftenmost blindly. And you may think religion is limiting, but what is more daring than assuming there to be an eternal unknowable, and attempting to understand that? The irrationality of it, the very concept that offends the rational mind, is itself one of the most daring of human pursuits. It is in our nature and in our blood. And I do not think even the atheists can ostracize that desire from themselves, even if they manage to scorn the obvious concepts.
So in the end, we may mis-step, as we do in all things at some point or another, but does the errors of the past mean we should give up on the future, only because there is the peril of danger? To put it another way, should we cease our scientific inquiries because there is the peril - not imagined but real and, as I have said, at times in the past manifest - of gross and terrible misuse? I will say we should dare, and dare in all the things that make us human.
Per ardorem ad astra.
PS
An interesting thing popped into my mind, but because it did not fall into the analogy of government, but rather scientific development, I could not mention it earlier. You think science is vindicated in that it is used to provide a pure truth about things. How then do you account for the grave social injustices of the 19th century when, with the new arising of the evolutionary theory, that very theory was used to justify, though what at the time they called the ‘scientific method’ that certain races were superior to others? Indeed, ZeaLitY, I must say that in the historical view, the concept of ‘race’ only arose in that era, and arose out of an interpretation and use of science, and all down the line up until very recently racism itself was the black sheep of science. And so this is a further case for another analogy where a field has caused, by abuse of its supposed authority, extreme amounts of intolerance. The concept of Untermensch in Socialist Germany was, after all, a supposedly scientifically validated theory. They did not take religion to justify themselves in their experimentation on lesser peoples, but because the races of the Jews were scientifically proven to be inferior. So if religion is such a potent potential for abuse of power and oppression, cannot and has not science been used in exactly the same way? Though in the purest of knowledge of it it might be more rational, to the lay person that is being put under these paradigms, whether they be religious or scientific, there is trouble to judge what is true and not, and so either way they take it on trust. And in such trust there is always the potential for abuse of power. Science, with its overarching view and, as it stands nowadays with the more complex theories, seemingly mystically complex answers, is no less prone than religion to be abused as a force to power. Indeed, if I so wished, I could readily deceive many people on this forum by knowledge of science that is beyond them. Ironically, it would be less easy in religion, because there is an innate skepticism present therein. But for science, most people do not question, because it professes to be absolute fact. And if it is not questioned, how can we guard against abuse, even as in religion? And it matters little if the upper echelons of the scientific community disagree: so always have those of the religious community. How are we to guard the underlings?
PPS
RD... yes, I suppose in some way yes, we are agnostic, as we really can’t ‘know’ by any means of faculty anything beyond our experience. And even in that we have to have some margin for doubt. After all, a true statement is something that is objectively true, judgementaly true, and believed true. Unfortunately, all of science and observation can only make our judgment better, it can’t tell us the objectivity of something beyond perception (a logical contradiction), and as such all the things we hold to be true we pragmatically assume to be subjectively true statements. As such, if we are honest, yes, we all must profess to be agnostics. The only true wisdom comes from knowing you know nothing, to quote a very, very old friend of mine. :)
One of the interesting things about science is that it supposes universal laws that are eternal. To provide examples: the gravity on earth is a temporary state but the force of gravity is omnipresent throughout the universe. Pi = 3.14159265358979323846... because it does, there are no two ways around it. Matter and Energy, though interchangeable, cannot be created or destroyed; that law is eternal.
Until of course you have quarks jumping in and out of existence. At that level, physics becomes more complicated than that, or else the eternal laws you speak of are rather simplistic. As for energy, really? I created some just the other day. :)
-
Daniel, yours is a good analogy, but it does not convince me. This is because I don't consider government to ultimately good. The difference as I see it is that, in practice, government is a necessary evil, where as religion is an unnecessary evil. If tomorrow morning, everyone woke up and had given up on religion, the world would be no worse for it. If tomorrow morning, all the governments in the world were gone, the world would indeed suffer for it. It is my hope that at some point, government will be as unnecessary as religion is now.
Furthermore, you are mistaken in your assertion that evolution validates racism. It helps dispense the basis for such contemptible bigotry. Racism, like all evil, is derived from ignorance. The idea that race as bigots would have it is biologically based requires a rejection of science, not an embrace of it. That people who chose to distort science to claim the opposite of what it demonstrated does not make science responsible for the wickedness of those men.
I know what you're going to say, which is that you could (and indeed, have) say the same about religion. The analogy breaks down, I think, because religion is so wildly open to interpretation. How do you determine which are valid and which are invalid? If biology demonstrates that there is no scientific basis for race and racism, and I say that racism is biologically valid, well, I'm just a madman. If I say that the bible vindicates sexism, well, there are passages I can point to, and how can you demonstrate I'm wrong? And that's just if I use the bible. What if I go straight to the source, and say that god spoke to me? If you believe in a god that does such things, how can you tell my vision is false?
As for your assertion that science presents itself as absolute truth, whereas religion has inherit skepticism...well, I just find that baffling.
-
Damn, this thread accumulated a lot of text since I was here last. So I'll just respond to Faustwolf since I never got a chance earlier.
Still, it makes enough sense that it could happen through sheer randomness without any outside forces so much as poking a critical atom into place, so Occam's razor weighs in favor of the purely scientific explanation.
Well, the "sheer randomness" of abiogenesis is only associated with the randomness of chemical reactions and the organization of early life. However, if one observes that the laws of physics give rise to the workings of chemistry, and the workings of chemistry give rise to life, then there is really not much randomness involved at all. Just as random mutations serve as the raw material for the non-random process of evolution, so too do random chemical reactions serve as the raw material for the non-random process of abiogenesis. In other words, given the right conditions and the right circumstances, life will emerge.
But back to what we were talking about with science shaping and bolstering ones faith, I've been doing some thinking since then about how it influenced my own life. See, all my life I was a man of science - even before I was too young to know it. I got in trouble in church as a child for questioning things too much. I always had to know "why". For awhile I was a full blown atheist, especially in high school. When I had the extreme fortune to experience a native american religious ritual (which I talked about in another thread), it changed my life forever. I am still a man of science, I worked as a scientist, and I am pursuing a life of medicine - so I wasn't about to start worshipping Quetzacotl or whatever :D, but I saw the extreme power of the entheogenic spiritual experience. And for the first time in my entire life I understood what people must have experienced that made them want to share their faith, in all religions, instead of just writing them off as nutjobs.
Now, my knowledge of biology and chemistry serves me to safely pursue entheogenic practices in a way that many people don't. I have adopted this ancient practice into the life of a modern scientist. I know what plants produce which chemicals, which chemicals bind to which receptors, what effects can be predicted by them at what dosage, and how to extract alkaloid impurities. Early on, I thought to myself a scientific question - how does one study subjective consciousness? Can you dissect consciousness like a fetal pig? Sure, you can look at the brain of another and infer from electrical activity what he is likely experiencing. But you will never know what the subjective experience of another is truly like. All you can know is the subjective experience of yourself. And perhaps that is even more powerful than studying objective truth that I had spent so much of my life doing. X chemical binds to X receptor and produces X change in a conscious state. The experience and effects are predictable and repeatable. All this time I had been using science as a spiritual aid, fused with ancient practice and I didn't even think twice about it.
Of course, is this really a melding of science and religion? It depends how one defines religion I think. To pursue a spiritual experience with the realization that the experience is completely physical in nature and not of divine origin, but at the same time realize that this in no way denigrates the value or substance of the experience - is this religion? To realize that the insight that comes from such an experience, while often appearing as if coming from divinity, has its roots in the workings of the brain - is this religion? Natives would consume an entheogen, have an out of body experience and perceive another world which they attributed to spirits and gods - this is recognized as religion. But is my modern adoption of it religion? This is a question that I never really asked myself before. And one that I don't think is very important, despite being academically interesting.
On a somewhat related note (that Thought will probably find interesting :D) one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time was made because the scientist was experimenting with LSD for the purpose of an entheogenic experience. Kary Mullis says he would probably never have come up with the concept of PCR if it wasn't for an entheogenic-inspired vision of sitting on a DNA molecule and watching the way in which the polymer formed. LSD is a modern synthetic entheogen of course, but the principle is the same. Altering subjective consciousness for insight about the objective universe. A melding of an ancient practice with a modern twist.
-
Well, the "sheer randomness" of abiogenesis is only associated with the randomness of chemical reactions and the organization of early life. However, if one observes that the laws of physics give rise to the workings of chemistry, and the workings of chemistry give rise to life, then there is really not much randomness involved at all. Just as random mutations serve as the raw material for the non-random process of evolution, so too do random chemical reactions serve as the raw material for the non-random process of abiogenesis. In other words, given the right conditions and the right circumstances, life will emerge.
For which reason it'll be fascinating to see if they find anything buried deep within the ice of Mars.
-
If I were a betting man, I would say that they probably will. But it is hard to separate my desire for it with my objective critique of it. I think the oceans of Europa hold even more promise than Mars. Too bad I probably won't live long enough to find out a definitive answer though. If we ever do discover that life once took hold or still has a hold within another place in our own solar system, then it probably means that the whole of the vast cosmos is teeming with such variety of life that it is literally unimaginable. Which is a beautiful concept I think. If a god did create this universe, then what a beautiful creation it is.
-
Other, less dangerous flavors of human frailty. There is no Church of Eugenics; no far-reaching organization teaching humans from infancy to believe in irrational ideas; no promotion of questionable moral codes in government and life; no favorable protection under the law. Science...
Different flavors, but same frailty.
You will also not find a Church of Hate, a Church of Sexism, etc. yet you ascribe such crimes to being religiously inherent. This is what I meant by double standard. Even assuming your attribution of these elements to religion is correct, they are tertiary elements, not central themes. You no more find a specific Religion uniformly espousing a doctrine of sexism than you find a science department espousing eugenics.
Though there is no Church of Eugenics, Eugenics is a uniquely scientific bastard child; that evil, in that form, could not have existed without science. Eugenics is not a central theme to science, but it is a product of it. A product resulting from miss application and abuse of science, admittedly, but if science can be used as such and remain blameless, why can't religion?
It would seem that you are objecting not so much to religion alone, but non-scientific beliefs in general, particularly as applied through a social network. That is, you are not only objection to religions "questionable moral codes" but you are also objection to those codes being disseminated through "indoctrination" by religious individuals into their children.
However, once again this seems to be a trait that is in no way unique to religion and so to blame religion alone for this folly is what gives the appearance of a double standard. One hardly needs religion to indoctrinate children with irrational ideas. Merely ask people how to spell "island" and you almost always get an irrational answer (the s in "island" does not belong; it was added in the 15th century when academics inaccurately accessed the word's etymological history. The English language has been irrational in this continued misspelling since). Likewise, one hardly needs religion to indoctrinate children with an irrational and naive perspective of science (one merely needs to look to The Jetsons, Buck Rogers, and other forms of soft-science fiction marketed to children). The widespread desire in America for a pill that can make individuals lose weight without a change in lifestyle, or the belief that science will cure all sickness, or the belief that science will bring immortality, etc, are all signs of an irrational belief in the power of science. Indeed, compare the popular definition of a "theory" with the scientific definition of the word; religious or not, people often get this wrong.
One might well say that science cannot be held accountable for the misconceptions disseminated about it. Yet, if that is the case, should religion be held accountable for the misconceptions disseminated about it?
If someone wants to whip up the masses into a fervor with science, they're going to have to have damn good evidence.
Yeah, no.
The Patagonian Giants were accepted fairly readily. Problems with the accounts of the "stone age" tasadays were happily overlooked until it was revealed (by non-scientists) that they were a hoax. Scientists from Harvard were easily fooled into thinking that residents of Vilcabamba, a small town in Ecuador, were incredibly long-lived; the village having generally three times as many centarians as America, when adjusted for population. The somewhat recent misconduct of Shinichi Fujimura was understandably accepted by the Scientific community (his hoax-claims were difficult to scientifically test), so while not a shining moment for science, it isn't as black of a mark as other failures of the peer-review process. The case of Mary Toft is far from so benign, as scientifically minded individuals ignored evidence of the fraud. Likewise, that the Calaveras skull was able to survive for years is ridiculous (found in 1866, it wasn't until 1901 that the matter was even begun to be put to rest, and even then, in the face of clear evidence of forgery, some scientists held to the belief that it was real).
The list goes on. It is quite easy to fool scientists and the scientific community; no "damn good evidence" is needed.
However, though these examples are rather ill-favored towards science, this is not an argument that science is bad or particularly gullible, especially not more so than religion. One only has to look at those throughout history who have claimed that the world was about to end, to see that religious individuals are quite easy to fool as well. This is, however, an argument pointing to your double standard. It seems that when religious individuals are gullible and allow harmful elements to enter into their belief, you blame the larger concept of religion. But when scientists are gullible, you seem to expunge science of fault.
Allow me to here state clearly that science does have a particular advantage and safeguard over religion in the matter of overcoming the introduction of harmful and irrational elements: that of formal peer-review. All of the above listed hoaxes were, in time, discovered and removed from the scientific community. While the community might have been particularly lax in allowing them any acceptance, the community was not lax in attending to the correction of this flaw.
Religion certainly does not have this benefit. While there is a degree of what one might term informal peer-review, as the debates regarding various religious issues demonstrates, this does not occur in as wide-spread of a manner as in science, and certainly not with the same degree of vigor or thoroughness. Religion is rather slow in this regard; while daily the flaws of Creationism are eroding away as its legitimacy, far too many religious individuals still hold to it in the face of clear evidence of its inaccuracy. Whereas the scientific community almost moves as one to reject clearly false concepts, religion splinters and fractures so that as some move towards the acceptance of true concepts, some cling to the old ones.
Perhaps it is this flaw in particular that you object most to? While both science and religion are quite capable of making mistakes, science does leave religion in the dust in regards to correcting those mistakes.
If I stab you and then treat the wound, should I be praised as a healer; should I be seen as good for my actions?
Depends; do you hold an M.D. and are you employed as a surgeon?
Much of my comments were regarding perception and the inherent difficulty of judging objectively if something is good or bad. If you stab me for no purpose, then I'd say you were bad. But if you stabbed me for a purpose, and if that purpose is desirable, they I'd say you were good.
Immediate unpleasantness must be weighed against long term benefits before one declares something objectively good or bad. However, as you brought up in regards to my own personal experiences, this is incredibly difficult. That which is bad may give way to good, and good may give way to bad. To quote the LOTR movie: "Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
This touches onto my statement that the only logical standpoint is agnosticism. In this regard, it seems that it is equally illogical to say that an experience is good or evil or, indeed, indifferent.
Believing in God is not virtuous.
While it is possible a greater good may come from any given bit of suffering, an omnipotent being must have the power to accomplish the same good without the suffering. Of course, that's assuming an omnipotent god. But given such an entity, for whom all courses of action are equally trivial, it is cruel to chose the course that does not have the least suffering.
The simpler solution still is that we live in a godless universe; unconscious and thus unconcerned with the trivia of a bunch of apes on a little rock somewhere. That not every event is caused by an intelligent entity, nor is it for any greater purpose. Some may find such a notion upsetting. I find it comforting.
First, I do hope I didn't state or imply that belief in god is virtuous. If I did, I am quite sorry. Though I do believe I both stated and implied that if the pursuit of truth is virtuous, then the acceptance of unpleasant truths is likewise virtuous.
Second, regarding omnipotence, you are quite correct that such a being could produce similar results without suffering. The question, however, is why? I asked before, why do you believe suffering and pain is bad? Though I am not among them, there are individuals who would argue that suffering and pain are pleasurable and good (specifically, individuals that hold to specific sexual fetishes). So let us remove all religious implications and attempt to address this in the void of the possibility of the divine.
You seem to associate suffering with cruelty and general badness. A masochist would associate suffering with pleasure and goodness. Please, do tell me why your perspective is right and a masochist's perspective is wrong.
However, that is a lesser issue; the greater issue is, assuming that suffering is bad, why would an omnipotent and good creator allow it?
The answer I would provide for this is a rather illogical one (but are you surprised?): free will.
Applying Occam's Razor, there is no reason to assume that human free will exists. I see no reason to assume it does, I would behave exact as I do now even if it didn't exist, so why suppose it without necessity?
Indeed, science would seem to imply that free will doesn't exist. If the beginning position of a system can be known, and the forces active in that system are likewise understood, then the position of that system at any given time point can be determined because it directly followed from a proceeding time point, which came from another, and can be traced definitively to the known starting point. This is just a chain of scientific principles; events follow from earlier events.
I bring this up because free will limits a limitless being. That is, assuming god exists, assuming god is omnipotent, and assuming he desires to create and allow beings to exist with a will independent of his own, then suffering must inherently be involved. Such a god could produce any result by any means, but such a god, under these assumptions, has willfully limited itself, thereby willingly allowed suffering.
So the greater issue would be, which would be the greater good: for there to be no suffering but no free will, or for there to be free will and for there to be suffering?
As I believe (rather illogically) in free will, I thus believe that suffering is necessary and potentially good, and I would rather have free will and suffering than not.
As for comforting, I would actually agree. A universe in which there is no god is quite comforting. But comfort is not virtuous either.
This view is overly simplistic. Human knowledge has not been static over the last two thousand years.
I quite agree, however I think you have conflated modernocentrism with human knowledge; the two are not the same, and I am sorry if I implied that they were.
Modernocentrism is the idea that the present is superior to all other points in the past and (as a subsequent supposition) that the present is superior to all other points that will follow. Part of the point being that in the future the faults of the present may well be as ridiculed as we currently ridicule the faults of the past, and that our own harsh treatment of faults of the past is itself a fault of the present.
If one were to graph human development, one would generally find that it does not form a straight line "upward." Rather, human development is volatile; we advance, regress, advance, regress, etc. To graph it would look like a read-out of the stock markets, sometimes.
So then we have a problem; while humanity may generally be more developed in the present than we were in the far past, we have no means of properly judging if we are more developed than the resent past; until historians can look back at this age, there is no objective way to determine if we live at a peak or a trough.
While we may know more in the present than at any point in the past, that does not necessitate that we are better able to make "right" decisions in the present.
I suppose one might term this a dichotomy between knowledge and ethics (though perhaps useful, I would maintain that such a comparison is not perfectly accurate). Knowledge is something amassed, but ethics is something changed and modified. Because of this, though we know more, we can't know if our ethics are more proper than they used to be. We think they are, but one would expect us to think that regardless of the objective state.
Like much of what I have said, this is an argument for the ability to perceive. While we believe we are more sophisticated "ethnically" now than in the past, we are capable of imagining that the reality is something other than what we perceive. We can imagine a world in which slavery is objectively good and will be reinstituted in the future, for example. I don't believe that it is objectively good, but I can imagine such a world.
This is not to say that sexist, racism, oppression, etc, if it in reality exists as a fundamental component of religion, is good. Rather, if, in seeking the truth regarding religion we find these things to likewise be "truth" (that is, that which is objectively good, as I am using the word here), we aught be willing to change our perspective.
Which gets down to a fundamental point; even when blaming religion for various ills, we should first establish the validity of our own perspective of what is good and bad. This is not to say that you should start posting arguments as to why sexism or racism are bad; rather, it is an encouragement to be sure that when we fault an individual or institution for something, we are first sure that our reason for doing so goes beyond "well I just don't like it."
This harkens back to the mindless indoctrination Zeality was talking about, and specifically overcoming that indoctrination. Everyone is subject to it, so I am attempting to argue that it is good to ensure that such indoctrination is valid before we use that indoctrination in our arguments.
This is not true. If sexism is itself bad, and religion promotes it as good, then religion is at odds with what is true. Or put another way, the religion is false, and since our sincere desire is to know the truth, we must reject it as such. So yes, it must influence our perception of religion.
I would quite agree with that train of thought; however, I would also note that you proposed a supposition that I had not included (for the reasons stated above): that religion is a secondary issue of investigation, not the primary issue.
That is, you seem to be claiming that if sexism is bad, and if religion promotes sexism, then religion is bad. I agree with that. However, my argument was essentially if religion is good (or true, as I used the word), and if religion promotes sexism, then sexism is good.
These are the same trains of thought with different nouns, I think.
I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor.
Actually, I think you misunderstand my intent. The example was meant for amusement, not for a serious debate. But as I didn't clearly state as much, such a misunderstanding is quite understandable.
If you approach what I wrote from the popular definition of occam's razor (that being, the simplest solution is most often the correct one), then yes, the "poof, god did it" approach would be the favored result; Science is incredibly complex, and thus the amusement. However, the popular definition is not the correct definition.
The correct definition cannot be applied between science and religion because the very first premise is violated; they are not competing hypotheses, nor are their starting states equal. Occam's razor cannot be applied for the simple reason that any scientific hypothesis can be verified but no religious "hypothesis" can be (at least, not from our perspective). The starting positions are not equal, so the concept cannot be applied.
What defines a religion then? The beliefs of the laity, clergy and/or theologians? The text of the religion's holy books? The interpretation of one of the above groups?
A wonderful question. Perhaps we would define religion as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" ... except, that could reasonably include forms of government. Should we define it as a "body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"? Alas, that could include scientists, as they adhere to the belief that empirical experimentation is fundamental for understanding the universe and they adhere to a practice of academic integrity (those instances I noted earlier of scientists being duped usually resulted from a breach of this integrity).
So perhaps the definition we need would be this one: Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The key component here is that these beliefs must include the conception of a superhuman agency. Devotionals, ritual observances, and moral codes are all unnecessary to a definition of religion. As religions do often include these things, one might discuss the comparative merits of these things, but a fault in one is not the fault of the whole, as the part is nonessential to the whole.
So for Christianity, one plausible definition of what religion is in this specific case could be found in the apostles' creed:
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Though it should be noted that in this usage, the word "catholic" is rather archaic, meaning "universal." Also, it should be noted that minor variations in this creed do exist.
That is a system of beliefs held by nearly all Christians regarding the superhuman agency responsible for the creation of the universe.
So it would seem that if you want to attack the pure religion aspect of Christianity, you'd need to attack those points. Which, even if successful, would really only result in revealing a benign group of dimwits; hardly the lurking menace that Christianity (or religion in general) is sometimes portrayed as.
Ultimately though, aren't we all agnostic? None of us can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there must be or must not be some deities sitting on the other side of human perception. I call myself an atheist and not an agnostic because, while it is true that I am in theory an agnostic, I am in practice an atheist, for without evidence of gods, I live as though there aren't any. Of course, this brings up the inverse of what has been brought up before: The existence of a god or gods does not imply that any present religion is true.
Not really; even if we admit that we can't know for certain, we heavily lean in one direction or another and behave for all intents and purposes as if we did know for certain. To use an analogy, we might call an agnostic someone who does not know if a boat will float or sink. Even if you admit that you don't know for certain that the boat will float, the fact that you have gotten into the boat implies that you have made your choice.
But you last comment is one that I would quite agree with; it is possible that even if god exists, no present religion is true. Which further makes the rejection of god on the grounds of the behavior of religion a curious one. Even if all religion is inaccurate, that does not speak a wit about if god exists.
Still, a quick look at Methodism's Wikipedia article reveals that while the Methodist churches have functionally overcome sexism, there's still room for improvement on the valuing of homosexuals, and then there's the nefarious discouragement of drinking alcohol. 8) But kidding aside, I think the Methodist churches are generally going in a better direction than other, more static, religions.
Amusingly, Methodism is a rather conservative sect of Christianity, and a very slow moving one too. But the difference between it and other conservative sects of Christianity is that it is moving, and intentionally so. I generally think that they (we? I dunno, it’s weird being part of a specific Christian sect now) are the closest one will get to a scientific approach in religious circles. Methodists want to be sure that they have things right. They will make damn sure that they are wrong before they will change, and they will make damn sure that what they are changing to is right.
But to be fair, that is a bit of an exaggeration. That is the Methodist perspective, but like all things, practice doesn't always match up with the ideals. Still, I like it more than most.
At least from what I know about the last United Methodist conference in which the issue of homosexuality was discussed, the reason why the church didn't adjust its position was that tradition had not been shown to be incorrect nor had the new stance been shown to be correct. They're sort of conservatively agnostic; if they don't know which way is the right way to go, they'll stay put.
Certainly, the modern world might want Methodists to move more quickly on these matters, but quick movement has its own pitfalls. The Assemblies of God, for example, is a much more lively movement. But it moved in what I believe you'd agree is an undesirable direction (as a reminder, this would be the denomination that scared some people away from Sarah Palin).
The analogy breaks down, I think, because religion is so wildly open to interpretation. How do you determine which are valid and which are invalid?
I know this isn't what you meant, and I almost didn't say anything, but I found it amusing. I hope that once I explain why I find this amusing, you will too. I do not mean it, however, to be an argument of any sort.
I find this statement amusing because, in essence, you are faulting religion for being open and free, while you are favoring science because it is closed and restrictive. If taken out of context, this could be mistaken for a pro-religion comment.
For which reason it'll be fascinating to see if they find anything buried deep within the ice of Mars.
Actually, I have wondered fairly often what the implications would be, if any, if it is ever discovered that extraterrestrial intelligent life (if it exists and if we can communicate with it) has a religion, and if that religion matches up reasonably well with a religion on earth.
It is a question, I suppose, of improbability. How improbable must something be before the divine becomes the more probable explanation (if ever)?
-
As I believe (rather illogically) in free will, I thus believe that suffering is necessary and potentially good, and I would rather have free will and suffering than not.
It's not that illogical actually. I do as well, and I think that most people with an education in biology (or physics) will agree with you there. Contrary to popular belief, the brain and consciousness are not the same thing. The brain is the physical machine that produces consciousness much like a computer is the physical machine that processes information and produces output on the monitor. We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is made of. We don't know if it is electromagnetic in nature (highly likely I think) or what it is. We have no idea whether or not extra-neuronal processing occurs in consciousness and influences circuits in the brain or if consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of brain function. Because we don't know, I would say that the door is still wide open to the possibility of free-will or at least partial free-will existing with consciousness outside of the normal chain of causality. One thing is for sure, consciousness is clearly special and an important part of the universe, since it is associated with the lowest level of entropy and the highest level of informational order. I think it would be foolish to write off the possibility of free-will simply because of "causality" reasons at this point.
But then again, even if free-will is truly just an illusion - who cares? Does it really matter? Will most certainly exists, whether it is truly free or not. I think that we get bogged down in arguments about free-will for no good reason.
Indeed, science would seem to imply that free will doesn't exist. If the beginning position of a system can be known, and the forces active in that system are likewise understood, then the position of that system at any given time point can be determined because it directly followed from a proceeding time point, which came from another, and can be traced definitively to the known starting point. This is just a chain of scientific principles; events follow from earlier events.
This was a quote from before the previous one, but I felt it appropriate to add it after what I just said. The problem with studying the true nature of consciousness is that we cannot study it independently from the electrical activity of the brain since consciousness and the brain are linked. All we know is that electrical activity in the brain is necessary but not sufficient to create consciousness. Every conscious experience is associated with electrical activity in the brain, but not all electrical activity in the brain is associated with conscious experience. So how would one demonstrate the existence of extra-neuronal processing in consciousness, and thus free-will, since such a thing would in turn be reflected as electrical activity in the brain? At this stage in modern neuroscience, it is impossible to separate the two. But I personally suspect that extra-neuronal processing occurs and is very important, since there is clearly an evolutionary benefit to consciousness and (I hope) that that benefit is free will and thus the classic argument of a "phenomenological zombie" cannot exist in reality.
-
Though there is no Church of Eugenics, Eugenics is a uniquely scientific bastard child; that evil, in that form, could not have existed without science. Eugenics is not a central theme to science, but it is a product of it. A product resulting from miss application and abuse of science, admittedly, but if science can be used as such and remain blameless, why can't religion?
...
One might well say that science cannot be held accountable for the misconceptions disseminated about it. Yet, if that is the case, should religion be held accountable for the misconceptions disseminated about it?
This is why I was asking about how a religion is defined. What is a proper use of a religion? With science, we can clearly differentiate between proper and improper use, but how do you say that this or that use of religion is or is not legitimate? But this is touched upon later.
Allow me to here state clearly that science does have a particular advantage and safeguard over religion in the matter of overcoming the introduction of harmful and irrational elements: that of formal peer-review. All of the above listed hoaxes were, in time, discovered and removed from the scientific community. While the community might have been particularly lax in allowing them any acceptance, the community was not lax in attending to the correction of this flaw.
Religion certainly does not have this benefit. While there is a degree of what one might term informal peer-review, as the debates regarding various religious issues demonstrates, this does not occur in as wide-spread of a manner as in science, and certainly not with the same degree of vigor or thoroughness. Religion is rather slow in this regard; while daily the flaws of Creationism are eroding away as its legitimacy, far too many religious individuals still hold to it in the face of clear evidence of its inaccuracy. Whereas the scientific community almost moves as one to reject clearly false concepts, religion splinters and fractures so that as some move towards the acceptance of true concepts, some cling to the old ones.
Perhaps it is this flaw in particular that you object most to? While both science and religion are quite capable of making mistakes, science does leave religion in the dust in regards to correcting those mistakes.
Your honesty in this matter is appreciated, especially when it does great harm to the cause of religion. It speaks well of you that you can see and admit this glaring weakness. And it is a major one. The failure of religion to take into account new knowledge means that it acts to limit human knowledge. How can a thing be good if it acts deliberately to prevent the gain and spread of knowledge?
Much of my comments were regarding perception and the inherent difficulty of judging objectively if something is good or bad. If you stab me for no purpose, then I'd say you were bad. But if you stabbed me for a purpose, and if that purpose is desirable, they I'd say you were good.
Allow me to get to the point of my hypothetical then: If I do some act of evil only to turn around and act to mitigate that evil act, should this course of action be considered good or evil?
Second, regarding omnipotence, you are quite correct that such a being could produce similar results without suffering. The question, however, is why? I asked before, why do you believe suffering and pain is bad? Though I am not among them, there are individuals who would argue that suffering and pain are pleasurable and good (specifically, individuals that hold to specific sexual fetishes). So let us remove all religious implications and attempt to address this in the void of the possibility of the divine.
You seem to associate suffering with cruelty and general badness. A masochist would associate suffering with pleasure and goodness. Please, do tell me why your perspective is right and a masochist's perspective is wrong.
Allow me to clarify, then, to allow for the case of the masochist. By suffering, I mean that pain which is unwanted by the entity experiencing it.
However, that is a lesser issue; the greater issue is, assuming that suffering is bad, why would an omnipotent and good creator allow it?
The answer I would provide for this is a rather illogical one (but are you surprised?): free will.
Applying Occam's Razor, there is no reason to assume that human free will exists. I see no reason to assume it does, I would behave exact as I do now even if it didn't exist, so why suppose it without necessity?
Indeed, science would seem to imply that free will doesn't exist. If the beginning position of a system can be known, and the forces active in that system are likewise understood, then the position of that system at any given time point can be determined because it directly followed from a proceeding time point, which came from another, and can be traced definitively to the known starting point. This is just a chain of scientific principles; events follow from earlier events.
I bring this up because free will limits a limitless being. That is, assuming god exists, assuming god is omnipotent, and assuming he desires to create and allow beings to exist with a will independent of his own, then suffering must inherently be involved. Such a god could produce any result by any means, but such a god, under these assumptions, has willfully limited itself, thereby willingly allowed suffering.
So the greater issue would be, which would be the greater good: for there to be no suffering but no free will, or for there to be free will and for there to be suffering?
As I believe (rather illogically) in free will, I thus believe that suffering is necessary and potentially good, and I would rather have free will and suffering than not.
You think poorly of our hypothetical omnipotent. Surely a being of such power could find a way to structure the universe such that suffering and free will were not mutually exclusive. Surely such a being could find a way to teach us all the lessons we must now suffer to learn without the suffering.
For an omnipotent creator of life to create a world with caveats is absurd. It can be seen as nothing but malicious, for such a being would be unconstrained by any of the limits we presently experience, or any limits at all. Why create a world with suffering if not for the sake of causing suffering?
As for comforting, I would actually agree. A universe in which there is no god is quite comforting. But comfort is not virtuous either.
Quite true, and it was not my intent to imply otherwise. Many people seem to find the notion of a godless universe troubling; I was merely asserting that it need not be so, and offering myself as an example of someone who finds a godless universe preferable to a theistic universe.
If one were to graph human development, one would generally find that it does not form a straight line "upward." Rather, human development is volatile; we advance, regress, advance, regress, etc. To graph it would look like a read-out of the stock markets, sometimes.
So then we have a problem; while humanity may generally be more developed in the present than we were in the far past, we have no means of properly judging if we are more developed than the resent past; until historians can look back at this age, there is no objective way to determine if we live at a peak or a trough.
We are not entirely without historical guidance, though. While it is true that we advance fitfully, and not always consistently, our "stock" has shown an overall trend of growth. While it is not a guarantee, we can look at history, both recent and not so recent, and evaluate whether a given policy is roughly in line with the overall arc of human progress. It won't guarantee that we are at a local peak, or that we are ultimately right, but I think it helps tip the odds in favor of choosing correctly.
While we may know more in the present than at any point in the past, that does not necessitate that we are better able to make "right" decisions in the present.
I suppose one might term this a dichotomy between knowledge and ethics (though perhaps useful, I would maintain that such a comparison is not perfectly accurate). Knowledge is something amassed, but ethics is something changed and modified. Because of this, though we know more, we can't know if our ethics are more proper than they used to be. We think they are, but one would expect us to think that regardless of the objective state.
I disagree with you here. Knowing more does mean we are more capable of making "right" decisions. When faced with a nontrivial problem, one can attempt random attempts at solving it, hoping to succeed through sheer luck, or one can try to learn as much about the problem as possible. What is the root cause? What are the symptoms? What has solved or failed to resolve similar problems in the past? What in the problem lends itself to particular solutions? Is this really a problem at all?
Armed with this superior knowledge, we are far more liable to chose correctly than if we just try throwing random solutions at a problem and seeing what sticks.
Like much of what I have said, this is an argument for the ability to perceive. While we believe we are more sophisticated "ethnically" now than in the past, we are capable of imagining that the reality is something other than what we perceive. We can imagine a world in which slavery is objectively good and will be reinstituted in the future, for example. I don't believe that it is objectively good, but I can imagine such a world.
I assume you meant "ethically" rather than "ethnically". If I'm wrong, well...what follows may not make much sense in that context.
We do have a greater capacity for ethical behavior and decision making than we did in the past. We know more. Ethical problems are like any other; more knowledge increases our ability to solve them, and solve them correctly. We are certainly not perfect, and we may, despite our knowledge, wind up being wrong where the past was right. There is no grand power forcing us to use our tools well, but we do have more and better tools, and thus greater capacity.
We can certainly imagine a world in which slavery is good, but we cannot presently perceive it, because it is not, to our present knowledge, the world we live in. Shall we reinstitute slavery on the chance that our aversion to it may be proved incorrect at some later date, or shall we continue to operate with the best knowledge we have?
This is not to say that sexist, racism, oppression, etc, if it in reality exists as a fundamental component of religion, is good. Rather, if, in seeking the truth regarding religion we find these things to likewise be "truth" (that is, that which is objectively good, as I am using the word here), we aught be willing to change our perspective.
Which gets down to a fundamental point; even when blaming religion for various ills, we should first establish the validity of our own perspective of what is good and bad. This is not to say that you should start posting arguments as to why sexism or racism are bad; rather, it is an encouragement to be sure that when we fault an individual or institution for something, we are first sure that our reason for doing so goes beyond "well I just don't like it."
This harkens back to the mindless indoctrination Zeality was talking about, and specifically overcoming that indoctrination. Everyone is subject to it, so I am attempting to argue that it is good to ensure that such indoctrination is valid before we use that indoctrination in our arguments.
And how can we have a better reason and a better understanding if not through better knowledge?
That is, you seem to be claiming that if sexism is bad, and if religion promotes sexism, then religion is bad. I agree with that. However, my argument was essentially if religion is good (or true, as I used the word), and if religion promotes sexism, then sexism is good.
That may be the case, but it's a bit backwards. For us to evaluate a religion, we must evaluate its claims. The question of sexism must be answered prior to answering the question of if a religion is good or not. A religion may make good and bad claims, and we cannot assume that because a given claim of a religion is good or bad, they all are.
The correct definition cannot be applied between science and religion because the very first premise is violated; they are not competing hypotheses, nor are their starting states equal. Occam's razor cannot be applied for the simple reason that any scientific hypothesis can be verified but no religious "hypothesis" can be (at least, not from our perspective). The starting positions are not equal, so the concept cannot be applied.
I don't know that I agree with this position. Everything on the earth is exists within the same global context, and any context larger than that as well. We have a world, we have a universe. To say that "The universe arose naturally" and "The universe was created by a supernatural entity" are indeed competing hypotheses, and the fact that the religious guess is not verifiable does not mean it is making an unrelated claim about an unrelated topic.
I would argue that it makes it a hypothesis that is less useful, but that very well may be my personal bias.
A wonderful question. Perhaps we would define religion as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" ... except, that could reasonably include forms of government. Should we define it as a "body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"? Alas, that could include scientists, as they adhere to the belief that empirical experimentation is fundamental for understanding the universe and they adhere to a practice of academic integrity (those instances I noted earlier of scientists being duped usually resulted from a breach of this integrity).
So perhaps the definition we need would be this one: Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The key component here is that these beliefs must include the conception of a superhuman agency. Devotionals, ritual observances, and moral codes are all unnecessary to a definition of religion. As religions do often include these things, one might discuss the comparative merits of these things, but a fault in one is not the fault of the whole, as the part is nonessential to the whole.
This isn't quite what I was asking. I mean to ask by what means a religion is defined; you've responded with a definition of religion. Below, you give the Apostles' Creed, and say that this is the definition of Christianity. I imagine that if any Gnostics remain today, they'd want to have a word with you about that definition, which is somewhat getting to my point. You say that the Apostles' Creed is what defines Christianity. Others might say that the Bible in general, or the New Testament in particular define it. Some would likely say that to be a Christian is to attempt to be Christ-like in life.
What makes you right, and them wrong? You seem to be implying that the Apostles' Creed is exactly the beliefs of Christianity; that anything less is not quite a Christian, and that anything more is not Christianity but some other...something else. A sect perhaps?
You have not answered my previous question: You say we cannot blame religion for perversions or misapplications of religion, but you fail to provide any means for determining what is a proper use of religion. By what means is a religion defined, and how can we determine what is a proper or improper use of a religion? Why should I take your word on what it means to be a Christian over that of the Pope or of Fred Phelps?
That is a system of beliefs held by nearly all Christians regarding the superhuman agency responsible for the creation of the universe.
So it would seem that if you want to attack the pure religion aspect of Christianity, you'd need to attack those points. Which, even if successful, would really only result in revealing a benign group of dimwits; hardly the lurking menace that Christianity (or religion in general) is sometimes portrayed as.
If such a point is proved, it demonstrates that Christians as a group are active promoters of ignorance. Spreading ignorance is not benign, but indeed harmful.
Not really; even if we admit that we can't know for certain, we heavily lean in one direction or another and behave for all intents and purposes as if we did know for certain. To use an analogy, we might call an agnostic someone who does not know if a boat will float or sink. Even if you admit that you don't know for certain that the boat will float, the fact that you have gotten into the boat implies that you have made your choice.
I think we agree here. Neither of us knows if there is a god, but we both in practice operate under an assumption. I think that the existence of any deity is extremely unlikely; you believe that a particular deity is extremely likely. This doesn't change that in the abstract, neither of us can claim absolute certainty. Not honestly at least.
I know this isn't what you meant, and I almost didn't say anything, but I found it amusing. I hope that once I explain why I find this amusing, you will too. I do not mean it, however, to be an argument of any sort.
I find this statement amusing because, in essence, you are faulting religion for being open and free, while you are favoring science because it is closed and restrictive. If taken out of context, this could be mistaken for a pro-religion comment.
Out of context, perhaps. But what is a virtue in one situation may not be a virtue in another.
-
How can a thing be good if it acts deliberately to prevent the gain and spread of knowledge?
Quite a good question, and here is where the major divergence between us seems to be.
I would say that the thing that is acting deliberately to prevent the gain and spread of knowledge are the people in a religion, but not the religion itself. If I am understanding Zeality's (and your?) position correctly, the claim is the opposite; the thing is the religion, not the people themselves.
My reasoning for this is that I see the same themes in almost every human institution; since it is not a unique evil in religion, I don't blame religionas an abstract concept. I might blame specific parts of religion, and specific religions, but not, shall we say, "Religion" itself. But I'm pretty sure we've treaded over this ground before in other threads. Please let me know, however, if you'd like me to expound upon this reasoning again.
Allow me to get to the point of my hypothetical then: If I do some act of evil only to turn around and act to mitigate that evil act, should this course of action be considered good or evil?
If I am understanding you correctly, you are supposing if only the evil was exactly and proportionally countered; is that correct?
To be sure that we're on the same page...
Let us give the evil action a value of -10 (and assuming negative numbers are bad).
If you mitigate that evil act (adding 10 to the previous number), then I'd probably maintain that the act would be considered evil.
But if in addressing the evil you instead added 11 to the starting number, I'd probably say that that act would be considered good.
But I must confess... I've lost where this thread of discussion was going.
Allow me to clarify, then, to allow for the case of the masochist. By suffering, I mean that pain which is unwanted by the entity experiencing it.
I would maintain that you still haven't addressed the issue; why is pain and suffering bad?
So, pain is unwanted by the entity experiencing it? It is hardly difficult to imagine that, though unwanted, that pain is good (or at least, caused indirectly by good).
Imagine, if you will, a parent taking a child to the doctor. The child does not want to get stabbed by a needle, but the parent insists and so the doctor gives the child a tentenous shot.
By your definition, that is suffering. But that suffering is good, caused by good individuals, and the suffering is directly the result not of the outside forces but of the entity experiencing the pain rejecting the good that comes with it.
Why create a world with suffering if not for the sake of causing suffering?
As you defined it above, it appears that suffering can be the fault of the entity experiencing pain, not the entity causing the pain. The pain brings a good, but the entity experiencing the pain cares more for unpleasantness than the good it shuns. If an omnipotent being has limited itself to allow free will in others, it could not force us to not inflict suffering on ourselves. We are free to do that as we choose.
One then might object to the very existence of pain, as a sensation being undesirable. If pain weren't undesirable, individuals wouldn't shrink away from it, and therefore one wouldn't suffer.
To which the book "The Gift of Pain" provides a better answer than I could. But allow me to try to answer nontheless.
Imagine a universe in which sharp objects and soft pink squishy things can co-exist. It is harmful to the soft pink squishy things to have sharp objects imbeded in themselves. So, how might one discourage this behavior?
One might take away the sharp objects, but that also takes away the potential benefits of the sharp objects.
One could take away the soft pink squishy things, but that removes the interesting part of the universe.
One could constantly follow the soft pink squishy things around to prevent it from hurting itself, but being a helicopter parent doesn't promote maturity and maturity is desirable.
Perhaps one could add a sensation to the soft pink squishy things so that they might willingly avoid the behavior that is harmful to themselves while still allowing the benefit of the sharp objects!
Should such a sensation be something that the soft pink squishy things desire? Probably not; that would probably promote the joining of sharp objects to the soft pink squishy things, which isn't good. So should the sensation be undesirable? Yes, that seems to work nicely. The soft pink squishy things would avoid the behavior that causes an undesired sensation, thereby reinforcing concepts that it should understand on its own.
That seems to be essentially what pain is; an undesirable sensation, usually warning us that we are doing something we really shouldn't be doing (like stabbing outselves with knives). Any deterant against undesirable actions works because of "pain." Therefor, insofar as undesirable actions are allowed in the universe, deterants are in turn desirable. That we call the deterant "pain" and that we hate it for itself is a commentary on our own limited perspective.
I disagree with you here. Knowing more does mean we are more capable of making "right" decisions.
I think we are approaching different issues here. You seem to be taking the approach that more knowledge allows us to identify problems and treat them more efficiently. In that I would agree, but more knowledge does not allow us to recognize the potential for problems more easily.
Let us consider animal rights. We treat our animals, by and large, far better in the modern western world than, say, at the turn of the era. Was this the result of accumulated knowledge?
Personally, I cannot identify anything indicating that our change in our behavior to animals resulted directly from an increase in knowledge. Did we at some point realize animals feel pain, whereas before we did not? Did we at some point realize that they protect themselves to the best of their abilities, just as we might? I cannot find a link between our change of ethics regarding animals to an increase in knowledge, but perhaps you can?
I assume you meant "ethically" rather than "ethnically". If I'm wrong, well...what follows may not make much sense in that context.
Yup, thanks for catching that.
Below, you give the Apostles' Creed, and say that this is the definition of Christianity. I imagine that if any Gnostics remain today, they'd want to have a word with you about that definition, which is somewhat getting to my point.
Actually, I said that the apostle's creed could be "one plausible definition" (emphasis added). Though I was being sneaky; that is often the academic distinction between Christianity and various similar-yet-different traditions that not counted as part of the whole.
You have not answered my previous question: You say we cannot blame religion for perversions or misapplications of religion, but you fail to provide any means for determining what is a proper use of religion.
Oh, is that what you're looking for?
Sure! The proper use of religion is that which it can uniquely be applied for. While using religion in a manner not unique to religion may be acceptable, a misuse of religion in manner not unique to religion cannot be counted the fault of religion.
To offer an example, a screwdriver is a unique class of tools. A proper use would be that which, as a class of tools, it is unqiuely fitted for (that is, driving in screws). Using a screwdriver as a hammer isn't going to be particularly effective, but I don't know if I'd call that an improper use. An improper use might be, say, to use it to bore into an individual's skull, but one could do the same with a nailgun or a number of other classes of tools.
Likewise, Religion is a unique class of human institutions. A proper use of it would be for that which relates specifically to beliefs and rites associated with a superhuman agency. An imporper use of it might be that which does not relate specifically to a superhuman agency (say, for example, uses applied specifically to very human agencies).
If such a point is proved, it demonstrates that Christians as a group are active promoters of ignorance. Spreading ignorance is not benign, but indeed harmful.
One can't spread ignorance, but one can spread misinformation.
-
I would say that the thing that is acting deliberately to prevent the gain and spread of knowledge are the people in a religion, but not the religion itself. If I am understanding Zeality's (and your?) position correctly, the claim is the opposite; the thing is the religion, not the people themselves.
My reasoning for this is that I see the same themes in almost every human institution; since it is not a unique evil in religion, I don't blame religionas an abstract concept. I might blame specific parts of religion, and specific religions, but not, shall we say, "Religion" itself. But I'm pretty sure we've treaded over this ground before in other threads. Please let me know, however, if you'd like me to expound upon this reasoning again.
Religions influence the behavior of people. They are not unique in this, but it is a property they poses. If they influence people to be adverse to gaining and spreading knowledge, this is a very negative influence, and while the people are ultimately implementing it, the ideology shares in the blame for encouraging and seeking to justify the wicked behavior.
That an evil is not unique does not make its perpetrators innocent. We strive to arrest every murderer, for example, as we find the act of murder to be in of itself harmful, regardless of whether others have occurred previously.
But I must confess... I've lost where this thread of discussion was going.
It had to do with nightmare assigning responsibility to god for he and his mother surviving his birth, but not for creating the dangerous situation that they survived.
I would maintain that you still haven't addressed the issue; why is pain and suffering bad?
So, pain is unwanted by the entity experiencing it? It is hardly difficult to imagine that, though unwanted, that pain is good (or at least, caused indirectly by good).
Imagine, if you will, a parent taking a child to the doctor. The child does not want to get stabbed by a needle, but the parent insists and so the doctor gives the child a tentenous shot.
By your definition, that is suffering. But that suffering is good, caused by good individuals, and the suffering is directly the result not of the outside forces but of the entity experiencing the pain rejecting the good that comes with it.
Then my definition of suffering is flawed, as it does not convey the concept I wish to convey.
Imagine a universe in which sharp objects and soft pink squishy things can co-exist. It is harmful to the soft pink squishy things to have sharp objects imbeded in themselves. So, how might one discourage this behavior?
One might take away the sharp objects, but that also takes away the potential benefits of the sharp objects.
One could take away the soft pink squishy things, but that removes the interesting part of the universe.
One could constantly follow the soft pink squishy things around to prevent it from hurting itself, but being a helicopter parent doesn't promote maturity and maturity is desirable.
Perhaps one could add a sensation to the soft pink squishy things so that they might willingly avoid the behavior that is harmful to themselves while still allowing the benefit of the sharp objects!
Should such a sensation be something that the soft pink squishy things desire? Probably not; that would probably promote the joining of sharp objects to the soft pink squishy things, which isn't good. So should the sensation be undesirable? Yes, that seems to work nicely. The soft pink squishy things would avoid the behavior that causes an undesired sensation, thereby reinforcing concepts that it should understand on its own.
That seems to be essentially what pain is; an undesirable sensation, usually warning us that we are doing something we really shouldn't be doing (like stabbing outselves with knives). Any deterant against undesirable actions works because of "pain." Therefor, insofar as undesirable actions are allowed in the universe, deterants are in turn desirable. That we call the deterant "pain" and that we hate it for itself is a commentary on our own limited perspective.
Imagine a universe in which the sharp things are not harmful to the soft pink squishy things. An omnipotent being could just as easily have created such a universe as the more familiar "pointy harms squishy" universe in which we live. To an omnipotent being, all of these problems are trivial, and the existence of any pain, suffering, etcetera is, assuming an omnipotent creator, must be because the creator wanted them to exist. As they are all ultimately unnecessary in this context, as any benefit they give can be achieved without the detriment, we have to assume that if the universe was created by an omnipotent entity, that this entity is at least somewhat malicious and sadistic.
As an aside, I find it very amusing that I'm arguing for the power of a god, and you are arguing against it.
I think we are approaching different issues here. You seem to be taking the approach that more knowledge allows us to identify problems and treat them more efficiently. In that I would agree, but more knowledge does not allow us to recognize the potential for problems more easily.
Let us consider animal rights. We treat our animals, by and large, far better in the modern western world than, say, at the turn of the era. Was this the result of accumulated knowledge?
Personally, I cannot identify anything indicating that our change in our behavior to animals resulted directly from an increase in knowledge. Did we at some point realize animals feel pain, whereas before we did not? Did we at some point realize that they protect themselves to the best of their abilities, just as we might? I cannot find a link between our change of ethics regarding animals to an increase in knowledge, but perhaps you can?
Off hand, I cannot think of any one piece of knowledge with a casual link to a society wide change in the perception of how animals should be treated. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find that such a piece or collection of knowledge does not exist, as there is a great deal of individual variation in how people believe animals should be treated.
I will say this, however. Without the knowledge that animals are capable of joy and suffering, such a conversation could not even occur. In a sense, the knowledge becomes a prerequisite for ethical behavior.
For a direct example of where more knowledge helps us predict where problems may emerge, look at pharmacology. If you know two different drugs interact poorly, that's one problem solved. If you know that two categories of drugs interact poorly, that's a whole series of problems you can potentially predict and avert.
Actually, I said that the apostle's creed could be "one plausible definition" (emphasis added). Though I was being sneaky; that is often the academic distinction between Christianity and various similar-yet-different traditions that not counted as part of the whole.
Who has final say, though? Why should I consider what academics, many of whom are likely non-Christians by their own reckoning, consider the definition of Christianity, versus the definition of one who practices something not quite the Apostle's Creed but considers themselves a Christian? To whom should I defer, and why?
Likewise, Religion is a unique class of human institutions. A proper use of it would be for that which relates specifically to beliefs and rites associated with a superhuman agency. An imporper use of it might be that which does not relate specifically to a superhuman agency (say, for example, uses applied specifically to very human agencies).
Just superhuman, or anything supernatural? Are ghosts within the acceptable range of what religion can relate to? Unicorns, fairies? Or does it have to be something of greater intellect than humans? If this is the case, what of organic intelligences? If extraterrestrials who have superior intellectual capabilities relative to we simple apes make contact with us, should we seek to learn of them by the means of religion?
By your definition, would sacrificing children to appease the gods be a valid use of religion?
Are the contents of holy books implicitly religious, or are passages relating to non-superhuman agencies invalid?
More generally, when dealing with those issues within the valid realm of religion, is it fair to criticizes the views held and put forward by the religion, or do you maintain that as a greater principle, ideologies are themselves blameless for the actions of their followers?
One can't spread ignorance, but one can spread misinformation.
Misinformation is a special case of ignorance. You still don't know the truth, you just no longer know that you don't know the truth. If anything, it's a deeper ignorance, and thus, all the more harmful.
-
I don't really follow any religion, but I was took to Methodist Churches when I was growing up. I get extremely depressed and sometimes even have panic attacks when thinking about death tho. I mean if you just die and there is nothing what is the point. I think I would be much happier if I could devote myself to some kind of religion, but I always have this lingering doubt and I feel that you can not truly devote yourself to something if you are constantly having to reassure yourself that it is true. However, the teachings of Christianity are not really all that bad. I mean it basically tells you to be a good person. On the other hand tho most Christians in my area seem to think that because they go to church every Sunday it gives them the right to pass judgement on those who do not go and just be a giant prick in general. I hate people that think because of their faith they are better than someone else. It's pretty much contradicting everything they are supposed to stand for in that we are all equals and that you reach out to help someone who is struggling not to treat them as some kind of sub-human. I do remember the reason why I stopped going to church, because the assholes in my church forced a man out because he was poor and didn't have nice clothing. I thought it was complete bullshit. Not to mention how they thought it was hilarious apparently and didn't even attempt to treat the man as if he were a human being.
-
I get extremely depressed and sometimes even have panic attacks when thinking about death tho.
Just know that you're not alone on that one. Here's a hopefully comforting thought -- I think the questions of whether there's a God and whether there's life after death should be separated. Why should one be dependent on the other? Of course, I think that way due to a Xenogears-influenced worldview. Some anthropologists theorize that religion developed to fulfill our psychological needs regarding death.
I do remember the reason why I stopped going to church, because the assholes in my church forced a man out because he was poor and didn't have nice clothing. I thought it was complete bullshit. Not to mention how they thought it was hilarious apparently and didn't even attempt to treat the man as if he were a human being.
Seriously? That's one of the points anti-religion atheists make, and it has merit due to real-world examples. For my part, I know Catholic priests (you know, the ones who ritually devour Cathol :P) who would take in anyone in need, regardless of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, and that gives me a bit of faith in my religion. I have no doubt - absolutely none - that there are Muslim clerics, Hindu clergy, atheists, etc., who would do the same. Granted, they're going to try to proselytize, but still. What's more important than ideology, in the end, is how you treat other people.
-
I do remember the reason why I stopped going to church, because the assholes in my church forced a man out because he was poor and didn't have nice clothing. I thought it was complete bullshit. Not to mention how they thought it was hilarious apparently and didn't even attempt to treat the man as if he were a human being.
Seriously? I agree, that is total bullshit.
THOSE BASTARDS!!!
As for the looking nice part, that is especially bullshit IMO. My mom, who grew up as a Methodist, always makes me at least wear a polo shirt to church (and forbids me from wearing them unless going to an occasion where I have to look nice, at least I don't need to tuck in my shirt and wear a belt. Lucky me, my pants never fall down), if I refuse to wear a button-up shirt, complete with tie (*shudder*), slacks (my poor waist), and dress socks/shoes.
The fact that the guy was poor just shows how corrupt some congregations can be. I know this one church (a Presbyterian church, like mine) that doesn't give any fraction of a rat's ass whether or not you show up, as long as you put money in their offering plates.
ARE YOU F***ING SERIOUS, PEOPLE?
-
Well, those people are crazy. Don't let them be the reason you leave a faith. Find a church you like, one without stuck up crazy asses. They don't represent the population as much as they would like you to think. Another thing we're all human, we can't speak for god. I guess what I'm saying is don't leave because of one man, there are churches out there with normal people running it. When I was at church one day this guy was trying to say the Bible proved things before humans, like the earth being round I told him he was an idiot because everyone already knew the earth was round you can see the curvature of the earth at sea. He told me that I was wrong Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round, even though he didn't go around the world.
-
He told me that I was wrong Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round, even though he didn't go around the world.
Some people are stupid and believe that, regardless of their faith. Many cultures and even some scholars within European society had theorized a round Earth before Columbus' voyage. That may have been a tipping point for many scientists at the time, but they certainly weren't the first, and some civilizations never believed in a flat earth.
Also, dammit all for me getting dragged back into this thread! :x
-
He told me that I was wrong Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round, even though he didn't go around the world.
Some people are stupid and believe that, regardless of their faith. Many cultures and even some scholars within European society had theorized a round Earth before Columbus' voyage. That may have been a tipping point for many scientists at the time, but they certainly weren't the first, and some civilizations never believed in a flat earth.
Krispin, being versed in antiquity, might know this one. But I think it was Eratosthenes that was the first one to prove that the Earth was ultimately round by ingeniously using shadows' angles at solstice.
Also, dammit all for me getting dragged back into this thread! :x
Admit it; you wouldn't have come back if you truly didn't want to...
-
Krispin, being versed in antiquity, might know this one. But I think it was Eratosthenes that was the first one to prove that the Earth was ultimately round by ingeniously using shadows' angles at solstice.
I must admit I'm not quite sure who it was, though the name does strike me as right. But yes, I do recall that there was such an understanding in antiquity. I think it's a pretty obvious observation, seeing that ships go down over the horizion, rather strange if the earth was flat.
As I remember it, as much as everyone thinks that Columbus was vindicated and shown right in his voyage, in fact he was quite a failure as to his ambitions, and never learned it. As I've heard it, everyone knew full well the earth was round. The question was how big it was. Some figured it to be small, and hence a westward voyage could easily bring one to China and its trade-wealth. Some, however, thought it large, and that the sea was too great to traverse in that direction. Columbus weighed in on the former side, and attempted to prove that such a voyage was indeed possible. He died thinking he'd proved it, when in fact he'd proved himself and his own side of the debate wrong: the world was not as small as he had thought, and the 'large earth' crowd was right. It's only that one thing happened that was unexpected: an unknown land-mass in the way.
So yeah, I think that's the sum total of that story. But by that time everyone knew it was round. I can't recall when this was realised, but probably when long distance trade ocurred. And anyway, Columbus wasn't the first to the new world. Aside from the well known story of the Vikings landing in Newfoundland in Canada, there have been some finds that imply Chinese expeditionaries manage to begin to found a colony in Nova Scotia. If that is true, that is a far greater feat than anything Columbus managed. As it is, I think sometimes people attribute too much ignorance to the ancients. We must be wary of this. For as much as people of 19th century were wont to call Herodotos the 'father of lies' because of his outrageous claimes, many of the semi-mythical things described by him and other writers have turned out to be pretty exact, and show a great understanding of the further world. For example, the 'wool' the grows on trees in India; the customs of the Scythians. Heck, even the golden fleece has been shown to be real: not too long ago they found that certain people in the region of the Black Sea where the Argo was said to have gone pan for gold in the rivers by placing sheep's wool in the river and let the gold get caught. Hence, the golden fleece.
Or also, for all the scorn that's levelled on the Trojan war as anything approximating history, that may well be misjudged and from over-enthusiastic archaeologists of the past century who were desiring to de-myth many things. In one of my classes we were watching and examinging this very well made documentary on the Trojan war, and in it there is brought up the interesting matter of the Hittite documents. Now for those who don't know, the Hittites an empire that vied with Egypt in the time before the 1200s BC. The two superpowers fought a massive battle at Kadesh at one point. Anyway, the Hittites had their capital in sort of central Anatolia (that is, Turkey), and were good record keepers. In some of their documents they mention some interesting points of dealings with peoples. He talks about a group called the Ahhiyawa, a power on their western border whom they regarded as near equals in strength at points. A diplomatic message to the king of these people mentions something about how the Hittite king is putting behind them the whole business of the Ahhiyawa occupation of a city called Wilusa. At another point mention is made of a Alaksandu, prince of Wilusa, who has kidnapped a princess of the Ahhiyawa. Hm.
Now, I suppose that doesn't seem like much to most of you. Ahhiyawa and Alaksandu and Wilusa might as well be gibberish. But in fact these might well be Greeks, Paris, and Troy. Some explaining is required. Firstly, the Greeks did not ever call themselves this. They were the Hellenes in Classical times. Earlier they were either Danaaoi, or, importantly, Akhaioi. Now I suppose Ahhiyawa doesn't seem much like Akhaioi, but in fact it is. Etymologically they are very similar. Likewise Alaksandu. Paris is almost never called as such in Homer. He is rather Alexandros. Now how Alaksandu and Alexandros are similar is quite plain. Lastly, for Troy, well, its more common name is Ilion, which might well have lost an initial digamma, which makes a w sound (like the later Greek word anax, lord, is originally wanax.) So then we get Wilion... Wilusa is not an etymological stretch. The point is, that a lot more, even of the names, of the Trojan war might be entire real, despite the opinion that it is not 'historical'. Hey, a name like Achilles (Akhilleus) is certainly one that was of the Mycenaean era, so who knows? Sometimes these ancient people knew very well what they were talking about, and it's best not to disregard their wisdom.
-
Religions influence the behavior of people. They are not unique in this, but it is a property they poses. If they influence people to be adverse to gaining and spreading knowledge, this is a very negative influence, and while the people are ultimately implementing it, the ideology shares in the blame for encouraging and seeking to justify the wicked behavior.
That an evil is not unique does not make its perpetrators innocent. We strive to arrest every murderer, for example, as we find the act of murder to be in of itself harmful, regardless of whether others have occurred previously.
While we strive to arrest every murderer, how far do we go (or should we go) to condemn those factors and influences that produce murderers?
Video Games are commonly held to be responsible for violent behavior; assuming that such a common assumption were true, should video games be shunned and the field seen as undesirable?
Statistically speaking, individuals who have been abused in childhood appear to be more likely to themselves abuse others. Should preventative treatment for such individuals be mandatory?
I would quite agree that individuals who use religion to harm humanity should be "arrested," as it were, but I would be much more reluctant to approach a similar ban on religion itself, especially when it has been responsible for so much good in the world. For example, public education in an outgrowth of religious education (Cathedral Schools and Sunday Schools, being two prime examples in the west). The religious imperative of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and the exhortative tale of the Good Samaritan are hardly harmful.
Indeed, the idea of religious freedom was born directly from Religion and religious strife. That it is socially acceptable to differ from others on religious matters (even to the extent of being non-religious) is a product of religion.
So if Religion is merely a lens which can be used to magnify or hamper human behavior, what processes can be used to determine if it has largely had a beneficial or harmful effect on humanity? We are getting dangerously far from objective science and treading closely to the subjective domain of History, at least in topic. Just as Scientists adhere to certain ethics to keep their work objectively scientific, Historians likewise adhere to certain ethics and among those is historical objectivity; elements from previous eras must be evaluated primarily in context. That is, it is improper to condemn someone for being, say, a slave holder when the era itself allowed and promoted slavery.
Because of this, it becomes all the more difficult to evaluate if Religion is more good than evil. Not only must one remove inherently non-religious forces from the discussion, one must also take into consideration the era in which events occurred as a separate entity.
To attempt to summarize my point: while one could well claim that religion has caused more harm to humanity than good, such a claim has not yet been made effectively and historically.
Then my definition of suffering is flawed, as it does not convey the concept I wish to convey.
And so again I must ask, what makes pain and suffering bad?
It appears that you are basing much of your understanding of what is good and evil in the world on pain and suffering. However, you still haven't been able to define why pain and suffering is bad.
I would generally define suffering, it is the result of the individual not getting one's way, which would make suffering subjective rather than objective. I thus see no reason why I should fault a hypothetical omnipotent creator for not forming the universe according to my whim. This is, admittedly, very close to the Buddhist approach that says that desire causes suffering.
But the point being, if suffering is subjective rather than objective, how can it be used as a criterion for which other things might be judged to be good or bad? Until one can establish that pain and suffering is bad, it does not seem like one can thus say that pain and suffering existing in the universe is a sign of either a lack of god or the existence of a cruel god.
As an aside, I find it very amusing that I'm arguing for the power of a god, and you are arguing against it.
Meh, not really.
I am saying that in a universe with multiple free-willed entities, an omnipotent free-willed entity could very well create a universe which is not inherently evil or cruel, but in which the lesser free-willed entities could, by their own volition, produce behaviors and circumstances that are "evil or cruel."
It appears that you are saying that any universe in which the lesser free-willed entities could experience something defined as "evil" or "cruel" indicates that there an omnipotent entity must inherently be cruel, since if it was omnipotent it could arrange the universe to the same effect but lacking the possibility of those experiences.
Or to put it another way, it appears that you are requiring a good omnipotent entity to be inherently subject to the whims of the lesser entities, since anything the lesser entities view as "evil" or "cruel," even if such a perspective is incorrect, should not be possible.
Or to put it another way yet again, it appears that you are saying an omnipotent being should be able to create a universe in which "good and evil" are possibilities (for the lesser beings to thus have free will) but in which "evil" is impossible.
I will say this, however. Without the knowledge that animals are capable of joy and suffering, such a conversation could not even occur. In a sense, the knowledge becomes a prerequisite for ethical behavior.
Well, in that sense any behavior that isn't instinctual requires the knowledge of language and thought.
But I am not saying that knowledge doesn't help us avoid problems; rather, I am saying that more knowledge doesn't directly affect ethics. You pharmacological example isn't really one based primarily on ethics.
To recast it, suppose an individual is sick and two different medications are prescribed. Would it be ethical to withhold either? Most likely not... unless the pharmacists knew that there was an undesirable interaction between the two medicines. In such a case, one might even argue that the pharmacists is ethically required to withhold medication.
Thus, we have a specific case in which added knowledge effect ethics... sort of.
The problem is that your example and my recasting of it inherently assumes larger ethical principles: that a pharmacist giving a patient medicine with potential undesirable interactions is bad. This stems from the Hippocratic Oath; that individuals trained in medicine have an obligation to do no harm. However here again we have an instance in which Ethics do not seem to be related to knowledge; what increase of knowledge did Hippocrates experience that produced this ethical code?
An increase of knowledge can increase our recognition of instances in which ethics apply, but I can see no influence on the ethics itself.
Who has final say, though? Why should I consider what academics, many of whom are likely non-Christians by their own reckoning, consider the definition of Christianity, versus the definition of one who practices something not quite the Apostle's Creed but considers themselves a Christian? To whom should I defer, and why?
And you have just summed up a major religious debate in Christianity that has never really been solved. That is exactly why the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed were created; to attempt to define who are Christians and who aren't.
Which should then hint at the difficulty of painting all religions with a single brush. For each evil done, is it Religion that is responsible or is it a sub-group? And even if it is a sub-group, is it really that group or a separate branch?
Without common and identifiable traits across religion and across religious groups, Religion is quite similar to a hydra. Cut off one head (that is, accurately pegging one religious group as harmful to humanity) and the beast doesn't die.
Just superhuman, or anything supernatural? Are ghosts within the acceptable range of what religion can relate to? Unicorns, fairies? Or does it have to be something of greater intellect than humans? If this is the case, what of organic intelligences? If extraterrestrials who have superior intellectual capabilities relative to we simple apes make contact with us, should we seek to learn of them by the means of religion?
Actually, ancestor worship (ghosts) and nature worship (fairies and other elemental manifestations) are all parts of various religions. So yes.
And there are certainly some religious groups that worship and attempt to communicate to extraterrestrials via religious rites (the Heaven's Gate cult being one that jumps to mind).
By your definition, would sacrificing children to appease the gods be a valid use of religion?
By that definition, nope, because though while it addresses the superhuman agency, it is in a function outside of addressing the cause, function, or nature of the universe in relation to that superhuman agency. So while such might be under the general umbrella of religion, it wouldn't be fundamental to religion.
More generally, when dealing with those issues within the valid realm of religion, is it fair to criticizes the views held and put forward by the religion, or do you maintain that as a greater principle, ideologies are themselves blameless for the actions of their followers?
Me personally, as opposed to an objective perspective? While I would say it is fair to criticize the views held and put forward by religious individuals and groups, such criticism doesn't address Religion as a whole. In a similar manner, one might criticize the views and research held by certain scientists, but that does not reflect on Science itself.
One might well say that Christians are wrong, just as one might say that Eugenicists were wrong. But the latter case does not mean that Science is wrong, and so I claim that the former case is likewise. The fault of a component is insufficient to fault the whole.
Misinformation is a special case of ignorance. You still don't know the truth, you just no longer know that you don't know the truth. If anything, it's a deeper ignorance, and thus, all the more harmful.
Not really. Misinformation is actually a pretty common tool in education. When did old-worlders discover the New World? With Columbus! ... or Leif Erikson... or you know, all those people from Asia who settled the land. What caused the American Civil War? Slavery! ... or social and political power struggles that were primarily influenced by differences in labor bases ... or a lack of a unifying culture and sentiment. American Revolution? Don't answer taxation without representation, because the colonists were represented just about as much as any other English group. Drop two objects and they should fall at the same rate because of gravity, right? Not quite, depends on a lot of other factors.
And so on, and so forth. Misinformation is not ignorance.
Anywho, this might seem like I'm arguing over semantics, but it is actually relevant.
Certainly there are some religious groups that promote ignorance: those groups that attempt to prevent Evolution from being taught in school, for example. They are attempting to actually prevent individuals for obtaining information, thereby attempting to keep them ignorant.
However, that is not a universal function of religion. Compare two individuals, both of whom know the exact same information in all respects except one. Individual A, in addition to everything else, "knows" (that is, believes) that God created the universe. Individual B does not "know" that (that is, does not believe). To say that A is more "ignorant" than B is a curious claim; they are both equally knowledgeable about everything and could as easily discuss evolution or particle physics as the other.
A might be misinformed, however; all the knowledge is there, but the weight given to that knowledge is off. As the knowledge is there, I can't see a reason to call this misinformation to be ignorance or inherently evil.
Misinformation can be potentially useful for explaining complex concepts in a manner that one can easily absorb, keeping the more accurate but also more complex information until one is better suited for it.
So again, we are left with gullible individuals, potentially spreading misinformation, but not spreading ignorance (and not even necessarily promoting ignorance).
Of course, relatively few religions are actually evangelical, so not all religious would even be spreading misinformation.
... and I feel that you can not truly devote yourself to something if you are constantly having to reassure yourself that it is true.
Actually, I would say that (depending on the form your reassurance takes) what you described is a good thing.
Academically speaking, I want to devote myself to history. It is good to constantly question if history is true (and thus, constantly reassure myself). The reason for this is that maybe something isn't true, and it is only through constant questioning and repeated testing that you'll find out.
To use another example, I devote myself to my wife, but there are times I wonder if I am just following habits or if I truly love her. I thus reassure her and myself of my love often, through behavior that indicates love. As love is a matter of will, often times, it is better to actively reassure than to take it for granted. Indeed, it is generally a sign of a healthy relationship when both individuals feel reassured about the other's feelings. In turn, it is generally a sign of an unhealthy relationship when an individual is so firm in their belief that reassurance never happens (leading to the other person feeling neglected).
I hate people that think because of their faith they are better than someone else. It's pretty much contradicting everything they are supposed to stand for in that we are all equals and that you reach out to help someone who is struggling not to treat them as some kind of sub-human.
I totally agree. Indeed, I often feel ashamed for being associated with such a group (I'm also a Republican and often feel ashamed for being associated with other Republicans... actually, same goes for being Male).
On a side note, you might be interested in a book called "Pagan Christianity." Among other things, the authors really get after "Christians" for that sort of behavior and identify it as a general corruption in the way Christian churches are structured. While I certainly don't agree with everything the book claims, it might help you gain some understanding of why this happens (and potentially how to correct it, both personally and on a social scale).
When I was at church one day this guy was trying to say the Bible proved things before humans, like the earth being round I told him he was an idiot because everyone already knew the earth was round you can see the curvature of the earth at sea. He told me that I was wrong Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round, even though he didn't go around the world.
While I would agree that the bible might contain information that can coincide with later human development, I've never seen anything that even hinted at "proving" scientific concepts before science. Like with Kosher foods; we can say, looking back, that there was a reason they weren't supposed to eat pork. But it isn't like anyone ever said "Hey, we aren't supposed to eat pork; there has to be some really small life thingies that pig-meat is particularly prone to that will harm us if we consume it!"
At best, expanding human knowledge can give us greater understanding of biblical texts, but I am generally dubious of the reverse.
Though it is possible; the Bible recorded the Hittites (since Daniel mentioned them) before Western Civilization found confirmation that the people group existed. Course, all that really shows is that there is at least a degree of historical accuracy to some elements in the text.
Particularly I am dubious since I've seen the same claims in other religions and it is generally laughably vague (for example; did you know that the Koran contains the speed of light? It’s true... as long as you don't mind calculating the speed of light inaccurately and taking things to mean things that they probably didn't mean).
Also, Columbus is notable for having woefully miscalculated the circumference of the Earth, as Daniel and BROJ mentioned. His might be one of the world's most famous blunders, actually.
-
Let us consider animal rights. We treat our animals, by and large, far better in the modern western world than, say, at the turn of the era. Was this the result of accumulated knowledge?
Personally, I cannot identify anything indicating that our change in our behavior to animals resulted directly from an increase in knowledge. Did we at some point realize animals feel pain, whereas before we did not? Did we at some point realize that they protect themselves to the best of their abilities, just as we might? I cannot find a link between our change of ethics regarding animals to an increase in knowledge, but perhaps you can?
Because this thread is so damned big I overlooked this statement, but I feel that I am uniquely qualified to answer this question since I am going to veterinary school and work in the veterinary field. The answer Thought is yes, we did at some point realize that animals feel pain, whereas before we did not. It is counterintuitive I know, but there was a major argument about this in the past. About 50 years ago, there was a legitimate argument going around that animals such as dogs and cats weren't even conscious for one reason or another and thus there was a legitimate argument about administering pain relief to animals in veterinary medicine. This of course is false, but it nonetheless influenced practice for quite awhile.
And you are talking about two different things here, mainly the perception of ethics in veterinary medicine and ethics by society in general. So yes, in veterinary medicine direct scientific evidence and knowledge of the animal mind, animal cognition, and pain perception directly influenced medical ethics. As far as the general public accepting a new moral outlook based on this evidence - I don't think that is the case.
Educating people when they take their pets to veterinary hospitals certainly played a role, that is for sure. But I think it played a minor role compared to pets (especially dogs) becoming a part of the family. I think media definitely was a major catalyst for this change, and animal welfare laws solidified it.
I will say this, however. Without the knowledge that animals are capable of joy and suffering, such a conversation could not even occur. In a sense, the knowledge becomes a prerequisite for ethical behavior.
I'm confused by this statement. We do know that animals are capable of joy and suffering - there is abundant evidence for this. I don't think there is anyone in their right mind that would argue against that in this day and age. So I think it was the way you phrased the sentence, and I think you were trying to say that since we have knowledge that animals are capable of joy and suffering, this directly influences any ethical decisions we make about animal welfare.
And to that, I would say that it depends. Ethical decisions can be made based on newly acquired evidence, but ethical decisions can also be made based on assumptions that we hope are true in a best case scenario. And for that matter, ethical decisions can even be made for unethical reasons. For example, I tell people all the time that they need to keep their dogs on heartworm prevention every month for the rest of their lives, because the incidence of heartworm disease in the southern states is high and the disease is ultimately fatal. Moreover, the treatment for the disease can actually be fatal as well. Believe it or not, this information doesn't seem to phase people. You know what convinces them? Telling them that the heartworm treatment costs upwards of $700 dollars while the prevention costs less than $100 a year.
So you see, in this case people make what I would consider an ethical decision but for an unethical reason. This of course falls back on what the definition of an ethical choice is. Do the people making the decision realize it is a moral choice and not a monetary one? You might argue that either way, but I believe that they do realize it is a moral choice but simply don't care until they see the dollar sign.
And this perhaps falls back on the concept that pain and suffering is not universally a bad thing. I cause transient pain and suffering in animals all the time, but I do it to treat them and to better improve their health. I do it for the greater good. Pain is a necessary emotion and it serves an evolutionary purpose. An animal that has a broken leg will feel pain, and will not put pressure on it by continuing to walk on it - thus refraining from injuring it further. Doing orthopedic surgery on that leg is invasive and may actually increase the pain that the animal experiences. But this is considered a moral thing to do because after the animal recovers he can live a long and healthy life. So you see, the morality of it depends on the circumstances involving the origin of that suffering. If we viewed pain and suffering as bad under all circumstances, then the moral choice for the above example would be to euthanize the animal to prevent the animal from experiencing the pain of the surgery and the recovery. You will not find many vets these days that would adhere to such a moral viewpoint.
And all of this comes full circle to the concept of a god creating pain and suffering in the world. Is this an evil and uncaring god? How could you say that, when pain and suffering serves a purpose and can be beneficial? Imagine a hypothetical natural world in which some animals experienced pain and suffering and others did not. The ones that did not would clearly be at an evolutionary disadvantage. So the whole argument of "is god evil for introducing pain and suffering into the world?" isn't ultimately pointless, but one could easily argue that god is in fact benevolent for introducing pain and suffering into the world.
-
Particularly I am dubious since I've seen the same claims in other religions and it is generally laughably vague (for example; did you know that the Koran contains the speed of light? It’s true... as long as you don't mind calculating the speed of light inaccurately and taking things to mean things that they probably didn't mean).
Also, Columbus is notable for having woefully miscalculated the circumference of the Earth, as Daniel and BROJ mentioned. His might be one of the world's most famous blunders, actually.
Well the Koran(grossly misspelled by the way and I'm dyslexic its more like Qurron or Korron if you want the correct pronunciation) isn't like the bible, like everyone believes. It's more like a moral guideline. I doesn't really contain the history of the people who believed/came in contact with god, if it did it would have to contain the Bible. It isn't about prediction, it isn't about any of that. Just you should live your life this way, another idiotic thing about it is that it was written after Mohammad's death. And it wasn't written by the guy he picked to takeover either. So I frankly find a lot of stuff in there inaccurate.
Also, didn't Columbus go crazy because that? I'm pretty sure he was thrown in jail for insanity.
-
Also, didn't Columbus go crazy because that? I'm pretty sure he was thrown in jail for insanity.
That's interesting, I never knew that. I thought that he died in the New World? But if I were to wager a guess I would say that he probably had syphilus. Do any history buffs have any info on this?
It is perhaps particularly damning because it is thought that Syphilus originated in the New World. I'm not sure about the number of cases in Europe before Columbus' voyage, but it would be truly hilarious if he both discovered the New World and syphilus and then brought the bacterium back with him to Europe.
This is of course speculation, as many things can cause one to go insane. But syphilus is definitely up there on the list. I wonder how we would think of Columbus if this was confirmed?
-
My friend is a super history whore, and he wrote an essay about that i think.
-
About 50 years ago, there was a legitimate argument going around that animals such as dogs and cats weren't even conscious for one reason or another and thus there was a legitimate argument about administering pain relief to animals in veterinary medicine.
Sorry, Eric, I'm not quite sure which perspective you are arguing. Was there specific evidence (that is, an increased of knowledge) that put to rest these "legitimate arguments" and allowed ethics to develop into the form we are more familiar? If I had to imagine, I'd suppose that this might have taken the form of comparing the nervous system of animals and humans to indicate that they serve the same function.
If so, was that increase of knowledge fundamental to the current state of ethical treatment of animals in the western world?
Though to note, the debate (as I understand you to be representing it, but I might have misunderstood) existed far longer than just 50 years ago. For example, the Island of Dr. Moreau was quite controversial in 1896 because it contained scenes of animal vivisection. I believe John Locke wrote on the subject as well, in favor of animal rights, though for the life of me I can't recall in what works. Same with C.S. Lewis. The earliest animal rights laws I believe are from the 17th century as well.
Such things would not have occurred if the knowledge that allowed for ethical treatment of animals wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. But again, I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to argue.
I doesn't really contain the history of the people who believed/came in contact with god, if it did it would have to contain the Bible. It isn't about prediction, it isn't about any of that. Just you should live your life this way...
Yup. I became aware of the speed of light claim after a Muslim informed me of it. Unfortunately, individuals taking texts out of context is not limited to Christianity (or indeed, even religion; Erich von Däniken is a famous example of an individual using science in a manner that is rather unscientific).
That's interesting, I never knew that. I thought that he died in the New World? But if I were to wager a guess I would say that he probably had syphilus. Do any history buffs have any info on this?
It is perhaps particularly damning because it is thought that Syphilus originated in the New World.
Ah, good ol Columbian Exchange. There are a number of diseases that passed from Europe to the New World, and visa versa; syphilus is just one of them (though to my knowledge, it has been fairly conclusively traced to a New World origin. But again, this is all out of my area of focus).
Columbus was jailed for a time, but I don't recall anything about insanity. Failing health had him call for governing aid from Spain, but he was replaced instead. The replacement subsequently arrested him and sent him back to Spain for various crimes related to how he ruled (such as torture, I think). I believe the King released him without a trial.
If I am recalling correct, Columbus died in Spain of a heart attack (though I seem to recall it was caused by disease... suppose it could have been syphilus, but I haven't heard of syphilus causing heart attacks either).
-
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
-
If so, was that increase of knowledge fundamental to the current state of ethical treatment of animals in the western world?
Though to note, the debate (as I understand you to be representing it, but I might have misunderstood) existed far longer than just 50 years ago. For example, the Island of Dr. Moreau was quite controversial in 1896 because it contained scenes of animal vivisection. I believe John Locke wrote on the subject as well, in favor of animal rights, though for the life of me I can't recall in what works. Same with C.S. Lewis. The earliest animal rights laws I believe are from the 17th century as well.
The debate I was talking about was specifically limited to the field of veterinary medicine as that is, in the modern day, the field that directly relates to animal welfare - although I was aware of earlier arguments in favor of animal rights. I was distinguishing between the modern ethical viewpoint of medical practitioners and that of the general public, in an attempt to show that I do not believe that the current ethical views of the general public were influenced directly by scientific evidence, whereas the current ethical views of medical practitioners were. Is this a little more clear?
Ethics in veterinary medical practice were influenced directly by new knowledge on animal cognition, pain perception, etc. Ethics in the general public I think were greatly influenced by media. TV shows like Lassie, for example, preceded many people moving their dogs from the backyard to their home, and treating them like members of the family. This no doubt led to an increase in concern for the welfare of their animals and an increase in the quality of medical treatment for them.
However, I think that if there was one scientific achievement that greatly influences the publics view of animal rights today, it would likely be the discovery of the genetic code and the subsequent comparison of the human genome to other animals. This was a largely publicized achievement, and it for the first time really solidified the concept that mankind is not separate from nature, but we in fact share most of our DNA with many other animals. Ethics in the medical field have clear cut causes, but ethics in the general public do not. The only sure thing is that within the past 50 years the state of the perception of animal rights and animal welfare by the general public has greatly improved (with the greatest improvement occurring in recent years), and this paralleled both cultural changes and scientific advances.
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
What a truly compelling argument. I must say I am thoroughly convinced.
-
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
What a truly compelling argument. I must say I am thoroughly convinced.
If thats sarcasm thats a little awful when directed at a religion. If that's serious that makes you an idiot for caving that easily, you should have your own opinions. You see how your comment was uncalled for?
-
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
What a truly compelling argument. I must say I am thoroughly convinced.
If thats sarcasm thats a little awful when directed at a religion. If that's serious that makes you an idiot for caving that easily, you should have your own opinions. You see how your comment was uncalled for?
A sarcastic reply to a sarcastic comment is what I read.
-
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
What a truly compelling argument. I must say I am thoroughly convinced.
If thats sarcasm thats a little awful when directed at a religion. If that's serious that makes you an idiot for caving that easily, you should have your own opinions. You see how your comment was uncalled for?
:lol: You guy don't even know who your talking about do.
-
If thats sarcasm thats a little awful when directed at a religion. If that's serious that makes you an idiot for caving that easily, you should have your own opinions. You see how your comment was uncalled for?
lmao is all I have to say for that. If you've read any of my other posts you should know what my viewpoint is.
EDIT: Originally I left it at that since I found your post incredibly ironic, but you (no doubt unintentionally) raised an interesting question:
What is alright when having an intelligent discussion about religion? Is sarcasm alright? Does the topic of religion have some sort of conversational bounds that one shouldn't cross? If so, then why? How is discussing religion different from discussing anything else? Because people hold it so close to heart? Because we don't want to offend people? How can we have a legitimate conversation about religion without the possibility of offending others?
-
Let's be realistic here. All this yammering serves nothing but the will of the Unclean One. As I have always said, the Lord loves each and every one of us, and all He wants is for us to accept His love.
What a truly compelling argument. I must say I am thoroughly convinced.
If thats sarcasm thats a little awful when directed at a religion. If that's serious that makes you an idiot for caving that easily, you should have your own opinions. You see how your comment was uncalled for?
:lol: You guy don't even know who your talking about do.
I think I do. And I don't think the Lord loves me at all.
-
Oh, but you're wrong, Daniel. The Lord forgives, and the Lord protects, all those who turn toward Him.
-
Oh, but you're wrong, Daniel. The Lord forgives, and the Lord protects, all those who turn toward Him.
Would you happen to be in a bad mood Josh?
-
BROJ, your senses of perception are even worse than I realized. Next time you want to spoil someone's fun, I hope you won't think of me. Oh, and I forgive your trespasses!
-
BROJ, your senses of perception are even worse than I realized. Next time you want to spoil someone's fun, I hope you won't think of me. Oh, and I forgive your trespasses!
Sheesh... didn't know I was spoiling anyone's fun. A little kidding humor -- nothing serious. At any rate, thought I'd receive a little more courtesy than that, Josh.
-
You cant make fun of religion. You have to understand that people base their existence off of god. You basically calling into question their life meaning and motivation. You can't insult it. They have to become defensive, if not they lose mental stability and basically become eternally depressed. Seriously one guy in my community committed suicide because he lost faith.
-
(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/vlcsnap-3371488.png)
Laughter is a devilish wind which deforms the lineaments of the face and makes men look like monkeys.
(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/vlcsnap-3373367.png)
Monkeys do not laugh. Laughing is...particular to man.
-
You cant make fun of religion. You have to understand that people base their existence off of god. You basically calling into question their life meaning and motivation. You can't insult it. They have to become defensive, if not they lose mental stability and basically become eternally depressed. Seriously one guy in my community committed suicide because he lost faith.
Hm. I don't know. To some extent I have a sacrosanct view of it. But all the same... I've seen the way the Greeks handled their religion... and for all that I'm serious religiously, you've gotta have some movement for levity.
I've got a very strange contradiction in that. I'm one of those who loves the old hymns and traditions of the church. But all the same...
Yeah, there's something endearing about the Greeks and the way they can joke around even with ones like the mighty Dionysus. If you guys have ever read the Frogs, you totally get a sense of that. It makes you wonder, sometimes. Hm.
-
Monkeys do not laugh. Laughing is...particular to man.
Waitaminute... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_6RyrhpDw)
Gasp...if Sean Connery is wrong, then God must not exist...!
/lame jk. Anyway, I much agree with Krispin that a religious is much happier when he or she is willing to take a joke or two. How the hell else would we be able to get along in threads like this? I think in the grand scheme of things, God is far less amused when religion is taken too seriously.
-
I agree, but you have to be careful who you joke with. I mean some people take it too far, especially right now in the middle east, because they have nothing else to have faith in. So if you test it they will be over defensive.