Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Maria wrote: "Travis - That's probably true - my point is that, as was stated by someone here, everyone, believers and non-believers, have the absolute right to their beliefs or non-beliefs. However, they don't..."This part of the discussion bugs me: Non-belief is not a belief.
It's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
and I've been a strong proponent of you don't automatically get respect, but to try and put something a person doesn't do on the same level with something a person does do is a wonky argument.
It would be like comparing my bike riding with Lance Armstrongs. After all, I don't ride a bike, so Lance and I are on equal footing and worthy of the same consideration.
It is one of those comical beliefs you mention that the two things are seen as equal.
Travis - I guess it's all symantics - athiests do not believe that god exists. Or stated differently, they believe that god does not exist. Same thing.
Marts wrote: "In life both should exist, and balance is important, so is respect for each other regardless of belief, and above all things love!"I totally agree! But balance between two things that oppose each other, and often quite strongly, is difficult.
Maria wrote: "Travis - I guess it's all symantics - athiests do not believe that god exists. Or stated differently, they believe that god does not exist. Same thing."no, they don't believe in god. There is a lack of belief. Not a belief in not believing.
You don't say 'I don't believe there's water in the desert', you say 'there's no water in the desert'.
belief is not in the equation.
"You don't say 'I don't believe there's water in the desert', you say 'there's no water in the desert'.belief is not in the equation."
When you state "There is no god" it sounds like you are stating fact. It is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, and it should be respected. But that does not make it absolute fact. You see it as fact because you've decided that's what you believe (or don't believe).
It's the same as if someone says "there is a god". To them, that's fact, but not to you. They may be able to list the reasons they believe that, just as you may be able to list the reasons you don't.
As hard as it is to fathom, neither of you can prove your case in my mind. They can't prove he does exist, but seriously, can you absolutely prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he doesn't? I mean, how do you really know?
I guess for me, he may - but then again he may not. I am not going to change the way I live or act based on either being the case. I try to be a good person and treat others with kindness, help my fellow man to the extent I can, either way.
Gary wrote: looking for truth compared to claiming you already know it, is at the core of the question posed..." Where in the question does it say that?So anything claimed is 'right' as long as you include the word 'belief'? Or are you saying that using the term "believe" is interjecting an appropriate level of uncertainty to an unproved concept with multiple competing alternate concepts?
Yes and no. We are now splitting hairs about the word belief. 'I believe you are quite knowledgable about this subject'. I don't know if you are, but I believe from what information, knowledge or what ever, I have aquired that you are. Or I could keep an open mind and not commit to making a judgement until I have enough evidence.
The other reason for believing and not waiting for evidence from 'science' is because 'science' will never have the answers.
'option' with 'opinion'. Without reading back I don't know, maybe just a spelling mistake.
But 'opinion' according to wiki an opinion does not have to be the truth, and that is the context I use it.
As for preferring to make a judgement on truth without evidence and proof and indeed saying that both are pointless to wait for because "it won't ever be able to do" then please do humanity a big favour and never take jury service.
Already done Jury service, you must have missed my post above then. There are things that science will never discover, the human brain has its limitations. If science understood everything and answered every question then science would be god.
First, there is no scientific theory that the universe has no end. There has been several hypotheses that an expanding universe may have potentially no end, but most of them are discredited by current astronomical observations and established theories.
Not according to the BBC programme I watched last week.
Atheists are uneasy about people who jump to .......
Take a coffee break for five minutes and leave 'Little christian girls in Pakistan' or any other, "lets drift off the subject in an effort to deflect the reader from the real issue and make out that this light hearted debate about something we all know nothing much about, is in some way connected to your little christian girls in Pakistan" irrelevant example. Come up with something better than a creator, something that was before the big bang or beyond our universe.
Maria wrote: ""You don't say 'I don't believe there's water in the desert', you say 'there's no water in the desert'.belief is not in the equation."
When you state "There is no god" it sounds like you are sta..."
If there is no proof that something exists, why would I not say 'there is no...'?
Until there is proof/evidence/something besides 'I believe', the facts back up that there is no god.
If you want me to stop stating it like a fact, give me a fact that proves me wrong.
Give me a fact that proves you right. As in "Here is my irrefutable proof that there is absolutely no god....."
give me irrefutable proof there is no bogeyman, Maria.
Greetings all :)I'm new to the group, so I'll just respond to the original question for now.
I make a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality": the first implies layers of bureaucracy, right and wrong worship, and (generally) male dominance; the second does not.
My world would replace religion with spirituality and would then be able to co-exist with the pursuit of science.
I'm more than happy to engage in respectful discourse, but I will just as happily ignore those whose means of discussion includes foot-stomping, rearranging the same words in an effort to make a point, and "I'm right, you're wrong" rhetoric.
"give me irrefutable proof there is no bogeyman, Maria."I don't have any proof of that, Hazel, that's why I'd never say he/she doesn't exist. I'd just say I don't believe in him/her.
Do you believe that it's possible that life forms exist on other planets? It's a possiblity, but can't be proven one way or another.
So what I'd say is "could be, but in my humble opinion, since there is no proof either way, I believe....." Same thing I'd say to whether god exists or not.
I would feel arrogant saying "based on the evidence, or lack thereof, I have made my decision, therefore I proclaim it to be FACT!"
"I will just as happily ignore those whose means of discussion includes foot-stomping, rearranging the same words in an effort to make a point, and "I'm right, you're wrong" rhetoric." And we will happily ignore you as well! :)
Maria wrote: ""give me irrefutable proof there is no bogeyman, Maria."I don't have any proof of that, Hazel, that's why I'd never say he/she doesn't exist. I'd just say I don't believe in him/her.
Do you bel..."
Considering that there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy that have planets revolving around them, and thats just one of over 100 billion galaxies, and that we have evidence that plant spores, bacterial life and even things as large as tardigrades can survive the vacuum of space, and that recently, sugar molecules have been discovered floating in a distant galaxy, which are the basic building blocks of life, then I'd say that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only planet with life on it.
The statistical likelihood of the bogeyman, a figure claimed to hide under beds and in closets, on this very planet existing and having gone unnoticed all this time is so low that it is neligible. And as such, i can say "the bogeyman doesn't exist".
The same can be applied to god, unless someone can present evidence that he does exist, empirical evidence that cannot be explained without using god. The statistical likelihood of their being a god, when there is no proof of such, when there has been thousands of years of no proof, is so low as to be negligible, as such, we can say "there is no god". I tend to say "There is unlikely to be a god, and if there is, its unlikely to be the one you worship rather than one of the thousands of others", as it avoids these arguments.
That I can agree with, Hazel. Well said. Extremely, highly and most probably unlikely.
Maria wrote: ""I will just as happily ignore those whose means of discussion includes foot-stomping, rearranging the same words in an effort to make a point, and "I'm right, you're wrong" rhetoric." And we wil..."
If your response is indicative of the general tone of discussion in this thread / group, then I have to wonder whether dissenting opinions are encouraged at all. *baffled*
I would rather live in a world without religion. Science is the world of true and factual, searching for reason and explanation. Religion is stupid, the abandonment of rational thought.Also, I don't need religion for a moral compass. Religion is the opposite of morality. The bible advocates slavery, and the murder of women and children. This is not morality.
Michellel wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. Science is the world of true and factual, searching for reason and explanation. Religion is stupid, the abandonment of rational thought.Also, I do..."
Greetings Michellel :)
I agree whole-heartedly with your summation of the Bible. However, there are snippets of kindness and virtue hidden beneath all the myth and dogma.
Putting that aside, do you see value in any non Judeo / Islam / Christian religion? I ask this only because you mentioned the Bible as the sole example of your "dislike" of religion :)
Maria wrote: "Give me a fact that proves you right. As in "Here is my irrefutable proof that there is absolutely no god.....""Again, you are using shaky logic. I don't need proof to prove something 'isn't'. Lack of proof is what proves it. The person making the claim that something 'is' needs to provide some proof.
My proof that there is no god is the fact that there is no proof that there is a god.
Now, share your proof that there is a god please.
Maria wrote: ""give me irrefutable proof there is no bogeyman, Maria."I don't have any proof of that, Hazel, that's why I'd never say he/she doesn't exist. I'd just say I don't believe in him/her.
Do you bel..."
But at least with aliens there are bits of info that give aliens a chance.
A belief is nice, but it's nicer if your belief has at least a crumb of proof or fact to anchor it to reality.
Which is why I don't list Ann Hathaway being my love slave as a belief.
Hazel wrote: "give me irrefutable proof there is no bogeyman, Maria."Man, first we go after the tooth fairy, now the bogey man.
Is nothing sacred to you people?
Only the great cthulu, the one true god, the bringer of chaos and blessed madness. Try to say he doesn't exist, and he will wake in R'lyer, and make you his special project...
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote " Science is okay with the idea of an infinite universe as there are actual things that point to that ...... and those things are ?"
Hazel wrote: "Only the great cthulu, the one true god, the bringer of chaos and blessed madness. Try to say he doesn't exist, and he will wake in R'lyer, and make you his special project..."Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Drew wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Only the great cthulu, the one true god, the bringer of chaos and blessed madness. Try to say he doesn't exist, and he will wake in R'lyer, and make you his special project..."Ph'ng..."
Ia ia Cthulhu fhtagn
"If your response is indicative of the general tone of discussion in this thread / group, then I have to wonder whether dissenting opinions are encouraged at all. *baffled*"C-Cose, I was actually being facetious - it struck me as really funny that someone new to this discussion would make their comment and then say, "oh, by the way, if I don't like the way you comment here, I'll happily ignore you" - it seemed snooty - as if this person was gracing us with their presence and we should watch how we respond or they may leave. As if we care.
This discussion thrives on dissenting opinions, which are not only tolerated, but encouraged. Just be nice!
Maria wrote: ""If your response is indicative of the general tone of discussion in this thread / group, then I have to wonder whether dissenting opinions are encouraged at all. *baffled*"C-Cose, I was actually..."
My apologies then Maria :) A smiley or "jk" would have helped ya know ... lol. I posted the final paragraph to give warning that I won't engage virtual screaming matches. My own experience has shown me the futility of "changing opinions" so I don't; I've also found that the most adamant believers tend to virtually scream and stamp their feet. I don't have time for that. Hence the warning.
Agreed. This subject matter is definitely volatile, and we've had our share of foot-stompers, that's for sure. But all said, we've got a good group here.
Maria wrote: "And Gary - I totally agree that it's the people who should be respected vs. their beliefs and that it is human nature to do the opposite. But I personally couldn't respect the person who had a belief that really offended me, like that it's ok to have sex with 12 year olds, or that everyone of a certain race should be killed. Neither the belief or the person should be respected in those extreme cases. "Good point, however I think it is part of respecting people that requires people to challenge such views, not merely to assume that everyone who holds such views are mentally defective (though they may eventually be proven so).
People used to think that 12 year olds could be married off, other people believed that other races should either be subject to theirs or even killed. Many of these people believed those things because the moral authority of the time condoned it. Where they evil or beyond help? In my opinion, no, they just were the victim of the irrational beliefs of the authority of their time. Education was the answer and the replacing of irrational dogma with rational comprehension.
This is why I and many like me feel obliged to challenge belief, because you cannot judge someone as irredeemable until you have given them the chance to understand.
cHriS wrote: "Where in the question does it say that?"Religion or science.
cHriS wrote:" Yes and no. We are now splitting hairs about the word belief. 'I believe you are quite knowledgable about this subject'. I don't know if you are, but I believe from what information, knowledge or what ever, I have aquired that you are. Or I could keep an open mind and not commit to making a judgement until I have enough evidence."
Fair enough, but I split that hair for a specific reason. People tend to use the word "belief" to mean either a temporary opinion, or an outright unquestioning concept they have faith in. Then when one person uses the word to mean the former, others assume that they mean the latter and equate it to their own level of faith. Therefore I try to avoid the word belief except in the context of the general definition which is an opinion held in absence of, or in despite of, evidence.
cHriS wrote: "The other reason for believing and not waiting for evidence from 'science' is because 'science' will never have the answers."
Which is another belief, and an arrogant one at that. What is your proof that science will never have 'the answers' and what answers to what questions are you talking about. Sometimes the question you ask is far more important than the answer.
cHriS wrote: "'option' with 'opinion'. Without reading back I don't know, maybe just a spelling mistake.
But 'opinion' according to wiki an opinion does not have to be the truth, and that is the context I use it."
I thought so. When you used the term 'option' you make it sound like an arbitrary choice rather than an 'opinion' which is usually formed from some kind of rationale.
cHriS wrote: "Already done Jury service, you must have missed my post above then. There are things that science will never discover, the human brain has its limitations. If science understood everything and answered every question then science would be god."
I did, then I saw it and shuddered.
Again your entire statement is based on the assumption that there is a god, so it is circular reasoning. You claim that there are things that science will never discover, like what? and why? You also repeat the mistaken premise that "science" is an entity or a body of knowledge, science isn't. Science is a methodology of finding out knowledge by removing human bias and preconception and looking at reality independently as much as possible. If there is a God then that would be as easily subject to scientific enquiry as any other field of knowledge.
cHriS wrote: "Not according to the BBC programme I watched last week."
Which one was that? I will try to get it on iPlayer.
cHriS wrote: "Take a coffee break for five minutes and leave 'Little christian girls in Pakistan' or any other, "lets drift off the subject in an effort to deflect the reader from the real issue and make out that this light hearted debate about something we all know nothing much about, is in some way connected to your little christian girls in Pakistan" irrelevant example."
Irrelevant? People are using religion to justify the handing of a little girl to a bloodthirsty mob. I think that's highly relevant. Would her life be threatened if she burned a science textbook? Would an unscrupulous science professor be able to plant burnt pages of the book on her so he can have her harmed and therefore get the people with different opinions to leave "his" land?
People die for beliefs, people kill for beliefs, hope you're coffee break where you think it is all harmless fun what you proclaim to believe.
cHriS wrote: "Come up with something better than a creator, something that was before the big bang or beyond our universe. "
Ah, good idea. We don't know yet so lets make it up? Sums up your philosophy quite well.
First something cannot be "before" the Big Bang, because to the best of our current understanding time and space began then. You cannot have a moment of creation when there are no moments yet, and indeed no yet, yet.
Second, there is nothing beyond the universe, because the universe is defined as "everything". Now certain hypotheses exist that posit "multiple universes" or a "multiverse", but in that case the word "universe" we are referring to is shorthand for "the currently observable universe". If we do discover something beyond our current universe then we need to redefine it, just like when scientists expanded the idea of the universe to include other suns, and subsequently the idea of the universe being one galaxy of stars was replaced by the idea of a universe of billions of galaxies surrounded by the CME afterglow.
So I don't really need to come up with a better idea than a creator, as the idea isn't particularly good in the first place, is completely circular (who created the creator), and is based on an incredible limited humanocentric perception of reality.
Maria wrote: "Travis - I guess it's all symantics - athiests do not believe that god exists. Or stated differently, they believe that god does not exist. Same thing. "Not really.
Compare the statement, "I believe that Clara Phillips had pancakes for breakfast this morning", with "I do not believe that Clara Phillips had pancakes for breakfast this morning". They are not the direct opposites of each other because both statements assume the existence of someone called Clara Phillips, implies that they had breakfast which means that both statements assume that Clara is both alive and able to eat and that "this morning" applies to her current timezone. Moreover it means that we have formed a specific opinion on the existence or non-existence of a specific person called "Clara Phillips".
Believing in the non-existence of god is not atheism or agnosticism, it is making an equivalent religious claim. Believing in an absence is not the same as absence of belief.
I pulled the name "Clara Phillips" out of my behind. There could indeed be someone, or even many people called that, yet even then that means nothing to my belief as "Clara Phillips" was just a label for a conceptual person in my head. "God" means different thinks to different believers, (remember that "Allah" is just Arabic for "God"), so to believe in the absence of God I have to believe in the absence of every possible description of that god, and hey - who has the time?
(Just for fun, after writing this I found on google; 'Infamous murderess Clara Phillips, aka “Tiger Girl”' and a Clara Phillips living in the next town over.)
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Where in the question does it say that?"Religion or science.
cHriS wrote:" Yes and no. We are now splitting hairs about the word belief. 'I believe you are quite knowledgable about..."
Greetings Gary,
I realize this is an exchange between yourself and cHriS but I just wanted to comment on a specific passage:
You wrote, "Science is a methodology of finding out knowledge by removing human bias and preconception and looking at reality independently as much as possible." about half-way through your comment. Shouldn't "removing" actually be "limiting" in this context? You appear to be someone that uses language as carefully as you can, so you should know that clauses within the same sentence should have some common factor. In this case, "limiting" and "as much as possible" are similar; "removing" is not.
One of the basic elements of a ~thesis~, by which all scientific study begins, is that the investigator has a preconception of what the result of the investigation (study, experiment) will be. For example, the question, "Does 2 plus 2 ~always~ equal 4?" assumes that at least some of the time it does. It's only when the base is changed that it results in some other number. Preconception and human bias is inherent in scientific study as we do not live in a vacuum devoid of influence or experience.
Thoughts?
C-Cose wrote: "I make a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality": the first implies layers of bureaucracy, right and wrong worship, and (generally) male dominance; the second does not.My world would replace religion with spirituality and would then be able to co-exist with the pursuit of science."
Hi C, (is that reasonable?)
Your distinction is a common one made on here, but to my mind does not make any difference to the general question.
What you seem to be talking about is the "religion of one", where a person refutes specific religious dogma for a personally selected set of beliefs. However, they are still beliefs whether they are chosen for you or you choose them.
I'd say a great majority of those you would separate into the "religious" rather than "spiritual" group actually have a set of beliefs which will not be entirely aligned with the average beliefs of their sect. I would also say that those you may define as "Spiritual" are those who have the personality and will not only to select their own beliefs, but to then teach, persuade or enforce those beliefs on others thereby making them part of your "religious" camp.
In either case, both camps are still holding beliefs about the nature of reality that are based on dogma, assumptions, intuition or derived rationale from existing unfounded beliefs.
Whether a 'religious' person refutes the findings of science because it goes against what they were taught, or a 'spiritual' person refutes it because they 'feel' its not right, it's still placing ones own ego as superior to independently verified evidence and reason.
Unless you have a radically different definition of what "spirituality" is, which I would like to hear. Ultimately though religious belief or spiritual belief is still belief.
C-Cose wrote: "do you see value in any non Judeo / Islam / Christian religion?"Apologies if intruding, but I am happy to answer that question as well.
Certainly there are religions and sects that I regard as being worse than others, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) being particularly horrific. Yet there is no religion I can see that has any merit that outweighs the penalty of it being believed in. Even the more pacifistic and subtle Eastern religions still carry preconceptions about reality and behaviour that can be harmful.
Certainly as you say "there are snippets of kindness and virtue hidden beneath all the myth and dogma" but that is true of almost every religion, but where does it come from? It comes from the conscience and social awareness that evolved with our species ability to form communities.
I would say that not only is it easy to derive decent morality and ethics from non-religious principles, but that such a morality is infinitely preferable because it is adaptive to new conditions, technologies and situations. I also would say that it is intrinsically more ethical. After all, if you do good because you fear punishment then are you doing good or just obeying? How easy would it be to do evil for the exact same reason? If you do good because you understand the ethical reasoning behind it and therefore choose to do good over evil, surely that is more moral and more secure against the abuses of authority?
Gary wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "I make a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality": the first implies layers of bureaucracy, right and wrong worship, and (generally) male dominance; the second does not.My..."
Greetings Gary,
"C" is absolutely acceptable. Those that have known me for years still stumble through pronouncing my name :)
As it happens, I may have completely misunderstood the question posed in this discussion: "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?" I don't see "belief" indicated in that question.
I do have a radically different definition of "spirituality", based on my observance of the discussion to date. I don't refute the findings of science; I welcome and embrace them. Nor do I place my own beliefs or "ego" above those of others or of scientific discovery. I have also never considered persuading or enforcing my beliefs on others. I will, however, gladly discuss them and answer questions that others have for me.
If I understand the topic question in this context then it should read "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world of ~atheists~?" As I commented before, you use language quite well, so more preciseness would have been appreciated.
To answer this question then ....
I believe spirituality, as separate from religion, is founded in a seeking for something ~more~. It is a drive to ask questions about what is, why it is, how can it be different, how can I be more than I am, is there a beginning or an end. In that respect it is quite similar to the scientific method of proposition, thesis, investigation, conclusion, rinse and repeat as necessary.
~Religion~, for me, is the layering of dogma, imposed hierarchy, persecution of the "other", and eventual conflict onto this basic drive. Atheists hold that only that which can be experienced with the five senses can be proven / dis-proven; otherwise, it does not exist. However, "Schroedinger's Cat" posits that the ~observer~ has an effect on the experience that ~can not~ be quantitatively measured at this time. I find it interesting that Science allows for the unexplainable while many that espouse Science as the only way do not.
I have not yet visited Mars, but I do know that it exists. I'm not intimately aware of each cell and molecule in my body, but I do trust the science that tells me they are there. I have also experienced things that ~I~ can not explain with the scientific method. That it not to say that they can't be explained, but simply that I have yet to find an explanation for them. In those cases, my "belief" serves as a signpost or marker of something that bears further scrutiny; until I'm able to resolve those signposts, I ascribe it to that something "more".
Would I want a world of atheists? No. Mind you, if I existed in that world it would not be solely populated by atheists; I would still be there.
C-Cose wrote: "You wrote, "Science is a methodology of finding out knowledge by removing human bias and preconception and looking at reality independently as much as possible." about half-way through your comment. Shouldn't "removing" actually be "limiting" in this context?"Not being nearly as skilled in English as I am in other fields I will happily admit that sometimes my wording could be better. Though perhaps I should have used the word "while" instead of "by" to correct it.
C-Cose wrote: "You appear to be someone that uses language as carefully as you can"
Actually it isn't so much language as definitions and terms. Hence grammar is less important to my mind as definitions. For example some people do make a distinction between the words religion and spirituality based on their own need to define the difference. They are not wrong to do this, but discussion of an idea can only occur when their is a common framework of terminology.
C-Cose wrote: "One of the basic elements of a ~thesis~, by which all scientific study begins, is that the investigator has a preconception of what the result of the investigation (study, experiment) will be. For example, the question, "Does 2 plus 2 ~always~ equal 4?" assumes that at least some of the time it does. It's only when the base is changed that it results in some other number."
Actually that isn't science. At best it's mathematics, logic or at worst philosophy.
Science doesn't start with thesis, it starts with observation, upon which a thesis is built.
C-Cose wrote: "Preconception and human bias is inherent in scientific study as we do not live in a vacuum devoid of influence or experience."
Of course. Which is why I mentioned that human bias and preconception needs to be actively removed, rather than merely limited. Can this be done perfectly? I doubt it, but a big part of science is removing first personal bias and then personable bias. The peer review process helps with the former, the latter is harder to address, but not impossible.
C-Cose wrote: "As it happens, I may have completely misunderstood the question posed in this discussion: "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?" I don't see "belief" indicated in that question."Try the dictionary definition of the term "religion".
Moreover, if independently verifiable evidence of a theological entity could be established beyond a reasonable level of doubt (5 sigma+) then the existence of that entity would not be a religion it would be science.
C-Cose wrote: "I do have a radically different definition of "spirituality", based on my observance of the discussion to date."
Could you define your terminology for me then please?
C-Cose wrote: "I have also never considered persuading or enforcing my beliefs on others. I will, however, gladly discuss them and answer questions that others have for me."
I have heard this before from many religious people who, I honestly believe, are trying to be pluralistic and tolerant. The problem is that whenever you talk about your faith, directly or indirectly, or whenever you act on morality based on your faith, you are by default enforcing your views on others. It cannot be helped. Some people will listen to you, and then form their assumptions and ideas based on ideas they inherited from you. This is unavoidable. This is the reason I prefer ideas that are independently verified and supported.
C-Cose wrote: "If I understand the topic question in this context then it should read "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world of ~atheists~?" As I commented before, you use language quite well, so more preciseness would have been appreciated."
What about agnostics? What about anti-theists? What about deists? What about the so-called "unenlightened"?
I see what you mean, but atheist has been deliberately made such a pejorative term by various religious people that the question would be extremely bias, in fact I think you then follow that bias at the end of this post.
C-Cose wrote: "I believe spirituality, as separate from religion, is founded in a seeking for something ~more~. It is a drive to ask questions about what is, why it is, how can it be different, how can I be more than I am, is there a beginning or an end. In that respect it is quite similar to the scientific method of proposition, thesis, investigation, conclusion, rinse and repeat as necessary."
Indeed. In fact I see nothing 'spiritualist' to my mind in that. It isn't scientific strictly speaking as you completely missed the step of "observation".
Yet science to me is the search for something 'more', to understand, to witness and to wonder. To see the true majesty of the universe beyond the limited psychodramas and humanocentric projections of mythology and religion.
C-Cose wrote: "~Religion~, for me, is the layering of dogma, imposed hierarchy, persecution of the "other", and eventual conflict onto this basic drive."
Where you see a black and white distinction I see a continuum. As soon as an idea pops out of religion (or science) there are those that then teach it to others, invest in it and claim authority for their knowledge of it. Religion grows from the point that the idea is told to others and is then believed.
In science there is an established methodology of limiting this, and indeed a common acceptance that as yet we have not found the ultimate answers and therefore any answer we have is a representation of our best knowledge of the truth, not the truth itself. Hence religion is avoided because the need for the discarding of belief and faith in one idea is built in.
C-Cose wrote: "Atheists hold that only that which can be experienced with the five senses can be proven / dis-proven; otherwise, it does not exist."
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I have to say I was surprised that after everything else you fell back on this old chestnut. Your writing thus far was thoughtful and intelligent but this is beneath you.
Point 1.
Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in deities. (From the greek "Theos" for god/s) In fact an atheist covers a broader spectrum of people than does theists. Certain religious people can be defined as atheists as they believe in some concept (Gaia, the universe, aliens) that does not include a deity.
Point 2
The philosophy you called atheism is actually a form of materialism, which is an outdated 18th century philosophy that died scientifically with E=mc^2 It's successor 'physicalism' which supplanted it is also not scientific because again we are dealing with beliefs. Believing that there is only matter or energy is still a belief and therefore becomes religion not science. A good scientist accepts the existence of matter and energy as convenient labels for what we observe, however always leaving open the idea that matter and energy are parts of the universe and not necessarily the only parts.
C-Cose wrote: "However, "Schroedinger's Cat" posits that the ~observer~ has an effect on the experience that ~can not~ be quantitatively measured at this time. I find it interesting that Science allows for the unexplainable while many that espouse Science as the only way do not."
Actually the implications of quantum theory are widely debated and not yet understood. The observer seems indeed to have an effect, but no one knows where in the observation process yet. No one knows whether it requires a mind or just another quantum interaction, yet.
Yet in your statement you equate "can not be quantitatively measured at this time" with "unexplainable" which is obviously erroneous. Once we could not see whether their was planets around other stars thanks to the faintness of planets compared to the brightness of stars, but now we can. Once we could not explain why different atoms had different properties, until we managed to split the atom and observe what is.
This is a problem that I see recurring with religious and spiritualist advocates. They seem to see knowledge either as known or intrinsically mysterious, and then often claim to know via 'intuition' or 'revelation' these mysteries. Yes we do not yet understand the full process of the genesis of life on this planet, but that does not mean we will never know, or that we can legitimately invent creators - be they alien or divine - just because creators are easily comprehensible within the context of the limited human experience. We do not know - yet - the origins of the universe, but again we cannot legitimately posit a creator or a "father" because humans start with fathers and mothers.
C-Cose wrote: "I have not yet visited Mars, but I do know that it exists. I'm not intimately aware of each cell and molecule in my body, but I do trust the science that tells me they are there."
Exactly, science is based on trust - not faith. We trust in an idea until we find that idea to be wanting and then we replace it. That trust is based on independently verifiable evidence, checked by peer process, which gives us a level of trust that if someone was making something up (cold fusion?) it would be discovered to be false by others.
Religion requires faith, i.e. blind trust in an idea that we will hold even when that trust is violated.
C-Cose wrote: "I have also experienced things that ~I~ can not explain with the scientific method. That it not to say that they can't be explained, but simply that I have yet to find an explanation for them."
That is science in a nutshell.
C-Cose wrote: "In those cases, my "belief" serves as a signpost or marker of something that bears further scrutiny; until I'm able to resolve those signposts, I ascribe it to that something "more"."
Belief in what? Why cannot a mystery remain a mystery until properly explained? Why do you need to believe in an alternative answer until the real answer is known?
C-Cose wrote: "Would I want a world of atheists? No. Mind you, if I existed in that world it would not be solely populated by atheists; I would still be there."
Can you not imagine a universe where there was no God, or failing that where God had not been revealed to anyone. (Like pre-Abrahamic tribes for Judeo-christians). If you have no knowledge of god, gods, spirits, fae, etc. etc. just the scientific process would you not accept that you were technically atheist. (I.e. theism being absent)?
Gary wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "As it happens, I may have completely misunderstood the question posed in this discussion: "Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?" I don't..."Greetings Gary,
Firstly, might I suggest racheting down the lecturing? I've consulted many dictionaries over my years and really don't need someone to remind me to check them. While ~some~ definitions of religion include the definition for spirituality that I've provided, ~all~ list the elements of organization and dogma that I ascribed to it. I'm also well aware of the definitions of atheist, agnostic, deist, etc.
All that aside, you raise some interesting points that I agree with to varying levels; you also raise some that I don't agree with.
You wrote, "The problem is that whenever you talk about your faith, directly or indirectly, or whenever you act on morality based on your faith, you are by default enforcing your views on others. It cannot be helped."
From Cambridge Online :enforce--"to make people obey a law, or to make a particular situation happen or be accepted" (emphasis added). When I'm answering questions about or discussing my spiritual beliefs I am in no way "enforcing" them on others. I have no interest in converting others nor can I control what they choose to believe or disbelieve.
When I act according to my beliefs, I am simply acting as I think I should. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. In over thirty years of refining my beliefs, I have yet to meet someone that was "converted" to my beliefs based on a previous discussion, my actions, or some break though that I caused. Your statement implies an inherent permanent imbalance in thoughtful discourse about spiritual belief that simply isn't there.
The same can not be said of some scientific discoveries and theories. As an example Science Daily has an excellent article on recent findings in what had been touted, for years as "junk DNA"; an excellent Op-Ed on the sheer hubris of the widely accepted former conclusions can be found here.
Now to atheism where I did not define it as limited to the five sense, but merely stated that that was a core "trait" ...
You wrote, "Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I have to say I was surprised that after everything else you fell back on this old chestnut. Your writing thus far was thoughtful and intelligent but this is beneath you."
Thank you for the back-handed compliment, but you are hardly in the position to decided what is "beneath [me]"
"Materialism" and it's inheritors is far from out-dated (as you state) as I see it touted, practiced, discussed, and vigorously argued almost every day of my life. I have the mixed honour of a post-doctoral professor in geology as a landlord and am often subject to monologues for and against this very subject. Many atheists, strictly defined as you have, in my circle share the further versions of Materialism. Unless these friends have a Tardis or some other time-spanning device, I don't see how their views are outdated.
With regards to Shroedinger's Cat, ... I don't see that "at this time" and "unexplainable" are an erroneous pairing. The latter implies that there is no current explanation--not that there will never be one.
You go on further to write that faith equates to blind trust. Not so according to Cambridge: "a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone." You seem to have a habit of using "faith", "religion", "belief" and other words interchangeably. They are different words, with different meanings, that are not necessarily synonymous. My beliefs, in fact, are a product of exactly the opposite. I don't have blind trust in a Supreme Being; I spend far more time questioning and looking for further answers than I do reveling in the answers that I have found.
You further wrote, "Belief in what? Why cannot a mystery remain a mystery until properly explained? Why do you need to believe in an alternative answer until the real answer is known?"
I believe I answered that earlier as something indefinably "more". Scientifically speaking, were those that believed in an Earth-centered universe wrong in their belief prior to the discoveries that the Earth was not the center? They have since been proven incorrect, but at the time it was the widely accepted scientific view.
As someone that wholeheartedly believes in the paramount value of Science, you should know that there is rarely, if ever, a "real answer". Is 2+2 always 4? When is it? When isn't it? Which is the "real answer"? The vast majority of answers that I've discovered are "alternative". The only things I'm sure of (real answers) are that I was born, I breathe fairly regularly, my hair is slowly turning grey, and the cat litter won't clean itself. Everything else is constantly up for grabs, subject to amendment or improvement, or open to disproving. Those are the signposts that I wrote of; my experience and life is littered with them :)
You closed with, "Can you not imagine a universe where there was no God, or failing that where God had not been revealed to anyone. (Like pre-Abrahamic tribes for Judeo-christians). If you have no knowledge of god, gods, spirits, fae, etc. etc. just the scientific process would you not accept that you were technically atheist. (I.e. theism being absent)?"
Yes, I can imagine such a universe. There is much discussion concerning the "birth" of a belief in some "God". Scientific discussions such as whether it is inherent to the human condition, a foundation stone for a "society" of humans, was it spirituality that was the "evolutionary leap" for mankind are ongoing. I would hope that you don't dismiss these fields of study as not "pure science" based on a lack of mathematical analogues within them. Any mathematical Unified Theory is years in the future and statistically unlikely based on the number of variables that must be taken into account. It would also be very difficult to eventually prove outside of a mathematical proof.
As to whether I would want to live in this imagined universe ..... no. Being who I am, I would be constantly questioning the "wisdom" of others and would not last terribly long in that universe. It would require me to have blind faith that my elders and those more knowledgeable had all the answers. I can't answer whether I'd want to live in this universe as someone other than who I am as I am not someone other. I imagine you would enjoy that universe.
This idea that an 'atheist universe' would be cold and limited to the five senses sits wrong with me.It seems to imply that imagination isn't connected to science and that those who believe in a man in the sky are claiming dibs on 'the ability to make stuff up'.
The first part is absurd, the second wildly ironic.
and two it seems to imply that atheists are 'settling' because we want 'just the world around us'. Have you seen the world?
I'm more baffled by people who look at the world and everything in it and go 'Nope, not doing it for me. Needs something else.'
If that's the case, religious folk must be really hard to shop for.
C-Cose wrote: "Firstly, might I suggest racheting down the lecturing?"Well I can explain myself fully or not, if you view it as lecturing and wish me to be less verbose I can be so. As for definitions, you have already redefined several terms for your usage, so I have to understand your definitions in order to discuss them.
C-Cose wrote: "When I'm answering questions about or discussing my spiritual beliefs I am in no way "enforcing" them on others. I have no interest in converting others nor can I control what they choose to believe or disbelieve."
But you can influence, convince and explain. All of that is a form of enforcement. Just as a police officer can enforce the law simply by wearing the uniform which influences people to behave. (Or when a police car appears on a motorway and everyone suddenly slows down to the speed limit.)
I am not saying that you are wrong to do so, I am just pointing out that espousing beliefs and debating them is unavoidably going to influence others. You have expressed disagreement with me and presented your views so you are attempting it even now.
C-Cose wrote: "When I act according to my beliefs, I am simply acting as I think I should."
Yes, when you act based on your beliefs you are choosing to influence others based on your faith. For example in acting on your beliefs in typing a response on this site. Again I am not saying it is wrong, I am just saying you cannot pretend to not want to influence others if you choose to take part in a debate.
C-Cose wrote: "The same can not be said of some scientific discoveries and theories. As an example Science Daily has an excellent article on recent findings in what had been touted, for years as "junk DNA";"
Quite a wantonly aggressive article. Now I am not an expert in biology but I am fairly sure that "junk DNA" wasn't an accepted theory, mainly because it would be a hypothesis impossible to prove and not capable of making testable predictions. Now it may have been terminology used by geneticists, indeed in my Biophysics module I recall junk DNA as being "Genes with no known function yet discovered". In the same course I also learned that mammalian DNA was often shorter than reptilian or amphibian due to the efficiency of coding proteins for a stable core body temperature, hence the concept that 'useless' DNA would likely be discarded is well known. In short your reference may speak to the glib shortcomings of some scientists, but says nothing about the scientific process.
C-Cose wrote: "Thank you for the back-handed compliment, but you are hardly in the position to decided what is "beneath [me]""
You are quite right, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt out of politeness I guess.
C-Cose wrote: ""Materialism" and it's inheritors is far from out-dated (as you state) as I see it touted, practiced, discussed, and vigorously argued almost every day of my life."
Why does that mean it is not out-dated. I hear people every day using assumptions, terminology and even scientific knowledge that is well out of date. People still every day use misogynistic, racist, xenophobic and other bigotry that in my opinion is out of date in this day and age. Just because an idea is used doesn't make it current, or right.
C-Cose wrote: "Many atheists, strictly defined as you have, in my circle share the further versions of Materialism. Unless these friends have a Tardis or some other time-spanning device, I don't see how their views are outdated."
Everyone has a time-spanning device, it is called memory and writing. Many people still use ideas thousands of years old that are known to be inaccurate or even erroneous.
"Many atheists" that you know may be strict materialists, but the idea is still outdated and I think it is disingenuous to base your refutation of atheism as a whole on the ideas that most scientifically trained atheists would agree are wrong. It would be as if I said religion was wrong because it required blood sacrifice. Not all religions do, but if I set that up as a straw man it makes it easy to argue against.
C-Cose wrote: "With regards to Shroedinger's Cat, ... I don't see that "at this time" and "unexplainable" are an erroneous pairing. The latter implies that there is no current explanation--not that there will never be one."
Well I would say that the claim something is "unexplainable" means that "it can never be explained". The word "unexplained" would be the word to use if something does not have an explanation. If this is what you meant then that is fair enough.
Unfortunately, if that is what you meant, I do not see how it supports your argument about spirituality in any way.
C-Cose wrote: "You seem to have a habit of using "faith", "religion", "belief" and other words interchangeably."
Actually I agree this is a bit of a minefield. The problem is that people use one version and then shift it to another when you use it. This is why I try to avoid the term when referring to myself.
When I use the term "belief", I am talking about firm conviction in the truth of an idea, with little evidence or even in spite of evidence. When I use the term "religion" I am talking of a system of beliefs. When I use the term "faith" I am using the meaning of maintenance of belief regardless of influences that would call the belief into question. Now we can quibble about terminology, but ultimately that becomes a pointless syntactical argument. If you feel that I do not understand your definition of a term then please feel free to elucidate.
C-Cose wrote: "My beliefs, in fact, are a product of exactly the opposite. I don't have blind trust in a Supreme Being; I spend far more time questioning and looking for further answers than I do reveling in the answers that I have found."
In that case may I ask what nature those beliefs are, and what standards do you apply to verify the answers that you receive?
C-Cose wrote: "I believe I answered that earlier as something indefinably "more"."
Surely "more" is a definition in itself. More than what exactly?
For example I know that there is more than has been scientifically explained so far, that's obvious, and indeed is the point of science. I don't need to believe in more, I know that we don't know everything yet.
That's not religion or spiritualism, that's science.
C-Cose wrote: "Scientifically speaking, were those that believed in an Earth-centered universe wrong in their belief prior to the discoveries that the Earth was not the center? They have since been proven incorrect, but at the time it was the widely accepted scientific view."
Yes they were wrong and then the model of the universe was improved. Unfortunately, belief got in the way because people who had claimed to know the truth were being proved wrong, and that attack on their authority caused them to refute the evidence in favour of faith.
C-Cose wrote: "As someone that wholeheartedly believes in the paramount value of Science, you should know that there is rarely, if ever, a "real answer"."
That I feel is a misunderstanding of the nature of science, common amongst laypersons. Science rarely gives "real answers" as you say, what it gives are models and representations that allow us to comprehend things outside of our normal experience. Atoms are not little billiard balls on sticks, but that model allows us to make predictions about how they will behave. 2 + 2 is a nonsensical proposition in a quantum world, as if you could get two distinct units of anything and add them together with certainty you would be in defiance of Heisenberg's principle. Yet the model of 2 and indeed 4 still tells us important things.
C-Cose wrote: "Everything else is constantly up for grabs, subject to amendment or improvement, or open to disproving. Those are the signposts that I wrote of; my experience and life is littered with them :)"
Again I completely agree and yet still have no indication from your thesis of the necessity of spirituality or religion.
C-Cose wrote: "Scientific discussions such as whether it is inherent to the human condition, a foundation stone for a "society" of humans, was it spirituality that was the "evolutionary leap" for mankind are ongoing. I would hope that you don't dismiss these fields of study as not "pure science" based on a lack of mathematical analogues within them."
Of course not. Indeed my interest in Theology parallels with my interest in behavioural biology. Yet the mathematics actually does exist in this context, generally represented by "Game Theory".
I fully agree that religions and spirituality may have been inevitable steps in our evolution, and even crucial to the formation of society and culture. Yet that is no reason to maintain them. The principals of despotism, slavery and poverty may also been fundamental in our building of social networks and organisation, but that is still no reason to keep them. Medicine derived from herb lore and animism, but we do not need them to keep medicine. Chemistry came from Alchemy and Astronomy came from Astrology. etc.
C-Cose wrote: "Any mathematical Unified Theory is years in the future and statistically unlikely based on the number of variables that must be taken into account. It would also be very difficult to eventually prove outside of a mathematical proof."
If you are talking of a Theory that unites the two current pillars of physics (Quantum Theory and Relativity) then for a start that may not actually be the complete picture. However 'statistically unlikely' I would say is not accurate. The variable problem is not really as great as you may think. We know well that incredible complex systems can emerge from very simple rules, and current thinking is that a theory that explains the nature of the universe may have those variables as a specific consequence rather than something that needs taking into account.
Again though, this is the exciting part of science, we don't know ...yet... but we know more all the time, we occasionally even learn that there is more to learn than we knew we had to learn.
Again this is not spirituality, it is science.
What I suspect though is that if we ever do hit the "ultimate" theory, I strongly doubt that it will be anything as mundane as spirituality or religion would have us believe.
C-Cose wrote: "Being who I am, I would be constantly questioning the "wisdom" of others and would not last terribly long in that universe."
So why do you not question others wisdom now? In fact you are doing?
C-Cose wrote: "It would require me to have blind faith that my elders and those more knowledgeable had all the answers."
But that is the essence of religion and spirituality. With science you do not need blind faith as you can ask other people to ratify things independently, or even learn yourself and do the experiments or make the observations yourself.
It is religion and spirituality that relies on priests, popes, prophets, gurus, elders and wizards.
C-Cose wrote: "I imagine you would enjoy that universe. "
A universe where people based there decisions on rationality and evidence, where laws were based on ethical comprehension rather than dogma or prejudice, where "Deus Vult" would be a hollow call to war and where people might realise how rare and precious all of our years of life are in this world rather than postponing justice, care and happiness to a hypothetical next life. Where the hypocrisy of professing love while practising hate would be easily exposed.
Yeah. I'd like that.
Gary wrote: People tend to use the word "belief" to mean either a temporary opinion, or an outright unquestioning concept they have faith in. Then when one person uses the word to mean the former, others assume that they mean the latter ."I understand that, and many here see it as 'an outright unquestioning concept'. In much the same way as the use of the word 'theory' can be thought of as an hypothesis regardless of being able to test it.
Which one was that? I will try to get it on iPlayer.
It was on BBC2 Horizon, a few weeks ago, I recorded it and watched it last week. Not sure if you can still get it on iplayer. But you can get this weeks 'How small is the Universe'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lbgw8
Ah, good idea. We don't know yet so lets make it up? Sums up your philosophy quite well.
The Horizon programme I watched was about mapping the Universe, a cosmologist is making a 3d map of the whole Universe.
Two cosmologists had different views about the universe. One said the universe had no end, it went on for ever and the other said the universe was like a bubble. Our universe was only one of billions of universes.
If the universe does go on forever, that to most people is incomprehensible and if we are one of billions of universes, in one ultra universe, does that go on forever? ...that is also incomprehensible.
Hypothesis. A universe that has no end or a creator, both just as incomprehensible as each other: no evidence for either, yet science in the form of a cosmologist can suggest a universe that has no end and that is acceptable to some, just as a creator is to others.
If we do discover something beyond our current universe then we need to redefine it,
..... we are already able to map the known universe and there is something beyond it, either more of our universe going on forever or billions more universes.
GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. A world without science, creativity and the like will be reminiscent of the dark ages. Both science and religion has its place, you could say both creates a sort of life balance that is essential to our world. Look at the world we live in now, imagine it without the benefits of science. Now imagine it without the benefits of religion and the guides it provides.
Travis wrote: It seems to imply that imagination isn't connected to science ..."Ok, imagine you had an answer to this......
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote " Science is okay with the idea of an infinite universe as there are actual things that point to that
...... and those things are ?"
.....what would it be?
Terryann wrote: "Now imagine it without the benefits of religion and the guides it provides. "Oh, utopian ideas. A world without the guidance that one religion is better than others, a world with the twin towers, and without sharia law, A world without the horrific abuse of telling children that they will go to hell if they don't follow immoral rules that are hundreds of years old, a world without segregation of children into schools that teach them to externalise blame and to hate those who are different, a world without the sectarianism in Ireland and so many other places. Oh, wonderful, I'd be happy with that I think.
Travis wrote: "Maria wrote: ""Wish people would stop assuming that saying 'I believe' grants them a magic respect forcefield." Same could be said about the people who say "I don't believe...""
Oh please, I'm a..."
Travis only 1 question - Do you have faith.... in anything at all?
Terryann wrote: "GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. A world without science, creativity and the like will be reminiscent of the dark ages. Both science and religion has its place, yo..."I don't think that religion makes people moral or immoral. Yes, the "rules" are there but you are not (except in a few religions)prevented from being a member of church if you don't follow them. As long as you contribute your share to the plate when it's passed, a multitude of immorality is ignored (wink wink nudge nudge)- and quite a bit of the time it's the church leaders who are the most immoral.
Gary wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "Firstly, might I suggest racheting down the lecturing?"Well I can explain myself fully or not, if you view it as lecturing and wish me to be less verbose I can be so. As for defin..."
Gary,
There's "explaining [oneself] fully" and then there's writing as if one is an academic speaking to a "layperson" .... as you suggested I am in a later section.
We have both defined various terms in ways that support our arguments based on our experience. Your definitions appear to be rooted in "common usage"; I believe mine to be supported by dictionary definition. I don't agree with your interchangeable use of many terms in this discussion as I define them differently and distinctly. You do not seem to make the same distinctions.
I learned in my 20's, and later adopted the practice, of removing myself from discussions that were shown to have little common ground. This is one of those discussions. You persist in your perception that I have a desire to "enforce" my opinion on others. I have done my best to explain that this is not so. I have also not expressed in any way that you are doing the same.
I can't begin to understand where your marked dislike of anything non Scientific stems from; understanding the basis for a different opinion is a requirement for me to engage in any useful discussion. As a result, I have difficulty understanding the purpose of this "discussion".
Therefore, I respectfully withdraw from this discussion and wish you the best in finding the absolute answers that you seek.
C-Cose, I'm sorry to hear that - even though I don't agree with everything you've said, your comments have been polite and intelligent - I hope you're not insulted. There are lots of different personalities on this thread - no one means any harm.We all seem to have agreed to disagree on lots of issues - and sometimes we even find common ground.
Maria wrote: "C-Cose, I'm sorry to hear that - even though I don't agree with everything you've said, your comments have been polite and intelligent - I hope you're not insulted. There are lots of different per..."Greetings Maria,
Thank you for your honesty. I've just realized that I wasn't terribly clear when I removed myself from the discussion. I see a forum, board, or thread as a large "cocktail party" or other gathering of adults. Conversations begin, transform and end without members of that group necessarily leaving the room.
I have no intention of leaving this thread; I've simply stepped away from the discussion that I was having with Gary--for the reasons that I've outlined.
I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me in this type of forum--the opposite in fact, as group agreement often degrades to communal back slapping and exchanging "war stories". I welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas, opinions, and experiences as long as common ground can be found between the participants.
I'm not in the least insulted. I hope I've managed to make myself clearer.
cHriS wrote: "Hypothesis. A universe that has no end or a creator, both just as incomprehensible as each other: no evidence for either, yet science in the form of a cosmologist can suggest a universe that has no end and that is acceptable to some, just as a creator is to others"And until either has evidence, neither needs to be accepted. Of the two, which is more likely to prompt further investigation to attempt to prove it, the scientific option, or the religious "take it on faith" option?
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...
Ah, that's fair, it initially sounded like you were making a "one side is as bad as the other" equivalence, but now I understand you better.
Though I do not entirely agree with the idea that people have a right to their beliefs as they then act on those beliefs or spread them to others. People should be free to think and to hold opinions, but no one should have the right not to have their beliefs not be respected or indeed to not outright be challenged. The history of civil rights in the western world has been the struggle of people challenging the beliefs and assumptions of the dominant group.
Some ideas are indeed harmless and comical, but some are potentially incredibly harmful even as they may seem innocuous. Belief in life after death seems like harmless comfort for those bereaved, or those facing their mortality, however it can also be the seed for cheapening the precious value of this life. Belief in the power of prayer or the goodness of God seems fine until people deny real care because of it.
Comedy is important though. Satire and ridicule can be harmful if used to victimise and oppress, yet in any context where humour is absent entirely or causes immediate violence, there is a big problem. Any time Authority suppresses laughter, tyranny follows.