Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "So, the men you saw might be fully aware of the ridiculousness of such a statement."The men were veterans (i.e. not currently serving) and they did not show any sign of a lack of enthusiasm. Now if they were Republicans and said "we believe in the values of this president" that would be fine, but what they proclaimed was it was their duty to support the President which kind of makes a mockery of the whole democratic process.
Then again any country which legalises the ability to detain its own citizens without due process has already lost any right to call itself "the land of the free".
My point about the veterans was mainly anecdotal. To see the hypocrisy you only have to look at the increasingly shrill rhetoric of the political parties and news media. It is not enough that someone is wrong in their policy, no their policy has to be a deliberate evil plan to destroy America. Sometimes I think it may be the fright of 9/11 has kicked US progress back to 1955, suddenly a new cold war mentality has blossomed and once again political candidates are advancing the idea of un-American activities.
Of course the "land of the free" has always been questionable in a system with only two political parties both of which are bound to the cash support of special interests.
Shannon wrote: "Have you been to a secular club meeting or gathering lately? I have. I've been to secular club meetings and gatherings off and on over the past several years. Talk about authoritarian. I mean, seriously? I'm guessing you've not been for awhile."
About 6 months really. The organisers were just that, organisers, and they got in speakers for a wide variety of discussions and debates. At one point I was also invited to deliver a talk on whatever subject fascinated me at the time.
I also used to be involved in a nationwide (but small) society were I was in charge of a significant portion of the direction the society went however we had a President to deal with the hard issues, a treasurer who handled the logistics and money, a secretary to handle the paperwork and records, a council of elected representatives to deal with policy and rules and each region had its locally appointed representative who are the only ones with voting power when it comes to a democratic decision.
Yes secular meetings and such need to be structured and organised, but that has nothing to do with the end result. The difference is that such a secular gathering should be a gathering of delegates, not an audience for a preacher.
The Christian Church puts it harshly, but precisely, "the Shepherd and his Sheep". Note how in modern language the dissonance has grown with this term. I have heard priests talk about their Flock and their role as Shepherd and the language takes on a nuance of responsibility and nurturing. Yet if you describe someone as a sheep outside of that context they are almost bound to get offended.
Shannon wrote: "Just wanted to throw that out there .... "
Yep that community sounds truly terrifying, but when it comes down to it, did it grow out of a majority wishing for a uniformity that would make the area more attractive (thereby perhaps having real financial benefits in terms of house prices etc.) or was it one person who told everyone else what to do because they claimed to have a direct line to the almighty?
I have also attended Church meetings including a few recent initiatives by Churches to invite in people from outside their religion to discuss the meaning of life. However, what I found was definitely not intended to be a discussion, at least not one that included outside views or questions.
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "military veterans who were talking about the fact they fought for freedom and democracy, then when asked who'd they'd vote for they responded "President Bush, because he's our commande..."This is very interesting, as this is one of the reasons that there seems to be a problem with democratic structures in Africa. Whereas we view politicians as public servants, the culture in many parts of Africa is to view their President as the 'cammandering chief'. Once in power, there is a reluctance to vote against the 'chief'. Hence you get African Big Men who never get thrown out of office.
Shannon wrote: "I was in the bookstore and saw a book by Bryan Sykes about genetics and anthropology. I was somewhat intrigued, but .... Do any of you, especially those into science, know if he's a good scientist, meaning does he write about "good" science?"I did a little research into him and he seems qualified, but there does seem to be a little caution. The problem with reading popular science is that it is generally from one point of view and can mislead you to what is actually the current scientific consensus.
There is also a recognised issue with Syke's style of work. For his popular science texts he sometimes indulges in anthropomorphising certain concepts by assigning them motivations. This can be an effective analogy when it is recognised as such, but can also be highly misleading to a layperson. (The same way that most laypeople believe that evolution is meant to be a process that leads from primitive forms to more complex ones, when the truth is that evolution proceeds in many directions simultaneously.)
It may sound cheap but i dont care, to me , homo sapiens would have been better off without both sience and religion. Since the wheel was invented, a gap in society started to occur, those who can carry more stuff against those who cannot. And then religion were always a method of mass manipulation.The easiest one, but the most dirty of all. Physics , metaphysics, words that will mean nothing in a few years.
When the lights will turn off and the pumps will have no more gasoline, we will return again to the status where the one wielding the bigger club will lead the pack.
Good question, what can you live without? sience or religion.
The problem is that the two things we cannot live without are food and water, and we are running out of them and bluntly, neither sience nor the religion are able to help us finding enough food for all of us (btw why the heck are there so many of us humans?) and soon we will run out of water, too.
This is my two cents on the issue, ( i save my other $2.98 to buy a loaf of bread)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "did it grow out of a majority wishing for a uniformity that would make the area more attractive (thereby perhaps having real financial benefits in terms of house prices etc.) or was it one person who told everyone else what to do because they claimed to have a direct line to the almighty?"
I honestly don't know. However, I didn't think that there needed to be a religious aspect, one person believing s/he heard from God, in order for something to be considered authoritarian.
Merriam-Webster tells me ...
Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
My examples at least fall under the first definition. I actually believe the neighborhoods have created "constitutions" in order to give their "leaders" the power to act. Of course, I believe some of the social groups I mentioned also developed "constitutions" and rules. But, of course, I've found, after they've been made, they stay in place for years and aren't revisited nor are attempts to change them considered. So, given that, I'm not sure that those in leadership are responsible to the people. Though, I guess, it depends on how we define the term.
Regarding hanging out the laundry, my grandparents weren't able to do that either. These places are springing up across the country. My aunt and uncle also lived in one in North Carolina. They were even told what decorative mulch they could use in their flower gardens. When I asked why they listened to the community leaders, they said they wanted to fit in with their new neighbors. Very, very sad. I find it very discouraging that so many people want everyone else to be exactly like them and follow their rules ... and that so many people are willing to go along to get along. For me, it doesn't much matter if a deity is involved. It's dangerous.
Regarding the soldiers, I don't know what to say. Maybe, after years of not being able to share their political opinions for fear of being reprimanded, discharged and losing their pensions, they said what they said due to habit. I don't have the time now as I'm off to work, but I believe retired military can lose their pensions if they speak out against the president. I remember a general speaking out against a president. Bush? Obama? I don't know. And, I remember people questioning whether or not he'd lose his benefits. It's an ugly truth that not many are aware of. It would be nice if President Obama signed an executive order allowing members of the military, State Department, etc... to express themselves freely ... given that we believe in free speech. I know Bush didn't. Will Obama?
Regarding Sykes, thanks so much for the info. Will keep it in mind if I read the book. :)
I honestly don't know. However, I didn't think that there needed to be a religious aspect, one person believing s/he heard from God, in order for something to be considered authoritarian.
Merriam-Webster tells me ...
Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
My examples at least fall under the first definition. I actually believe the neighborhoods have created "constitutions" in order to give their "leaders" the power to act. Of course, I believe some of the social groups I mentioned also developed "constitutions" and rules. But, of course, I've found, after they've been made, they stay in place for years and aren't revisited nor are attempts to change them considered. So, given that, I'm not sure that those in leadership are responsible to the people. Though, I guess, it depends on how we define the term.
Regarding hanging out the laundry, my grandparents weren't able to do that either. These places are springing up across the country. My aunt and uncle also lived in one in North Carolina. They were even told what decorative mulch they could use in their flower gardens. When I asked why they listened to the community leaders, they said they wanted to fit in with their new neighbors. Very, very sad. I find it very discouraging that so many people want everyone else to be exactly like them and follow their rules ... and that so many people are willing to go along to get along. For me, it doesn't much matter if a deity is involved. It's dangerous.
Regarding the soldiers, I don't know what to say. Maybe, after years of not being able to share their political opinions for fear of being reprimanded, discharged and losing their pensions, they said what they said due to habit. I don't have the time now as I'm off to work, but I believe retired military can lose their pensions if they speak out against the president. I remember a general speaking out against a president. Bush? Obama? I don't know. And, I remember people questioning whether or not he'd lose his benefits. It's an ugly truth that not many are aware of. It would be nice if President Obama signed an executive order allowing members of the military, State Department, etc... to express themselves freely ... given that we believe in free speech. I know Bush didn't. Will Obama?
Regarding Sykes, thanks so much for the info. Will keep it in mind if I read the book. :)
Ovidiu wrote: "It may sound cheap but i dont care, to me , homo sapiens would have been better off without both sience and religion."Well there are a lot of homo-sapiens alive now who should disagree, in fact almost 6.5 billion of them given the fact that this size of population or its longevity would have been impossible without science.
Ovidiu wrote: "Since the wheel was invented, a gap in society started to occur, those who can carry more stuff against those who cannot."
You contradict yourself within one post. Surely whether there was a wheel or not there have always been some people who could carry more than others. In fact science and technology has narrowed the gap between ability rather than widened it. There are people alive now contributing greatly to society who would have died decades ago without science.
Ovidiu wrote: "The easiest one, but the most dirty of all. Physics , metaphysics, words that will mean nothing in a few years."
Even if that is true, that will be a failure of man not of science. So the dirty word will not be physics, it will be the nihilism that leads people to abandon knowledge in despair.
Ovidiu wrote: "When the lights will turn off and the pumps will have no more gasoline, we will return again to the status where the one wielding the bigger club will lead the pack."
Or as pressure increases perhaps the knee jerk beliefs of the general population will slowly yield to the rationale of science. Currently the fears of the general population has hobbled the potential of nuclear physics. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have terrified the common person because of the fear of radiation despite the fact that neither disaster has directly caused the number of deaths that the oil industry causes in a year, and that both reactors were old and out of date. Particle enhanced nuclear reactors and Hybrid Fission/Fusion reactors have the chance to generate real clean power for a long time safely, while even using other nuclear waste as fuel and decomposing it into safer forms.
In Europe fear of GM crops has led to widespread blanket bans despite the fact that much of the technology is a lot less dangerous than the pesticides that are pumped into the ecosystem.
Ovidiu wrote: "(btw why the heck are there so many of us humans?) and soon we will run out of water, too."
Well in the Western World birth rates appear to be stabilising and in the undeveloped world they are still dropping. Unfortunately, religious obsession with the puritanical view of sex as sinful effects this issue to an extent. Everywhere were bashful governments teach abstinence-only sex education teen pregnancy and STDs are more common.
Unfortunately the aging population will cause problems as they start to outnumber the working young, but this is not an inherent problem with our species or physics, this is an issue of economics and culture. It is much easier to effect changes in economy than it is to effect changes in the laws of physics.
The issue of water is one of energy. With enough energy water can be purified and processed easily. Unfortunately, as long as technology and economy are enslaved to greed the tougher life will be for the majority.
A concerted scientific effort should be able to solve the energy crisis and the reduce issues of pollution and climate change, but at the moment this would hit too many people's wallets.
Finally, even if what you say is correct, then I think science has done a lot for me and for the world in general to this date. Does the fact that every person will eventually die mean that they would be better off never having lived?
Shannon wrote: "I honestly don't know. However, I didn't think that there needed to be a religious aspect, one person believing s/he heard from God, in order for something to be considered authoritarian."Of course not. My point was in reply to what Graham seemed to be suggesting that religion still had a role to play by forming part of the community that propagates morality and philosophy. My point was that settlements used to be arranged around such a thing such as Roman Fora, the marketplace or the mead hall etc. However with the rise of monotheism such places were replaced generally by a Church where generally speaking preaching replaced discussion.
You are correct, authoritarianism can happen many ways, and authority in itself is not bad. My issue is that authority should be earned to be duly respected, and unquestionable authority is ultimately very dangerous outside of very specific circumstance. (e.g. I know that military authority is very important in times of war, yet "I was just following orders" is still not a good excuse for committing atrocities.)
Shannon wrote: "So, given that, I'm not sure that those in leadership are responsible to the people. Though, I guess, it depends on how we define the term."
Democracy has been described the least worst of all the types of government. In actual fact an altruistic dictatorship is always more efficient, more responsive and more accountable than any democracy, but it rather depends on getting the right person as dictator. This parallels rather closely the idea of religion as an enforcement of morality, as long as the rules are benevolent you have peace and efficiency, as soon as their is unjust rules or an unjust leader, that efficiency becomes brutality.
Is democracy the ultimate form of government? Doubtful. For a start most "democracies" are not really. Money, wealth and connections often overwhelm what the majority may really want. In the west we are fast approaching becoming "mediacracies" rule by popular opinion as conveyed by media. (Any resemblance between my made up word and the word 'mediocre' is simply a delicious irony.)
Furthermore, quite often the majority don't know what is best for society anyway. We supposedly elect politicians based on their policies, yet how many voters are qualified to judge those policies, be they social, economic, legal or scientific?
The internet is perhaps giving modern society the chance to shape itself democratically like no culture in history has been able to do. Already news is starting to escape the clutches of media barons, communication and opinion is starting to flow independently thanks to social networks.
Personally I can only hope that it does lead to people developing a sense of critique in what they are told. The main problem with this is the cultural predilection for touting "faith" as a virtue.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the soldiers, I don't know what to say."
Well the story was anecdotal and just meant to be illustrative of the problem rather than evidential, so I wouldn't worry about it.
What I think should concern Americans is the way that in a supposedly free country that dissent is constantly typified as being not just wrong but wilfully traitorous.
Shannon wrote: "It would be nice if President Obama signed an executive order allowing members of the military, State Department, etc... to express themselves freely ... given that we believe in free speech. I know Bush didn't. Will Obama?"
While I have a lot of respect for Obama, his failure to address detentions in places like Gitmo and his failure to address things like the patriot act, and in fact the expansion of similar unilateral powers has been disappointing.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding Sykes, thanks so much for the info. Will keep it in mind if I read the book. :) "
As always, with science always look for the consensus. :-)
Ovidiu wrote: "It may sound cheap but i dont care, to me , homo sapiens would have been better off without both sience and religion. Since the wheel was invented, a gap in society started to occur, those who can ..."Actually before that a "gap" has already been there, between those lucky enough to live to their adulthood & those died very young and sometimes very painfully.
There is no world without science. THAT IS ALL.
Anyee wrote: "There is no world without science. THAT IS ALL."Ok, folks, you heard Anyee - THAT IS ALL - no more comments! LOL!
Great question! But you all got to have something to believe in! Without it, we are all just ants!
Who says just because we don't believe in the man in the sky that we don't believe in anything?and we're not all just ants?
Dina wrote: "Great question! But you all got to have something to believe in! Without it, we are all just ants!"someones got self esteem issues...
Hazel wrote: "Dina wrote: "Great question! But you all got to have something to believe in! Without it, we are all just ants!"someones got self esteem issues..."
If there were a man in the sky, wouldn't that make us ants, anyway?
Seems like we are ants either way.
To God, we are much more than ants! We are souls that He wants to claim, but allows us to seek other options.
Great question. I could not live without love and I have faith were that blessing comes from, so I would have to pick religion and take my chances without the beauties and protection of science. ie and compensate with more faith.
Allen wrote: "Great question. I could not live without love and I have faith were that blessing comes from, so I would have to pick religion and take my chances without the beauties and protection of science. i..."But you're still happy to avail of the advances of science.....
Edit: Can I also ask if you feel a life without religion is a life without love?
Dina wrote: "To God, we are much more than ants! We are souls that He wants to claim, but allows us to seek other options."to keep it in perspective, to somebody omnipotent, we are ants. Might be ants he's fond of, but still ants.
Have you seen those ant nature shows lately? ANTS are effing AWESOME! Just saying.
This is what logicians call a false dichotomy. I don't think one has to choose one over the other;however, if I had to choose I would choose science over religion. Then, we have to define religion. Often religion is a collection of superstitions shared by a group of people. Now, the limit of science is that it can show us how to create nuclear power, but it cannot guide us to use this power ethically. It is possible to have ethics without religion i.e. humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc. Religion has done much harm in the world; I suppose it may have done some good, also. Wars have been fought over religion and which god a group worshiped. Since humans create religions, as long as there are humans there will probably be some form of religion.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Have you seen those ant nature shows lately? ANTS are effing AWESOME! Just saying."I agree....except when the little buggers are marching their way into my pantry! (now there's a word I better spell carefully or I'll leave you all with quite the odd image.....)
Travis wrote: "Dina wrote: "To God, we are much more than ants! We are souls that He wants to claim, but allows us to seek other options."to keep it in perspective, to somebody omnipotent, we are ants. Might b..."
Exactly-He is omnipotent and we will NEVER be able to be on the same level as Him!
Cerebus wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Have you seen those ant nature shows lately? ANTS are effing AWESOME! Just saying."I agree....except when the little buggers are marching their way into my pantry!..."
Ants are f-ing awesome!
Heather wrote: "I know this may seem a bit weird, but I believe that science and religion go have in hand. In my mind, science explains religion and they together form societal networks. It is when you get extremi..."I really like this position and believe I know exactly what you mean. I have thought of the sciences and religion as both cause and effect kinda like flip sides of the same thing. I don't know if I'm discribing it right. But in other words I agree.
Cerebus wrote: "Allen wrote: "Great question. I could not live without love and I have faith were that blessing comes from, so I would have to pick religion and take my chances without the beauties and protection ..."Maybe not in all forms... but I believe ones faith provides both hope and love and that, to me, it is one of the purest forms of love I know. And a great teacher of compassion. I love science and believe it can be studied to better man and should be. But if I had to choose. I would live like a caveman if I could keep my faith.
Allen wrote: "I have thought of the sciences and religion as both cause and effect kinda like flip sides of the same thing."This concept of science and religion being "two sides of the same coin" is one that has come up before, and nobody has been able to explain to me why they think this. To me they are totally opposite. Science relies on evidence, and on changing your position on something if the evidence shows your position to be wrong, whereas religion and faith require you to ignore any evidence which contradicts your beliefs...how are these positions two sides of the same coin? The concept that religion is a search for truth is wrong, you are handed a truth and expected to believe, you are discouraged from any attempt to search for any kind of truth.
Allen wrote: "I love science and believe it can be studied to better man and should be."Science doesn't have a position on making anyone a 'better man', that's down to us as people, and as has been discussed is something that doesn't need religion....
Anyee wrote: "There is no world without science. THAT IS ALL."I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Science is the process of discovering about the universe not the universe itself. The universe would exist without science, just without science we would understand none of it.
Dina wrote: "Great question! But you all got to have something to believe in! Without it, we are all just ants!" Why do we need something to believe in? Why is blind faith seen by so many as a virtue instead of a dangerous level of credulity?
Perhaps you are right though, without faith perhaps we would trust in each other and be more like a society of ants where altruism and mutual co-operation and respect allows them to be one of the most successful land animals there has ever been?
Dina wrote: "To God, we are much more than ants! We are souls that He wants to claim, but allows us to seek other options."
So now we are corn to be harvested, or perhaps aphids? So by your analogy we are less than ants with faith, we are cattle, or sheep, to be enslaved and ultimately harvested?
What a horrible concept.
Even worse is the idea that "He allows us to seek other options". I infer that these options are meant to be lesser or even wrong? Why put them there and why allow us to choose them unless he wants some of us to take them? Will he then punish people for then falling into the traps he has set?
Dina wrote: "Exactly-He is omnipotent and we will NEVER be able to be on the same level as Him! "
How incredibly depressing. So our fate is to either serve an infinite power with our finite abilities, so ultimately utterly futile.
David wrote: "This is what logicians call a false dichotomy." It would only be a false dichotomy if the options were somehow equivalent. It is a perfectly valid question. Science is a methodology of finding out the "truth" about the reality around us, religion similarly makes many claims about the "truth" of the reality around us. The question here is which methodology serves us better?
David wrote: "Now, the limit of science is that it can show us how to create nuclear power, but it cannot guide us to use this power ethically. It is possible to have ethics without religion i.e. humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc."
The morality question keeps popping up, but why can you not use science to aid in our understanding of ethics?
We can start with a set of axioms that defines what we desire in an ethical society, Justice, Fairness, Freedom, Opportunity etc. we can then apply hypotheses to model how we can achieve these. Then we can test those models and discard those that do not work.
Compare our understanding of the world. Science starts with a set of axioms that we can mutually agree with (i.e. the real world exists outside of what we call ourselves) and then observes, makes hypotheses on how it works, and then we test them and discard the hypotheses that do not work. Religion is when you do the same, but then stop before you reach the "testing" part and believe your hypotheses is the truth.
Similarly religious "morality" is based on (several different) hypotheses on what is moral. This is the believed, and adhered to even after many generations of increased comprehension of morality.
David wrote: "Since humans create religions, as long as there are humans there will probably be some form of religion. "
Humans create bigotry, intolerance and hatred too. They will probably always exist. However this is not a good reason to meekly accept their existence.
Gary wrote: "So by your analogy we are less than ants with faith, we are cattle, or sheep, to be enslaved and ultimately harvested? "This is why the "lord is my shepherd" is such a hideous idea. Shepherds don't raise and look after sheep to make them happy, shepherds raise and look after sheep so that they can be slaughtered and eaten.
Heather wrote: "I know this may seem a bit weird, but I believe that science and religion go have in hand."Allen wrote: "I really like this position and believe I know exactly what you mean. I have thought of the sciences and religion as both cause and effect kinda like flip sides of the same thing."
I'm afraid I would strongly disagree. They are similar but in the same way that a witchhunt is similar to a fair trial.
Simply put, we have questions about the nature of the world. Various religions claim they know the answers and state their positions. Science does not claim to know the answers but investigates and reveals which directions those answers may lie in.
The problem here is that the question has made an equivalence between science and religion that does not exist. It should be a choice between a science or religions as there are and have been many conflicting religions with many conflicting opinions on what is true and what is moral.
Cerebus wrote: "The concept that religion is a search for truth is wrong, you are handed a truth and expected to believe, you are discouraged from any attempt to search for any kind of truth. "
I think that depends on who you are, Cerebus. If you're following institutionalized religion, you're correct, largely correct at the very least. You follow all the tenants of the faith that is handed you by leadership ... or you're called a cherry-picker by atheists.
Then, there are people who are spiritual and don't follow the tenants of a particular faith. Those people might indeed question and look for truth.
It's not always about fitting a square peg in a square hole. I'd say it's often that way. But, it's not always that way.
Further, if we really wanted to think about it ... and, no, I'm not making an argument that religion and science are two halves of the same coin ... just responding to the above statement ... some might find truth in institutionalized religion. Those people might find that they don't want to think for themselves ... that they want others to tell them what to believe and what to think and what to watch and not to watch and who to vote for and .... Some people are that way, you know. That is a truth. And, some, who are followers of institutionalized religion, will discover another truth ... that one pope or minister or rabbi or imam does not hold every answer ... that s/he needs to set his/her own course and find his/her own answers.
I think, on a certain level, that believing no one can learn one lesson or find one truth through religion or spiritual paths is as "comfortable" a position as believing one and only one faith or person has all the answers. Both "beliefs" smack of quasi-omniotence. One that no truth can be gleaned through something. One that truth can only be learned if you follow "my" path.
I'm guessing certain truths might rest in the middle of those positions.
I think that depends on who you are, Cerebus. If you're following institutionalized religion, you're correct, largely correct at the very least. You follow all the tenants of the faith that is handed you by leadership ... or you're called a cherry-picker by atheists.
Then, there are people who are spiritual and don't follow the tenants of a particular faith. Those people might indeed question and look for truth.
It's not always about fitting a square peg in a square hole. I'd say it's often that way. But, it's not always that way.
Further, if we really wanted to think about it ... and, no, I'm not making an argument that religion and science are two halves of the same coin ... just responding to the above statement ... some might find truth in institutionalized religion. Those people might find that they don't want to think for themselves ... that they want others to tell them what to believe and what to think and what to watch and not to watch and who to vote for and .... Some people are that way, you know. That is a truth. And, some, who are followers of institutionalized religion, will discover another truth ... that one pope or minister or rabbi or imam does not hold every answer ... that s/he needs to set his/her own course and find his/her own answers.
I think, on a certain level, that believing no one can learn one lesson or find one truth through religion or spiritual paths is as "comfortable" a position as believing one and only one faith or person has all the answers. Both "beliefs" smack of quasi-omniotence. One that no truth can be gleaned through something. One that truth can only be learned if you follow "my" path.
I'm guessing certain truths might rest in the middle of those positions.
Allen wrote: "Maybe not in all forms... but I believe ones faith provides both hope and love and that, to me, it is one of the purest forms of love I know. And a great teacher of compassion. I love science and believe it can be studied to better man and should be. But if I had to choose. I would live like a caveman if I could keep my faith."Is faith really love? Psychologically speaking the human concept of love is difficult but generally speaking love comes from a mutual understanding and co-operation. It is a complicit relationship.
Basically love involves trust and respect.
There is however a psychological equivalent to faith. This is when a person idealises the object of their affections without a direct relationship. The person starts to interpret the other persons actions or lack of same as returned affection and often start to project their own desires onto that person. Subsequently they end up with an almost unshakable belief in that persons perfection and in absence of the mutual relationship they imagine that the person feels the same, with evidence or not.
This is not love at all, this is commonly referred to as obsession.
True love is when you accept someone despite any flaws, and they accept you. If you believe someone is flawless and love them beyond reason, then that is not love at all.
Gary wrote: "Why do we need something to believe in? Why is blind faith seen by so many as a virtue instead of a dangerous level of credulity?
Perhaps you are right though, without faith perhaps we would trust in each other and be more like a society of ants where altruism and mutual co-operation and respect allows them to be one of the most successful land animals there has ever been?"
Regarding the first statement, I think the fact that humans have "believed" for thousands of years might point to a need in humans to believe ... in something. I don't think spirituality and religion was just about explaining things in our world. Why is there a rainbow? What is thunder? That's a part of it, yes. But, that's not the whole.
Do you think it might be a bit simplistic and might ignore years of anthropological and sociological study to throw out the idea that we don't need to believe in something? If that's what you're doing .... You might just be raising the question.
Now, regarding the latter part of the statement, cute .... I get where you're going with that. But ....
I can think of certain American Indian tribes who believed in a Great Spirit and were very altruistic and worked together.
Like I said in my post to Cerebus, we're not always dealing with square pegs and square holes.
Now, I'm going to ask a question. It's not just a question of you, though. It's a question I've had for some time. You don't know me, other than my posts, which, frankly, allow you to know me since I don't adopt an alter-ego ... but ....
First, I want to say I'm asking this because I'm truly curious. Sincerely so. I'm not trying to be a jerk or poke at people. I hope you guys recognize that. I'm asking a question just as all of you ask questions of believers. So, here it is ....
Do those of you who once followed a religion and were believers ever consider that you take such stances because it's comfortable? You left your faith. Now, you often put forth the idea that little good can come from religion or that no truth can be found through religious study, etc.... Do you ever think such ideas make it easier for you to have left? Serve as a sort of confirmation to yourselves? I did the right thing! Nothing can be learned from religion. Nope, nope, nope.
I'm not saying that to try to turn you back toward a life of faith. I think I've made it pretty clear in many ways, through word and deed, that I support people's right to choose a religion or not.
It's just something that I find quite curious. I mean, I totally get the "where's the proof" argument ... and could totally see, until the cows come home, why some wouldn't believe unless and until they had scientific proof. I got that some time ago. But, when people argue that no truth can be learned through religion and make comments like the above regarding altruistic societies ... comments made by extremely intelligent people who know history and anthropology and sociology and ... I start to wonder. What the heck is going on with that?
So, I'm asking ....
Perhaps you are right though, without faith perhaps we would trust in each other and be more like a society of ants where altruism and mutual co-operation and respect allows them to be one of the most successful land animals there has ever been?"
Regarding the first statement, I think the fact that humans have "believed" for thousands of years might point to a need in humans to believe ... in something. I don't think spirituality and religion was just about explaining things in our world. Why is there a rainbow? What is thunder? That's a part of it, yes. But, that's not the whole.
Do you think it might be a bit simplistic and might ignore years of anthropological and sociological study to throw out the idea that we don't need to believe in something? If that's what you're doing .... You might just be raising the question.
Now, regarding the latter part of the statement, cute .... I get where you're going with that. But ....
I can think of certain American Indian tribes who believed in a Great Spirit and were very altruistic and worked together.
Like I said in my post to Cerebus, we're not always dealing with square pegs and square holes.
Now, I'm going to ask a question. It's not just a question of you, though. It's a question I've had for some time. You don't know me, other than my posts, which, frankly, allow you to know me since I don't adopt an alter-ego ... but ....
First, I want to say I'm asking this because I'm truly curious. Sincerely so. I'm not trying to be a jerk or poke at people. I hope you guys recognize that. I'm asking a question just as all of you ask questions of believers. So, here it is ....
Do those of you who once followed a religion and were believers ever consider that you take such stances because it's comfortable? You left your faith. Now, you often put forth the idea that little good can come from religion or that no truth can be found through religious study, etc.... Do you ever think such ideas make it easier for you to have left? Serve as a sort of confirmation to yourselves? I did the right thing! Nothing can be learned from religion. Nope, nope, nope.
I'm not saying that to try to turn you back toward a life of faith. I think I've made it pretty clear in many ways, through word and deed, that I support people's right to choose a religion or not.
It's just something that I find quite curious. I mean, I totally get the "where's the proof" argument ... and could totally see, until the cows come home, why some wouldn't believe unless and until they had scientific proof. I got that some time ago. But, when people argue that no truth can be learned through religion and make comments like the above regarding altruistic societies ... comments made by extremely intelligent people who know history and anthropology and sociology and ... I start to wonder. What the heck is going on with that?
So, I'm asking ....
Shannon wrote: "Those people might find that they don't want to think for themselves ... that they want others to tell them what to believe and what to think and what to watch and not to watch and who to vote for and .... Some people are that way, you know. That is a truth."True. This is the problem with "organised" religion, and religion or spirituality at all. All religion is organised at some level or another, it just depends what percentage a particular person accepts. Some people go to Church and study the bible and follow a high percentage, while others (like the ones you allude to above) simply listen to friends and watch the occasional TV evangelist and Charlie Brown special and end up believing in a mix of pagan and Christian ideas such as "heaven", "the rapture" etc.
If I can illustrate the problem by comparing it to someone sick who is seeking aid. When seeking medical aid there are trained and qualified doctors, and there are also a range of other people from good intentioned alternative therapists to homoeopaths, snake oil salesmen, faith healers, spiritualists etc.
Now some of the latter are motivated by honestly altruistic intentions, but a lot are motivated by personal advantage whether it is a sense of personal authority and importance, to simply cash. Similarly a small percentage of alternative treatments do have validity, whether from a placebo effect, to instilling hope, to some actual measurable beneficial effects in certain treatments. Similarly actual medical treatments sometimes turn out to be wrong or not as effective as something else we may discover.
However, it is easily shown that in the vast majority of cases medical treatment is far better for us than anything else. A&E teams do not use alternative therapy, but drugs and surgery have overwhelmingly positive effects on the health of their patients. Yet never does medicine stop and say that's it, medical science is always striving to know and to treat more.
So any patient has a choice, to run the gauntlet of well meaning believers and outright charlatans, or to go to people who have studied, qualified and peer review each others activities, knowledge and understanding.
Compare this with the claims made by religion to the knowledge found with science. Again one may contain truth within it, perhaps by accident or by intuitive leap, but the other strives toward truth, and won't stop until (in the unlikely event) it is conclusively and completely found.
So where would you recommend the person go to for truth, who doesn't want to seek it themselves? To the believers and charlatans or to the people who endeavour to seek the truth with rigour and mutual oversight?
Shannon wrote: "Both "beliefs" smack of quasi-omniotence. One that no truth can be gleaned through something. One that truth can only be learned if you follow "my" path. "
Agreed. The irony I find is that most people who believe that they know the "one true path (tm)" are also the ones that feign humility and accuse those who find fault of arrogance.
What can be more arrogant than believing that you know reality better than anyone else?
Shannon wrote: "I'm guessing certain truths might rest in the middle of those positions."
Careful :-) That is the logical fallacy that the Creationists try to exploit. The idea that if there are two "possible" answers to a question then the truth lies somewhere in between.
Sometimes one answer can be just plain wrong.
Gary wrote: "Careful :-) That is the logical fallacy that the Creationists try to exploit. The idea that if there are two "possible" answers to a question then the truth lies somewhere in between.
Sometimes one answer can be just plain wrong. "
I'm not a Creationist, Gary. I never have been. I'm also not talking about creationism vs. evolution. I've stated here several times that I believe in evolution.
And, when talking about truths other than creationism vs. evolution, the truth can be found in the middle of two extremes. In addition, there might be different truths.
Sometimes one answer can be just plain wrong. "
I'm not a Creationist, Gary. I never have been. I'm also not talking about creationism vs. evolution. I've stated here several times that I believe in evolution.
And, when talking about truths other than creationism vs. evolution, the truth can be found in the middle of two extremes. In addition, there might be different truths.
Gary wrote: "So where would you recommend the person go to for truth, who doesn't want to seek it themselves? "
I wouldn't make a recommendation. One of my personal truths is that people should have the right to set their own course ... find their own truth. Some turn to others. Some don't; they turn inward. Some turn to science. Some turn to religion. Some turn to a bottle. Some turn to excessive exercise. Etc....
Now, as an interesting aside ....
I have asthma, allergy induced. I always carry an inhaler. About 10 years ago, someone gave me a massage certificate as a gift. I went and loved it. I had a few more massages that year. Loved them. My mother suggested I go regularly. I was going about every two months and started to notice I wasn't using my inhaler as often. I now go every three weeks. I next to never have asthma attacks anymore. If I have a longer stretch between massages, six weeks, I start to have issues with my asthma.
The woman who does my massages made no claims that she could heal me or help my asthma. I was going just for rest and relaxation. I've not read up on massage. I've not been studied. I've not read studies. But, I know, sure as certain, there is a health benefit for me. I take my inhaler a handful of times a year vs. much more regularly. Wow! I've not given it a lot of thought. I just know it works for me. Am I going to throw out my inhaler? No. I'm going to do what works. For me, both work.
Just an aside ....
I wouldn't make a recommendation. One of my personal truths is that people should have the right to set their own course ... find their own truth. Some turn to others. Some don't; they turn inward. Some turn to science. Some turn to religion. Some turn to a bottle. Some turn to excessive exercise. Etc....
Now, as an interesting aside ....
I have asthma, allergy induced. I always carry an inhaler. About 10 years ago, someone gave me a massage certificate as a gift. I went and loved it. I had a few more massages that year. Loved them. My mother suggested I go regularly. I was going about every two months and started to notice I wasn't using my inhaler as often. I now go every three weeks. I next to never have asthma attacks anymore. If I have a longer stretch between massages, six weeks, I start to have issues with my asthma.
The woman who does my massages made no claims that she could heal me or help my asthma. I was going just for rest and relaxation. I've not read up on massage. I've not been studied. I've not read studies. But, I know, sure as certain, there is a health benefit for me. I take my inhaler a handful of times a year vs. much more regularly. Wow! I've not given it a lot of thought. I just know it works for me. Am I going to throw out my inhaler? No. I'm going to do what works. For me, both work.
Just an aside ....
suggesting that some of your asthma problems are stress induced, thus if you are more relaxed, then you suffer less. Just a hypothesis, but a reasonable one at that. I'm glad you don't have to deal with it being worse :)
Shannon wrote: "Do you think it might be a bit simplistic and might ignore years of anthropological and sociological study to throw out the idea that we don't need to believe in something? If that's what you're doing .... You might just be raising the question."Fair question, but the answer seems to me to be simple. Yes we have the impulse to "believe", this forms part of the way that our young grow up. Our beliefs are formulated in our early years for the very understandable reason that if we questioned everything we were told by our family and other authority as we grew up, then likelihood is we might just test the thesis that we can fly, that the red berry isn't really poisonous, that fire is not that hot or that bears are cuddly.
Similarly we have the "need" to consume food particularly sugary or fatty food, a need that in modern society is becoming a problem of obesity.
Both needs are part of our evolutionary heritage and are completely understandable. This makes neither one something that therefore needs to be unfettered. We can (some better than others) choose to override our instincts using reason over our urges. We can deliberately choose not to overdo foods that will ultimately make us unhealthy and kill us, similarly we can choose not to overdo belief that will ultimately blind us to reason (and potentially kill us - re: the pastor in the US that died of a snakebite in the church that his father died in because of a snakebite, that both believed would not bite them because of a line in the bible!)
Now, regarding the latter part of the statement, cute.... I get where you're going with that. But ....
Shannon wrote: "I can think of certain American Indian tribes who believed in a Great Spirit and were very altruistic and worked together."
It was my understanding that the religion was basically animistic/polytheistic so the "Great Spirit" was effectively the chief of a range of supernatural entities, a bit like the Zeus of Hellenistic belief. As I said elsewhere, I think there is a correlation between polytheism and tolerance as when you believe in a supernatural system of co-operation it is easier to be part of one. With monotheism there has to be only one absolute authority so it leads obviously to conflict between those external and even internal to the religion who disagree on the nature of that authority.
Shannon wrote: "Do those of you who once followed a religion and were believers ever consider that you take such stances because it's comfortable? You left your faith. Now, you often put forth the idea that little good can come from religion or that no truth can be found through religious study, etc.... Do you ever think such ideas make it easier for you to have left? Serve as a sort of confirmation to yourselves? I did the right thing! Nothing can be learned from religion. Nope, nope, nope."
A reasonable question and thank you for putting it so thoughtfully.
To be absolutely honest I would have to say no, and in fact my motivation is somewhat the opposite in a way. Talking to religious people does not make me feel more comfortable in any way imaginable. To feel comfortable I turn usually to other scientists and I greatly appreciate the scientists (religious, undecided and irreligious) who gave me the perspective and understanding that allowed me to see how tiny and limiting my worldview once was.
I take part in debates like this partly because I feel the responsibility to allow others the chance that came to me, to see beyond the anthropocentric ideals of religions and glimpse the universe in its majesty, and to give those with honest doubts an alternative that may one day lead them to critiquing their deeply held ideas.
The only other reason would be that so many times I am presented with religious indoctrination seemingly unchallenged, and that worries me.
Shannon wrote: "But, when people argue that no truth can be learned through religion and make comments like the above regarding altruistic societies ... comments made by extremely intelligent people who know history and anthropology and sociology and ... I start to wonder. What the heck is going on with that?"
Throughout history people have used divination of one form or another, from astrology to tearing the guts out of an unfortunate animal (or person) and watching the shape in which they spill.
Does this mean that divination is still a valid part of the modern world because it was prevalent in the past?
Obviously, we do have forms of scientific divination, in fact much of science is based on the idea of the predictability of results, but does that mean that other forms of divination are equally valid?
Shannon wrote: "I think I've made it pretty clear in many ways, through word and deed, that I support people's right to choose a religion or not."
While I appreciate the spirit of altruism of that, can I ask you a question?
Do you think people have an intrinsic right to believe whatever they like? What if the belief they choose includes that the belief that people do not have this right? What if their beliefs mean that they impress their beliefs on their children including beliefs that they are lesser or sinful compared to others because they are women, or gay, or black? What effect does freedom of belief have on society and the world at large when that means that people can believe others are wrong or wicked without reason?
Do you think that belief in an ideology, be it religious or secular, be accepted and should it be unchallenged? What if that belief is Christianity, Islam, Paganism or Satanism? What if that belief is in Communism or Fascism?
Shannon wrote: "I'm not a Creationist, Gary. I never have been."No, I didn't think you were, which was why it was a good comparison to use.
Shannon wrote: "And, when talking about truths other than creationism vs. evolution, the truth can be found in the middle of two extremes. In addition, there might be different truths."
My point was that one side may be simply wrong in other matters too. Sometimes the truth is between the two extremes, but not always.
Shannon wrote: "I wouldn't make a recommendation. One of my personal truths is that people should have the right to set their own course ... find their own truth. Some turn to others. Some don't; they turn inward. Some turn to science. Some turn to religion. Some turn to a bottle. Some turn to excessive exercise. Etc.... "
Does that mean you would not try to give others the benefit of your experiences? (Well obviously you are doing here.)
My point is not to force people to believe one thing, but to give them the best facts we can understand, as untainted by the bias of belief as we can
Shannon wrote: "The woman who does my massages made no claims that she could heal me or help my asthma. I was going just for rest and relaxation. "
Well first I would say that yes something like massage may indeed have other health benefits from the simple fact that relaxation can help a lot of things.
However, you need to remember two other factors first that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and the power of the placebo. Not meaning to cause offence, it is just worth considering.
The power of a placebo is quite incredible and not yet fully understood. Did you hear about the experiments with discomfort and comparing a placebo to something like heroin? The big surprise wasn't that the placebo was almost as effective in a lot of cases, the big surprise was that when the placebo group was secretly given a drug that blocks the chemical effect of heroin, often the placebo ceased to work just as if the heroin was being blocked, yet the person didn't know. So where was the placebo effect kicking in, because it wasn't entirely at the conscious or even subconscious level.
(I have lost the article with that story in but I am looking out for it).
With each passing year I become more convinced that science and spirit (you notice I did not say religion) are two sides of the same story. One side is told with thought (science) and the other is told with intuition and the heart (spirit). The challenge is to join both sides and we will know what existed 5 minutes before the big bang.
Kathy wrote: "the other is told with intuition and the heart (spirit)."Intuition is generally speaking a set of intellectual shortcuts that allow us to quickly jump the logical process to get to the expected conclusion.
The problem with intuition is that it only works within familiar parameters. For example if you apply intuition to quantum events you will find that your assumptions and expectations are almost always wrong.
Kathy wrote: "The challenge is to join both sides and we will know what existed 5 minutes before the big bang. "
As I've said before, according to our best knowledge of physics, space and time came into being at T=0, so there is no five minutes "before" this time, as there is no time for this to happen in.
If this sounds strange, this is because our "intuition" of time is based on our experience of time at low relativistic velocities. Yet it is easy to prove this intuition wrong.
People always say that if we merge faith and science we will find the answers and I'm a little fuzzy on what faith contributes to that deal.
I think the key is that science is necessary - some of the sciences, that is - not to offend any entomologists out there, but maybe knowing all the details about the life cycle of a woolly bear caterpillar may not be necessary. We couldn't survive, outside of being a caveman, without science - and maybe not even as a caveman, because they had to keep inventing things to sustain their lives. That's a form of science.Religion, either organized or just something you believe on your own - is not something that is necessary for us to stay alive. For those that believe, maybe it's necessary to save our souls for some other life, but not the world we live in now.
Travis wrote: "People always say that if we merge faith and science we will find the answers and I'm a little fuzzy on what faith contributes to that deal."Yeah, you don't really need faith to find scientific answers, the data or tangible proof is either there or it's not. You absolutely need faith to have religious beliefs, because some of the teachings of most religions are just way out there and cannot be logically proven or explained.
Faith has been defined as "the evident demonstration of things not beheld".. which really doesn't make sense because if things are not beheld, then how could they be evidently demonstrated?
Kathy wrote: "With each passing year I become more convinced that science and spirit (you notice I did not say religion) are two sides of the same story. One side is told with thought (science) and the other is ..."Why would joining religion with science give us any answers not already out there.??
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
I was amazed when visiting my in laws in Florida that they weren't allowed to hang their washing on a line! I currently live in rainy old England and we dry the washing on the line whenever we can. It seems such a waste of energy in a sunny State like Florida to be forced to use an energy consuming drier. You only notice culture from the outside. I'm sure we have lots of silly cultural norms too.