Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,351-7,400 of 12,463

[Shanna]

C-Cose wrote: "Gary wrote: "Levity time (skip if you know it). A farmer goes to a physicist because his farm is going to fail if he cannot increase the size of his chickens and their yield in eggs. The farmer beg..."

I had heard that one but the spherical cow version.
Still a good one.

[Gary]

Aoife wrote: "I believe we need both as they are so vital. Religion in my eyes is belief in the impossible. It's full of magic. A world created by one man. Moses parting the sea, A burning bush, Wine turns to blood. This in my eyes is all magic and science is a form of explaining this to us in shall I say mortal terms. We can't comprehend what we don't understand. I believe magic is science not yet discovered."

Of course we can't comprehend what we don't understand, the terms are synonyms for each other.

If science will actually tell us how strange things are possible, then what sense is there believing in the impossible?

Instead of inventing an answer to believe in, why not wait for the actual answer to be discovered and in the meantime appreciate the mystery?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I had to refresh my memory by looking on wiki, but I needn’t have bothered since it does not apply in this case."

:-) and again!

cHriS wrote: "You say First you claim that you can respect atheists lack of belief, , well that is not what I said.

I said “I can respect the view of an atheist who does 'not' believe in a god”. There is no lack of belief."

Ok can you not understand the logic that if a person does not believe in something then they lack belief in that something? Really?

cHriS wrote: "I am not suggestion that somehow there should be a belief and that it is lacking. So your “cognitive dissonance" suggestion is misplaced."

Actually that wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that you said you could respect someone who did not believe and then immediately followed that with a claim that people who did not believe were incapable of giving respect, which is disrespectful.

cHriS wrote: "Again you saying ”lack of belief” is miss-quoting me."

Fine. "Lack of belief", and "does not believe" are interchangeable in the statement.

cHriS wrote: "So why should we not assume that your are also being disrespectful and a liar rather than just making generalisations?"

Because when I make generalisations I do not tend to be making negative ones, or I will deliberately address the ideology rather than the people.

cHriS wrote: "I am not sure what point you are making here."

Respect. Could you not understand that from context?

cHriS wrote: "………….. which is what you constantly do when you single out a particular religion."

No because when I criticise Christianity I am not necessarily including those people who self-identify as Christians and yet do not necessarily hold to various Christian tenets. For example I could criticise Christianity's stance on Usury, but this would actually apply to few Western Christians anymore as most of the modern Churches quietly forgot that bit as society embraced capitalistic finances.

So I am critiquing actual claims made by the ideology, not attributing claims to everyone who follows it as you were doing.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "One could get to know the people involved. One could, instead of predicting, listen to people and ask them for their thoughts."

Which would be impossible. Because asking them for their thought requires words. Words are labels. So without labelling at some level communication is impossible. Second when you ask someone their opinion you are actually also asking them to provide you a model on their future behaviour. (E.g. asking Shannon about her position on gay rights, should subsequently allow be to predict her position on all related topics, e.g. gay marriage). Without being able to make predictions based on acquired knowledge you can no longer comprehend.

It's where you draw the line that makes the difference.

Shannon wrote: "In my experience, predictions sometimes lead to misconceptions."

Indeed they do, and I agree. I have even explained why I do not like the word 'atheist' because it tends to make people make the wrong predictions about me.

However, you cannot avoid making predictions at some level, the important thing to remember is that it is a prediction, not a certainty.

Shannon wrote: "Predictions sometimes ... perhaps often times ... leads people to jump to conclusions. When we jump to conclusions, we're not dealing with facts. And, ... At that point, it's not a convenient model."

Yes but eventually you need to make a prediction or you will never reach a conclusion, even temporarily.

Shannon wrote: "If we were to look an actual statement made on this thread vs. a hypothetical situation, do you it was appropriate to lump me, for example, in with deists the last time you did?"

Did I lump you in with deists? Are you a deist, I thought you were Christian?

Shannon wrote: "When I mentioned I'd looked at a certain website, gave the site, and asked if it was a reputable site given the fact that I had certain concerns, you asked me for my concerns, then you talked about what most deists would find concerning."

Theists.

As in those that believe in gods, not just deists.

Shannon wrote: "Do you think this could be risky? Were you predicting my concerns? If so, do you think that led you to misunderstand my statements or led you to argue from a defensive position, which often (for me, at least) makes it difficult to process with true clarity?"

Well what you appeared to be doing, at least to me, was to pick an argument from an 'atheist' site that you strongly disagreed with or found offensive and then dared any 'atheist' to defend it. So in fact it appeared that you were "lumping" atheists together in one group. In fact you specifically did that by asking 'atheists' whether it was a 'legitimate' site. Since atheists do not have a central dogma, scripture or even philosophy the answer is really in the question.

When I then said what theists would often find strange about that site I was not saying you were a theist, I was making a generalised statement based on conversation with other self-proclaimed theists and effectively invited you to see if you concurred or not.

Shannon wrote: "This isn't about tit for tat, Gary. Truly. I would like to talk about truths."

Therein lies the problem. You believe in 'truths' not only as things that exist, but as absolutes that can be found and defined. I do not. I accept that there may be ultimate answers out there but by assuming we are close (or far) from knowing them we are in essence trying to define them before we know them.

In my opinion there are models of 'truth'. Some models are more accurate, while others are less so. Some models are relevant enough to lead to important information and accurate predictions, while some models are fundamentally flawed and end up misguiding us.

Shannon wrote: "I know I've made mistakes, on several occasions. I've owned them, publicly. Do you think it might have been a mistake for you to go into that conversation with preconceived notions ... about what a deist would find concerning?"

No, because I wasn't. I was repeating information gleaned from other theists and illustrating a known pattern which other theists may follow, not what they will believe or what all theists will do.

Shannon wrote: "If it would be inappropriate to lump all non-believers in one group and make assumptions about them, isn't it just as inappropriate to lump all deists together, especially given the wide array of beliefs that exist? And, in the above instance, the specific subject hadn't been identified."

Hence why I talked about what some previous people felt, not attempting to say all theists do this.

Importantly though what I can safely say about theists is that they believe. So making comments about a group that shares that trait I thought was relevant. If I tried to define them based on a trait they lacked then it would be a problem.

Shannon wrote: "Can you learn something from this? Can you grow? In a way that has nothing to do with religion or science ... that would not violate what you stand for?"

Of course. I have said several times that I interact with such discussions to learn, and to continually test my own predictions and assumptions. So I do not see what your problem is. Unless it is the disagreement that bothers you.

Personally I find that one can learn far more from people you disagree with than ones you agree entirely with.

Shannon wrote: "Could we have this discussion, science vs. religion, share ideas, and question one another without, for example, telling people they're ... fill in the blank ...

I have an observation, it may be inaccurate and it is not meant to be offensive. It occurs to me that over these discussions you in particular seem to be fine in describing a person in negative terms, but baulk when the simple label for those terms is applied. I can't quite remember but I seem to recall a post were you described someone pressuring you to use the term rather than hide it? Do you think that there is an important difference (for example) between describing somebody's stated opinions as prejudice/racist/sexist (etc.) and describing them as a bigot/racist (etc.)? My personal feeling is that sometimes it is more important to have the courage of your convictions. Sometimes.

(That's an honest question not a 'gotcha'.)

Shannon wrote: "and without jumping to conclusions and knowing we might not know everything there is to know about something (note the fact that I've learned there are several different groups among non-believers) and be open to acquiring new knowledge ... not knew beliefs but knew knowledge? We could do that, learn and grown, change mentalities and still fulfill the "contract" and discuss this topic. Or, am I wrong?"

We could try, but do you think that disagreement and discussion of the reason why we disagree doesn't have a role to play?

If a person states an opinion that is to others views prejudice or worse, should they not ask for the person to justify their opinion? And perhaps critique their justification.

My problem is that I don't see what your 'solution' is, or your plan to go forward. Personally I am willing to answer any honest questions put to me, and I will always try to address other peoples posts in a serious and considerate manner for as long as the tone remains civil.

What would you ask of me in particular?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Do you include me in the above?"

Definitely not. :-)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "This works in science. It's part of science, yes?"

Yes.

Shannon wrote: "I'm not sure one can apply the same to people."

Well anthropologists, medical scientists, biologists, geneticists and neurologists would probably disagree.

The point about science is that it is a methodology that can be applied to anything. In fact it is a methodology we do already apply to everything but we call it science when it is performed in a disciplined and rigorous manner.

Shannon wrote: "It's one thing to study, what, genetics ... a certain genetic marker. Scientists can identify it, label it, and make predictions regarding how the marker might ... I'm not the science person ... based on past knowledge and patterns."

Yet if you study genetics and then make a prediction based on solely genetics would you be surprised to get the wrong answer? A person may indeed have a genetically low chance of diabetes, but we find out they contracted diabetes at a young age. Why did the prediction fail? Perhaps because we didn't include the data that the person was from a rich country and ate a lot of sugary foods?

Shannon wrote: "I think it's somewhat dangerous to apply the same logic to humans."

Yet you do it every day. Even religion does it. E.g. "I believe in Christ and God and therefore I predict I will be rewarded for my faith."

When somebody says that they are a Christian there are a few predictions you can make. For example I can predict that they believe that Jesus existed, I can predict that they believe in the God he preached in. I can then make a series of other predictions with decreasing probabilities about that persons attitudes. However, the important thing is to remember that they are probabilities. I have met for example at least one "atheist Christian" who believed in Jesus's ideas of helping each other and the poor and needy, yet did not believe any of the miracles or in god (and felt indeed that it detracted from the message). Yet that is very rare.

So the important point is to always remember we are using models and predictions.

Whereas if you look above you will see cs claiming absolutely that an atheist is incapable of respecting beliefs. That isn't even a claim of probability it is a claim of knowing absolute truth about every 'atheist' in existence or who will ever exist.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Yet you do it every day. Even religion does it. E.g. "I believe in Christ and God and therefore I predict I will be rewarded for my faith.""

When you say "you" in the above, do you mean me? Personally? If you do and if you've read any of my posts regarding my beliefs, you'd know that's not a statement I'd make. But, the two of us have been down this road of misunderstandings before. Like ... when you started talking about my church despite the fact that I don't have a church and don't attend church.

Be that as it may, I think it's dangerous to label people and make predictions about people based on the labels we've assigned them.

Further, yes, I believe you lumped me in with deists. Last I knew, deists are people who believe in a higher power or god. That would encompass people of all religious faiths that have a belief in a supreme being.

In addition, if you'd been reading my posts and learning about me (versus your predictions of who I am based on all of the deists you've "debated" in the past), you'd know it's not as simple as my saying, "I'm a Christian."

From what I can see, cHriS makes predictions about people that are false. Example ... atheists are incapable of respecting beliefs. And, similarly, you make predictions about people that are false.

Which leads us, in my opinion, to something I've voiced previously. We can do away with science/technology. We can do away with religion. Guess what? We'll still have conflict and sorrow. Why? People will still demand it their right to view and label people as "other" than and, worse, in some cases, will treat them and act toward them based on those views and labels. This isn't something that is peculiar to believers.

Regarding your perceptions regarding my wanting to pick an atheist idea and criticize it ....

You're playing with the facts.

In reality, I asked a very simple question. Was the site reputable? I wanted to read about atheist views, found the site, and had some concerns. Could an atheist here or atheists tell me if it was a reputable organization/site? Period.

You, Gary, instead of answering the question, asked me about my concerns. You solicited that information. It was not ... not ... my intention to go down that path.

Do you know what I find fascinating? Much as people love to revile cHriS, cs brought this up, if I remember correctly. When questions were being asked of cs, I seem to remember a time when he refused to answer. Because, ultimately, the questions were off topic, separate and apart from the question s/he initially asked, and s/he felt a trap was being laid. Then, of course, s/he was ridiculed for not answering the questions posed. (And, sometimes ... cs/cHriS doesn't answer. True.)

I wish I hadn't bitten last week, Gary. I wish I hadn't shared my concerns after being asked by you to do so. I wish I had simply restated my question. Funny how you're twisting the reality of what happened. Actually, not so much....

You're right. I do see certain truths. Like the above. I wasn't poking at an atheist argument. I was asking a legitimate question. An atheist asked for commentary. I gave it. Now, it's about the fact that I was picking .... No. That's not what this is about. You know that. I know that. And, I bet most of the people who read these posts know that.

That's all I have to say.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: I was referring to the fact that you said you could respect someone who did not believe and then immediately followed that with a claim that people who did not believe were incapable of giving respect, which is disrespectful.

You have missed the point. I could respect someone who did not believe, that’s correct.

People who did not believe were incapable of giving respect, within a religious framework, correct.

I also linked to wiki, which said………Respect gives a positive feeling of esteem or deference for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion).

So are you now saying that you will show respect to religion and belief?

Fine. "Lack of belief", and "does not believe" are interchangeable in the statement.

No they are NOT interchangeable. They have separate concepts. You only want them to be interchangeable because it suites you argument to have them that way.

Because when I make generalisations I do not tend to be making negative ones, or I will deliberately address the ideology rather than the people.

You are adding ‘negative ones’ in to your reply after the facts. How are we suppose to know that is what you meant? Or if indeed you did mean it.

No because when I criticise Christianity I am not necessarily including those people who self-identify as Christians .

………… ‘not necessarily’ does not mean you are not.

So I am critiquing actual claims made by the ideology, not attributing claims to everyone who follows it as you were doing.

That is not accurate. But you can, if you want to, point out to me what you think I have said that draws you to this conclusion if it helps.

Are specifically referring to what you said, I said ….

“people who did not believe were incapable of giving respect”

Or what I did say……..

“But they would not be able to respect my belief that there is a god“.
Which is accurate.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: From what I can see, cHriS makes predictions about people that are false. Example ... atheists are incapable of respecting beliefs...."

Shannon, I am going to take the blame for any misunderstanding here. Gary has not understood either. I will try and make it clearer.

I quoted wiki......Respect gives a positive feeling of esteem or deference for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion).

Unless Gary can agree to this, he would not use the word 'respect'.

So, when I said I can respect atheists for them 'not' believing, atheists would not be able to reciprocate.

In other words it would be a contradiction on their part to say they respect my belief and/or religion, according to the above definition, anyway.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: ""

So .... After sending a message to cHriS, since I didn't really want to participate in this thread at this time, if again, I started to wonder if my current situation and the cold from hell I've developed might have skewed my thinking.

I went back and reread today's posts. Deist. Theist. Theist. Deist. I went back and read your original from the other day.

You're right, Gary. You said "theist" not "deist" ... and a "theist" believes in a God who takes part in our affairs whereas a "deist" believes in a God who doesn't.

So, ultimately, you lumped me in with theists not deists. You've used both "ists" with great regularity and, no, I didn't go back and reread and I wasn't really thinking. Yup. You lumped me in with theists not deists. So, I likely looked like an idiot when I responded. And, ultimately, when I responded to your comment about ... you do every day ... religion does ... I'm a Christian and I believe .... Well, you'd likely say you weren't saying I say ... you were saying religion says .... I was connecting dots that weren't there ... though you had labeled me as and you said I did every day followed directly by .... I jumped to a conclusion. Right?

Clearly, Gary, I'm not up for playing word games. Don't know if that's something you enjoy doing, playing word games. Perhaps it just seems that way to others from time to time, especially when they're sick as crap. But, ultimately, I don't have it in me to go round and round with you. Yesterday, I was attempting to have an honest discussion. I'm not processing well, though, and I fell into the ... deist ? ... I thought you were a Christian ... hole.

So, I'm going to declare you the winner of this debate. What you won, ultimately, might be in question. I've been responding, even though I don't feel up to it ... just as I sent a message to cHriS tonight. It somehow feels incredibly rude not to do so. However, I'm going to say, in order to explain future rudeness if you address a future post to me, that ... I'm well and truly saying you won and am stepping aside.

[Kathy]

I believe like the alchemists that everything is The One,and that over the past 12,000 years we have been doing the Great Work on human consciousness, we've gone through the black stage, the white stage and now we are working on the red stage congealing the purified ideas into the Great Marriage of both sides into truly evolved beings.

[Robin]

Why don't you all admit that you have made such finite points of view somewhat clear for the average person, such as myself. I don't see why someone has to be the winner, this is after all just topics of discourse and all are winners in my estimation. Everyone has words that they don't like to read and I won't mention it again here. This is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world today, everyone has their viewpoints and beliefs and if everyone is willing to share and able to see other's points of view, then maybe we are one step ahead in all seeing each other's points. I have not wanted to comment since there was such good running dialogue, but now that feelings have gotten hurt and people are not posting as much, I felt that I had to speak up. Deist, atheist, theist, I don't know what these words mean, truly. It does engender a me vs. them when there are labels put upon people. How about a label-free society, I don't think that would work either. I think everyone has their own judgments and views the world accordingly. Now I will get off my soapbox, just wanted to share.

[Gryph]

Robin wrote: "How about a label-free society, I don't think that would work either. I think everyone has their own judgments and views the world accordingly. Now I will get off my soapbox, just wanted to share. "

Greetings Robin,

Do you feel better for having virtually rapped our knuckles? ;)

Sadly, some in this discussion have experienced hurt feelings--myself included. But, our discussions have also led to a defining of terms, principles, and specifics ... for me at least. Were it not for the continued and multi-layered discussion between Shannon, Gary, cHriS, (sometimes) Hazel and myself, I would still hold some preconceptions that I had prior to engaging in this discussion.

Labeling is inherent to the human condition and language development; without it we'd still be pointing at objects and trying to convey an opinion with facial gestures: "Berry bush good eat?". What I have honed, in part as a result of this discussion, is that the labels I use have to be consistent (common) to those that I am speaking with. Common ground.

I'm glad you shared :)

[Gryph]

Kathy wrote: "I believe like the alchemists that everything is The One,and that over the past 12,000 years we have been doing the Great Work on human consciousness, we've gone through the black stage, the white ..."

Greetings Kathy,

Can I ask which alchemical belief / tradition you are drawing from? I ask because you use very specific (yet nondescript) terms of black, white and red in your statement.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon, I am going to take the blame for any misunderstanding here. Gary has not understood either. I will try and make it clearer."

Now that is a good idea. So we don't end up playing "word games" etc. it is a much better idea to discuss what you meant rather than what we interpreted.

cHriS wrote: "Unless Gary can agree to this, he would not use the word 'respect'."

I would disagree. I hold no respect for the Christian religion as a whole, and I do not respect the idea of placing faith above reason. However, (an important point) I can respect and I do respect the reasons why certain friends or associates have their beliefs. In fact I can respect their belief but not the target of their belief or the conviction that belief is superior to reason.

Does that make sense?

cHriS wrote: "So, when I said I can respect atheists for them 'not' believing, atheists would not be able to reciprocate."

First I would say that you should perhaps put in the word "many" before "atheists" based on the fact that not all atheists have the same opinions.

Second, I would like to know how you can imagine that you can show "positive respect" for somebody "not believing" while simultaneously believing that this state could not be reciprocated. In what manner do you respect them 'not believing'? Which type of "non-belief" are you referring too? Atheists come in many variations from those who "believe" in the conviction that there is no god, to people who accept it is possible but unlikely, to people who just do not really think of the concept of gods and have no firm conviction either way.

cHriS wrote: "In other words it would be a contradiction on their part to say they respect my belief and/or religion, according to the above definition, anyway."

I suppose that part of the problem is making such a specific conclusion based on such a loose definition of atheist.

You see I could understand it if you claimed both sides or neither side could truly respect each others opinions, but I do not see your reasoning how one side can offer respect while the other side by definition cannot.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Clearly, Gary, I'm not up for playing word games. Don't know if that's something you enjoy doing, playing word games. Perhaps it just seems that way to others from time to time, especially when they're sick as crap."

As you said it can be bad to jump to conclusions, and I was saying everyone does it to some degree or other in order to comprehend and understand.

Above you have accused me of playing word games, of deliberately distorting what you hold to be the reality of the situation, and of lumping people together unfairly.

Conversely to my eyes you have been on the attack, either by seeking out posts and sites not cited by any atheist here, and daring atheists to defend them. Then by attacking my responses and alluding to nefarious purposes behind my responses.

Shannon wrote: "I'm well and truly saying you won and am stepping aside."

The fact you refer to winners and losers means we have both lost. I am interested in discussion and debate, not winning or losing. I have found previous discussions with you enlightening and positive, even when we didn't end up agreeing. However, you have seemed to be quite aggressively on the attack lately and then responded to the defensive stance taken to those attacks as if they were sudden attacks on you.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it is I that hasn't noticed my own changed stance, yet I try to remain alert to that at all times.

In my opinion I have been debating in 'good faith', I am sorry that you feel I have been somehow nefarious, and I am sorry that you feel I was somehow trying to "win".

[Gary]

Robin wrote: "Why don't you all admit that you have made such finite points of view somewhat clear for the average person, such as myself. I don't see why someone has to be the winner, this is after all just topics of discourse and all are winners in my estimation."

Agreed. However, debate is not necessarily destructive, in fact informed debate can actually lead to new ideas and opinions not originally envisioned by any of the participants.

Robin wrote: "This is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world today, everyone has their viewpoints and beliefs and if everyone is willing to share and able to see other's points of view, then maybe we are one step ahead in all seeing each other's points."

Actually I would disagree. One of the biggest problems in the world that I see at the moment is the concept that all opinions have equal value. From creationists trying to sell the "debate the controversy" lie, to the various cults of denialism, to alternative medicines and to simplistic economic models. In common conception people who have studied subjects for many years with a lot of independently verified and mutually supported truths are presented as having no more valid an opinion on their expertise than the random musing of the next person in the street.

Robin wrote: "It does engender a me vs. them when there are labels put upon people. How about a label-free society, I don't think that would work either. I think everyone has their own judgments and views the world accordingly."

As C-Cose has eloquently put elsewhere, labels are necessary simply to build understanding. However, we need to remember that labels are just that, not real things in themselves but a generalisation to represent something. Also labels are of no use unless there is a consensus of understanding of their meaning. Therein lies the rub so to speak. I am often labelled an atheist, and occasionally I will use the label as shorthand, however that is a label for what I am not, not what I am, and I also feel that a religiously biased culture like ours carries a lot of inherent misconceptions about that label.

Similarly I am cautious about the Christian label, because many people who self-identify as Christian, do not hold to a specific set of Christian ideals that one can reference, and many would even deny other self proclaimed Christians that label. (E.g. Some Christians do not accept that members of the LDS movement deserve their self-claimed label as Christians)

So yes labels are necessary, but the danger is when we forget that they are labels.

[Darius]

i think they co exist science and religion,because science comes from a place greater than ourselves

[Hazel]

I'm sorry, Darius, I don't understand, what do you mean by "science comes from a place greater than ourselves". Its a somewhat vague and meaningless statement without your explanation.

[Gary]

Darius wrote: "i think they co exist science and religion,because science comes from a place greater than ourselves"

Are you perhaps confusing our study of reality (science) with reality itself? Science comes from within us and is applied to what we experience as existence. Without us there would be no science, but the physical interactions of the universe would be unaffected.

Religion makes similar claims to being the comprehension of our existence, but each religion makes its own claims some concurrent with science, some conflicting. If religion and science co-existed then their would be only one religion, not myriads, and that religion and science would agree on all points, this is definitely not the case. Why then do you see all religions as co-existing with science?

[Lorrie]

Give me Science!!!!!!

[Edwin]

If without religion means without a structure that tells you how to believe and what. I have not such a big problem if that disappears. If it means a world without God, I'm not so sure.
I like to think there is a God, but I don't think he is to bothered about us or if we worship him in the correct manner.

[R.d.]

I would rather live in a world without religion. If religions had their way and were true to form, there would probably be no books or free thinking! Religion was only there to explain what we didn't understand, but there's not much of that left.

[Stephen]

Although the church did sponsor scientific investigations in the early enlightenment years, and prior to, it has become a hindrance to the advancement and expansion of this knowledge. As we tunnel deeper into the unknown, its secrets are revealed. The constant quest for truth, exposed by evidence and rationality, will eventually compress the need for spiritual superstitions and faith into an ever smaller and unnecessary corner of the brain. The faster this occurs, the sooner will our true understanding of our universe and ourselves be reached.
I doubt the "Ultimate Truth" will ever be known. It is the quest that is the joy.
So .... just enjoy the ride.

[Khalid]

Without science of course because if we deleted the religion of our parents will be transformed into a forest

[Angel]

I would just say what Albert Einstein said once, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Plus peolpe need hope and thats what religion brings.

[Hazel]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have express..."

Greetings Hazel,

I'm assuming that this was a response to Angel in #7533. What I don't understand is how this contradicts or "corrects" the quote that she supplied. One doesn't need to hold a belief in "God" in order to have an opinion about its relationship with Science.

For example, you, an avowed atheist / non-deist / non-theist have opinions about Religion.

[Hazel]

if one doesn't believe in god, then the only relationship it can have with science is "none".

And the point of the post was that Einstein was often, even during his own lifetime, misquoted in relation to religion. And the first quote, in context with the second, has a far different meaning to the one that Angel no doubt intended. IN context with the second quote, it means that science without an unbounded admiration of the natural world is lame, and an unbounded admiration of the natural world is blind without science.

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "if one doesn't believe in god, then the only relationship it can have with science is "none".

And the point of the post was that Einstein was often, even during his own lifetime, misquoted in rela..."

Hazel,

I don't know what "Angel no doubt intended". Do you? I only know, as in can see, what Angel wrote.

Also, as I didn't personally know Einstein, I fail to see how any quote attributed to him is a "misquote". Your sources, my sources, and Angel's sources are clearly different. With all due respect, until Einstein raises up from the grave and categorically states to me that certain quotes attributed to him are "wrong", I won't stand in judgement of them or the persons that rely on them.

Oh and thank you so much for "educating" me as to the context for both quotes. I don't know what I'd do w/o your explanations....being someone that has been described here as belonging to a "Religion of One".

[[deleted user]]

Zakaria wrote: "Endless talk... I think there is a need for a metadiscourse for this sort of debates. I am tired of reading your silly talk."

To read or not to read. Perhaps that is the question.

[Nayantara]

That reminds me of Einstein's quote, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

[Layla]

I think it is part of our human nature to believe in something. Be it you as a person or something one thinks is greater than one as a person. People also like to be around or with people who have the same belief system as their own.

So as much as I love science we cannot escape religion. If one religion dies, another is formed.

So science and religion will just have to suck it up and try to live together.

[Hazel]

C-Cose wrote: "Hazel wrote: "if one doesn't believe in god, then the only relationship it can have with science is "none".

And the point of the post was that Einstein was often, even during his own lifetime, mis..."

experience, C-cose. When this quote is used, it is almost always a) to support the idea that religion is good, and b)as a call to authority: "look Einstein believed in god and was religious, and he was a scientist. If such an eminent scientist believes, there must be something in it". And its pointless as I can list scientists that don't believe in god and aren't religious, people often cite Newton as well, as he was a religious man, but then he was also an alchemist and wanted to work out how to turn base metals into gold. And it is undermined as well by actually looking into Einsteins religious beliefs, or lack thereof. So given previous experience, the assumption I made is not a baseless one.

[Gary]

Layla wrote: "I think it is part of our human nature to believe in something. Be it you as a person or something one thinks is greater than one as a person. People also like to be around or with people who have the same belief system as their own."

Yet as many religious people claim, it is not always best to blindly follow our natures and we do have a choice whether to do so or not.

Layla wrote: "So as much as I love science we cannot escape religion. If one religion dies, another is formed."

Some people have escaped religion and it would seem in the west that this is a growing trend. Racism, sexism, superstitious fear of witches and other irrational impulses are all things that the majority of us have escaped from thanks to the enlightenment. It would seem somewhat silly, and perhaps disrespectful to the memory of those who pioneered this process to assume it is doomed to failure.

Layla wrote: "So science and religion will just have to suck it up and try to live together. "

Or we could choose something better, choose to view the world with the humility of doubt rather than the arrogance of certainty that religion brings.

[Luís]

I would relish to live in a world without religion.

[Angel]

Why? I mean a world without religion, no matter which, would collapse on it self. Religion is like the i numbers. We belive on the idea because it helps us solve our problems

[Gary]

Angel wrote: "Why? I mean a world without religion, no matter which, would collapse on it self. Religion is like the i numbers. We belive on the idea because it helps us solve our problems"

Why would it collapse? That is just a belief as unjustifiable as the beliefs of any cult you'd care to name. Statistical evidence shows that the West is declining in religiosity and at the same declining in crime and violence, rather than the opposite.

Religion is belief and belief does not solve problems, it makes them unsolvable because no reasoned discourse will change a persons beliefs, they need to consciously allow themselves to doubt before they can begin to accept that their beliefs may not be 100% accurate and that someone else has a point.

Without belief we have evidence and reason. An argument between two people using evidence and reason can be resolved with evidence and reason, an argument between two faiths can only be resolved by the voluntary relinquishing of one or both persons beliefs, or by violence.

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "experience, C-cose. When this quote is used, it is almost always a) to support the idea that religion is good, and b)as a call to authority: "look Einstein believed in god and was religious,..."

Hazel,

As you didn't seem to catch it, I wrote:

I don't know what "Angel no doubt intended". Do you? I only know, as in can see, what Angel wrote.

Also, as I didn't personally know Einstein, I fail to see how any quote attributed to him is a "misquote". Your sources, my sources, and Angel's sources are clearly different.

Did you see a question in there that I felt needed clarifying? I don't, as you have no idea of what Angel "intended". Assuming otherwise is somewhat disrespectful.

You seem to forget (or assume) that ~your~ experience is somehow more important or more valid than that of others. That. Would. Be. Wrong.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "An argument between two people using evidence and reason can be resolved with evidence and reason, an argument between two faiths can only be resolved by the voluntary relinquishing of one or both persons beliefs, or by violence."

Greetings Gary,

Haven't seen you in a while :)

I think that you and I have shown that there is also a third option available to those that don't agree:

Respecting that persons have different beliefs and agreeing to disagree on them.

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "Respecting that persons have different beliefs and agreeing to disagree on them."

That isn't really a cessation of the argument though, at best it is an agreement to perhaps inspect ones own convictions and choose whether or not to maintain them, at worst it is little more than a détente which may lead to civility between individuals, but as long as uncompromising belief remains, the potential for violent conflict is maintained, even if indirectly by the beliefs of others.

I maintain the opinion that only the voluntary decision to allow doubt in ones beliefs that then leave one receptive to other peoples opinions, evidence and rationale can true compromises be found, and that - in my opinion - all beliefs or opinions are not equal, either in reality or ethically.

Of course I maintain due doubt in this conviction, yet I have yet to see any circumstance to disavow it :-)

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "Did you see a question in there that I felt needed clarifying? I don't, as you have no idea of what Angel "intended". Assuming otherwise is somewhat disrespectful."

I would also have to respectfully disagree on this point, based on experience and probability. The pro-religious Einstein quote is commonly brought up by religious apologists when addressing scientists as an appeal to authority within science that blatantly misrepresents said authorities actual views.

The fact it was brought up on this particular thread without any contextual reference to mitigate the implication would be Prima facie evidence that this appeal to authority was intended, just as Hazel's subsequent posting of Einstein's own objection to this misrepresentation is obviously an attempt to critique it.

Of course Angel would be fully allowed to provide context to disavow the assumption and clarify which I am sure Hazel, or I, would then fully accept.

If somebody makes a short statement that evokes or echoes a particular common argument on a subject, it is not disrespect to assume the intended meaning, in fact surely it would be disrespectful to assume they hadn't meant to say it?

After all the meaning of any message is subject to assumption and interpretation, this is why we have discussions so that these assumptions and interpretations can be confirmed or clarified.

[Hazel]

Thankyou Gary, I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "That isn't really a cessation of the argument though, at best it is an agreement to perhaps inspect ones own convictions and choose whether or not to maintain them, at worst it is little more than a détente which may lead to civility between individuals, but as long as uncompromising belief remains, the potential for violent conflict is maintained, even if indirectly by the beliefs of others."

Gary,

I don't disagree with this in principle. I was simply offering that for those two (or more) people that respectfully agree to disagree on whatever, the argument no longer exists, at the same level, for those people involved.

If I accept that I disagree with someone, I don't continue the "argument" on that subject. Your and my last discussion covered a variety of sub-topics that we agreed on to one degree or another. I haven't felt the need to rehash those that we disagreed on as I respect your right to hold the views that you do and perceive that you do the same for me.

[Kenneth Bareksten]

A world without science is a dark world, the medieval times wasn't called dark for no reason.

[M.L.]

The Perfect Clone

Looks at secret socities wanting to clone DNA from the Shroud of Turin for political and financial purposes. Speculative fiction with supernatural...paranormal and religious undertones in a modern day technically advanced environment.

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "If I accept that I disagree with someone, I don't continue the "argument" on that subject. Your and my last discussion covered a variety of sub-topics that we agreed on to one degree or another. I haven't felt the need to rehash those that we disagreed on as I respect your right to hold the views that you do and perceive that you do the same for me. "

Quite right.

I do have the opinion though that as long as people value beliefs over the lives of other people then a recipe for violent uncompromising confrontation remains.

[[deleted user]]

...as long as people value beliefs over the lives of other people ...

a recipe for violent uncompromising confrontation ...

Taking a break to eat my lunch here and found this in my email. Those are pretty strong words. Yup, religious beliefs have led to violent confrontations.
(Of course, what with all the religious folk and or spiritual folk out there right now, if this were true, one would think there'd be 5,001 violent confrontations a day ... well, maybe a week.)

Don't know about you guys, but I've actually been in violent confrontations before. Punched a boy in the first grade for punching me every day for about a month when I walked onto the playground. I played antagonize followed by dodge and weave with a boy in the second grade. The boy was picking on other kids and had made our substitute cry. When I dodged, he went flying and cut up his arms on the gravel playground. Played antagonize, dodge and weave with a boy in 3rd grade. He kissed me without my permission, ran off and started yelling that I'd liked it. In point of fact, I did sort of like it, but ... I had to save face. You see, after my performance in the 1st and 2nd grade, I became safety on the playground. When he tried to kiss the other little girls, they'd run to my and hide behind me. I'd give him my evil eye. Well, on that particular day, he said, "You know what, Shannon. I don't think I'm afraid of you." At that point, he laid one on me. So, yeah, I felt the need to save face.

That takes me to my last violent confrontation (leaving out all the fights I broke up at my last school, most of which had to deal with affairs of the heart and drug dealing) .... My cousin's husband took to beating her when he got drunk. He was arrested, went to jail, and she had a restraining order. Well, believe it or not, exactly 16 years ago to the day, I was with my cousin and her kids at her parent's home. We were going to take the kids trick-or-treating. We were way early and no munchkins were outside yet. My cousin forgot something in her car, so I went out to get it. I walked out the door and there he was, Mr. Restraining Order, storming up to the house. Don't know what look crossed my face, but he turned and booked it to his car ... me running after him. He made it and was closing the door as I got there ... door slipping through my fingers. He, of course, locked the doors. I proceeded to yell and scream and punch down on the roof of his car. I made quite a dent actually. I had it in my mind that I could break that roof and pull him out. All the while screaming that he was a coward ... a dirty, rotten, yellow-bellied rat blanking coward ... who had the guts to beat my cousin while she was holding their baby ... but didn't have the guts to face me.

Shockingly ... or not, none of my violent and uncompromising confrontations had anything to do with religion.

As an aside ....

Now, I've had disagreements with people regarding religion and have detailed them here. But, no, the violent confrontation I've been part and party to had nothing to do with beliefs, more specifically, religious beliefs.

[Gary]

My point was that valuing belief - whether religious, political, economic, or even social - above human life is a recipe for violence.

Fortunately, human conscience seems to actually weigh in more often than we'd expect from people's declared beliefs, which is a good thing.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "My point was that valuing belief - whether religious, political, economic, or even social - above human life is a recipe for violence.

Fortunately, human conscience seems to actually weigh in more often than we'd expect from people's declared beliefs, which is a good thing."

Agreed Gary,

Your last statement just gave me one of those "Oprah Aha!" moments.

For various reasons, I've been writing quite a bit on the topics of belief, responsibility, actions and how they all intersect on my personal blog and another that I write for. In fact, the past two weeks seems to have been about nothing else but those topics. Anyway, I've been wondering whether "declared beliefs" tend to become an issue (receive great attention) the most in extremes. By this, I mean, do we tend to shrug off personal responsibility for both extremely good and horrid actions as simply following our beliefs?

"I help the homeless because the Good Word says I should...." or "I will persecute the non-believer because the Good Word says I should....".

Is it possible that when our actions or words are outside our own, or what we think is society's, comfort zone, we fall back on "declared belief" in an attempt to abrogate responsibility? At other times, it's just common sense what a "good person" would do, or somesuch?