Slashdot Mirror
Science and Religion Can and Do Mix, Mostly
coondoggie writes "A recent Rice University study found that in one of the more vitriolic social (and increasingly political) battlegrounds, science v. religion, there is more common ground that most folks believe. In fact, according to the study, only 15% of scientists at major U.S. research universities see religion and science as always in conflict."
Discarding scientific knowledge because of a book written originally for a nomadic group of shepherds is ridiculous.
Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.
The more interesting statistic is the percentage of "religious" people who think that there is conflict.
After having read the article, I am not convinced that the questions asked showed that there was common ground at all. It may well be that scientists recognise that religion and science are orthogonal and therefore do not conflict.
"Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed...
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." -Tim Minchin
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Are we talking simple faith that a higher power exists or strict dogmatics of some splinter cult?
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
There is always a conflict between religion and science. It's just that it's mostly irrelevant for scientists in the USA. And even more irrelevant in Eastern Europe.
Now try to teach evolution in Muslim countries like Pakistan. Go on, try it. We'll pay for your funeral.
ALWAYS in conflict? ALWAYS? To anyone who has ever been part of the educational system, and has gotten used to taking multiple choice tests, the word "ALWAYS" when applied to something like science/religion is a big red flag.
Finding that 15% agree with an "always" statement in that context is rather an amazing find.
Ask the question in terms of "overwhelming frequency" or some other next-to-absolutist statement, and you'll get more honest answers. But this report on the study, at least, only presented the "ALWAYS(15)/SOMETIMES(70)/NEVER(15)" range, which doesn't seem useful at all.
With the statement presented, and the specific granularity of statements allowed, this seems more like quote-mining to minimize the perception of conflict than an honest study.
Ryan Fenton
"God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion."
Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, 1265 AD: “Among the philosophical sciences one is speculative the other practical [natural philosophy], nevertheless sacred doctrine [Roman Catholicism] includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works.”
This basically states that if you are understanding science properly, you are understanding God's works properly. And conversely, if you understand God's works, you will let science progress to understand God's works, as God and science are one in the same.
That compromise in thinking eventually led to the Renaissance.
Everyone knows science and religion are only in conflict 364 days out of the year.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
The idea that science and religion don't mix is largely an invention of fundamentalist Christianity, starting around 1900 or so. Individuals on both sides of the fence have talked about the compatibility and value of both disciplines - Augustine said hundreds of years ago that we shouldn't discard a truth about the world because of a metaphorical bible story, and Einstein defended the value of religion in a very well articulated paper, although he was quick to point out potential dangers there.
Most scientists I've talked to appreciate just how much we don't know about the world, and aren't the kind of people to push beliefs on others. They have an attitude of live and let live, more or less, which is a fairly reasonable way to go about your life.
People have an amazing capacity to believe all sorts of mutually exclusive things. They believe that government programs for the poor and elderly are good, but taxes to pay for them are bad. They believe in a right to life, but support the death penalty. They believe in evolution, but want to preserve endangered species. They believe in climate change, but they don't want it to change any more. They believe absence makes the heart grow fonder, but familiarity breeds contempt.
A more surprising finding would have been to see people actually hold onto a *consistent* set of beliefs.
The keyword is "always". When you use an absolute, it will change peoples' answers. If you were to ask the same question in the form of "are science and religion sometimes/usually at conflict?", you will see a much different result. That being said, there is really nothing to be seen here.
AccountKiller
The real point is that 85% of scientist believe that science and religion are in conflict. Most scientists realize that even the most fundamentalist zealots concede gravity and maybe even heliocentrism.
What evidence? You should provide it, otherwise people will think you're just trolling.
Of course science and religion can mix and they should!
Let me quote Abdulbaha, son of the founder of the Bahai religion, a growing religious and social movement with more than six million followers:
If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
Quite a strong statement for being from a major religious leader a hundred years ago. Also:
This gift [intelligence and reasoning] giveth man the power to discern the truth in all things, leadeth him to that which is right, and helpeth him to discover the secrets of creation
Finally:
Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.
The only reason that science and religion doesn't seem to mix is that too many religious leaders stick to their dogmas and traditions even in face of human and scientific progress. Religions role in this world is to develop and foster spirituality, morality and selflessness so we can create a fair and just society and it can only do so if it keeps evolving and improving with new knowledge and understandings. Christianity developed and changed a lot in the first few hundred years after Jesus with doctrines and writings being added and removed at a high pace. Why are so many churches of today so hellbent on sticking exactly to the way things earlier were? It's simply not healthy.
Ps. I'm not officially a Bahai, but I consider myself a "friend of the faith".
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Science and Faith never conflict.
Science answers the question How?
Faith answers the question Why?
Religion on the other hand just says "Because I said so"
The majority of SCIENTISTS do not have a problem with science and religion.
It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
Nice statement of fact there. Too bad there are millions (billions?) of people who do NOT agree with you. Their statements of fact contradict yours.
Don't confuse our personal religion as anything other than your personal religion.
Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right".
And if they don't agree with you ...
And yet around 50% of the US population thinks that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools along with evolution.
It's not the "fundies" who are the problem.
It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
It's religion vs morality. Yes, to some extent religion can interfere with scientific progress, but not so much these days, in developed nations. Morality however... well, there's no "proof" that one set of values is better than another, so people more easily deny say, women's rights, than they deny something like heliocentrism.
A classic example of appeal to popularity. Just because 85% of scientists don't think religion vs. science is in conflict doesn't mean that they aren't. The study was flawed from the beginning,
If you want to answer the question "does science conflict with religion?" (leaving out the "always", as it's not clear from the book abstract if that word was really in the survey, or if Michael Cooney's summary added it), you cannot answer it by simply surveying an arbitrary set of scientists. That only gives you the answer to the question "do scientists believe that science conflicts with religion?", or maybe "does the practice of science conflict with having religious beliefs?".
I would say the original question falls under the category of philosophy of science and/or epistemology. Not all scientific practitioners are experts in philosophy of science or epistemology, in fact I'd guess that most are not. Thus, their opinions on the question, while perhaps interesting in their own right, do not offer convincing arguments any more than surveying a random sample of scientists from all domains can offer convincing conclusions about climate change. If you want to that, you ask scientists that specialize in climatology and related disicplines.
The abstract also mentions this:
That sounds very suspect to me. I'd like to know what the definition of "religious" is.. is it a self-reported label, or are specific beliefs queried? And the label "spiritual entrepreneurs" sounds like complete gobbledygook. "Seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith" does not sound equivalent to a position that science doesn't conflict with religion. In fact, if you have to get creative outside of "traditional religion" to "work with the tensions", that implies that those individuals do recognize a conflict between science and religion. If there's no conflict, you don't need to find creative workarounds.
"How better to better understand the Creator than through the creation?" - Albert Einstein
The game.
How does one tell which stories were meant to be taken figuratively and which literally? And if the answer to that is clear today, why did many past generations (and many among us today) take them literally? Wouldn't a divinely-inspired text make clear which parts were figurative and which were literal, to avoid confusion? Jesus' parables seem to be clear on that point, but what about the Old Testament stories?
No. I did not say that. If there is a God, he (she? them?) has not taken the time to explain any of this to me. Therefore, I cannot say that I know which of thousands of religions in the world is right (and how the thousands that are wrong are wrong).
Again, don't confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
THAT is the problem.
THAT is why around 50% of the people in the USofA feel that "intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution.
Aren't scientists all supposed to be godless atheists? ...According to all the non-scientist atheists out there who want the scientists on their side. ;)
"[Astronomy] is the most noble and sublime of all the sciences, and presents to our view the most astonishing and magnificent objects - whether we consider their immense magnitude, the splendor of their appearance, the vast spaces which surround them, the magnificent apparatus with which some of them are encompassed, the rapidity of their motions, or the display they afford of the omnipotent energy and the intelligence of the Creator." - Rev. Thomas Dick, "The Philosophy of a Future State," 1831.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Thanks for making the world a little more stupid.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Newtonian physics say: F=ma. Not F=ma+God's will. To put this way, anybody who think newtonian physics is right and working, implicitely denies any wonders.
When you have a big gaping hole in your firewall for ports 1-1024 with direct access to your network and a root shell, that would be a very bad thing would it not?
This is, in my mind, what maintaining faith in a religion represents. It is an immediate black hole and defensive space against knowledge and understanding and logical thought. In science, all things are up for question, testing and scrutiny without exception. When you make exceptions, you block progress. And when you place a value on emotion over understanding the universe, you are making a wish that can simply never come true.
it's idiots vs science.
The scientific world rejects idiots. Religion and politics (is there a difference ?) actually need to embrace/recruit them.
Guess who's more numerous.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Seems to be working for many of the prosperous cultures on this planet.
Was Jesus divine?
That's a matter of faith.
Is his message helpful as a guide to interaction with fellow humans?
You be the judge...
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Except people aren't all like you, and won't like the same things as you. Especially if you're of one religion and they are of another, or none at all.
Leave people be. Help them when they're in need, but don't push stuff on them that they don't want.
We are all God's parents.
"Then the engineer would then fashion armor for tanks by strapping prayer imbued babies to the outside of it"
Mr President! We must not allow a baby gap! (With apologies to Kubrick)
To me, it's not science vs religion, it's more like science vs shit that doesn't hold the slightest relevance to my life in any way whatsoever. Yeah be nice to each to other, treat other people with respect, don't lie, cheat, kill, etc I get it, no shit, thanks religion, like I didn't know that already, now go fuck off.
The link between Science and Religion is more close than the modern worldview is willing to admit. For example, From pg 40 of Against Method:
"""
What Newton means is that gravitation disturbs the planets in a way that is likely to blow the planetary system apart. Babylonian data as used by Ptolemy show that the planetary system has remained stable for a long time. Newton Concluded that it was being periodically 'reformed' by divine interventions: God acts as a stabilizing for in the planetary system.
"""
Also the abstraction of Force arose from the idea that Angels ( Invisible action ) that gave birth to an incipient theoretical framework of physics that boomed in the Renascence (Galileo with the frame of reference gave a revolutionary perspective also)
May Joe Pesci bless you.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
You should say "NOT discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous."
According to the moral teachings of thousands of years ago, slavery (of others) is great, stoning people to death for worshipping the wrong god is ok, and if you're short of cash, selling your daughter is perfectly reasonable. The only reason that most modern religions manage to come up with a decent code of morality is if they discard all the so-called morality in their holy books and come up with a new code of morality, then ascribe it to the same god.
Actually, I went to catholic school. Jesuits, to be more precise. Out science lab teacher was a priest (quite an old one, 70+ years old). He used to say:
"It is not the duty of religion to say HOW things happen, but WHO is behind it. Science, on the other hand, will tell you HOW, but now WHO is behind it. I see no conflict whatsoever between the Big Bang and my faith. Between evolution and my faith. When I see Darwin's evolution, I see God's hand behind it."
Its not surprising one catholic priest would accept the Big Bang theory given that the theory was proposed by another catholic priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
Interestingly some leading scientists of the day dismissed the theory because it came from a priest, it "smelled of creationism".
Only 15% see religion and science as in conflict because the other 85% see religion as irrelevant....
Here is what you had previously posted:
So it seems like you DO claim that they're wrong.
I do not claim that the Bible does not exist.
I do not claim that certain statements are not in the Bible.
I did not say that.
What I said was not to confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
And that is the problem.
To a non-believer that does not make sense. It's circular logic.
The question isn't whether the Bible exists or not. And your claim that its existence demonstrates anything about your religion is just more evidence for my position.
I'm not saying that you are wrong. Maybe you are right. Maybe, just maybe, you managed to understand God where billions upon billions of people failed to do so. Whole civilizations have fallen without the blessing of the insight YOU have.
I'm saying that God has not told me anything.
And I kind of doubt that God has spoken to you, either.
So what you're ACTUALLY saying is that what you were taught is what you believe and you are mistaking belief for knowledge and claiming that others are wrong because they believe something that you "know" to be different.
God does protect people's children that are prayed for. But let us say God never let babies get injured by any weapon known to man 100% of the time when they're prayed for.
Let's say that God protects 10% of babies that are prayed for. You can still select the "chosen ones" or strap enough of them on the battleship so that it is very likely that an incoming projectile would hit the "chosen one".
OK, let's say that God protects 10% of babies but only from some threats, then you cannot trust the effectiveness of the prayer and would still have to protect the baby by other means, basically rendering the prayer useless.
Also, how do you know that God actually protects the babies that are prayed for and not only the ones that are NOT prayed for (just for the lulz) or just does not care whether the baby is prayed for and protects/does not protect everyone equally?
Also, a way of making protected babies useless as armor - the whatever harm just passes trough them, so if the tank is hit, it would still get damaged, but the baby would be OK.
Anyway, how do you know that whatever you believe is the truth? For example, let's say that I believe that God (the creator) exists but does not interfere in our affairs (cannot or just does not want to) other than setting the initial conditions (the gravitational constant and others) and is now just watching how this version of the universe plays out (that is, we are in some kind of simulation). Maybe some day we will have the technology to simulate another (smaller) universe and be gods to the people in it (if sentient life evolves there). You most likely would disagree with me, but how would you prove me wrong and you right? Oh, I can also say that whatever event disagrees with the established laws of physics is just a glitch in the program, it was not intentional and is most likely patched up.
Let's start with the Jews. They have a religion.
Which forks into Christianity.
Which forks into Catholicism (East and West).
Another fork for Islam.
Back to Catholicism - fork for the Protestant Reformation.
Lots of forks for lots of different Protestant sects.
Fork one of those into Mormonism.
Yep! Arguing about whether statement X is in book Y is meaningless. Because it is only the BELIEVERS who look to that book as an authority in the first place. Some of those religions have additional holy books. Some don't.
And amongst the believers, whether statement A takes precedence over statement B in the holy book ... it's only important to the person who BELIEVES that it does.
And, more importantly, the person who "KNOWS" that the others who do not agree that his beliefs and religion and holy book and translation and precedence of statements is "wrong".
Nice point on Scientology, by the way. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. I'm totally stealing that.
What about if we rephrased the question to: "How many scientists think that science disputes religion in the most important questions, namely, origin of the universe, origin of organic life and the purpose of life (if any)?" I suspect the answer will yield startlingly different from 15%.
Religion is about making shit up (or blindly following the shit other people have made up).
Yes, many (most?) scientists believe in some or other religion, but what do they do when their faith collides with science? If they ignore their results in favor of their faith, they are no longer doing science. If they decide that the facts trump some part of their faith (evolution, shape of the earth, etc), then their faith has been slightly diminished and the scientist has taken a step towards atheism.
Religion is what you get in the absence of science. They are polar opposites. They do not mix.
Translation: 85% of scientists either never even think about why science is diametrically opposed to religion, either because they never cared or never bothered to question the foundations of their religion with the same rigor they used in their science, or they are too afraid of loosing their faith to ever even let their mind entertain the possibility that their faith is just a giant scam. Whatever the cause, the end result is that they declare themselves men of both science and faith without realizing just how irreconcilable the two mindsets are.
In religion belief in facts is mandatory, and facts are declared from a podium by clergymen with no burden of proof and no incentive to connection facts to reality, and facts must generally agree with other like-minded clergymen of the same religion, otherwise (uh-oh) religious controversy: schisms appear and new sects are born. Religion is belief in facts for no other reason than for the sake of declaring yourself a member of that religion.
The alternative of religion is science, in which belief is not mandatory but dependent on the experimental evidence, facts are declared not by clergymen at a podium, but by scientists who have performed the experiments, where scientists have every burden of proof, and are under enormous pressure to keep results grounded in reality. The results need not agree with consensus, but if they don't, your results must be replicated in competing research laboratories, not by like-minded scientists of the same "scientific faith", but by peers who know enough about the science to possibly replicate your results. Facts are declared not by fiat, by what you can see, seen with your own eyes, or seen as a blip on a plotted graph of data. And simply believing a fact is not enough to call yourself a scientist.
Science and religion are mutually exclusive, they are polar opposites, there is really no way two things could be any more different. And the fact that very imperfect men can be completely right (scientific) and completely wrong (religious) at the same time is not at all unusual.
Like I said, you "know" that you are "right" and that they are "wrong". But you want to argue about whether you said that or not. Whatever.
Here's your original post (aside from the bit you quoted from someone else:
Do you want me to quote the post you were replying to?
Now you can try to claim whatever you want to about what you posted. It doesn't matter to me.
As I've posted elsewhere, it isn't whether those statements are in the Bible. In this instance, it is whether those statements supersede all the other statements in the Bible.
In your personal religion, you "know" that they do.
Others do not believe that they do. Lots of others. For many centuries.
You claim that you know that those others are wrong.
My point is that you cannot know that without direct guidance from God or Jesus.
And that certainty from the believers is why there are problems such as wanting to teach "intelligent design" along with evolution.
From what I see there is a widespread tolerance towards religious people especially among non-religious people, so every outcome of a study, that describes how remote the points of disagreements between the two are in real-life, doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately tolerance and benignity is more and more a matter of the non-religious. I'm waiting for the day when this is going to change.
I'm guessing that you couldn't keep up with the discussion. Whatever.
Hey, I'm the one who said that you MIGHT be right.
As unlikely as that is. Statistically speaking.
With the thousands of other religions out there and the billions of people who don't believe as you do. Over the
You might still be right. Maybe.
I said that I did not know because God has never spoken to me (nor has Jesus) to tell me that X and Y are the most important verses in the Bible (which is the correct Word of God and correctly dictated and correctly translated) and that the other verses can be discarded.
I'm not the one claiming that I "know" which verses are more important than which other verses in the Bible or that people who do not agree with me are "wrong".
Don't believe me? Let me close with this quote from you.
Nice. They're "supposed to". Yet there are "wrong" if they don't agree with you. And you "know" that to be.
It's really no surprise that *actual* scientists have a more open mind than the self-proclaimed intellectual elite of slashdot.
I ecourage you to review Genesis 22:7,8.
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.
Now lets translate this to the Aliens. They down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible.
Then the aliens then tell you that they need your son, whom they helped to create, to continue to be able to communicate with you and the earth in general. From you experience with these beings you know they are moral beings. You know that even if your son isn't with you he will be well cared for.
What do you do now?
Now your second assessment... I think you are tripping over a few language and cultural issues. From the prior section we know that Soddom and Gramorrah were currently at war with their neighbors. Next, strangers (not aliens as for as you can tell) randomly show up. The people of Soddom decide they might be spies and since then as now rape is about the most humiliating things one human can do to another, it is beleived that homosexual rape was used extensivly during interrogations.
Next you are forgetting the two most dramatic cultural changes in human society since the transition fromhunter-gatherer to agriculture. Specifically slavery and Womens liberation. Up until about 100 years ago women were assumed to be the property of their husband or the male head of the family. With only a few exceptions women have been property.
In ancient Israel, daughters have no choice on who they marry or even relate to. The daughter is property.
So now the story, now translated to the modern day reads:
Similarly, if {a potential spy} was about to {undergo 'enhanced interrogation'} at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, {I might even try to pay them to go away by giving them my most valuable and treasured property.} Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping.
On the far side of the 20th century, we have to be very carefull that we don't let the morality that modern technology allows to interfere with the morality that has served mankind for over 3000 years.
Like I said, maybe (against all statistical likelihood) you are correct about what God / Jesus actually meant in the precedence of the statements in the translation of the Bible that you referenced.
And all those others are wrong because they don't agree with you.
I don't know because God / Jesus / whomever has not spoken to me about what he / she / them /it / whatever REALLY meant to be published.
But you claim that you do "know".
Yes, I'm sure you can.
The issue is why do you believe that certain statements in that book take precedence over other statements in that book and how do you "know" that others who do not agree with that are "wrong".
I would be very surprised to learn of the existence of Klingons.
Not that I know they don't exist. I think I understand that they are a fictional race/species from a TV show.
Maybe the writer who "created" them accidentally identified an existing race/species.
Statistically, though, it seems very, very unlikely.
Despite what you "know" from the book you might have read.
Does that mean their study is authoritative?
And if there is no conflict between a system of beliefs that have no proof, and a system of proofs.... why even bother with an education system?
This is an odd interpretation of the figure.
Religion - even if we limit it to Christianity/Islam/Judaism, which covers most of the US - consists of varied concepts, only some of which directly conflict with scientific knowledge. (The rest isn't necessarily good - some concepts are just morally wrong instead of scientifically.) Science also consists of different disciplines, which do not contradict religious views on the universe equally (natural sciences are most affected, while the greatest biblical affront to mathematics is rounding Pi down to three, and I don't know of any for, eg, sociology).
Taking all that into account, we still have just under one in six of ALL scientists queried considers science to be in conflict with ALL religion ALWAYS.
Interpreting this to mean that science - and particularly natural science, like biology and physics - can coexist with religion, is a bit of a long shot.
As opposed to the 'religion' of science:
Nazis leap to mind. They used 'science' to justify their policies
Soviet Socialism was 'science' based
China and it's forced abortion policies are also science based.
Science is hardly a pristine philosophy.
The truth is, humans are malliable creatures that fear change and differences in general. They will latch on to ANYTHING that gives them an excuse to act as their Id directs them.
Just because violence is done in the name of religion does not mean that the religion encourages, advises or even accepts it. You are looking at the most extreme people in the most extreme situations.
I could see the same people burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death because her genotyping says she and her chosen partner would create bad offspring...
No scientist worthy of the title tolerates supernatural explanations for anything, including the moral or ethical behavior humans exhibit. Appealing to deity to explain/justify human behavior is just as fucking stupid and irrational as appealing to deity to explain gravity, or the origin of the cosmos. No rational scientist would accept such explanations for cosmology; why on earth should morality or ethics be treated any different?
If you passively tolerate religious people, you are part of the problem. You are doing yourself, your friends, and your species a disservice. Get in their face about their irrationality -- don't be easy or gentle on them. If you are savvy enough to be reading slashdot, you know that religion delayed the Enlightenment by a millenia and a half -- if you feel the need to pull your punches in this fight, I urge you to think about where we might be as a species right now, if fucking religion hadn't stifled scientific progress for 1500 years. And make no mistake -- it is a fight, and the stakes are pretty high. Ignorance and fear vs knowledge and rationality, with the future viability of our species in the balance.
You also need to remember that this is god dealing with man through time.
Look at the bible as a whole. Mankind starts in a very mean state. He was violent, agressive and not very social. In this situation, if God is to respect free will, he is limited in what he can command his people to do. As man develops God moves from Kill everyone to guard the land to Turn the other cheek to charity is all important.
The 'evil' we see in the bible is more due to the limits of human society that the goals of god.
What is interesting is that the Irealites were actually kinder and gentler that any of the surrounding peoples.
That doesn't mean the answers are worth anything.
On the surface of a planet around a star that cannot be seen with the naked eye a distance of more than 60 light years or so dwells a group of semi intelligent featherless bipeds less than the size of a dust mote on a galactic scale. They have small brains subject to the henweigh effect; their brains weigh about as much as a hen. They communicate mostly by disturbing the air around them with what they call words. They also have symbol systems for their words. Lost and alone in a vast cosmos they argue about science and religion as if their burblings meant anything. When I was a boy in Jr. High and HS long ago I read Mr. Moffatt's translation of the Bible, all of the Darwin I could find, and a lot of Mark Twain. Sir James Jeans, Arthur Eddington, etc. I then went to a major brand name science institute for my physics degree. Over the years it seems that most of the religious people I knew, Christian and Jewish with an occasional follower of Islam, Buddhism, or the Eternal Dharma; these people I say ended up well off and happy. The followers of "science" by contrast are mostly dead or wish they were. No kidding. So I remain religious because it seems to be the way of common sense and survival all things considered. And yes, I still like Mark Twain. Not that any of it matters on a cosmic scale. Not being divinely inspired, I allow that the followers of scientism might be right after all and we are only meaningless pots of bubbling chemicals. If so, I enjoy my delusions. Or even worse, H. P. Lovecraft; but let's not go there.
When one is a scientist, i.e. when he/she believes in the scientific method, he/she cannot believe in religion, for the simple reason that, when the scientific method is applied to religion, religion is falsified.
Furthermore, science answers the 'how' question, but religion does not answer the 'who' question, as many claim, because science proves its answer's validity, whereas religion does not.
I am an engineer and a Catholic. I've come to the following conclusion. God created the universe. The way to look at this statement is as an answer to how the universe was created not as to there is a God what did he do. So the only way to know God is to study science. Learn the rules that govern how his creation works. There can be no conflict because if there is a disagreement between any stance between religions and facts than facts win since they are the direct observations of the universe. Religion is very similar to economics in that it tries to understand humans and society and come up with rules to follow so we can lead happier lives. Sin seems to be built into our being. When you do something that your regret later there is most likely a sin involved. Learning about sins is a way to remind you that what you are thinking about doing you are going to regret later.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
a creator is SO weak that, it needs to supplant its own security, by ordering someone who 'he' created, to kill someone else. so, that god needs killing of someone else, and yet, 'he' is the creator of the fucking UNIVERSE ? creator of MORALITY kills MORALITY ?
Read radical news here
if it was god's word, why was it superseded ? or, has 'god' changed his 'mind' ?
Read radical news here
Religion is based on dogma and faith, and both are the antithesis of scientific inquiry.
Religion is for people who cannot accept reality, science is an attempt to embrace reality.
Religion is subjective, Science strives for objectiveness.
If you really need a cosmic tyrant threatening you to behave nicely towards your fellow humans, there's a very fundamental problem.
Also, as an atheist, I'm not too keen on doctrines that consider right, merciful and just that I be TORTURED for ETERNITY for not sharing their beliefs.
(Jesus himself says this several times in the Bible, BTW)
I don't really think anyone'd deserves that.
85% of scientists surveyed are wrong.
Of course they mix quite well, and have done so for
centuries.
Usually in a dungeon somewhere, and the words 'heretic' and 'branding iron' ...
used quite a lot
As in 'where will we apply the branding iron to the heretic next your worship?"
don't be a spelling loser
A reasoned argument proceeds from its premises. My observation is that few people disagree upon the logic that translates premises into moral conclusions. The disagreements occur when selecting premises. Your post suggests that it is axiomatic to you that the promotion of Human Life is the foundation upon which morality should be built. Why is the promotion of Human Life your axiom, though? Somebody else used the term enlightened self interest. May I assume that's approximately the case for you as well?
To this Christian's mind, that is a moral code based upon outcomes. The reason, therefore, why I reject Human Life as a moral axiom is because its principles are subjugated to its goals. While we happen to agree that Human Life is valuable, another person whose goals are different from yours or mine might not draw the same conclusion. By what basis, other than, "I disagree with you" could you argue the immorality of that person's behaviour or principles? I choose, instead, to subscribe to a moral model that begins with principles of morality, such as "God is good" and allow my behaviours to proceed from there. This can lead to questionable behaviour, such as Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. We observe that behaviour and have trouble reconciling it with a moral man or a good God. I believe (and I feel comfortable saying that most other Christians do as well) that promoting Human Life IS, in fact, a high moral principle. We also believe, however, that it is not the HIGHEST moral principle.
By analogy, I wouldn't ever arbitrarily hurt somebody or damage or steal their property. If, however, by doing so, I could save somebody's life, then I would. I would subjugate the lower principle to the higher principle. You might disagree with Abraham's choice of principles or priorities, you might say that it's irresponsible or evil to allow an authority figure to hold a position of such esteem. Nonetheless, Christians believe that Abraham was rightly acting out the higher principle, "God is good" even though it conflicted with a very-high principle, "Human Life is valuable." That God commanded Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac at the last moment appears, in my mind, to confirm BOTH principles (While God does want us to recognize his goodness as a highest principle, he is neither arbitrary nor cruel.)
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
"Science and Superstition Can and Do Mix, Mostly"
or
"Fact and Fiction Can and Do Mix, Mostly"
That will fly. Like pigs.
There's a reason for that. The Council of Jerusalem settled the issue by declaring that Hebrew Christians had to continue to follow the ritual purity laws from the Old Testament, while gentile Christians were not only obligated to follow a few general obligations such as abstaining from consuming blood, idolatry and fornication.
Most Christians I know have read the Book of Acts because it is practically a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. That's why they probably look at you funny when you expect them to follow the kosher regulations. If you know the Bible well enough to mock their beliefs, it should be assume that you would have enough knowledge to know about the Council of Jerusalem which was the only church council actually convened by the apostles.
In case you didn't notice, American religious fundamentalists were the only major faction that was almost uniformly upset about Darfur and calling for action to protect the tribes. It was a religious fundamentalist who pushed the law in parliament which abolished slavery in the British Empire. In France, it was the descendants of the Huguenots who openly told the Nazis to piss off if they expected them to help them hunt down the Jews; many of them actually hid a large number of Jews at great risk to their communities while secular French communities turned over Jews so eagerly that even the German soldiers were disturbed by their level of anti-semitism.
Of course most of the scientists are going to claim that religion and science are not in conflict - to claim otherwise is to either be excommunicated, or thrown off the gravy train.
The statistic I'd like to see in conjunction with this study is how the scientists voted, compared with whether they profess to be religious.
That is to say, the atheist scientist probably thinks religion is antithetical to science, but does that really matter? I want to know about the scientists who admit that faith circumvents the scientific method in the knowledge/discovery process, yet still go to church. I also want to know about the scientists who believe, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the world is only a few thousand years old; fossils are faked; and there's an invisible man in the sky who loves us so much that if we don't do exactly what he says then he'll burn us in a lake of fire for ever and ever, amen - because those motherfuckers are bat. shit. crazy.
The gist of this post is:
Faith, noun: insanity, a belief that "because I told you so" is a good enough reason to think something is true, even if you discover evidence indicating the opposite.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I think your point is good and thought-provoking.
There is a lot of complexity to the story of Abraham, but consider that (in the context of the story), God was not just a powerful figure in Abraham's life, He was a powerful figure in everyone's life, and He was cranky -- later on (in the story) he unleashed the plagues of Egypt, nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So by appeasing the wrath of such a god, could it be that Abraham was trying to save others?
Would you sacrifice your own child to save a hundred of your neighbors? To save a thousand? Where is the tipping point? To call Abraham evil seems a bit facile considering the weight of his decision.
I am not exactly a Biblical scholar, but I believe this is the only instance in the Bible where God calls on someone to kill an innocent. And the whole point of the story is "God does not really want you to kill an innocent person, period."
So if an angel were to appear to me and say "go kill this innocent person," I would be able to reply, "fuck you, you're either an hallucination or the devil in disguise, there is a well-established Biblical precedent that what you're ordering is contrary to God's will." And I could go on to say, if this Abraham story really happened, that may be why God sent Abraham to the mountain in the first place -- to send a message to future generations.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The common mistake, in my opinion, is that many people allways think that the battle is between science and religions / 'spiritual people'. This is not the case. The fight is between nutcase fanatics and resonable people. Wether they're scientists, believe in a religion / something simular or both, makes no difference and actually is quite a different metric, despite some loonies claiming to speak for religion and their confessions. ... Most confessional christians I know do not really believe that the earth was created a mere 4000 years ago or some sort of bullshit.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This leads directly to the Euthyphro Problem. The question that needs answering is, "Does the Good conform to God, or does God conform to the Good?"
If God can define 'good' and 'evil' however It likes, then of course there's no problem with God always being 'good' - 'good' is whatever God does by definition. Ordering people to kill babies isn't immoral if God does it (1 Samuel 15:3, Joshua 10:40). But now we simply have the ultimate case of "might makes right". There's no real difference between "Speed Limit 55" and "Thou shalt not kill" except that presumably God enforces Its rules better. In the end, the people who collaborated with the Nazis had the right idea, they just picked the wrong bully to submit to.
This isn't terribly satisfying to me and many others, though apparently some monotheists aren't bothered by it. So far as I can see, in this case the only difference between a 'good' action and an 'evil' one is God's arbitrary whim. Even if you assume that God can't change Its mind now, there's no reason why It couldn't have decided that torturing children was the greatest 'good'. God just didn't happen to have chosen that way.
If one asserts that something besides God's arbitrary whims guided the decision that torturing children is 'evil', then one has to ask, "What might that something be, that even God cannot change?" If some things just are 'good' and 'evil', regardless of God's assent, then 'good' and 'evil' exist apart from God, and are recognized, not created, by God. God conforms to 'good', not vice-versa.
Besides which, you can't claim that a creator has moral rights to a creation without a pre-existing moral foundation. I mean, on what authority does the principle that 'the creator of something owns it' rest? How is that justified? We're back to the Euthyphro Problem. If it's because God says so, we don't have any real authority at all beyond raw power, and God's just the biggest bully around.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
There's a difference between 'irrational' - contrary to reason - and 'prerational' - something that feeds into reason.
I might not have a rational reason to prefer cake to ice cream... but if I do, then I'm not being irrational in choosing cake over ice cream.
If I prefer to live, and love, then acting in ways that promote that is not in any sense irrational. Indeed, it's entirely rational.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
As a Christian who is an avid amateur astronomer and have always been interested in the physical sciences, I don't understand why people claim that science and religion conflict with each other. For me, it's quite simple: God created the universe and science is just our way of trying to understand what and how He did it. To those how profess a conflict between the two: where, exactly is the conflict? How can science and religion not coexist in a personal belief system?
The cake is a lie.
But a majority of scientists interviewed viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge"
Here's a WTF moment.. While science converges to a view of how the world works (by observation, hypotheses and testing), religion just diverges and diverges. How can "revealed knowledge" even be called knowledge? If there is a disagreement amongst a churches' members, there is one path they can follow: a split. If a single atheist is put on a panel against a whole bunch of representatives of different religion, this is simply because those folks cannot come to an agreement between themselves of who this god is and what he wants us to do. So really,cut the crap.
Another 15% say the two are never in conflict
Now that's just scary. What world are they living in?
Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.
a religious person can do valid science, but I bet you his papers are not mentioning how god created DNA. It only works if you keep them separate, so how this integrates religion and science is a mystery to me. Science is blind to personal opinions of scientists: if a racist does valid science does that mean science and racism integrate well? If a great scientist likes hip hop, does that mean that science and hip hop integrate well? If there is a good way to demonstrate how stupid you are, making such a claim must be it.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I'm willing to consider that the sun orbits the earth. Then I think of all the evidence we have of the opposite and the discussion is closed. This goes so fast you might not even notice the doubt, and think I'm unwilling to discuss it at all. I don't, you just first have to disprove Newtons' Laws, come up with a good answer as to why interplanetary probes arrive on target despite our faulty world view and describe the laws that make all the other solar object go around in their now twisted paths. Also, please locate the centre of mass of the sun-earth system. Good luck, have fun and come back when you're done.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Writing in centuries past, many scientists felt compelled to wax poetic about cosmic mysteries and God's handiwork. Perhaps one should not be surprised at this: most scientists back then, as well as many scientists today, identify themselves as spiritually devout.
But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention.
My own personal favorite example here.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.
Selling your daughter into marriage, the fair price for a slave, how to properly cut your new born's penis, and stone all homosexuals.
I'm sorry, but your statement is ridiculous in that what was moral and immoral over thousands of years hasn't got a damn thing to do with religion. Anyone with a working mind can have morals without religion. The "moral" teachers from biblical texts are mostly homeless guys, Moses and Jesus. I can find plenty of those if I just head downtown and ignore all the bullshit teaches like those I listed above.
I8-D
How true that is...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Finally, Christianity is the religion of truth. Isn't truth what a scientist is ultimately seeking?
And how do you know that? Because the bible says it is? Don't make me laugh!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
The number of backflips you're going through to justify a position is amazing....
How is this any different than confronting someone from a different religious tradition than your own that has different values. You're just moving the debate from "x number of people believe a thing is moral without a higher power" to "x number of people believe a thing is moral based on their religion of choice".
No, it begins with "I choose to subscribe to a philosophy that requires me to believe in a being who may or may not actually exist and refuses to reveal himself because he likes to keep people guessing", and then moves on to "This being who may or may not exist is good".
No, the questionable part if this is: if I meet someone on the street who says he hears voices that give him commands him to kill his children that nobody else can hear, I assume he's schizophrenic, not that he's got an inside line to a supreme being. If it happens in the Bible, it's a revelation, if it happens in reality, it's a mental disease, why is that?
This is the kind of thing that makes non-religious people nervous when it comes to religious people. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that someone might "hear a voice" that instructs them to kill me (or anyone else really), and that they'll be okay with it because it's more important to "serve god" than it is to promote human life, and that they can have a legion of followers who agree with them simply because they said "god told me" instead of "my dog told me" or "aliens told me".
Then it wouldn't be arbitrary. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who'd argue that breaking down a door is somehow wrong because you're damaging property if you're doing it to rescue the people on the other side of it.
An authority figure who nobody can see or hear, and who won't divulge the reason for his command. Yeah, why would anyone think that's irresponsible?
Which brings us back to this; how is anyone to know that it's "god" telling them to do
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
The scientists are just talking nice to lull the lambs before the slaughter. In the last 500 years, science has written out God as the mover of all things, as the creator of a all life, as the creator of the earth and the sky. It has demonstrated the ridiculousness of pretending that you know for sure anything about how the universe really works. Now, science is wiping out the concept of the soul. How's that going to work out for religion?
Play Command HQ online
Jesus says several times that he was not there to do away with the old laws. So your interpretation certainly ignores much of the New Testament.
In one location Jesus says he's there to pay the debt for sinning. Whether that means stoning, or just the penalty of hell, is up for debate. He wasn't really clear on that point. But breaking the Old Testament rules is still a sin.
I mean, if you believe that codswallop.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Good job trying to explain the empirical aspects of the study of religious works. http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm has some good, practical advice about how to interpret the Bible.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I see. You're asking me to prove the existence of God before I can cite him as a moral authority? I may as well ask you to prove that human life is valuable. You can't. It's axiomatic. I don't disagree with you but we're taking the value of human life as a fundamental truth. It's USEFUL to postulate the value of human life but utility and morality are not even close to identical.
You might try to argue that if I can't appreciate or understand the intrinsic value of human life, then I'm no better off than I deserve. How would that be different from me arguing that if you can't appreciate or understand the goodness of God, then you're no better off than you deserve?
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
... as long as each offers competing explanations for same phenomena (like the origins of life, the cosmos, the nature of the mind, psychology, etc). And the issue is really about that simple.
Religion, magic, superstition, or whatever other flimflam you might imagine can not—in any fashion—mix with science. Why some people work to reconcile them is beyond me. As we learn more about the world through science, religion becomes less plausible. At the same time, religion can offer nothing to science—not even moral guidance.
I grew up Southern Baptist, and I've always been ahead of my immediate rural small town peers in science. In a Sunday School class one day we were going through the first chapters of Genesis, I explained how each of the "days" could easily be described as events during/after the Big Bang.
The room divided about 1/3 on my side, 1/3 against, 1/3 confused. Most of the arguments had to do with order of operations and nit-picking wording of the Bible, not with the concepts themselves.
My personal religious beliefs, while I still technically count myself as Christian, are best described as something along the lines of Pandeism. An Ojibwe friend helped me through a lot of conflicts I had internally at one time as I had a lot of questions where my religious, spiritual (yes different) and science beliefs conflicted. He told me about the medicine wheel, he was very good in science, and told me of his own tribes (from which I am also descended) stories of the Peacemaker in the White Stone Canoe which sounded like Jesus in so many ways it's impossible to miss the connection, and Nanaboozho. He was an incredible help.
Since his death I have watched What the Bleep? Down the Rabbit Hole, this did a lot to help me reconcile the religious/science debate. The more we get into to quantum physics the harder it is to ignore a religious implication. I've also heard an interview with genetic scientist, Chuck and Mark, I forget their last names, who started out Atheist but found God through science, believing DNA could not have been random in it's complexity.
I don't know when I reconciled God and Science as the same. When I was young I was definitely the good Southern Baptist boy, my grandmother actually thought I had the potential to be a preacher, and truthfully I could see where she was coming from and haven't dismissed the idea, but now I doubt I could ever be a Southern Baptist preacher.
Few things annoy me more than the cut throat Evangelical Atheist out to attack every notion of religion, I consider them just about equal to their equivalent to Evangelical, 6,000 year old Earth never mind the Bible was intentionally mis-assembled more than 300 years after Christ death to better control the believers Christians. Neither is better than the other, their both equally closed minded and equally contribute to holding up real progress in universal understanding - the stronger you polarize opposite believers the further apart they become, if you stop thwacking the beehive it becomes easier to really converse.
Carl Sagan is one of my hero's. He presented science, and though he wasn't really a believer in a creator he stated we don't actually know enough to dismiss the possibility. He betrayed no one in saying that, and kept polarization to a minimum so that people would actually listen to what he had to say. Had he said "there is no God" how many people who enjoyed the Cosmos series would have actually taken time to watch it to begin with? Especially when the various religious communities would have rallied to ban/boycott it?
Word to both types of evangelicals - state your views but don't brow beat someone else for not accepting them, you'll only piss them off and drive them further away from what you have to say.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
1. Which was the point of sacrifices, to cover the shortcomings. Israelite sacrifices were to serve as a reminder that they need a deliverer, because animal sacrifices were not sufficient - they were temporary. Hence the need for a Messiah, the ultimate sacrifice, after which animal sacrifices would cease.
2. Eternal torture is an invention of paganism and perfected by various churches, mainly the official church of the Holy Roman Empire. This teaching is not unique to Christendom, and far predates it. Jews didn't believe in hellfire, neither did the first century Christians. Moreover, hellfire and eternal torture is NOT a teaching of the BIble, but the ignorant masses keep regurgitating it - of course, it is far easier to believe a church authority than to do research yourself.
3. Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4 clearly state that death pays for all sin. We all die, and at death we are even, a clean slate so to speak. There are many other verses too.
4. You can worship Lucifer, who many portray to be the liberator of mankind, who supposedly gave man intellect in the garden of Eden and freed mankind from unjust, vindictive God. So far, the ones who turned to his worship ended up dead.
And finally, how about doing some research before attempting to criticize something. So far you relisted false doctrines of Christianity. You need to recognize that church/organized religion is a political entity. Don't trust it any more than the UN or your government or your neighbor at face value. Prove to yourself what to believe, you will feel better for not being an ignoramus.
Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of some 85 million Anglicans in 160 countries:
From 2006: "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it,"
Sounds good now, but creation was once the dominant explanation. This quote is a major retreat for the Anglican church.
From 2010: "“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence. Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.”
He's just hoping. He's drawing another line in the sand and hoping science won't cross it. They may not in his life, but this type of line has been drawn and crossed many times before.
If you want religion to avoid conflict with science by restricting religion to only those categories where science has not dominated, then you must recognize that it's scientific advancement that restricted religion to those areas when once it encompassed all of human experience, and you should acknowledge the danger, the obvious fact, that this encroachment continues.
Play Command HQ online
Which religion's hell do you mean? Certainly not Judeo-Christian. Neither Judaism nor true Christianity teach / taught about hell.
Hellfire is not a Biblical teaching. There is no vindictive God who tortures people in hell for all eternity. That is an invention.
So we all seem to feel that we have come a long way in terms of our morals. Morals being subjective of course. I don't necessarily disagree with that in general, the Western society has vast improvements in terms of interpersonal relationship and treatment of fellow humans.
But.
In reality, slavery is shaping up again, and picking up momentum behind the scenes, fast. It is simply taking a different form. It will be a lot more apparent in 10-20 years. And it won't discriminate against races, only classes.
You're right. I've often though of how the Ten Commandments make sense even if you don't believe, and there's only one I can dismiss outright for non-believers.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Yeah, if you're not a believer you can skip this one.
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Not relevant, but if you extrapolate the idolatry thing a little to include "ignore TMZ and don't get wrapped up in what celebrities do" it's not bad advice.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
Again, not directly relevant - but if you extrapolate that from the intended "don't use the authority of God to get your way" translation instead of the don't cuss in the name of God translation and translate that to "Don't abuse the name of authority for personal gain" it becomes relevant and I really wish people in political offices would follow it.
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Take a break, if you don't you'll burn yourself out and won't be good to anyone.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
As long as your parents are descent people, don't do anything they wouldn't approve of and you'll do alright. Would your mama approve of that girl? If not she probably isn't good for you. This of course assumes your mama isn't a crack-whore.
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
Does anyone want to argue with that?
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Sleeping with someone else's spouse is not a good idea. I could create some really bad situations. Don't fark anyone who is attached exclusively to someone else or you'll pay the price in drama and maybe even physical attack.
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
Who's going to argue against this?
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Yeah, good idea, lest you be this guy who's mama called him a liar.
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Really, all it does is create friction among neighbors and makes it hard for everyone to get along. Do your own thing and let the other guy do his.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Whether or not religion and science are set up as orthogonal and adversarial to one another depends on the religion, religious (or irreligious) individual and the science or scientist. Most of the major scientists throughout history have been religious or at least deist. Conflict between science and religion comes from one entity or the other or both misunderstanding the other; then people make the error of discounting everything from the other. In essence, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. They set up straw men and when they are done kicking down the straw men, they reject the entirety of the other. This dogmatic approach from anti-science religious people and anti-religion science people does no good; it only furthers ignorance. On the other hand, there are plenty of contemporary religions that embrace science. One example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).
For example, Brigham Young stated in the 1800s: "Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its processors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts – they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it."
If you expect anyone else to accept that authority as valid, yes. If I show up at your house and say "I'm with the Department of Taking Houses, gimme your keys and get out", you'd want proof that the "Department of Taking Houses" actually exists, and has the authority to demand your house, wouldn't you? Why should I simply take anyone's word for it that there's a supreme authority that I should submit to when it comes to morality (or anything else), when there's no actual proof for its existence or its authority?
Inherently? No, in the grand scheme of things human life has no particular value, but to us humans, since that's what we are, it's pretty damned valuable. We're a social species, we're wired to value ourselves and others like us to further our own goals. If we weren't a social species, if we were inherently solitary, that probably wouldn't be the case and we'd find it perfectly reasonable to kill each other off at every opportunity, which, in a way we do since we're also wired for "tribalism", and we have plenty of examples of it being fine to kill off people who aren't part of our "tribe".
Unless you want to get really out there, human life absolutely, without question exists. You can observe it and decide whether it's worth appreciating or not based on those observations. God on the other hand, has to be taken completely on faith and without evidence, the only thing to judge "him" by is the words and behaviour of people who claim he exists, not through actual observation of that which I'm asked to believe exists.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Faith and science are fundamentally opposite approaches to determining truth. Religion and Science are 'not always in conflict' because religion slowly adapts when it must. Religion is just a reactionary drag on progress in understanding our universe. In Gallileo's time, people were expected to accept on faith that the earth was the center of the universe. The Catholic Church tortured Gallileo for having evidence to the contrary. Today there is no conflict because the Catholic Church adapted to the reality that the sun is the center of the solar system.
Not conflicting and mixing are two different things. Yogurt eating and haircutting do not conflict; they just have different topics. They don't mix either, except if there are some unknown benefits on hair health by eating yogurt. Using the fact that only 15% on scientist see a clear conflict to suppose that they mix is moronic. It is very clear that they do not conflict because science is about things that can be proved, hence does not pertain to religion.
Science and religion are fundamentally in opposition. This is easily demonstrated.
While science is just an epistemology, and so might seem to be compatible with the metaphysics of religion, the basic epistemology of religion is exactly the opposite of science.
Science makes only three assumptions about the universe: that it is objective, that it is observable, and that it is consistent. Any metaphysics that embraces these three principles is compatible with science. The application of the epistemology of science requires skepticism and empiricism. It also requires the minimum possible assumptions. This is a tedious process, one that inherently recognizes that each result may be wrong, and assigns a measurement of the probability of correctness. In practice, this has given us a fundamental understanding of ourselves, the universe, and the reality around us.
Science is based on this: evidence first, tentative conclusion second, prediction of unknown evidence, testing of prediction. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Religion, on the other hand, requires a lack of empiricism. It is an epistemology that encourages rational thought about irrational assumptions. This is because religion assumes the conclusion: that there is a god. Religion is predicated on this. It requires this assumption, and it requires that no evidence is necessary for this assumption.
These are two epistemologies that are diametrically opposed. The only way they can coexist is in with the metaphysical assumptions of theology, and well-compartmentalized. But when one encroaches on the other, they are in conflict.
They will always be in conflict.
This is because all religions make specific claims about the nature of reality. And the nature of reality is the purview of science. When a religion makes a specific claim about reality, science can test that claim. That is, after all, what science is good at. In fact, it's the only known successful epistemology for probing the nature of reality. So, science can test any claim religion makes about reality.
And religion must make specific claims about the nature of reality. Otherwise, the religion's god is impotent and worthless -- and then what's the point of it?
Morality? How does the assumption of the existence of a god contribute to morality? There's no way to probe the mind of this god without making even more irrational assumptions -- that this particular holy book is true, or that holy book is true. And then, are the laws laid down in the arbitrarily-chosen holy book really morality, or just law? How would you judge?
That's easy -- you'd judge based on whether or not it seemed moral. The same way people without religion judge morality.
Religion is, ultimately, a disjointed epistemology that can provide no real knowledge. Look at all the different religions in the world to see evidence of that simple truth. The epistemological framework of religion disposes of the exact things that make the epistemology of science successful -- the only way to gain knowledge is through the systematic observation of the attributes of reality.
So, yes. Religion and science are always in conflict. The fact that many people are able to compartmentalize these two opposing epistemologies doesn't negate that fact.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Again, that only makes sense to a believer.
To a non-believer, Klingons are a fictional race. So claiming that you "know" anything about them AND that people who disagree with you are "wrong" is strange.
And you just made my point for me again. But you won't see that because you are a believer.
No, it's not. Unless you are a believer.
And, as I pointed out before, other believers believe that those statements do not have precedence over other statements in the Bible.
Which is why there are so many sects.
But, as a believer, you "know" what God / Jesus REALLY meant and that those other people are "wrong".
But, again, you will not understand what I just wrote because you are a believer and "know" what is "right" and what is "wrong".
I think I may have broken your mind.
D&D is the Bible now?
No I am not. You are the one who keeps confusing your beliefs with with reality.
That is how you "know" that others are "wrong". You have confused your beliefs with reality.
That is how you can claim that all those other interpretations are "wrong" and that all the people who believe those interpretations to be "wrong" and that YOU have somehow managed to find what is "right".
Again (how many times have I said that?), no.
I can tell the difference between your BELIEF and the BELIEFS of others. ... but ...
As I said, God / Jesus / whatever has NOT spoken to be directly so I do NOT KNOW what God / Jesus REALLY meant therefore I cannot say what is right or wrong about what others BELIEVE God / Jesus / whatever really meant.
But YOU don't like that so YOU keep claiming that the statements YOU BELIEVE take precedence do take precedence over the other statements and that anyone who does NOT agree with YOU is "wrong".
YOU cannot address that issue so YOU keep trying to claim that the issue is whether those statements are in the Bible or not. But that is not the issue. And that has been pointed out to you over and over again.
Keep it going! This is a great demonstration of how a believer really thinks.
And now you're off on a D&D tangent. Congratulations.
The problem is indeed the ones stuffing fingers in ears, screaming "lalalalalalala", as you say.
But you're a fool if you think that behaviour is limited to the religious.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2451328&cid=37549992
There is no shortage of religions that do not have any conflict with science. Some of them are thousands of years old, some are probably being born as we speak.
But religion haters won't hear me through the 'lalalalalala' they are shouting.
For those aching to disagree with me: I'm not a Christian, so it's meaningless to me if you disprove some facet of Christian/Islamic/Jewish/Satanist dogma. If you think you can prove my God does not exist, go for it! You'll have to start by disproving the existence of subjective reality, so good luck with that.
Exactly.
And since religion is essentially impotent without those explanations, they are fundamentally in opposition.
This is in spite of the fact that many people are able to compartmentalize these two disparate epistemologies. The fact that people are able to hold two conflicting ideas in their heads does not mean the ideas do not conflict.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think I missed the entrance exam when I signed up for my account. I'm not sure what else about reading aggregated news on a specific website could imply about my savviness. Last I checked, anyone could read this, regardless of qualifications.
I have to say, that you are willing to make such an assumption makes me question your overall savviness.
Sure, 15% of scientists feel that science and religion are not incompatible. Why doesn't someone do the same study on clergy?
Although it is theoretically impossible to prove a negative, science has shown us beyond a reasonable doubt that we live in a natural universe. Effect follows cause by natural laws in every case. There's no such thing as magic. If you want me to consider a God, that is very interesting, but you'd better be describing a natural God, because if you describe a magical God (a God which produce effects without a preceding cause), I am closed-minded to that. I am not a free thinker; my thoughts are constrained by sense and logic.
This quote sums up the reason science will always conflict with religion. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." -Author unknown
Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
You've obviously never had obnoxious atheist blow up at you and attack any passing mention you make in relation to a creator based belief. I realize there are Christians who attack at every mention of evolution, etc... But don't think there aren't Atheist who don't attack at every mention of God.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Most religion may be irrational, but spirituality cannot be completely discounted. There are things in science that will always be unanswerable, and there will always be people willing to fill in the gaps with untestable conjectures (but still thought out). Be it string-theory pre-big bang or be it FSM, somethings we may never know.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
I believe AC was being sarcastic. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the scare-quotes, or even to mention tolerance, since that has nothing to do with the article.
I realize there are Christians who attack at every mention of evolution, etc...
Or send death-threats to kids who take a communion wafer out of church, or raise a stink about billboards or bus ads mentioning atheism, or (if you are a relatively recent President) say that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
May I interrupt on that?
All that can be established is whether a certain verse is (or is not) in a specific translation of a specific version of The Bible.
Not whether it was actually said.
Not who actually said it (if it was actually said).
(and not whether it was contradicted/clarified in a different document that was not included in that version of The Bible because of whatever reason.)
I agree with your post, but the circular logic stuff starts even sooner than that.
I don't see how people being different than me, liking different things, or being a different religion has anything to do with treating people the way I want to be treated? I agree with your other statements 100%
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Faith is the antithesis of what science strives to be. Faiths asks you to believe something for the sake of belief; without evidence or critical analysis. It claims truths without proof. The scientific method attempts to find proof by continuously questioning, testing and disproving all other possibilities till evidence supports a theory.
If your religion is faith based, as most are, you are denying the basic tenants of science, curiosity, critical thinking, and the socratic method. You cannot claim to be a scientist.
Faith has helped intelligent people justify belief in unknowable things since primates evolved. Oh wait...
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
--Dan Barker, former evangelist, author, critic
--Let's hack root on 127.0.0.1 --panZ
Yes there certainly is a rational foundation for morality. Let's start with the easy ones.
Murder is Bad. Why? Because it's against Human Life. Theft is Bad. Why? Because it's against Human Progress, which makes Human Life harder.
Why should I care about human life and human progress as long as my own life and progress are doing well?
You can't solve the tragedy of the commons with arm chair philosophy.
That kind of attitude, while militant and progressive (for very liberal definitions of progressive) is a very good way to convince religious folk that scientists are condescending, evangelistic assholes that are no better than the ancient Crusaders whom they choose to denounce.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
"Einstein defended the value of religion in a very well articulated paper, although he was quick to point out potential dangers there."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. "
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New.
Unless of course you happen to be Jewish...
I think it is very funny that people are supposed to ignore the old "word of god" in favor of the "newly revised word of god". What, did god make a mistake the first time around? Guess god isn't infallible after all...
2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.
And what if you hate yourself?
No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion and make it seem as if atheism is supported by science.
I think you greatly overestimate how much atheists care about religion. Some point out that there is no evidence for the existence of any deity and that the behavior of religious followers is HIGHLY irrational and illogical. Atheists generally only bother to pay attention to religion when religious followers try to foist their bizarre belief systems on others, sometimes at the point of the proverbial sword. Atheism is by definition the absence (sometimes a rejection) of a belief in a deity. It has nothing to do with science at all. It merely happens that science ALSO does not take the existence of a deity as an axiom. Neither science nor atheism explicitly supports the other but unless there arises some scientific evidence for the existence of a deity (presently there is none), atheism and science are not logically incompatible either.
Apparently you think that atheists are plotting to destroy religion. In actual fact virtually all atheists could not care less what crazy things you believe so long as you either back them up with facts or keep them to yourself.
It is not the duty of religion to say HOW things happen, but WHO is behind it.
The fault in that line of reasoning is that there may not be any "who" behind any of it. We all can observe how things happen and describe them. Attempts to describe the nature of a deity are 100% made up mythology with no credible evidence to back any of it up. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as credible as Jesus if you are trying to say who created the universe. Even if there is a "who" behind the whole thing, religious believers cannot possibly have any idea as to the nature of such an entity.
Well, to take an extreme example. Some people don't like having strangers burn down their house.
More subtle would be not wanting to be preached to about Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever truths you feel you hold, that you think you would've liked to have been told about if you were them. Not wanting to be signed up for an activity without being asked, not wanting someone to donate to a charity in their name, not wanting to have specific words banned from broadcasting, not want abstinence taught while contraception is being demonized, and anything that you could do to or on behalf of someone else that you think they want, or that you think is good for them, because you're basing it all on what you feel.
We are all God's parents.
I think that some atheists have an axe to grind when it comes to religion and try to use science as a means to destroy the faith of those who believe in a religion.
Do you know what the most hated minority group in America is? It's not blacks, hispanics, jews or muslims. It is atheists. Our last president (Bush the lesser) even said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Is it any wonder that some atheists respond rather negatively to such overt hatred among religious followers directed towards them? When religions stop trying to convert everyone to their particular brand of hallucinatory dogma, I suspect you'll find most atheists will at worst express a mild contempt for their weird behavior.
I have no problem at all with combating irrational behavior using scientifically determined facts. If that "destroys the faith" of some, they probably were already doubtful of the veracity of their received "wisdom" to begin with. Religion is not sacred. Neither religion or its followers are above criticism.
I don't see how the house burning example is a 'do unto others' issue, no matter how extreme. Nobody wants their property destroyed unless they are insane. Also, I think some of the examples in your posting don't so much describe problems with a 'do unto others philosophy', as they highlight a problem with government regulation. When the government gets involved in an activity, it creates a situation where people can enforce their morals on others. The abstinence vs contraception issues and the regulated broadcast speech are good examples of this.
If people bug you, don't talk to them. Whether they are Christian or not, people do annoying things.
My point is that whether or not you believe in the divinity of the message "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", it works pretty well in general. Christian cultures have so far generally done better than those embracing other ethical models.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. If it was, there would be no problem with religion and the athiests would probably shut up.
Clearly there are disagreements between religions and facts where religions win. You only have to look at education in the US science classrooms to see this -- I've seen countless YouTube videos of science teachers who have to teach evolution but they do so in a way that constantly reminds us that this is "just what the scientists tell us, and you should think for yourselves, and when we think for ourselves we know that God designed us" (paraphrased), and so on. All over the world, every day, people are throwing facts out the window because of their presupposed religious beliefs.
You can have your belief that God set up the universe and then after that everything ran like clockwork (a deistic belief), and learn about sins and other moral teachings from the Bible. But you would have to ignore everything else that religion says about the way the universe works (including miracles, answering prayers, explicit design of species, etc) if you wanted to remain compatible with science. As an engineer, perhaps you can do that, but the majority of the world's religious people cannot, and so religion and science have a problem.
Christianity with it's origin as a major religion in the Roman Empire, and later on the various forces of Europe, has gone out into the world and slaughtered and enslaved other people, as well as forced them to give up their own religions in favor of Christianity. Christianity is big today because it was brutal throughout history, or it piggybacked on brutal regimes in order to spread itself.
We've gotten a lot more civilized in the past couple of centuries, and at the same time the dominance of Christianity has faded. The good that people claim come from Christianity, is the good stuff we choose to take from it, while we leave quite a lot of nasty stuff be. Sure, Jesus was a much nicer guy than his dad, but he's been around since they didn't use his instrument of death as a symbol for belief in him.
We are all God's parents.
Science cannot mix with the kind of christian fundamentalist ignorants who think that science is a conspiracy against them and should be treated as another bogus religion.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
It seems to me there are two major fallacies here that poison all religion/science arguments.
The first is the notion that science provides truths, when what it actually provides is explanations. These explanations rarely survive improved measuring precision. As science measures things ever more accurately, so its material world becomes ever deeper and stranger. What was once seen as a solid ball is increasingly seen as more like a little universe, and not actually 'material' at all.
The second is the notion that religion provides truths, when what it actually provides is revelations. These revelations rarely survive improved intellectual rigour. As humans question things ever more rigorously, so their religious world becomes ever deeper and stranger. What was once seen as laws handed down to us by an old guy in the sky is increasingly seen as attempts to describe something that is simply too immense for us to grasp.
What is both exciting and ironical is that science and religion are almost certainly proceeding to the same point, albeit by different routes. The noted scientist Sir James Jeans said back in 1930 that "The Universe is beginning to look more like a great thought than a great machine", which is the enigma that materialistic science faces.
Even Heisenberg showed little uncertainty when he said: "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think", which is the enigma that fundamentalist religion faces. Ultimately we all have to face both of them, and the 'effing' rants against the 'blind faith' of religion will then be seen as no less ignorant and misplaced than those against the 'heresies' of science. I certainly am more inclined to take seriously the words of Jeans and Heisenberg than I am some of the vitriolic rubbish spouted on here.
"The tendency of modern physics is to resolve the whole material universe into waves ... These concepts reduce the whole universe to a world of light, potential or existent, so that the whole story of its creation can be told with perfect accuracy and completeness in the six words: 'God said, Let there be light'." -- Sir James Jeans (physicist, astronomer and mathematician)
I really do hate most of the "religion and science" debates. In my view, religion has nothing to bring to the table. It has far outlived it's usefulness as a way of explaining the world. "What about ethics/morals?" is the main reply. Answer: Philosophy
Philosophy has been around just as long as religion, and is generally offers more convincing solutions than any dogmatic religious text. Good philosophers are always questioning their own beliefs and are always willing to be critiqued by others if they can provide logical and reasonable evidence or arguments. Furthermore, science and philosophy complement each other perfectly. Contemporary philosophers like Daniel Dennett, for example, use science as a backdrop of their philosophy. They constantly examine new evidence uncovered by science to help us understand ourselves and our beliefs/morals.
The only reason religion still exists is because of ignorance and fear (of death). This is pure and simple fact. Religion had 2 purposes: to help us understand the world and to help us decide right from wrong. There is no dispute that science is much better at the former. In my view, philosophy does a much better job at the latter.
So, please....just stop it with the religion and science comparisons. This conversation should have been over at least 200 years ago.
There're a few things about drawing conclusions from this study that seem a little fuzzy. For one, the sample n was 275 scientists. While they may have represented a good cross-section, I'd imagine if you broadened the scope to worldwide and used a larger sample size, you'd see a significant shift in numbers.
Also, I'd bet that if you broke it down by discipline, you'd find a lot more, say, biologists who would find science and religion incompatible. This study also brought in social scientists, and since religion tends to have an impact on social groups, they would probably find it less incompatible than someone who dealt with evolutionary genetics on a daily basis.
Then there's the issue with the definition of "religion." I've often heard physicists get all "spiritual" about the nature and grandeur of the cosmos, but also redily admit that they do not beleive in a supernatural. I don't have enough information from TFA to know if that sort of response was filtered out.
My opinion? Basically I think sci and religion don't come into contact with each other on a day-to-day basis and one can generally ignore the other for most things, but there comes a point in both areas eventually where the fundamental differences in epistemology are going to come into conflict. Science is rigorously materialist, requiring evidence (or at least hard math) to back up a theory, whereas religion is underlyingly supernatural unverifiable received wisdom. Eventually, no matter how hard you try to compartmentalize, at some point these two will be diametrically opposed. For some scientists in some discplines, that point may occur a lot sooner than for others.
Now you can argue the standard line of "science is the how, religion is the why" but science does like to delve into the whys once it's got the hows sorted out on a particular subject, and most religions will go right ahead and posit some hows as well. Certianly in biology we're seeing evolutionary explanations for moral behavior - and that would fly directly in the face of religion's "whys." And of course most religious traditions have thrown a lot of things at "how", from heliocentrism to why there's thunder and all that.
But back to my point, for most people, even scientists, these two conflicting ways of knowing will be something that they can compartmentalize. There's always an underlying conflict, but not everyone comes to a point where they have to deal with it.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
must decide whether to live by one's faith (which anyone with a set of more or less traditional beliefs can do), or the works of one's mind (which is the force that curruntly governs the civilized world).
I agree that we have taken the good and left the bad from Christianity. Good for us, even if some don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. And that's my point: Christ's message, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is generally a good way to live.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Thank you Niteshaed for continuing the followup.
I agree, starting from absolute nothingness, we need a postulate. The difference between the humanistic rationalisms and classical religion is Which Postulate Rules Them All.
I'll agree it's a tossup between Large Amounts of Worldly Property vs Human Life - that's where lots of literature comes from, 1 man vs saving a resource, etc. But somewhere between those, are good places to start.
The severe problem with classical fundamentalist religion is the "God in the Gaps" - that this entity has *no effect whatsoever* except as perhaps inspiration and as a thin cover of "greater compassion". Any "technical transaction" with God simply isn't provable, so it boils down to some random person with good oratory skills saying "Sudo Do This Because It Is God's Will".
All the "inspiration" ever attributed to God can be recast with Out Of The Box / Lateral Thinking terminology and/or advanced level game theory.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Tragedy of the Commons is the whole Musical Chair effect.
I went after the very simple Murder 1 and 2 where some person/group simply sets out to end other people's lives for pure gain as my starting point of What Not To Do.
I agree that those "Everyone play nice with your cows in the field" effects are far harder, but I wanted to keep it simple.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Tragedy of the Commons is the whole Musical Chair effect.
I went after the very simple Murder 1 and 2 where some person/group simply sets out to end other people's lives for pure gain as my starting point of What Not To Do.
I agree that those "Everyone play nice with your cows in the field" effects are far harder, but I wanted to keep it simple.
....and I wanted to point out that once you point out that when you remove divine as a motivator morality isn't simple or even rational.
Also you never answered my question.
That kind of attitude, while militant and progressive (for very liberal definitions of progressive) is a very good way to convince religious folk that scientists are condescending, evangelistic assholes that are no better than the ancient Crusaders whom they choose to denounce.
So? I'm interested in changing their behavior, not their irrational beliefs. You can't fix stupidity, but you *can* condition it. "Religious folk" don't give a shit about logical, well-reasoned deconstructions of their irrationality. They are going to be equally hostile to *any* threat to their belief system.
Think about it this way. You don't teach a child not to touch a hot stove by explaining the physics of heat transfer to her; you let her get burned so the lesson will *stick.* "Religious folk" have been getting a free pass in public discourse, because most rational people are too polite to call them out for it. I aim to end that, by encouraging rational people to be far less polite towards them than they have been. If "religious folk" are going to publicly display their irrationality, then they can damn well expect to be publicly burned for it.
Many decades before him, Averroes, a Muslim polymath born in Cordoba, Spain (d. 1198) was pondering the same questions.
In fact, Aquinas was one of many influenced by Averroes.
Averroes, wrote a treatise: Fasl Al Maqal, translated as "On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy", about faith vs. reason.
You can find the English and Arabic text here.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.