Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,751-7,800 of 12,463

[Gary]

Deborah wrote: "This is a nice little book which looks at aspects of science as we know it in the Western world. After reading it I think most people will see quite clearly that our science has developed in the way that it has because of the predominant christian culture within which it developed."

Science also developed quite successfully within Greek pagan culture and somewhat within pagan Roman culture before entering a period of intellectual recession after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the general elimination of non-Christian supportive Greek texts in the west.

The re-emergence of Greek thinking thanks to translation from Arabic which the Muslims preserved and then the west received through trade and the crusades then seeded the renaissance.

Christian culture may have influenced western science, but that does not mean it is intrinsic to science. The Chinese did plenty of work before us without Christianity, most of the stars have Arabic names because it was the Muslims who observed, catalogued and studied them before Christians.

Certainly Christianity has had an influence on science, most commonly conflict, denial or persecution. From insistence that the Earth was "special" and therefore the centre of the universe, to modern anti-science movements against evolution, geology and cosmology.

Deborah wrote: "Scientific ethics are there to reflect social consensus about what is 'right' or 'wrong' but the social consensus has in the past been derived from religious beliefs."

Again there is no support for the oft repeated claim that ethics are grounded in religion. Religion certainly adopts certain ethics then often immediately subverts them. (e.g. "Thou shalt not kill" followed by a list of all the times you should kill.)

Deborah wrote: "So in fact, asking to choose between science and religion, is impossible they are pretty much entwined."

In the same way that a ship and a reef is entwined. Fair enough if you pull the ship off it will sink, but if you can prise it off and repair the damage, then you can sail anywhere.

There is no need for religion in science, and in fact it frequently hobbles science by treating certain assumptions as truth. Even great scientists have suffered from this hobbling and often took a long time to challenge the ingrained preconceptions of religion.

[Gary]

Shane wrote: "I apologize. I am in the wrong place. Forgive me."

To be forgiven requires you to have done something wrong Shane, I don't recall you doing anything wrong.

[Deb]

Well Gary - Science certainly did develop in many cultures and in each one the societal beliefs contributed to the manner in which the science developed. So if you look at Chinese medicine vs Western medicine you find the underlying assumptions quite different.

Our current scientific modality, the one that is becoming most prominent in the world is the model of hypothesis testing and mathematical proofs that arose after the dark ages, it's development in Europe had cases of persecution and suppression. Equally or greater though, are the many cases of the basic science having developed within christianity.

That is not to say that it would not have developed better, faster and less restrictively without the church, I think it would have. Certainly the Astronomy, geology and medicine would have benefited from not having to restrict their conclusions so as not to offend churchmen.

And it is not to say that we are not expanding beyond the early restrictions (As a female I would not have been able to hold a science degree if we had not), we are.

However the robust scientific theory we work with developed under the christian church's influence, it just seems silly to me pretending that the two are complete opponents when basic history can show otherwise.

My opinion is that disentangling the two at this point would be impossible. You are quite entitled to disagree.

And I think you quite misunderstand the point I am making about ethics. Ethics are a social consensus, whether the society in question subscribes to a specific religion or not.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "The cause rather than other factors."

So a factor is not a cause? :-D

Factor
noun
one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation:

Cause
noun
a person or thi..."

A very good example of one of your smoke screens.

We are talking about THE CAUSE and in the case of Ireland that was......The English invasion resulting in seizure of property, land, and wealth in the 17th Century.

That was the Cause; what resulted from that may have been a contributing factor to what followed, but not a contributing factor to the cause.

If we lose sight of the original question then we go off at tangents.

Most wars are started because of religion.....this is an argument that is used a lot and it makes for good copy in debates like this, another way to have a poke at religion.

I am not bothered if people do have a poke at religion, there has been to much of it about in recent years, maybe the result of a shrinking world, but the fact is that religion is not the cause of most wars.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "the fact is that religion is not the cause of most wars"

True. Some, no doubt. Many, likely. Most or all as proposed by many here? No, that's just not accurate. To make such an argument is to ignore the evidence of history and to mislead people in order to "convert" people from religion.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "A very good example of one of your smoke screens."

Again more an example of one of yours. You originally stated that religion was "rarely if ever" a cause of wars, now you are trying to say that I was trying to say that it was the main or only cause of wars.

cHriS wrote: "We are talking about THE CAUSE and in the case of Ireland that was......"

Again you try to distort by implying that wars only have a singular cause which is considered untrue by the majority of historians.

Difference in religion was a cause of continuing conflict. This was also one of the main reasons why the population did not integrate after a few generations like happened with other invasions. The schism between Protestant and Catholic was what kept the two communities apart.

cHriS wrote: "That was the Cause; what resulted from that may have been a contributing factor to what followed, but not a contributing factor to the cause."

It was a contributing factor to the conflicts and wars that followed, therefore religion was a cause of some of the Irish conflict.

You admit it yet try to arbitrarily absolve religious difference from its contribution to the conflict by claiming one specific cause at one specific time.

Fair enough since King James I was the one who granted Protestant English the right to claim Irish Catholic land as their own and English Kings rule by Divine Right via the Protestant reformation then that cause is both religious and precedes the supposed cause that you have selected, so by your argument of capslock "the cause" capslock the Irish troubles are solely religious in origin.

Personally I accept that religion is a factor in many wars, but I don't accept that there would be no wars without religion.

cHriS wrote: "Most wars are started because of religion.....this is an argument that is used a lot and it makes for good copy in debates like this, another way to have a poke at religion."

Whereas you will continually deny any bad part of religion, blaming any shortcomings on anything else you can think of.

Religious warfare is an accepted historical fact by most academics. Are they all having a "poke" at religion? Religious people have called openly for war against those not of their religion, are they doing it just to discredit religion and have a "poke" at it?

cHriS wrote: "I am not bothered if people do have a poke at religion, there has been to much of it about in recent years, maybe the result of a shrinking world, but the fact is that religion is not the cause of most wars. "

Cause of most? Depends on how thinly you split the hair. I would say that it is a causative factor in many wars.

What I still don't understand though is that you continually try to imply that religion is the source of our morality and yet you deny that religion can have a major component in the morality of whether to go to war or not. Surely religion being the cause of most wars would be a necessary part of your assumption?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "True. Some, no doubt. Many, likely."

That is what I have said. Not necessarily "most" or all. Obviously otherwise secular wars have still had their religious components within religious societies. Many US recruits volunteered to fight the "godless" commies, Japanese troops followed the divine right of their Emperor to rule, even the Axis proclaimed "Got mitt Uns".

So most wars in religious cultures find justification in religious principle, but that is only to be expected. I however would split the difference between a religious war and a general war as one that has a specific religious difference as a major rather than incidental or supportive role.

Shannon wrote: "Most or all as proposed by many here? No, that's just not accurate. To make such an argument is to ignore the evidence of history and to mislead people in order to "convert" people from religion. "

Mislead? No. As I say most wars have a religious component because most religions make claim to the morality of religious people, hence it will inevitably become a factor and indeed may convince others. How many people in the US are like Ann Coulter and after 9/11 made the simple association that attacking Iraq was vengeance on the Muslims for 9/11?

GWB repeatedly referred to the war in Iraq as the central bastion of the "War on Terror" and frequently used religious language to justify his actions.

"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." - George W. Bush

Meanwhile on the other side the majority of the resulting insurgency against US forces are not forces motivated by a desire to see a dictatorship restored, they are primarily motivated by outrage of infidels occupying the lands of Islam.

Now it is thus demonstrable that religion is a factor in most wars between religious societies, which is fairly unavoidable of course. However it is true that there are many other factors that contribute to wars so it is unlikely that a lack of religion would automatically lead to a lack of wars.

Saying that it would be interesting to think how a lack of irreconcilable religious difference would effect sectarian conflicts in places like Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, parts of Africa and even Ireland. Certainly the people there distinguish themselves culturally and morally based primarily on religious belief.

As for misleading in order to "convert". No. To convert people it's the "to" that's important not the "from". Moreover, what is the difference between "conversion" and "education" by that comparison? Does a teacher teach or do they convert their students from whatever "potentially erroneous" ideas they have now to the "truth" as perceived by the teacher?

[Gary]

Deborah wrote: "Well Gary - Science certainly did develop in many cultures and in each one the societal beliefs contributed to the manner in which the science developed. So if you look at Chinese medicine vs Western medicine you find the underlying assumptions quite different."

However, computers do not stop working when in the east, neither do pharmaceuticals. The methodology of science is now practised in roughly the same manner around the world. Again the methodology of science has to be prised off the rocks of whichever cultural assumptions it started with.

In particular the comment about Western and Eastern medicine is a bit misleading, they are not really equivalent. "Western" medicine has gradually died out in the west with the adoption of "medicine" as a science. In the east there is "Eastern Medicine" that is also subsuming to "medicine". For example there is much about Eastern traditional medicine that has no better effect than a placebo. However some things do have an actual effect, just as leeches and even maggots have actual provable effects in western medicine.

Deborah wrote: "Equally or greater though, are the many cases of the basic science having developed within christianity."

Actually much of our science was only "rediscovered" from the Greek age, meanwhile mathematics and other important things were Arabic in origin (Al'Gebra and Al'Chemy) mainly because the Middle East traded Western and Eastern ideas freely. Notably Arabic scientific development came to a virtual standstill from around c12th thanks to a new hardline version of Islam that stifled scientific advancement from that time hence. Meanwhile it was the ongoing secularisation of Europe that led to science being resumed.

Deborah wrote: "That is not to say that it would not have developed better, faster and less restrictively without the church, I think it would have. Certainly the Astronomy, geology and medicine would have benefited from not having to restrict their conclusions so as not to offend churchmen."

Indeed, however we tend to forget today the attitudes of the people at the time. It wasn't just a worry of offending clergymen that was the problem, it was the general set of assumptions taught to each generation as truth that caused the problems. Even very intelligent people ended up wasting their extraordinary minds trying to comprehend and explain things that we now know not to be true.

You can see those sort of problems even today. People are brought up with the intrinsic assumption of supernatural influence and it becomes extremely difficult for them to accept that certain phenomena they don't understand happening without the influence of a god (evolution, formation of the earth etc.) yet this is exactly the kind of incredulity that led people to reject lightening rods on Churches, while a few centuries later no one really believes lightening is deliberately caused and indeed we can now harness the very forces that do cause it.

Deborah wrote: "However the robust scientific theory we work with developed under the christian church's influence, it just seems silly to me pretending that the two are complete opponents when basic history can show otherwise."

History if anything shows that religious people did science in spite of their religion. Look how long Darwin took to release his works because of his own religious misgivings. Christians in the west may have been amongst the first true scientists but only after the Churches power had been split from secular matters thanks to things like the Protestant Reformation that separated worldly law from religious law.

Deborah wrote: "My opinion is that disentangling the two at this point would be impossible. You are quite entitled to disagree."

I'd like to know some example or reason on how a non-religious scientist could not function, or some religious principle that underpins all modern science.

I can certainly demonstrate many places where religion continues to actively undermine science. I can also demonstrate the simple dichotomy at the core. Science asks a question and looks for an answer and then tries to see if the answer is right, wrong or at least partly right. Religion is an answer that people assume is right and then look for ways to support that assumption while attacking anyone who finds flaws.

Deborah wrote: "And I think you quite misunderstand the point I am making about ethics. Ethics are a social consensus, whether the society in question subscribes to a specific religion or not."

Agreed. More to the point ethics seem to be an intrinsic evolved trait within hominids that allow us to function as a social group. The point is religion then tries to take credit for these ethics and also to make them absolutes for the control of a population. By doing this religion sacrifices ethics for obedience.

For example ethics would make it easy to understand why you should not kill. (Do you want to be part of a social group where you are afraid you could be killed out of hand at any moment? Would you want your existence suddenly curtailed?) However, religion steps in and says "Thou shalt not kill" because that's your orders. However once you mistake morality for obedience then the order "Thou shalt kill in (x) circumstance" can be given and obedience expected. So morality becomes obedience and the excuse "I was only following orders" replaces personal responsibility.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Difference in religion was a cause of continuing conflict. This was also one of the main reasons why the population did not integrate after a few generations like happened with other invasions. The schism between Protestant and Catholic was what kept the two communities apart.

Yes, I think you are agreeing with me now, 'a cause of continuing conflict' but not the cause.

It was a contributing factor to the conflicts and wars that followed, therefore religion was a cause of some of the Irish conflict.
."

Agree, it was a very big cause of the continuing conflict.

What I still don't understand though is that you continually try to imply that religion is the source of our morality and yet you deny that religion can have a major component in the morality of whether to go to war or not. Surely religion being the cause of most wars would be a necessary part of your assumption?

Religion, worship of the sun or moon or what ever, has always been with us since man could wonder. I am not sure if morals are an inbuilt thing or something that is developed along with being intelligent, a bit like love.

If for example an 'early man' fell into a river, instinct may well kick in and he would try and climb out. But if 'early man' watched another early man fall into the river, would the same instinct kick in to try and save him or would he be left to try and get out himself.

At what point does morals replace instinct in early man if they are not built in to humans from the start.

I am not saying that because of religion we have morals or better morals than we would have without religion. What I am saying, and it’s only what I think; because we have always had religion, worship, spirituality of one kind or another or a belief in a higher being, that is what has influenced our moral behaviour. That is what has been passed down the generations, good and bad morals influence by religion, and we the next generation whittle out the bad ones as best we can.

It is religion that has influenced out cultures, laws and the way we live, so even if one does not have a religion and does not believe in a god you are still governed by the laws and cultures of the country you live in or were born into, and these morals have their roots in religion.

Religion is a by product of war not a cause. It is a reason to hate your enemy. But if it wasn’t religion it would be colour, race or political views or envy.

Imagine no religion, as the song says……….. Then maybe two groups would form, lets call one atheist and the other agnostic. These Atheists may not believe in anything like what we now call a god, while the agnostics say ‘well there could be I just don’t know‘. It would not belong before someone from the agnostic side broke away and said, ‘ I am now more inclined to think there is a god so I think I will build a big building for us the worship this god in and I will call it a church.

You can’t not have religion any more than you can’t not have science.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Deborah wrote: "This is a nice little book which looks at aspects of science as we know it in the Western world. After reading it I think most people will see quite clearly that our science has dev..."

Like that ship and reef' metaphor.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Yes, I think you are agreeing with me now, 'a cause of continuing conflict' but not the cause."

I still count your view that religion is "rarely if ever" a cause of war entirely wrong. However, I acknowledge it is not the only cause.

cHriS wrote: "Agree, it was a very big cause of the continuing conflict."

Thank you.

cHriS wrote: "Religion, worship of the sun or moon or what ever, has always been with us since man could wonder. I am not sure if morals are an inbuilt thing or something that is developed along with being intelligent, a bit like love."

That is a perfectly fair statement. Not being sure is a good attitude on any question.

Scientists have found that morals seem to be an intrinsic part of social animals and if anything our civilised morality is just a refined and coded representation of this.

You have however previously stated with surety that religion is the basis of our morals, if you are acknowledging reasonable doubt on this now then I respect and salute that.

cHriS wrote: "At what point does morals replace instinct in early man if they are not built in to humans from the start."

When morals are instincts. For example in your "man falls into river example" imagine a group of hominids that don't see this and help compared to the group that do. The co-operative hominids that support each other have an advantage over the selfish tribe, even though the individual places themselves at risk. Therefore the genes of the tribe that co-operates are more likely to survive on average, even if the individual doesn't.

Social evolution like this isn't unique amongst animals, it has developed many times in many widely diverse organisms. The only real difference between them and us is that we have developed complex enough minds to be able to consider the morality as an abstract rather than an instinct.

cHriS wrote: "because we have always had religion, worship, spirituality of one kind or another or a belief in a higher being, that is what has influenced our moral behaviour. That is what has been passed down the generations, good and bad morals influence by religion, and we the next generation whittle out the bad ones as best we can."

That I agree with entirely. Religion hasn't been the source of morality but more of a vector. Unfortunately just as a virus takes over the healthy function of a cell to create copies of itself, religion (in many cases) seems to subvert our morality in order to maintain itself at the expense of the moral message.

For example the "Golden Rule" often attributed to Jesus is a perfectly comprehensible adaptation for the building of a strong, compassionate society. However then look at the amount of Christian sects that proclaim that only faith in Jesus counts, not "works".

In this way I see social reformers like Jesus was reputed to be or Mohammed, who objected to the religion of the time as being authoritarian and morally bankrupt then replaced their teachings with more civilised ones. Ironically it is now their teachings that have become the new authoritarian religions.

cHriS wrote: "It is religion that has influenced out cultures, laws and the way we live, so even if one does not have a religion and does not believe in a god you are still governed by the laws and cultures of the country you live in or were born into, and these morals have their roots in religion."

I agree with all but the last sentence. The morals have roots in the compassion and altruism inherent to creatures with the ability to abstractly place themselves into the place of another person (or animal). Religion certainly then influences successive generations but negatively as well as positively.

Much of our understanding of what is moral in modern culture (freedom, justice, fairness) all has its roots in Classical pre-Christian cultures such as Roman and Greek civilisations (where we get our systems of government, the basis of most of our laws and our ideas about both rights and responsibilities). Much of our religion actually exemplifies the opposite (divine right to rule, chosen people of god, master/servant relationships)

cHriS wrote: "Religion is a by product of war not a cause. It is a reason to hate your enemy. But if it wasn’t religion it would be colour, race or political views or envy."

Sorry that I disagree with. Just for a start, the Muslim insurgency in the Middle East is fundamentally based on the idea that Islam (i.e. total submission to god) is right and anything else is morally corrupt. This is why many carry signs with such slogans like "Freedom of Speech can go to Hell" etc. Democracy in their eyes is actually immoral as it places man's law above god's law. In that circumstance conflict is all but inevitable.

Colour and race conflicts are often religious in nature too because one side is seen as being "superior" in some sense. Their is no evidence for these beliefs but that is because they are beliefs. Political and economic envy ultimately becomes resolved when one side or another is victorious, and again political ideology is itself often almost religious in nature. (i.e. beliefs in the superiority of a certain morality based on ideology not evidence).

Religion is a cause of war, and because religion is belief and belief eschews reason or evidence in its formation, it is also one of the most difficult conflicts to peacefully resolve. Political differences can be resolved to some extent by allowing self-determination, economic differences can be resolved by reformation or revolution. Religious differences endure.

Compare for example the Norman conquest of England. Though scars certainly remained the culture was peaceful within around a century and largely assimilated within 2. Meanwhile violent conflict in Ireland over invasion has lasted over 800 years. It took only a few centuries to get over cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences. Religious differences last.

cHriS wrote: "lets call one atheist and the other agnostic."

As Penn Juliette said, true atheism and agnosticism are pretty much the same thing.

Is there a god? Atheist answers "no" ("to the best of our knowledge" is usually implied.) Agnostic answers "I don't know".

Then "Do you believe in a God" the atheist answers no, and if the agnostic is honest then their answer also has to be "no" otherwise by believing in a god they would be claiming to know a god does exist.

As for the last, yes if all religion disappeared it is entirely possible that someone may invent it again, but I don't think that's relevant. The initial question is assuming one or the other is gone and what would the world be like?

Without science we know pretty well all the things we would be lacking.

Without religion what would we lack?
Morality? No. All evidence says we have morality intrinsically (and sometimes in spite of) religion.

Curiosity? No. You don't need to teach a child a religion for a child to question.

Beauty? No. You don't need to believe in supernatural things to find something beautiful.

Now lets assume that one of the many religions is actually true, so that lack of religion would mean that we have no knowledge of that truth.

First, if it's true then eventually intellectual enquiry should reveal it anyway. (e.g. knowledge of god would not be a religion because it would not require belief.)

Second, before we discover the truth, would this god be angry with us for not believing in that religion when many others existed that were wrong? Would a god that concealed himself and allowed such deceptions and then punished you for making the wrong choice with no evidence, be worthy of respect let alone worship?

cHriS wrote: "You can’t not have religion any more than you can’t not have science."

I'm afraid you did not establish that, except in saying that we could lack science too (which is possible).

You assumed that if religion did not exist then someone might invent it. Fair enough. But that is "might" it is not a necessity. Furthermore initial science and initial religion is the same however religion stops and assumes a hypothesis is correct while science carries on to steps of verification, so if we imagine a situation with no religion and science established it is also conceivable that religion would not be invented as it would then be automatically continued onto a scientific understanding.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: Difference in religion was a cause of continuing conflict. This was also one of the main reasons why the population did not integrate after a few generations like happened with other in..."

'If it wasn't religion...'

Pointless argument to make, unless you are admitting religion is the problem.
It's either a dodge, since we are talking about religion, or an enormous 'Oh well, whatta you gonna do...?' shrug.

'if religion hadn't been invented the first time, someone would have had to invent it this time' is what people actually mean since there's no evidence religion is anything but a man made construct or excuse to cause a war.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: You have however previously stated with surety that religion is the basis of our morals, if you are acknowledging reasonable doubt on this now then I respect and salute that.
.."

Reasonable doubt would suggest that I must also have something other than religion in mind, that is the basis of our morals. Religion, I would think has to be the biggest single influence on mankind, that would /could be the basis for morals, good or bad.

Can science be the basis of morals? I don‘t think so, although they can make a moral judgement.

That I agree with entirely. Religion hasn't been the source of morality but more of a vector. Unfortunately just as a virus takes over the healthy function of a cell to create copies of itself, religion (in many cases) seems to subvert our morality in order to maintain itself at the expense of the moral message

Religion can’t be the source if morals are something we are born with, if on the other hand they are developed from instinct for example, then I think we have to ask, what has been the greatest influence on the morals of mankind, and we seem to be back to religion.

You maybe right about religion being a virus but, in that case if it were not religion something would take the place of religion at being that virus. Surly the moral message of today...IS the morals we have today regardless of where they originate from.

In this way I see social reformers like Jesus was reputed to be or Mohammed, who objected to the religion of the time as being authoritarian and morally bankrupt then replaced their teachings with more civilised ones. Ironically it is now their teachings that have become the new authoritarian religions.

That is showing how morals have formed, grown, changed or are being adapted by the past generations, and are still changing today. But we also have the problem that what one person thinks is moral another sees as immoral. And I guess it was the same back then.

Religious differences endure.

By that reasoning if religion was abolished then there would be almost no wars. It would make no difference. There would always be wars, it’s natures way of reducing the population. Or at least that’s what many people, those who do not blame god for the wars, think.

Then "Do you believe in a God" the atheist answers no, and if the agnostic is honest then their answer also has to be "no" otherwise by believing in a god they would be claiming to know a god does exist.

I don’t see that about the agnostic. That reasoning is rather like the Penrose staircase illusion. It looks ok but is not real. You reasoning sounds ok but also is not ‘real’.

An agnostic has heard talk of a god and so assumes that whoever is talking about a god could have a point, but so could the atheist. If you walk into a room and there is a bottle on the table with 50% of the volume filled with milk; is it either half full or half empty? Only one answer can be correct, but you would not know by looking at it; so without more evidence, to YOU it could be either, but of course in reality it has to be one or the other. That is the position of the agnostic.

Without religion what would we lack

We would have a very different set of morals, and that takes us back a few dozen pages when I said, I thought, those morals would be worse than we have today, in theory. In reality we would not know any different.

I'm afraid you did not establish that, except in saying that we could lack science too (which is possible).

If we went back in time and started again, man would worship something and by any other name it would still be a religion. Man would wonder or invent something and again it would still be science regardless of it’s name.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Mislead? No. As I say most wars have a religious component because most religions make claim to the morality of religious people, hence it will inevitably become a factor and indeed may convince others. "

Hey, there.

First, my comment wasn't necessarily directed at you. I agreed with part of the statement cHriS made. Further, it's something, as I've said, that comes up here. Over and over again.

"Religion causes all wars."

Or, ...

"Religion causes most wars."

Therefore, the posters state, the decision between religion and science should be obvious.

Well, the facts of history do not, in any way, prove this through evidence. The facts don't prove that all wars or most wars are caused by religion. No.

Now....

A component of .... I'm going to echo cHriS for a moment. We're talking about the cause of.... The thought, if I'm reading your post correctly, that a war about trade or land or something else becomes a "religious" war of sorts due to the fact that some of the participants believe in "God" and believe "God" is with them is a stretch, in my mind.

That just does not work.

Let me flip this around a bit.

The Rotavirus is going around here and I, unfortunately, contracted it. After vomiting over 18 times within a few hours Friday night, I found myself in the ER having three bags of saline. There I was in the hospital bed, half out of it and not tracking very well, being pumped full of anti-nausea and anti-diahrea meds in my IV and having them come back after tests to give me more and more saline. While I was in that state, being treated by wonderful nurses and a good doctor, I was thanking my lucky stars ... when able to think straight. This is what kills tons of children in Africa. That's what went through my mind. I was so thankful I was here, being treated in the hospital and, perhaps, being saved. I don't want to sound melodramatic, but .... I was pretty darned dehydrated and would have been in a bad way if they hadn't stopped what was happening.

At that point, I prayed a prayer of thanks. Further, while praying, I told myself to have faith that "God" was with me and that I'd be healed.

Hmmmm.... Given the fact that I prayed while being treated and had faith that I'd be healed, was "God" the author of my treatment? Did my treatment go from being a wonder of modern medicine to some sort of religious treatment?

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you'd say my treatment had nothing to do with "God" or religion. You think it was about modern medicine. Right? I, for one, think my treatment was given by nurses and a doctor in a hospital and was curtesy of saline and anti-etc... meds.

So, no ... the "component of" argument, which turns general wars into religious wars, isn't going to work, if I'm reading your post correctly.

Regarding "misleading" and the conversion of people away from religion, .... I left something out.

I think some of the people who state that religion caused all or most wars have, themselves, been misled. I think they "believe" what someone told them, have a cursory knowledge of history, and are perfectly okay with spouting talking points without really thinking things through. By the way, I think this happens to all of us from time to time. For example, how many times have I heard that Scandinavian countries are "atheist" countries. Well, I heard it and heard it and figured it was true. Then, oops.... I decided to look into it. Not so much.

In addition to that, I think there are some, some, who will use any argument, even arguments that aren't based in evidence, in an attempt to turn people from things, including religion. A few might even be into converting the religious from religion and to atheism.

Conversion vs. education?

Here's the thing.

The difference between the two has to do with intent. Does it not? Yes, I'm quite sure it does.

When I go to school each day, my intent is to, hopefully, inspire my students to love learning, to encourage their thirst for knowledge, to lead them to explore new authors, etc.... I show them certain paths, make various books, etc.. available to them, but I try to prepare them to discover and walk their own educational path. I don't much care which path that might be. Science. Math. Art. History. Trade school. English. It's for me to help prepare them for their chosen path.

It is not my intent to go in and lead them to ... hmmm ... think Shakespeare was the best author to ever live and that all of the other author's they might read and love, well, ... no. Shakespeare. Shakespeare is the answer. Therefore, it is for me to devote myself, body and soul, to proclaim SHAKESPEARE from my desk, from the front of the room ... Expo marker in hand ... and from the roof of the school. And, ... in order to do that, use any and every argument possible, even misleading arguments ... because ... well, Shakespeare is wonderful, after all, and I'm the teacher and I have an education and, well, know what's best. So, given that and given the fact that it's so important for me to turn them from the hurt and suffering they'll experience by reading drivel about Edward and his sparkling self, it's right. Will the children pass their SAT's, get into college, etc... if they only read such hollow works? No. Heck. I might even use intimidation to "convince" them of the wonder and "rightness" of all things pertaining to The Bard.

(If you want to know what I really think about conversion, ....)

So, ....

That is the difference, in my opinion, between education and conversion. Though, it must be said, there have been several "re-education" programs throughout history that dealt with a conversion of sorts. Convert your thinking or die. Clearly, there is a fine line. Frightening thought. A weighty reality. One might want to check out a little book written by James Clavell. The Children's Story.

Intent. That's the thing.

Intent and tactics.

Intent, tactics, and purpose.

[cHriS]

I hope you are ok now Shannon.

We have the norovirus over here right now and the main risk is also dehydration.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I hope you are ok now Shannon.

We have the norovirus over here right now and the main risk is also dehydration."

Much better! Thanks.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote:"I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you'd say my treatment had nothing to do with "God" or religion. You think it was about modern medicine. Right? I, for one, think my treatment was given by nurses and a doctor in a hospital and was curtesy of saline and anti-etc... meds.

So, no ... the "component of" argument, which turns general wars into religious wars, isn't going to work, if I'm reading your post correctly.

Regarding "misleading" and the conversion of people away from religion, .... I left something out. "

Are you erecting a strawman here, Shannon, by transposing god and religion?
After all the argument was religion is a causitive factor and did you pray to religion?

You were the last person who I thought would openly say god and religion were the same thing.

I'm pleased you are better Rotavirus is nasty, had to take my son to hospital when he was one with it, he retched so hard he tore his esophagus and vomited blood.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Reasonable doubt would suggest that I must also have something other than religion in mind."

Not necessarily. What I would say though is that there are other sources of morality and they have actual evidence.

cHriS wrote: "Religion, I would think has to be the biggest single influence on mankind, that would /could be the basis for morals, good or bad."

Influence on morals (good and bad) I would agree with, but source of morality - no. There is an important difference. For a start if the influence can be positive or negative then obviously this means that it cannot be a source of positive morality.

cHriS wrote: "Can science be the basis of morals? I don‘t think so, although they can make a moral judgement."

"Science" in general, no, because science does not really deal in guidance, it deals in knowledge.

However I can imagine a 'science' of ethics. Just as physics starts with a series of axioms, you can start with a series of desirable axioms for an ethical society and then use scientific methodology to derive moral guidance.

Axioms such as;
(1) People should be safe from harm as much as possible.
(2) People have the freedom to do what they wish as long as it does not cause harm to others.

etc.

Such axioms would then make it possible to derive laws and to assess what is best for public policy. Conflicting political ideas can then be resolved by testing for the success of those ideas in delivering said axioms instead of blind bickering over ideology.

cHriS wrote: "You maybe right about religion being a virus but, in that case if it were not religion something would take the place of religion at being that virus. Surly the moral message of today...IS the morals we have today regardless of where they originate from."

Once our science was a collection of beliefs based on observations and then assumptions taught as truth without questioning (flat earth etc.) then our science developed to the point were tested truth and religious assumption stood side by side (often not realising which parts were actual assumptions). Increasingly science is discarding those assumptions for tested, proven theories that allow us to advance our knowledge and understanding ever faster.

What if we could do the same for ethics?

cHriS wrote: "That is showing how morals have formed, grown, changed or are being adapted by the past generations, and are still changing today. But we also have the problem that what one person thinks is moral another sees as immoral. And I guess it was the same back then."

Exactly, but what is the main thing that seems consistent through the ages? Conscience. Age after age religion may preserve and enforce the morality of bygone reformists but in the end it is always someone with conscience that drags religious morality forward, you don't really see morality being advanced by religion just maintained.

Again the analogy persists that with knowledge about reality religion tends to stick with one idea until being forced to update by overwhelming dissension from the model. Only to usually move to a hybrid model that still preserves certain concepts. So to do conscientious people drag religious morality forward, and yet usually a dangerous hybrid persists.

A good example of this would be Mosaic Law. Most of the proscriptions are routinely ignored by the modern Christian (such as shellfish, or wearing mixed fabrics etc.), yet certain prejudices (such as against homosexuality) endure.

Now we have gay clergy trying to get their religions to catch up with modern ethics, just as a few decades ago black clergy were trying to update religious ideas on prejudice and even slavery. (For example Mormons now accepting black members and even clergy.)

cHriS wrote: "By that reasoning if religion was abolished then there would be almost no wars."

First I don't think you can abolish religion, you can only outgrow it. Just as you couldn't abolish superstition or belief in magic, but nowadays most people do not accept "demonic possession" or their neighbour casting spells on them as excuses for disaster. (Though a few people still do, and people are still murdered for suspicion of dark magic.)

Second it would undoubtedly make a difference. One only has to look at the Middle East to see that. The only difference between the Islamic Insurgencies and other insurgencies around the world is faith. Thanks to a confluence of strict obedience to religious edict, and the strong belief in otherworldly reward for martyrdom, the Muslim Mujahideen are far more aggressive and willing to sacrifice themselves to harm others like almost no other group. Is this because they are particularly heartless or evil? No, it's just simply they truly believe that to fight the infidel is a holy duty, and if they die in doing so their reward in paradise will be all the greater. Many captured fighters actually report that they felt no real hatred for their victims, but instead they were in love with the concept of martyrdom. Just as a Christian may feel spiritually fulfilled by turning the cheek when attacked.

cHriS wrote: "There would always be wars, it’s natures way of reducing the population. Or at least that’s what many people, those who do not blame god for the wars, think."

Which is implying "nature" has a consciousness and deliberately causes wars, which is again just another religious idea.

I don't think wars are inevitable, but I can understand why religious people who believe in absolutes would believe that they are inevitable.

At least two things war requires, irreconcilable differences, and the ability to motivate a population to support violent acts. Both things are served well by religion.

cHriS wrote: "I don’t see that about the agnostic. That reasoning is rather like the Penrose staircase illusion. It looks ok but is not real. You reasoning sounds ok but also is not ‘real’."

Or you believe you are right and therefore have to believe that the seemingly logical is false because it conflicts with your pre-existing concept.

cHriS wrote: "An agnostic has heard talk of a god and so assumes that whoever is talking about a god could have a point, but so could the atheist. If you walk into a room and there is a bottle on the table with 50% of the volume filled with milk; is it either half full or half empty? Only one answer can be correct, but you would not know by looking at it; so without more evidence, to YOU it could be either, but of course in reality it has to be one or the other. That is the position of the agnostic."

That's is an illusion however, the idea that there is only two possibilities. Actually there could be many gods, or a supernatural entity that isn't a god, or we could all be god, or we don't really exist either etc. etc. Monotheists like to present Atheism as "refusing to believe in a god" because that presents Monotheism as if it were the only alternative. It isn't.

Theists also believe that a-theists believe in the specific lack of a god, which is why they distinguish between atheists and agnostics. However, a-theism is a lack of belief in a god, and a-gnostism is claiming lack of knowledge of a god.

Some people claim to be agnostic but do believe there is a god but that we don't know "which" god. However the term "deist" would be far more appropriate as they are claiming knowledge. Meanwhile there is some people who claim agnosticism means that we will never know one way or another, but again that is functionally identical to atheism as if you can never know that you might as well ignore it and concentrate on what we can know. (though this form of strong agnosticism I view as intellectual surrender). There is also an ignostic movement who claim that atheists and theists are wrong because we haven't defined what we mean by "god", but personally that just sounds to me to be strong agnostics trying to appear to be something special.

cHriS wrote: "We would have a very different set of morals, and that takes us back a few dozen pages when I said, I thought, those morals would be worse than we have today, in theory. In reality we would not know any different."

Different set of morals maybe, worse? Why? You have already acknowledged that religion can be both a positive and negative influence so more religion would not equate to more positive morality, so neither would less be less. Meanwhile, I think there is plenty of empiric evidence that religious morality calcifies a certain moral set and prevents advancement of ethical understanding. (Just look at recent controversies based on the treatment of women, homosexuals and other religions based on "traditional religious morality".) Therefore, without religion you would not have so much intertia over reformation requiring an ethical reformer.

Also most religions are also based on quite an unethical concept of fear and bribery to enforce behaviour, rather than ethical education, which makes it ripe for misuse and abuse.

So if anything I think the evidence suggests that without religion ethics would be more advanced, not less. This is also shown clearly by the steady decline in crime and violence as societies become more secular as well as less likelihood of tyrannical laws and harsh punishments. (I know correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but if religion really did grant morality we should be seeing rapidly increasing violence and conflict, when in actual fact the statistics in the west show a steady decline.)

cHriS wrote: "If we went back in time and started again, man would worship something and by any other name it would still be a religion. Man would wonder or invent something and again it would still be science regardless of it’s name. "

The difference being that many different religions have existed and there is every reason to believe that if you go back and started again the resulting religions would be different again. Science (however you called it) would still however zero in on the same ideas, and if science was available from the start to explain phenomena, you wouldn't have to invent gods to explain them instead.

Religion is divisive, different religions have different values and different interpretations of the same religion quickly branch off into different religions. Meanwhile science is convergent. Different sciences support each others conclusions that lead to the same ideas. Biological evolution has a lot of help from statistical mathematics, cosmology by necessity correlates the very biggest structures of the universe and the weakest forces, with the smallest structures and strongest forces of particle physics.

Ethics to contains certain concepts that are part of us. Love, compassion, care. However it often takes religion to force people to suspend these ethics in favour of the perpetuation of the religious orthodoxy.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Are you erecting a strawman here, Shannon, by transposing god and religion?
After all the argument was religion is a causitive factor and did you pray to religion?

You were the last person who I thought would openly say god and religion were the same thing."

I don't know anything about strawmen.

Though, throwing that idea out there might cause people not to consider any of the points I made in my post.

(Glad your son was treated. I vomited blood, too. It's a nasty virus.)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "First, my comment wasn't necessarily directed at you."

Fair enough, I still felt that the accusation of deliberate misleading was harsh. I would accept that it is an oversimplification or incomplete statement.

So in the interests of accuracy I would say that;

"Religion is a cause of, and reason for the continuation of, many wars whether directly by ideology or indirectly via justification."

Certainly it is rarely the sole reason, but it can be a major reason.

Shannon wrote: "Therefore, the posters state, the decision between religion and science should be obvious."

Science does not cause wars, and indeed contains its own mechanisms for resolving difference of opinion (i.e. accepting independent adjudication or confirmation).

This should be obvious though as religion makes claim at being a moral guide and therefore if religion is ever used in support of going to war then it is acting as a cause.

Shannon wrote: "Well, the facts of history do not, in any way, prove this through evidence. The facts don't prove that all wars or most wars are caused by religion. No."

No but it is proven that religion is one of the causes of many wars (whether by direct religious difference or by justification via the religious morality). Almost every war has had it to a certain extent, even if it's only the call of for "God, King and Country!" or "God Bless America!"

Shannon wrote: "The thought, if I'm reading your post correctly, that a war about trade or land or something else becomes a "religious" war of sorts due to the fact that some of the participants believe in "God" and believe "God" is with them is a stretch, in my mind."

It does if the two groups that are in conflict over the area have conflicting religious beliefs and thereby ethics. A fight isn't really over "land" its over the people who can live on or use that land. If those people are morally inferior "infidels" it is a lot easier to justify the taking of that land.

Look at Israel. Listen to interviews of Jewish people saying that Israel was promised to them by God and then listen to the Imams of Islam who say that they cannot negotiate over the ownership of religious sites in Jerusalem as this was determined by god.

Shannon wrote: "Hmmmm.... Given the fact that I prayed while being treated and had faith that I'd be healed, was "God" the author of my treatment? Did my treatment go from being a wonder of modern medicine to some sort of religious treatment?"

Did you actually thank the doctors? Did you act on your faith beforehand? If not the entire story is irrelevant to the point.

Shannon wrote: "I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you'd say my treatment had nothing to do with "God" or religion. You think it was about modern medicine."

No. I think this has nothing to do with your decision to get treated. What possible religious difference do you have with a virus? What religious difference did you have with the doctor?

If you refused to get treatment because your doctor was an atheist then it might be relevant. Or if the doctor decided that if you weren't Muslim he didn't have a moral right to treat you.

I just don't see how your analogy even works. What you did (apart from the prayer at the end) would be identical to a non-religious person therefore it is in no way a comparison.

Shannon wrote: "So, no ... the "component of" argument, which turns general wars into religious wars, isn't going to work, if I'm reading your post correctly."

It seems not. The decision to go to war is a moral decision. Religion informs the morals of religious people. Therefore if a religious group goes to war they must have been at least informed by their religious morals. If religious morality was solely used to make people reluctant to go to war then that would mean it wasn't a cause. However, religious difference, or moral difference based on religious values, is frequently cited as a reason to go to war. America frequently calls on its religious values to justify going to war against "extremists" that have "subverted" their religious morality. Islamic extremists go to war because the freedom to disobey god that they see the west as having is morally repugnant to them, and the freedom for women to "dress and behave like whores" is also a frequent objection.

Shannon wrote: "I think some of the people who state that religion caused all or most wars have, themselves, been misled."

Or perhaps they have seen wars go on generation after generation between cultures that are primarily separated along religious sectarian lines. (The very term "sectarian violence" being violence between sects). Then they have listened to the reasons people have told them that they went to war, or that they support the war.

I could list endless quotes, but I can't bring myself to think that you're not aware of all this.

Shannon wrote: "A few might even be into converting the religious from religion and to atheism. "

How can you convert to the lack of something? That makes no sense.

Shannon wrote: "The difference between the two has to do with intent. Does it not? Yes, I'm quite sure it does."

Indeed, but that can be subjective. You may see a person trying to show people ideas without god as attempting to "convert" them, whereas in their eyes they are trying to educate people how to look for themselves, how to "love learning, to encourage their thirst for knowledge, to lead them to explore new " ideas.

To use your English metaphor, you want to teach them how to read, not what to read. For example, they may be able to read the entire internet but would you want them to trust everything it says?

What would you say to a person who had only read Hamlet and then declares that all other stories are incomprehensible gibberish and then refuses to read anything else because they assume it is nothing but mixtures of random letters?

What would you do if they then convinced the rest of your class that reading anything accept Hamlet was pointless. Would it be conversion to show them what else is out there? Would it be conversion to give those others the tools to make an informed choice?

Shannon wrote: "Intent, tactics, and purpose."

The difference I see is that conversion is taking a particular ideology and converting people to that specific ideology. Atheism is a lack of ideology. Different atheists have different opinions, but most are willing to modify those opinions with independent evidence as time goes on.

For example if god exists, then I still would not see talking people to be atheist is conversion. After all, you are telling them to look at evidence and to try to see what is really there rather than what we are just told is there. In the end if a god exists amongst the many, then it's atheists that are best equipped to find out which one it actually is.

[QueenAmidala28]

I am a Christian who happens to be a biologist. I couldn't live in a world without FAITH although I could care less about religion. I also couldn't live without science.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hmmmm.... Given the fact that I prayed while being treated and had faith that I'd be healed, was "God" the author of my treatment? Did my treatment go from being a wonder of modern medicine to some sort of religious treatment?"

Did you actually thank the doctors? Did you act on your faith beforehand? If not the entire story is irrelevant to the point. "

Curious question ....

Yes, actually, I did actually thank the doctor and nurses. Over and over again. Profusely.

??

Wouldn't everyone?

Did I act on my faith beforehand?

Huh...?

Did the warriors in your imagination who believed "God" was on their side in a war over trade or land, making a general war a religious war, act on their faith beforehand? I don't remember that being a prerequisite in your original post.

Regarding ...

Shannon wrote: "A few might even be into converting the religious from religion and to atheism. "

And, ... your reply, ... "How can you convert to the lack of something? That makes no sense."

When the thread for Atheists and Skeptics posted the question regarding how many people the non-believers converted (including age, level of intellect, level of faith, etc...), did you respond by saying the question made no sense? How, after all, could atheists and skeptics convert people to the lack of something? Just plain silliness. Was that voiced by you or anyone? We both know the answer to that question, which makes me wonder why you'd post the question to me to begin with. Hmmmm.... But, we've been through this before, and you know I don't abide conversion, regardless of who is behind it.

[Travis]

So, if this god character made us all and is the source of all belief and morality etc, how come everyone is working so hard to excuse god and religion?
Religion gets all the credit, but none of the blame?

That's a sweet racket, god can do whatever he wants and an army of folk will show up to let us know none of it is his fault.

If he healed Shannon, didn't he also give her the virus in the first place?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Curious question ....

Yes, actually, I did actually thank the doctor and nurses. Over and over again. Profusely.

??

Wouldn't everyone?"

Apparently not. More than once a persons recovery has been hailed as a "miracle" which rather undermines those who worked so hard in helping.

From what you posted I was just curious.

Shannon wrote: "Did I act on my faith beforehand?"

As in what did faith have to do with you seeking medical treatment. Would your faith in particular have shaped that decision? Getting well isn't really a moral choice for the most part.

"Huh?" Was indeed my reaction to the analogy. You seemed to be equating the idea of getting medical treatment to be the equivalent of going to war.

Shannon wrote: "Did the warriors in your imagination who believed "God" was on their side in a war over trade or land, making a general war a religious war, act on their faith beforehand? I don't remember that being a prerequisite in your original post."

It comes from "cause" or "causative factor".

Islamic extremists act on their faith when they target the "infidel" (or indeed their rival sect) for violence based on their belief that god is on their side. This isn't imagination, this is what they will happily tell you. I am sure you have seen the signs during the cartoon controversies "Behead those who insult Islam", "Freedom of Speech can go to Hell" etc. Now certainly there were other Muslims who came out in protest at this, but still I don't think I am "imagining" the fact that Islamic militants choose to fight the unbeliever because of religious reasons. Just as I don't believe I imagined the fact that many people in history have claimed to be working with god's purpose. Now you may say that this is an empty claim, but why would people keep making it if they didn't think it would help.

Do you honestly think that it's a coincidence that Palestinians and Israeli's are split on religious grounds, do you think that it's a coincidence that Afghan insurgents are primarily Muslim extremists? What about Lebanon, Somalia, Pakistan/India etc. What about the Crusades and centuries of war between European protestants, Catholics and Eastern orthodox?

In fact any situation where you have a religion and a religiously derived morality that has irreconcilable differences with the morality of a group sharing the same land, you believe that is always resolved amicably?

Or again is it that religion is good therefore anything bad done in the name of religion is therefore not religion's fault because we have already established that religion is good?

Shannon wrote: "When the thread for Atheists and Skeptics posted the question......"

You keep coming back to that as if it were "atheist scripture". It's not. More to the point it's another illustration of the point that atheism is not a specific ideology, and different people have different ideas.

If you want my opinion, ask me, if you want to label me with the opinions or words of other atheists then I say "so what"? Atheism is not a group, it is what someone isn't not what they are, so if an atheist disagrees with what I say, or me with them then fantastic. That is thought free from dogma.

We both know why the word "conversion" was used. In the same way that other words are lazily misapplied. Like when creationists lazily (or deliberately) misuse the word "theory".

When I am talking about "conversion" here I am making the statement that you cannot "convert" people into free-thinking, but you can help them break free of dogma.

I think it was a mistake to call it "conversion" because use of such religious language is often misinterpreted.

Shannon wrote: "But, we've been through this before, and you know I don't abide conversion, regardless of who is behind it. "

Except for when its done to children, apparently, otherwise you would not abide the existence of Churches or organised religions of any kind.

[Gary]

QueenAmidala28 wrote: "I am a Christian who happens to be a biologist. I couldn't live in a world without FAITH although I could care less about religion. I also couldn't live without science."

What is so good about faith really? Trust I can see being good, but faith is absolute trust which seems to me to demean the person you trust in. After all, I can say to someone "I trust you", which is accepting a risk that they could prove unworthy, but you think they are worth the risk. Faith says "I trust you no matter what" which means no matter what the person does you will trust them which kind of makes them superfluous to your trust and unable to effect it.

In a surprising moment Bill O'Reilly suddenly tried to claim that "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy" and for the first time ever I wished what he said was true.

If Christianity was the following of the principles of looking after the sick and poor, turning the other cheek, not judging others and doing unto others as they would do unto you, then sign me up. The problem I have with Christianity is that this wonderful legacy is then mauled by the horrible concepts of original sin and human sacrifice to earn forgiveness and the heavy handed rewards and punishments with the emphasis on belief rather than on right action.

If there was a true historical Yeshua I think he would have just about span himself out in the grave by now (metaphorically).

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "QueenAmidala28 wrote: "I am a Christian who happens to be a biologist. I couldn't live in a world without FAITH although I could care less about religion. I also couldn't live without science."

Wh..."

Oh if only christians followed the stuff in their rulebook...!
I doubt things would be better, but it would at least be more entertaining.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Apparently not. More than once a persons recovery has been hailed as a "miracle" which rather undermines those who worked so hard in helping.

From what you posted I was just curious."

I wonder which part of what I posted made you curious as to whether or not I hailed my recovery as a miracle. I thought I said I, for one, credited modern medicine, the nurses and the doctor.

??

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "If he healed Shannon, didn't he also give her the virus in the first place? "

The nurses, doctor, saline, anti-naseau and anti-diahrea medicine and time healed me. I never claimed otherwise.

And, .... I'm fairly sure the nurses, doctor and medicines did not infect me with the virus. I'm guessing I contracted it at school.

[Maria]

Travis said: "Oh if only christians followed the stuff in their rulebook...!"

This is my entire point about religion, faith, belief - or lack thereof. It's the hypocrasy that turns me - and others off - of organized religion - and causes us to not believe. How could something be true if it's followers don't even respect their own religion's tenets.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "As in what did faith have to do with you seeking medical treatment. Would your faith in particular have shaped that decision? Getting well isn't really a moral choice for the most part.

"Huh?" Was indeed my reaction to the analogy. You seemed to be equating the idea of getting medical treatment to be the equivalent of going to war."

Perhaps your initial point was unclear. It seemed you were saying a general war, one regarding trade, etc..., could become a religious war if the people believed "God" was on their side.

Either the argument was unclear, I misunderstood, or the dynamic involved in your argument is now changing.

If I remember correctly, I also said something like ... if I'm reading your post correctly .... I don't recall you correcting me. It became an issue of my analogy being silly.

So, now, it's about whether or not the people thought "God" was prompting them to go to war over trade, etc...? Is that what you meant? Versus just feeling "God" was with them and wished them well?

A "general" war does not become a religious war simply due to the fact that the warriors are believers and believe "God" is with them. That was my point and the point of my analogy. Similarly, my healing was due to the medical treatment I received; it did not become spiritual or religious treatment simply because I happen to believe and happened to pray while in the ER.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, we've been through this before, and you know I don't abide conversion, regardless of who is behind it. "

Except for when its done to children, apparently, otherwise you would not abide the existence of Churches or organised religions of any kind.
"

;)

Do you think my leaving the church in which I was raised and my refusal to belong to a church or to attend church is an example of my refusal to abide in the conversion of children or anyone?

It is.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If he healed Shannon, didn't he also give her the virus in the first place? "

The nurses, doctor, saline, anti-naseau and anti-diahrea medicine and time healed me. I never claimed ..."

Not going after you specifically, just using your virus as an example.

I've always said, if a terrorist group wanted to created a germ warfare weapon, all they have to do is open a daycare center. Public schools are just massive germ cultures with desks.

I'd use the war example, but I just get nervous that we have gone so long nazi-free I can't concentrate.

I just always love the person who after the plane crash , looks at the one surviver and goes 'It's a miracle!'
Never, 'Huh, god missed one'.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:However I can imagine a 'science' of ethics. ..."

That sounds like control.

Ethics as in specific moral choices. As I said before we have the law to tell us what we should and should not do, so in a way we don’t need science for that. But even the law and politicians who pass the law will never agree on a set of morals. We can’t even agree on the most obvious one about not killing.

The other thing is this…………… most of us have a religion, it is us who vote in the politicians, it is the politicians who pass the laws, it is the scientists who, in your words ‘discard assumptions for tested, proven theories that allow us to advance our knowledge and understanding ever faster.

It is science that need funding to do the research, it is the politicians who fund a vast amount of the research, and it is us the people who vote 'in' the politicians. And the majority of ‘us’ have a religion.

A good example of this would be Mosaic Law. Most of the proscriptions are routinely ignored by the modern Christian (such as shellfish, or wearing mixed fabrics etc.), yet certain prejudices (such as against homosexuality) endure.

But so did shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics endure, until they were no longer ignored.

First I don't think you can abolish religion

I know, I was suggesting if we could go back to the dawn of man and start again. But my point was that if we could, it would not be long before religion of some kind was on the agenda again.

I don't think wars are inevitable, but I can understand why religious people who believe in absolutes would believe that they are inevitable.

No more inevitable that the sun has to rise each morning, but it its ’people’ that ‘cause’ wars by upsetting other people, ie taking their land. Little to do with religion; but we have been down that road already.

Are there no evil atheists?

….if science was available from the start to explain phenomena, you wouldn't have to invent gods to explain them instead

Maybe science would be god or god, science.

To dig a bit deeper I googled to find out how ‘many branches of science are there’. I got answers from just 3 to a very long list of over a hundred. And various amounts in between.

The questions people want to know are, how did every thing happen, is there more than just this existence we have on this, the third planet from the sun, and does someone know the answers to these questions.

I know some branches of science are intertwined, but to keep this discussing at a basic level for a minute, the branches that are looking for answers are no where near finding them and I mean thousands of years away from any real answers, if at all.

Forget religion and keep things basic, as with science, and just to a belief in god; that belief is good enough for most people, it is more than science can offer in our life time.

It would be good if we could watch a horse race and then place a bet on the winner, but we can’t. Nor can we hang around until science works it out for us.

The only difference between me and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one god less than me.

To me it does not matter who made god, the buck stops there. I don’t have to try and wonder further than that. I don’t think the human brain is capable of that anyway and that is why I really don’t think mankind has enough time to figure it out.

Religion is divisive, different religions have different values and different interpretations of the same religion quickly branch off into different religions

I know what you mean and that is why I separate religion and the belief in a god.

[Sara]

Personally, I've lately discovered that Religion is actually based on scientific evidences...I'm Muslim, and nothing that is stated in the Qur'an is not backed up by scientific evidences of our current days. Although the Qur'an was descended to prophet Muhammad more than 1400 Years ago. That's why i can live in a world without Science but not without Religion.

[Colleen]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hmmmm.... Given the fact that I prayed while being treated and had faith that I'd be healed, was "God" the author of my treatment? Did my treatment go from being a wond...".

Happy to hear you have recovered! I started a post in response to the comments you made about how you felt in the hospital, the instument of your healing. You are entitled to post your experience without anyone picking it apart. That being said, my own experience as a patient (different illness) mirrored your own account on many points.

[[deleted user]]

Colleen wrote: "Happy to hear you have recovered! I started a post in response to the comments you made about how you felt in the hospital, the instument of your healing. You are entitled to post your experience without anyone picking it apart. That being said, my own experience as a patient (different illness) mirrored your own account on many points. "

Thanks for your well-wishes.

I didn't think people were picking it apart. I thought they, perhaps, didn't actually read what I wrote but assumed I was making an argument "most 'ists'" would make. (That can be quite an issue.)

I was healed by modern medicine. I know that. I'm exceedingly grateful that I live in a place where I have access to modern medicine. I was insanely grateful to the medical staff, who were wonderful ... not only professional but incredibly caring. In fact, last weekend, my first post on FB was about the amazing ER professionals at that particular hospital.

Just because I prayed and felt a oneness with "God" at the time of my treatment doesn't mean my healing went from being a "miracle" of modern medicine to being a miracle of the spirit or religion. Just as wars fought over trade, etc... don't magically become wars caused by religion due to the fact that the combatants happen to believe and feel "God" is with them.

Not even close.

To attempt to make either argument, in my opinion, is an attempt to mislead ... either oneself, others or both. Not something I intend to do.

[Colleen]

Shannon: So glad you are feeling better, and logically what you said about the ultimate cause of your recovery was true, and with serious illness I also pray for recovery. My cousin, who is in her 40's had a massive heart attack on the 14th, is in a coma, and you bet I pray for her, and other people who are self proclaimed atheists and agnostics. Why, I wonder?
I pray for guidance in my own issues, usually when my hair is on fire! My “prayers” could also be labeled meditation. I do believe in a greater or higher power; I may choose to call God for a lack of other label. I do not believe in a being that micro-manages and has a cause-effect in our lives. What I do believe is that praying, especially in a crisis, helps clear the mind and create positive "energy," or state of mind. It's a form of meditation sometimes, or even self-hypnosis. It has been proven in studies that a positive outlook has been central to recovery from serious illness or disease. An Example, See: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/o...
I, too, thank the doctors and nurses, or even a nursing assistant that goes out of her/his way for me. There is nothing wrong with being grateful for the people who managed your care. Not all clinicians are equal.
Be honest, all of you.
When something bad happens, something horrific to you or others. Look at the slaughter in Connecticut, same day as my cousin was put into a coma.
Who denies that he or she asks for help from someone or being? Subconsciously, without thinking, do you revert to an early concept of someone out in the universe? Do you with no forethought ask God or a god, or gods for guidance, a simple, please god, let her be ok? What if it was your child? Do any of you atheists ever say Oh My God…? Or whatever the correct address would be to a moral or “religious” icon?
I am not going to debate these issues per se. This is not an argument that God exists.
The initial question in the forum is: Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
So many answers and long winded, proselytizing from a symbolic pulpit. Am I the only one who has difficulty reading the spouting of emotionally charged responses to posts? Then, long encompassing posts that pick out for attack, statements or opinions, and pounce on them with an aha! Not just addressing one at a time or even two, but many in the same post.
Gary: I feel you are the worst offender, it’s disorganized and misleading. For understanding where your logic stems, one must backtrack a lot and it’s tedious. And that's a shame, because you have a plethora of knowledge.
Yeow. It hurts my brain and not because I am stupid or uneducated. In my opinion,(yes, I feel I have to qualify that) a lot of defensive insecurity is in these “lessons” in history. It seems like there is an attack on whether god actually exists, rather than choosing religion as a whole.
For the supporters of : can or can’t choose one over the other. Right on, that’s the topic! (fear drives both)
Abolish religion? Did I just read that again? Remember would you rather…..Abolish science? Ditto Chris wrote: "know what you mean and that is why I separate religion and the belief in a god" Thank you Chris!
The topic isn’t whether there is or isn’t a god or gods. You know what it is. Science and religion have both evolved to this date, as pretty equal in their positive and negative on the balance scales. Someone recently expressed curiosty that WWII hasn’t come up. Hmmmm a lot of science began there, eh? Nukes have created terror and religious fanatics want them.
If these religious fanatics had them : who would be most likely to use them?

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

How do the Mayans fit in?

[Travis]

Colleen wrote: "Shannon: So glad you are feeling better, and logically what you said about the ultimate cause of your recovery was true, and with serious illness I also pray for recovery. My cousin, who is in her ..."

You do spot the irony of you talking about how you don't like the long winded, disorganized, long encompassing posts and use a long rambling, disorgainized, encompassing post to do it?

[Maria]

EXACTLY, Travis. I couldn't even finish reading it.

[Hazel]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

it takes a bit of creative folding, and a lot of brute force and ignorance, but they can be made to fit...

Alternatively, somewhere between the aztecs and the oreos.

(I couldn't decide between the 2 responses, so I thought fuck it, I'll put them both)

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "EXACTLY, Travis. I couldn't even finish reading it."

I couldn't even start reading it. My innate reaction to a huge block of undifferentiated text that looks like a monolith of words is to shy away from it, and ignore it.

[Colleen]

Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Shannon: So glad you are feeling better, and logically what you said about the ultimate cause of your recovery was true, and with serious illness I also pray for recovery. My cousin..."

Of course I do see the irony. It served my purpose; results are than I imagined :)

[Colleen]

Shannon wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Happy to hear you have recovered! I started a post in response to the comments you made about how you felt in the hospital, the instument of your healing. You are entitled to post y..."

Shannon, you shared a personal story that should not have even started a debate. Well wishes were in order. That should not have had any comments that sparked a defendable position.

[Colleen]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

Besides being a rather violent and particularly viscious people, they were marvels with scientific knowledge well before we "dicovered" them.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Colleen wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

Besides being a rather violent and particularly viscious people, they were marvels with scientific knowledge well before we "di..."

Ah! As an American, I bet I have some of their genes!

[[deleted user]]

derision

noun

contemptuous ridicule or mockery

[[deleted user]]

Colleen wrote: "Shannon: So glad you are feeling better, and logically what you said about the ultimate cause of your recovery was true, and with serious illness I also pray for recovery. My cousin, who is in her ..."

I'm very sorry to hear about your cousin. There are so many people who are going through so much at this time. I pray that you and your family are strengthened and for your cousin's recovery.

Personally, I do feel there are benefits to prayer. Regarding the virus I had and my dehydration, I think I healed as a result of medical science and was comforted by a truly lovely nurse and my prayer and feeling of connection with God.

I, at another time in my life, believe I experienced a miraculous healing due to my faith. (I had a breast lump as a teen that was tracked for months, with doctors trying to decide how to proceed. Surgery was scheduled. Right before the surgery, I couldn't sleep and got up and saw a religious program on TV. I called the number and prayed with an amazing woman. I checked later that day. The lump started getting smaller. I called the doctor, who thought I had cold feet about the upcoming surgery. We scheduled an appointment for the next day. By then, it was even smaller. He couldn't believe it. It continued to shrink to nothing and the surgery was canceled.)

I know I can't prove, scientifically, that it shriveled to nothing due to my prayer and faith. I also know that some would ask all sorts of questions; I think they have in the past. Did I share this before? Deja vu...? Am I somehow favored by God? Is that what I think? Why would I be healed when some aren't? Etc....

I don't have the answers to those questions. I simply know I'm grateful for my having been healed. In addition, I'm incredibly glad that I have the right to believe as I choose.

Further, despite the question posed on this thread, I'm grateful I live in a time and a place when/where I don't have to choose between my faith and science. In my opinion, I think that's the point ... not to be forced to choose.

[Colleen]

Amen. What an awesome story . I've experiend or been a witness to a few things that would be doubtful if I hadn't witnessed them myself. I, too, had a medical " miracle." I have no logical explanation. I know I was absolutely supposed to die and didn't.
I've learned what is important and what is not. I speAk my mind freely, and usually in a civilized manner. I do enjoy discussion and trade of ideas. I abhor grandstanding and preaching tho. I have nothing to prove. And it's none of my business what others think of me if I am being true to myself. Thanks for the concern For my cousin. She was in some ways a little sister years ago. I owe her one of my art projects-I am going to work on it because I know she will get better. :)

[Hazel]

Colleen wrote: "I have no logical explanation"

And thats where you stop, if you don't know what caused something, it is irrational to then go on and make a statement of abject certainty on the cause of it. We don't say "I don't understand this, therefore god", we just say "I don't understand this".