Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: "Lillian wrote: "I don't understand people who say that you must believe in one or the other..."Actually, some people are saying that "belief" itself is the problem. If you "believe" in science t..."
I think that that is taking the word believe in to much of religious context, most people who say that they only believe in science not religion is because they can only believe in the things that they can touch and see. So in affect no matter which side of the argument you come out on, you believe in something.
As for my comment about science proving the existence of God...its just a little theory that I have...it can't be proven or anything, I was just thinking that for all the things that have to happen and come together for us as a species to discover all the things we know about how the world works, that God must be the one who lead us to these amazing discoveries...although I would love to hear what anyone else thinks about this hypothesis!
I'd say that the only reason you attribute it to god is due to your cultural upbringing. If you'd have been raised in India, you'd be attributing it to Brahma. I could go on and name the other 2500+ deities that have been catalogued, but that would take too long,and you'd get bored reading them all. If you stand back and look at the whole idea in an objective fashion, its obvious that saying "god led us to making these discussions" is no more reasonable than saying "the flying spaghetti monster/aliens/fairies/amorphous blobs or any anthropomorphic personification you care to name has led us to these discoveries".There is no proof for gods existence, thus attributing anything to god is disingenuous, first prove god exists, then we can talk about what he has and has not contributed to.
Lillian wrote: "I think that that is taking the word believe in to much of religious context, most people who say that they only believe in science not religion is because they can only believe in the things that they can touch and see. So in affect no matter which side of the argument you come out on, you believe in something. "Is that using the word "belief" in too much of a religious context, or is it assuming that people treat belief?
For example I accept the existence of things that cannot be seen or touched, for example neutrinos, gamma rays etc., however I don't "believe" in them, because if a better explanation comes along I want to be open to being convinced of it. If I "believed" then I would be assuming I already knew the right answer.
Do you ever consider that you may believe in the wrong god, or that god may not actually exist as you imagine him or even at all?
Lillian wrote: "God must be the one who lead us to these amazing discoveries."
Why would someone create something and then create thinking beings that don't know how any of it works, but then have to lead those thinking beings to understanding? If god created beings with the ability to understand, why would he not give them knowledge? If he created them with the ability to find things out then why would he create them so flawed that they would need to be lead to the answers?
Hi guys, I've been offline for awhile!Hazel said:
"...first prove god exists, then we can talk about what he has and has not contributed to."
Agreed - although like Lillian said, it can't actually be proven, it's just something people believe. On the other hand, I don't think it can be proven that God doesn't exist. Lack of proof that he does exist is not necessarily proof that he doesn't. It's a logical conclusion, but not really proof.
the thing with proving he doesn't exist, is we don't need to, the default position is that something doesn't exist until it is proven that it does, not that its exists until its proven it doesn't, otherwise we may as well believe in every single postulation put forward, and it means that christians should also believe in the 2500+ other deities, as they can't prove they don't exist.Also the thing with a lack of proof, is that when people say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, thats actually not talking about what people think it is. What it means is that if no evidence has been searched for, you cannot claim that something does not exist, however, if evidence has been searched for, and has not been found, then the absence of evidence very much becomes evidence of absence. For example, if I spent the next 30 years looking for evidence of mermaids, I searched all the oceans, every lake, all rivers, I scoured the earth looking for mermaids, and didn't turn up a single piece of evidence for their existence, then this could be held up as evidence that they don't exist. Now, Christianity is 2000 years old, belief in the abrahamic god is about 5000 years old, and still no evidence has been presented that has not been explained to be due to other things. I'd say that 5000 years is more than enough time to accept that an absence of evidence is very much evidence of absence when it comes to the abrahamic god. Other gods have had longer, some other gods have had less time, but still plenty of time for evidence to be presented.
Hi again Maria,Maria wrote: " I don't think it can be proven that God doesn't exist. Lack of proof that he does exist is not necessarily proof that he doesn't. It's a logical conclusion, but not really proof. "
The issue is that there is countless things that we could believe in, and most of them are mutually exclusive. So why believe in a male god in particular, unless there is actual proof. If you had a disease you wouldn't want your doctor to simply guess at a treatment, you would want him to have at least some evidence that it was likely to work.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Fairs, Travis? Have you been to any New England fairs? The Tunbridge World's Fair? I've actually never been. York! York's Animal Kingdom? Salt water taffy being pulled in the ..."
Yes, hockey is the one where you hit the little black thing with the stick. Oh, my!
There were all sorts of things on my list ... not just politics ... Champ, mountains, taffy, fairs ....
Yes, hockey is the one where you hit the little black thing with the stick. Oh, my!
There were all sorts of things on my list ... not just politics ... Champ, mountains, taffy, fairs ....
I used to play hockey. The sort on grass, where you didn't wear huge pads unless you were in goal. I was damned good at it too, sometimes I think I should have stuck with it, I might not be overweight now.
Hazel wrote: "I used to play hockey. The sort on grass, where you didn't wear huge pads unless you were in goal. I was damned good at it too, sometimes I think I should have stuck with it, I might not be overwei..."
Field hockey? With the little plaid skirts?
We have field hockey at high schools and colleges. My family tends to be very big into field hockey. We even have girls teams at certain high schools now. (Some have co-ed teams, at least at the middle school level.) My cousin's daughter plays ice hockey in high school. I'm miserable at skating and was always just a spectator.
Field hockey? With the little plaid skirts?
We have field hockey at high schools and colleges. My family tends to be very big into field hockey. We even have girls teams at certain high schools now. (Some have co-ed teams, at least at the middle school level.) My cousin's daughter plays ice hockey in high school. I'm miserable at skating and was always just a spectator.
I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions.
Hazel wrote: "I used to play hockey. The sort on grass, where you didn't wear huge pads unless you were in goal. I was damned good at it too, sometimes I think I should have stuck with it, I might not be overwei..."Personally I always though hockey was insane, running around a field knocking around a rock hard ball with sticks at ankle height it was my least favourite Phys Ed block, until I saw my uncle play La Crosse that's the same thing at head height O.o
I used to be good at volleyball too. I was the only one in our class who could serve and actually get the ball all the way to the other side of the court. Hockey isn't that insane, I rarely got injured. It was gym that I hated, and even worse were fitness tests, I could run around a hockey field for a full match, but ask me to do a beep test, and I was rubbish.
Could have been me I can walk over a perfectly even surface and trip over, phys ed was a sore trial for me. I love swimming though.
Hazel wrote: "I used to be good at volleyball too. I was the only one in our class who could serve "
Hey, now, that's something we have in common, Hazel! That and Sean Bean.
Hey, now, that's something we have in common, Hazel! That and Sean Bean.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I used to play hockey. The sort on grass, where you didn't wear huge pads unless you were in goal. I was damned good at it too, sometimes I think I should have stuck with it, I might ..."Girls running around in little plaid skirts...?
My favorite sport.
Graham wrote: "I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions."What do you see as the common ground between religion and science?
Travis wrote: "Girls running around in little plaid skirts...?
My favorite sport. "
Ahahahahahahaha! Your equivalent of Sean Bean?! ;)
Oh, and, were you one of the guys who mentioned A. Hathaway as Catwoman, since the women were discussing, sigh, Sean Bean? Or, was that Cerebus?
Just saw that she cut off all her hair. Super, super, super short. As an aside.
My favorite sport. "
Ahahahahahahaha! Your equivalent of Sean Bean?! ;)
Oh, and, were you one of the guys who mentioned A. Hathaway as Catwoman, since the women were discussing, sigh, Sean Bean? Or, was that Cerebus?
Just saw that she cut off all her hair. Super, super, super short. As an aside.
Cerebus wrote: "Graham wrote: "I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions."
What do you see as the common ground between religion and science?"
It will be interesting to see if Graham replies. When I read his post, I didn't think he meant there was common ground between religion and science. My mind went to ... people building common ground amongst themselves. All people. Religious and not, etc... Instead of people focusing on differences, they would focus on similarities, as people.
But, I don't know if that was his intent. It's just what I assumed when I read it.
What do you see as the common ground between religion and science?"
It will be interesting to see if Graham replies. When I read his post, I didn't think he meant there was common ground between religion and science. My mind went to ... people building common ground amongst themselves. All people. Religious and not, etc... Instead of people focusing on differences, they would focus on similarities, as people.
But, I don't know if that was his intent. It's just what I assumed when I read it.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Girls running around in little plaid skirts...?My favorite sport. "
Ahahahahahahaha! Your equivalent of Sean Bean?! ;)
Oh, and, were you one of the guys who mentioned A. Hatha..."
I've got a pretty extensive 'Sean Bean' list.
It's either due to my fine appreciation of the infinite variety of the beauty of women, or I'm just indecisive.
I do like Anne Hathaway, had not known about the short hair and am unsure how I feel about that.
Won't be catching 'Dark Knight' till netflix gets it, as I find this whole trilogy to be dark, dreary and overrated and I'm quite happy that it looks like Avengers will kick it's butt in the box office.
Shannon wrote: "people building common ground amongst themselves. "we've done that, despite the things that have divided people here, we've definitely found common ground...
science will eventually disprove most religions
Graham wrote: "I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions."There is a certain irony on making that statement on a thread based on an artificially polarising question. :-)
The question posited is presented with the completely false equivalence that each is a side of the same coin. Science is a methodology with an ever growing and evolving body of knowledge. Religion (as much as Christians like to think Religion = Christianity) is a huge collection of myriad conflicting ideologies and assumptions that is ever splintering into more and more disparate pieces. They are not close to being equivalent.
Chathura wrote: "science will eventually disprove most religions"It depends how you wish to define 'religion'.
I certainly agree that the tools and methods of science are the best we have available for understanding the patterns in the data to which we have access. However, there will always be a mystery as to some of the big questions...why is there something rather than nothing? There may not be an answer, it may not even be a sensible question, and we should certainly not fill in the gaps with dogma, doctrine and blind intellectual assent.
I see little use for the type of theism which encourages intellectual impoverishment and places power in the hands of church institutions. Rather than seek to hide our doubts, I wonder if there is room for a religion that actually encourages skepticism? In fact, the best role for religion could be to reduce the loneliness of existensial angst and form a focus for our shared experience of Being. Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them!
Graham wrote: "I wonder if there is room for a religion that actually encourages skepticism?"Interesting and thoughtful post Graham. My niggle on the above point would simply be that such a "religion" would not be a religion as it would be opposed to belief. Instead you would have an ideology or a methodology.
In my considered opinion an ideology or methodology that encourages scepticism and the discarding of belief in concepts in favour of simply accepting concepts until outdated, well I would call that methodology "science".
Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Graham wrote: "I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions."What do you see as the common ground between re..."
The common ground is 2.5 billion years of evolution which all of us as Homo sapiens share. I think this likely counts for at least as much as the squibble of froth we call culture (and includes science and religion). In the heat of our anthropocentric arguments it's easy to lose site of what we have in common.
Karen Armstrong's recent book with the subtitle 'What Religion Really Means' provides a nice account of the kind of religion that is compatible with science. The primary title 'The Case for God' seems entirely inaccurate to me and I suspect was the publisher's idea. I accept that Armstrong can be a little too apologetic of dogma and doctrine (even though she doesn't succumb herself), but nevertheless I think she makes some very good points in this book.
We can revere what it is possible to understand through science, whilst continuing to revere that there are essential aspects of Being which will always remain beyond our ken. We are only human afterall. In my view, religion should not be about replacing the unknown with pretend knowledge. Religion should be about sharing the experience of Being in an existence we can never hope to understand.
Don't fall into the trap of defining religion how intellectually impoverished literal interpretations would have it defined. I think it would be great if we could redefine it in a way that makes it a useful concept, or as Armstrong would have us believe, reclaim its original meaning. Polarisation means one side has to 'win', looking for common ground enables everyone to 'win'.
Graham wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Graham wrote: "I'd rather live in a world where people looked to build upon common ground rather than try and polarise discussions."What do you see as the common g..."
"...existence we can never hope to understand.". I don't agree with this.
But then I believe in Darwin's theories. I understand our existence to be in the same meaningful category as that of the chicken, a 50-foot dinosaur in another life, maybe....
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "I wonder if there is room for a religion that actually encourages skepticism?"Interesting and thoughtful post Graham. My niggle on the above point would simply be that such a "rel..."
Why does religion have to be about belief?
Karen Armstrong suggests that that is a post-Enlightenment view of religion. The values of positivist science have been projected onto religion and so even religious folk now think religious allegory (including the concept of God itself) should be taken literally. As I understand it, most academics agree that ancient mythology was never intended to be taken literally, at least by the clergy, if not by the laity.
The kind of religion I describe is certainly not an ideology. I'm opposed to all forms of ideology. The idolotrous nature of 'modern' religion and the reverence for blind intellectual assent is what has impoverished many versions of religion.
I don't think what I am suggesting is a methodology either, although inevitably any social structure offering a shared focus and mutual support would require some methods of interaction.
Here's a relevant review I wrote:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "people building common ground amongst themselves. "
we've done that, despite the things that have divided people here, we've definitely found common ground...
"
Nice picture!!
we've done that, despite the things that have divided people here, we've definitely found common ground...
"
Nice picture!!
Graham wrote: "We can revere what it is possible to understand through science, whilst continuing to revere that there are essential aspects of Being which will always remain beyond our ken."Why? Defining that there will always be limits to our knowledge (true or not) means that there will always be someone that will claim that this limit has been reached, or claim what may lie beyond that limit.
There certainly may be a limit to our knowledge, but we can only define a limit by reaching it.
Once humans believed that they would never know what the stars truly were, now we can define the vast majority with a relatively simple set of equations and relations, more recently the idea of teleportation seemed to hit the hard physical limit of knowledge of Heisenburgs uncertainty theorem, yet less than a century later a way around this limitation was discovered.
As soon as we say we "can never know" rather than "we may never know" that is an assumption and a belief.
Graham wrote: "Religion SHOULD NOT be about replacing the unknown with pretend knowledge. Relion SHOULD be about sharing the experience of Being in an existence we can never hope to understand."
The first sentence I agree with, the second sentence I disagree with. From the day as a babe we first focus our eyes, to the day our sight fades we do nothing but hope to understand. We may never understand it completely, but saying that "we can never hope to understand" is an intellectual unconditional surrender. We may never understand completely but there should be no limits on what we try to understand.
Graham wrote: "Don't fall into the trap of defining religion how intellectually impoverished literal interpretations would have it defined. I think it would be great if we could redefine it in a way that makes it a useful concept, or as Armstrong would have us believe, reclaim its original meaning. "
The problem with redefining "Religion" (especially if you read back on this thread) is that people redefine it all of the time, based on their own prejudice. Christians have attempted to redefine "god" as being separate from religion, because since they "know" god exists independent of their belief, that therefore god is separate from religion, conveniently forgetting that this intellectual edifice stands on the belief that god does not require our belief to exist, therefore is still religion.
As soon as you start redefining the word "Religion" then the more people will take that to their advantage. Just as theists try to claim that atheists and/or scientists are simply following an alternative religion and that belief is required for both, rather than belief being the anathema to both.
Graham wrote: "Polarisation means one side has to 'win', looking for common ground enables everyone to 'win'. "
If this was a simple intellectual exercise with equivalence, such as what type of music we preferred, or what flavour of ice-cream, then your point would have merit. If both sides could agree to separate domains of enquiry, then both could "win". The problem is that religion takes assumptions and mythology and attempts to apply them to all spheres of life using authority. Scriptural, cultural or metaphysical authority. It attempts to define limits to our knowledge, limits to our morals and limits to our enquiries that are entirely arbitrary.
In the US today millions of people are regularly lied to about the status of evolution in science, they are regularly told that certain behaviours are abhorrent based on nothing more than millennia old tales about a brutal and violent deity, they are regularly told that we should always submit to authority, simply because it is an authority.
For theists to "win", they not only need to "win" over atheists, science or anything else that challenges the authority of religion, they need to "win" over all the other religions too. Look back over this thread and you will see the "deluded ally" argument from theists many times, which goes along the lines of "there are many ways to god" or "I don't think any religion has it exactly right", which leaves the false humility of allowing others their beliefs while retaining the inner smugness of believing that your own vision of reality is clearer than anyone else.
Secular society has increasingly turned from the blind suppositions of religion to a real common ground, which is the testing and independent verification or rejection of ideas based not on our own prejudices but on data. The process of Observation -> Hypothesis -> Testing -> Theory leads to a true independent middle-ground that anyone can agree on, and indeed a sensible way to progress that knowledge. This has led to the computer in front of you and much of the food available in the western world at least as well as the doubled lifespan we enjoy.
Religion (in one form or another) has opposed and still opposes these benefits, sects deny their adherents medical treatment as a affront to their trust in a loving god, people oppose the teaching of a biological science that may be our only defence against devastating pandemics and preachers angrily denounce any scientific question that they see intruding on their "turf" as has happened since before the days of Galileo. While religious adherents take their beliefs to the logical conclusion and kill themselves and us, convinced that their abject submission to god is the most pristine reasoning and any injustice will be sorted out in the afterlife.
So if everyone "wins" it is just as likely that this will mean that we have all lost.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote:I understand our existence to be in the same meaningful category as that of the chicken, a 50-foot dinosaur in another life, maybe."On the level of 'vegetarian truth' to which I think you are referring, I agree with you. (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/p...)
However, there is a deeper level of metaphysics. Only a divine being could have access to knowledge of ontological reality. Since knowledge of a divine being requires access to ontological reality, the argument forms a recursive loop, and falls apart.
We can explain things like dinosaur fossils through natural selection, and domestic chickens through selective breeding, but it seems to me that this kind of 'meaning' is in a different category to 'how come there is something rather than nothing'. A question to which I suspect we can never know the answer, and there may not be an answer.
The explanation provided by cause and effect is not necessarily the same as 'meaning'. There may not be any objective meaning, but we must all find our own subjective meaning. I see religion as potentially providing support and direction in our search for a constructive and compassionate inter-subjective meaning. But it can only do this if it remains intellectually honest.
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "We can revere what it is possible to understand through science, whilst continuing to revere that there are essential aspects of Being which will always remain beyond our ken."Why?..."
I'm happy to replace 'can' with 'may' :o) No point in banging your head against a brick wall. Most arguments are resolved by reframing the question.
For many secular people, the arts and humanities speak to the emotional aspects of our human consciousness. Yet these are often quite isolated pursuits. I'm a strong defender of science, but I think it would be great to share more of our common human experience. A reformed and rehabilitated religion which has nothing to do with the idolatry of dogma and doctrine, or the intellectual dishonesty of blind intellectual assent could fulfill a very important role in society. You don't have to have spiritual beliefs to have emotional needs. You just have to be human.
Graham wrote: "Why does religion have to be about belief?"Mainly because that is the dictionary definition of the word, and if we cannot agree on the definition of words then conversation gets difficult.
Simply put, if your ideas about existence require you to believe in them with, without or in spite of evidence then that is religion.
If your ideas of existence include consensual observation, enquiry and the acceptance that the ideas you have may be incomplete or even wrong then you are practising a form of science.
Graham wrote: "Karen Armstrong suggests that that is a post-Enlightenment view of religion. The values of positivist science have been projected onto religion and so even religious folk now think religious allegory (including the concept of God itself) should be taken literally. "
I strongly doubt that it has anything to do with post-enlightenment science. The real revolution (for the western world at least) was when the inclusive nature of polytheism was conquered (often literally) by monotheism. The pagan polytheism of the Greeks, Celts and Romans meant that religion was indeed more allegorical and that the gods were meant to be respected certainly, but they were recognised as potentially flawed people in their own right. Gods became object lessons as well as things to be revered.
Then with the rise of monotheism, god had to lose all flaws and become the paragon of perfection. Unfortunately this vision of god seldom synced with the legends preceding that deity as a flawed individual. Hence the brutality, jealousy and rages of Jehovah were rationalised into the new religion as "good".
Graham wrote: "As I understand it, most academics agree that ancient mythology was never intended to be taken literally, at least by the clergy, if not by the laity."
Pre-monotheism. After the ascent of monotheism literalism was all the style.
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo
"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe -- that unless I believed, I should not understand." - St Anselm, "St Anselm on the Existence of God," in Medieval Philosophy: Selections from Augustine to Buridon (1964) p. 109
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
"Human reason is snatching everything to itself, leaving nothing for faith." - Saint Bernard (1090 - 1153)
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" - John Calvin (1509-1564), pointing to Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis
Since the Synods of Antioch, and the Council of Nicaea the Christian Church have argued about the literal specifics of the nature of Jesus and God. This led to the declaration of alternative viewpoints as heresy which was often violently opposed.
So modern science has little to do with Biblical literalism except for the fact that as monotheists are losing the last hiding places for the "God of the Gaps" so they are fighting back by trying to cast doubt on anything they feel is intruding on divine creation.
Graham wrote: "The kind of religion I describe is certainly not an ideology. I'm opposed to all forms of ideology. The idolotrous nature of 'modern' religion and the reverence for blind intellectual assent is what has impoverished many versions of religion."
Here you seem to confuse "ideology" with "idolatry". "Ideology" I meant as a construct of ideas to form a world view, whereas Idolatry is the placing of symbols or gods above the "one true god".
Science can be viewed as an ideology with the idea that removing our own beliefs and prejudices from rational enquiry and by mutual observation and the testing of each others results we can arrive at a truth that is independent of the beliefs of any of the observers.
Graham wrote: "I don't think what I am suggesting is a methodology either, although inevitably any social structure offering a shared focus and mutual support would require some methods of interaction."
May I ask what you are suggesting then? How can you see all religions finding mutual ground with the idea that morality and ethics derived by education and understanding are superior to the majority of moral models enforced by authoritative dictum from religious belief? How can you find middle ground between the idea that a person like us (a god or gods) deliberately chose to create both us and a universe to house us, and the idea that by assuming we are the purpose of the universe we distort any chance of understanding how the universe came into being and evolved to the point we see it today?
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "people building common ground amongst themselves. "we've done that, despite the things that have divided people here, we've definitely found common ground...
"
Nic..."
I thought so :D
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "Why does religion have to be about belief?"Mainly because that is the dictionary definition of the word, and if we cannot agree on the definition of words then conversation gets di..."
Words are what we make of them. I agree we need to begin with a common definition. If we can't agree on that then there is no hope in defusing antagonisms. Scholars like Armstrong claim that the definition of 'religion' has been subverted since The Enlightenment. I don't know if this is 'true', but I think she has a valid point nontheless (see link to review in previous post).
The origin of religion is not the presence of knowledge, it is the absence of knowledge. The methods of science have started to fill some our empirical knowledge gap, but the difficult questions remain about meaning, morality and the nature of being. Whether subjective, unknown, or unknowable the starting point for religion is to accept that no one has privileged insight into these things. Yet we all care about them, and have shared ignorance of them. Before you claim to know something, you must recognise that you don't know it. Let's get back to the more humble origins of religion, before it became entrenched in belief.
If religion is defined on the basis of our common doubts rather than divisive beliefs, then dogma, doctrine and blind intellectual assent become the antithesis of humble religious practice. For many progressive theologians this is what religion is about already, and for some, it always has been. Getting back to the purpose of this thread and in the spirit of Dan Brown's books I wonder if this view has some things in common with gnostic Christianity? The laity may 'believe' things, but the clergy have greater knowledge (gnosis) of doubt. A bit of a patronising view perhaps? I realise I'm starting to sound a bit pompous. Just thinking aloud.
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "Why does religion have to be about belief?"Mainly because that is the dictionary definition of the word, and if we cannot agree on the definition of words then conversation gets di..."
Okay, I've wasted this morning already and so I may as well continue... I'm interested in your view that the essential change came with the move from polytheistic to monotheistic religion, rather than with The Enlightenment. I have some sympathy with this perspective. I think this would make a great essay topic for a comparative religion class!
I suspect that the idolatry/ideology thing is a semantic issue. I like to remain flexible with my definitions. English is a living language :) The biblical definition of idolatry can be borrowed and projected onto overzealous ideology, including scientism. We all have to guard against idolizing one ideology or another. Science is of course notoriously hard to demarcate but generally consists of a set of related methods and epistemology supported by inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning.
I think you are also being a little flexible with your semantics by describing science as an ideology. I know what you mean, but I dislike the blind intellectual assent which often accompanies 'ideologies' and so I don't think it's a good word to use in this context. If 'science' is viewed as an ideology then I think it might be better described as 'scientism'. Science isn't really a world view (Weltanschauung) either, although many secular scientists have a world view that could be described as 'naturalism'...probably including myself.
Graham wrote: "Okay, I've wasted this morning already and so I may as well continue...":-)
Graham wrote: "Scholars like Armstrong claim that the definition of 'religion' has been subverted since The Enlightenment."
Between the age of Greek philosophy and the Enlightenment there was the age when religion was practically synonymous with "truth". The dominion of monotheistic belief precluded any philosophy or cosmology that did not hold certain beliefs in the centre. After the Enlightenment a gap re-appeared between religious doctrine and philosophical and ultimately scientific enquiry. So I would say "subversion" would be inaccurate, "restoration" would be more precise.
Graham wrote: "Whether subjective, unknown, or unknowable the starting point for religion is to accept that no one has privileged insight into these things. Yet we all care about them, and have shared ignorance of them."
Yet those who claim to be religious claim the exact opposite; that there is some person - be they priest, pope, messiah or god - that does have privileged insight, and commonly that this privileged insight can subsequently be shared with the 'ignorant' bringing them authoritative knowledge via a priest, pontiff, god etc.
Graham wrote: " Before you claim to know something, you must recognise that you don't know it. Let's get back to the more humble origins of religion, before it became entrenched in belief."
This is the issue really. Before Religion we have the process that we now know of as "science". Simply (or perhaps simplistically) put;
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Testing
4. Theorem
In times past someone may observe "Thunder" and make the hypothesis that some great being was causing it, they then tested that hypothesis by sacrificing to appease it, and the thunder went away. Leaving them with a theorem about a powerful entity that controls storms.
All that is fine until the process of science is subverted by Religion. Belief in the entity eventually precludes alternative explanations, even after evidence of the frequency of lightening strikes with or without sacrifice are compared and the likely impact points plotted. The Theorem is corrupted into doctrine.
(An argument that was somewhat settled in 1767 after the priests of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia refused to install the "heretical" lightening rod recommended to them on the grounds that God would not smite the church, despite the work of Ben Franklin 17 years earlier. The Church was obliterated and the city surrounding the Church lost around 3,000 lives when lightening ignited the gunpowder being stored in the vaults.)
Graham wrote: " If religion is defined on the basis of our common doubts rather than divisive beliefs, then dogma, doctrine and blind intellectual assent become the antithesis of humble religious practice."
At which point why would this still be a religion?
Graham wrote: "I wonder if this view has some things in common with gnostic Christianity? The laity may 'believe' things, but the clergy have greater knowledge (gnosis) of doubt. "
Unfortunately, Gnostic Christianity was in general the opposite of what you postulate. The Gnostic faith was heavily influenced by Persian, Greek and other "mystery" creeds in which an initiate was gradually inducted into the mysteries that the elders held. Some believed that only by acquiring this mystical knowledge could one ascend from the mundane world created by the Demiurge (the evil God of the Old Testament). This means that the Gnostic religion was fundamentally about doctrinal authority.
Though it was declared heresy and ruthlessly exterminated, one of the basic ideas of Gnosticism was preserved in Europe which was the pressure not to allow translations of the bible from Latin and to restrict reading of latin (and indeed reading at all) to nobility and clergy. This way the laity were dependent on the mysteries of religion to be handed down from those of superior knowledge (gnosis).
This habit still persists with Christians attending "Bible Study Groups" where readers are guided through appropriate scripture to support whichever lesson the clergy wished to impart. The results of unfettered bible study often being people like me. The Gnostic model is also present in modern day mystery religions such as Scientology.
Graham wrote: "A bit of a patronising view perhaps? I realise I'm starting to sound a bit pompous. Just thinking aloud. "
Think away :-) One persons pompousness is another persons musings...
Graham wrote: "
I'm interested in your view that the essential change came with the move from polytheistic to monotheistic religion, rather than with The Enlightenment. I have some sympathy with this perspective. I think this would make a great essay topic for a comparative religion class!"
Indeed.
If you study the Roman religion, despite it being derived from Etruscan and Greek sources which typified the Gods as people, the Romans sometimes seemed to treat Gods almost as metaphors for impersonal forces. Medicine and religion went hand in hand recognising that certain rituals and sacrifices has better results than others and developed the successful treatments accordingly.
The real difference between Polytheism and Monotheism was the role of heroes and deities. It is remarkably easy to be deified in a lot of polytheistic traditions. The heroes of the Ulster Cycle of Celtic religion are indistinguishable as gods or legendary heroes, and the origins of the Norse, Greek and other gods as former Kings or legends can easily be seen. In fact at the end of the Roman Republic practically every Head of State from Egyptian Pharaoh to Barbarian High King was considered a God, while the Roman leaders played with the concept but were careful not to go to far, lest they be associated with the Kings of old that were overthrown by the Republic, and thus be labelled as a Tyrant.
At the start of the Empire the Imperial Cult deified Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus became known as the Son of God. A century or two later a new JC, a new Son of God who was also divine in his own right became the Imperial model.
Thus came the schism between the easy apotheosis that polytheism allowed, compared to the strict division between the divine (God) and mortality. Christianity struggled with this in the early days, mainly due to the inherited expectations of the Roman Empire. Whether Jesus was a prophet, the prophet, the messiah or God himself was the subject of myriad schisms. They even argued whether Jesus was always part of God, or whether he was created at birth. Eventually the various purges and heresies led to the concept of the Trinity which led to a metaphysical conundrum that has stumped scholars for millennia, but conveniently fit the established expectations of Roman Religion.
Graham wrote: "The biblical definition of idolatry can be borrowed and projected onto overzealous ideology, including scientism."
I agree. Scientism is the anathema of science as it takes one version of science and "believes" in it. If you cannot discard a flawed idea for a better one, then you are not doing science.
Graham wrote: "I dislike the blind intellectual assent which often accompanies 'ideologies' and so I don't think it's a good word to use in this context."
I can see your point. I use "ideology" though "philosophy" could be closer, though people do not seem to grasp the point there either.
The general "idea" of science is to keep an open mind through scepticism and constant guard to not allow oneself to supplant acceptance of a model with belief.
Graham wrote: "athough many secular scientists have a world view that could be described as 'naturalism'...probably including myself. "
I find naturalism as potentially misleading, as people think that it is a restrictive world view, the same as "materialism". They tend to see this as an ignorance of a wider "spiritual" or "supernatural" realm which I find is a total inversion of the idea.
One only has to look at the intrinsic oddness of the Quantum world, the weird geometries of relativity or the almost unimaginable vistas of the Bulk and Branes of M-Theory, and the realisation that the complicit complexities of the relations of these concepts can lead to entities that we could indeed label "soul", yet with a totally different understanding to the somewhat simplistic view presented in mysticism.
I think at some point would could reach a middle ground, as religion can and has done a lot of good work through community work.As an explanation of how the world works, religion is a bit of a flop, but working 'on the ground' with science there's potential that the common ground could be found on a community level.
Religion has a structure/organization in place and I'd like to think if and when it lets go of a lot of the bronze age supernatural stuff and worked with science it could do an enormous amount of actual good.
and they we could have one of those happy utopia type futures, instead of one where the Earth is run by 'damned dirty apes.
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "Okay, I've wasted this morning already and so I may as well continue...":-)
Graham wrote: "Scholars like Armstrong claim that the definition of 'religion' has been subverted since..."
I tend to agree, or at least not disagree, with much of what you say. It is what you leave out that leads me to believe that there is a potential role for a re-formed notion of religion. Sceptics in the Pub may provide a fun forum for the likes of you and I, but it isn't really inclusive enough or broad enough to cover the range of roles traditionally covered by religion :)
I think we would agree that religion and science as practiced by many today are not NOMA (to use Gould's phrase). Hence the question posed by this thread. However, I do hope we are now living in a post-Bush/New Atheist reactionary era. Armstrong seems to have a point when she talks about the binary construct of Logos and Mythos. I can enjoy a work of art for what it captures about the human condition on the one hand, and examine the evolutionary adaptations that make it appealing to me on the other. These two perspectives appear to be mutually exclusive yet dependant on each other. We need both understanding and personal meaning in our lives.
Like many religious folks, I worry that western society is becoming too individualistic and materialistic (in the consumer sense of the word). We need some focus to encourage more compassionate, supportive and communal values. I wonder if a reformed and inclusive religion that rejects dogma and doctrine could fill this role? In practice, I suspect that there are many people within moderate denominations who are not theistic in a literal sense and quietly get on with a more humble version of religion. This seems to be the case among some Anglicans like John Shelby Spong (although, in Spong's case, not so quietly).
I haven't read it yet, but I am interested in reading "Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion" by Alain de Botton. "Beyond Religion: Ethics for the Whole World" by the Dalai Lama also looks interesting.
Travis wrote: "Religion has a structure/organization in place and I'd like to think if and when it lets go of a lot of the bronze age supernatural stuff and worked with science it could do an enormous amount of actual good."It's a nice theory, but it doesn't stack with the historical evidence. Assuming that Jesus even existed and the gospels were reasonably accurate reports of his teachings (though not the miracles which are ripped straight out of the solar/resurrected deity playbook) it would seem that Jesus was a great reformer of his time, undermining authoritative religion and preaching a creed of mutual respect and non-violence. Just as Mohammed was a reformer that emphasised the need for charity and care of the poor.
Neither creed resulted in the subsequent religion becoming any less divisive and oppressive, in fact it is easy to argue that both eventually became far more aggressive and dogmatic than what they replaced.
Gary wrote: "it is easy to argue that both eventually became far more aggressive and dogmatic than what they replaced..."Hmmm, a touch of the slippery slope perhaps?
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slipp...
or possibly an example of confirmatory bias? What about other religions? Does the balance of evidence fit your hypothesis? You are using inductive reasoning, but as Hume questioned: are such assertions beyond the data reasonable? Should we also give up on organised politics, because 20th century ideologies led to extremes? Just playing around at being the devil's advocate. ;-)
Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "Religion has a structure/organization in place and I'd like to think if and when it lets go of a lot of the bronze age supernatural stuff and worked with science it could do an enorm..."Well, my thought was more of a hopeful what if, then based in a concrete idea.
Just pondering.
There have been enough moments where religion actually lived up to it's hype and did some good.
As a generally optimistic guy, I have to have faith that religion could some day evolve into an even more positive force and learn to work with science instead of against.
Graham wrote: "Gary wrote: "it is easy to argue that both eventually became far more aggressive and dogmatic than what they replaced..."Hmmm, a touch of the slippery slope perhaps?
http://yourlogicalfallacyis...."
The organized political groups that are as mired in hate and ignorance as the religious ones ( I'm looking at you Birthers) should be told to go sit at the kid's table with the people that believe in the man in the sky while the adults are talking.
Graham wrote: "I tend to agree, or at least not disagree, with much of what you say. It is what you leave out that leads me to believe that there is a potential role for a re-formed notion of religion. Sceptics in the Pub may provide a fun forum for the likes of you and I, but it isn't realy inclusive enough or broad enough to cover the range of roles traditionally covered by religion Well it is refreshing to have any conversation on this thread that doesn't start with an assertion that "you'll never change my belief!" So pointless pub/forum conversation or not, I am finding it interesting to pursue :-)
I am interested to see what you think I have not said. (Mainly because I do try to edit down my somewhat verbose comments for readability.
I am especially interested in seeing what you think about the nominal roles that religion plays in society and why religion cannot be safely discarded from these roles. I have asked several times on this thread in particular "what clear verifiable advantage does religion (or a particular religion) give us that cannot be gathered elsewhere?"
The normal answers I believe boil down into Truth, Meaning, Morality, Society, Charity and Comfort.
Truth
Obviously since I am not a believer (anymore) the "truth" of god (or gods) existence I discount without evidence. Furthermore the existence of multiple mutually exclusive religions means that truth must therefore be in the minority in religion in general. Worse still is that belief often leads to the attempt to oppose, distort or decry truths that sit uncomfortably with faith.
Meaning
So far many people claim that Religion gives meaning to life, but when pressed the meaning came down to two main premises. First was the idea that the meaning of this life was to attain reward through right action (or mere faith) in the afterlife. So what is then the meaning of said afterlife? It is a circular argument. The second most common response is the meaning to life is to "serve god", which effectively means that life's grand meaning is to be a slave (from the root servant - servi being Latin for slave) to a Lord so much powerful than you that your very service is insignificant.
Morality
The supposed superior morality of religion collapses when its premises are viewed directly. For example Mosaic law is horrific compared to modern secular law and indeed even to ancient Roman law. Secondly the morality of places with a higher amount of faithful is no different or sometimes worse than areas of a more secular nature. Finally, all of this "morality" is based on authoritative doctrine, which means that it leaves the adherent ethically blind. Laws like "Thou shalt not kill" have fairly easy to understand ethical underpinnings but making it divine mandate just makes it easier to disobey when the same authority orders the death of people they disagree with.
Ethical education should be the understanding of 'why' things are right and wrong, not just a list of arbitrary rules. With the former tyranny and fascism is hard to achieve, with the latter you are not being ethical you are being obedient.
Society
Religion has certainly shaped our culture and helped define communities but has it provided a glue to bring people together, or has it provided the most divisive force in history? Back in polytheistic faiths, things were not so bad. Foreign gods were accepted and often merged seamlessly with their equivalents (e.g. Mars came from Greek Ares but also eventually incorporated celtic gods like Toutatis) and multiculturalism was practically a watchword of the wider Roman Empire.
However, with the global rise of monotheism and therefore only one throne for a god to sit on, the world has endured schism after schism and war after war which was either caused by or excused by sectarian differences. Still today the sectarian wars rage whether it is Jews and Muslims in Israel, Shi'ite vs Sunni in the Middle East, Muslims and Christians in Africa, Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and India, or even the residual effects of the protestant catholic schism still played out in British football rivalries and violence or sectarian terrorism in Ireland and elsewhere.
As long as people see belief as sacred they will see people who do not believe the same as a threat.
Charity
There was some good work done about this on this thread, but all it pretty much established was that in religiously dominated societies religious institutions were the most common charities. What is also noticeable is that charity or care for the poor or needy does not directly equate to the care for the poor and needy. Look at the more religious US with its high rates of poverty compared to the more secular Europe often derided as being "socialist" for its more comprehensive welfare and state support systems.
There is no evidence that a religious society takes care of people better than a secular one, despite the claims to charity that religion makes. Furthermore the nature of religious charity also means that money can often be diverted toward the sustaining of the religion over the actual beneficial work of the charity. Even the supposedly saintly Mother Teresa is rumoured to have been more interested in recruiting more Nuns and convents than alleviating the suffering of those she proposed to help, especially as she believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ.
Comfort
Obviously the comfort offered by religion is perhaps the most subjective role religion plays in society, however it is not hard to address. For a start is comfort a good thing if it is not necessarily true? A doctor may comfort a person by saying that their recovery is in God's hands, or by lying to them and saying the tumour is benign or the placebo will be effective. All have the same statistical rate of effectiveness, but is such a lie truly a good thing? Obviously given a choice between a placebo and a proven treatment, most people would prefer treatment, between ignoring a serious condition and treating it the latter is the most effective, however only with religion (including unproven beliefs such as homoeopathy) will you get believers eschewing a proven to be effective treatment for a prayer or ritual.
Other forms of comfort are equally flawed and all carry the baggage that the comforting religion carries. The comfort that injustice (whether by ill-fortune or malice) will be balanced in the afterlife just undermines the need to seek equity and justice in this life. Furthermore it can easily lead to the idea that performing injustice will be balanced by divine punishment or karma leading to the supplanting of conscience and guilt with a pious acceptance.
The comfort of loss similarly is a double-edged sword. The thought of being re-united with loved ones becomes complicated if your loved one suffered or mind failed in the latter years. Who is the person preserved in the afterlife? What about the mutual loneliness of being apart? What happens if you meet someone and begin another relationship? What happens if your religion teaches you that your loved ones perhaps will not be waiting for you for their own crimes against doctrine? The questions are endless yet the comfort is fleeting at best.
So I have yet to find a purpose for religion that cannot be replaced by another process.
Graham wrote: " I do hope we are now living in a post-Bush/New Atheist reactionary era."
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that somehow atheism is on the rise because of a reaction to Bush?
Graham wrote: "Armstrong seems to have a point when she talks about the binary construct of Logos and Mythos. I can enjoy a work of art for what it captures about the human condition on the one hand, and examine the evolutionary adaptations that make it appealing to me on the other. These two perspectives, appear to be mutually exclusive yet dependant on each other. We need both understanding and personal meaning in our lives."
Sorry "art" was the one I forgot wasn't it.
Again, what 'meaning' does religion impart that allows us to better comprehend the art? Personally I can see the beauty in religious tales from the Qu'ran to the Ulster cycle, but that does not require religion. I can find beauty in the tale of the "Lord of the Rings" but I do not need to believe that Sauron existed or that Illuvatar sang the world into existence with the aid of the Valar.
We can both appreciate beauty and even analyse scientifically why we find certain things beautiful as the Greeks started doing before the dawn of Christendom. Religion and belief are not required for beauty and I posit that the religious may even be missing out on the beauty of existence because they willingly limit their perceptions by anthropomorphising it.
Graham wrote: "Like many religious folks, I worry that western society is becoming too individualistic and materialistic (in the consumer sense of the word). We need some focus to encourage more compassionate, supportive and communal values."
This effect is often being blamed on the decline of religion and yet in the Western world at least the politics of religious conservatism tend to go hand in hand with the politics of capitalistic excess. In the US the Republican party and its Tea party extremists push both religious moral superiority, individual choice and the dismantling of social support in the same breath, while it is commonly the more secular left wing that supports equality in opportunity and treatment and a mutually funded safety net for the needy paid for by all rather than relying on individual altruism.
Ultimately compassion is blunted by the main ideas of religion. If we are all just servants to a "Lord" then our obedience is important, not our own wants. If our lives are potentially eternal then what pressure is there to help out someone now. If hell exists and some people are going there then what is the point of being compassionate to the hell-bound?
Without religion we may realise that this life is all we get and when we are gone, we are gone. Perhaps then our evolved instinct for compassion will be unfettered by primitive beliefs and we will realise that only by helping each other will we come closer to a paradise in this life, and that ending the life of another person for whatever reason is ending their entire existence and therefore the most heinous crime of all.
Graham wrote: "I wonder if a reformed and inclusive religion that reject dogma and doctrine could fill this role? In practice, I suspect that there are many people within moderate denominations who are not theistic in a literal sense and quietly get on with a more humble version of religion. This seems to be the case among some Anglicans like John Shelby Spong."
What would that religion then be? If you deprive religion of its doctrine and dogma but not faith or belief then that faith and belief is then just waiting to be applied to another doctrine. Take away the faith and belief too and what do you have left? Nothing that I can see.
I think that maintaining religion is the sociological equivalent of leaving a gun around the house, loaded and with the safety off. Sure it may have its uses but it is far too easy for someone to abuse it, accidentally or deliberately and someone is going to get killed.
If we replaced religion with a mutual respect for each other based on simple logical deduction. After all what do the majority of us want in life but the opportunity to live the life we choose and be happy, how better to achieve this than be part of a society that mutually respects this idea.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Jesus allegedly had that figured out 2 millennia ago, but somehow the "why" gets overlooked. Not because I tell you, but because it is obviously a good idea!
Travis wrote: "As a generally optimistic guy, I have to have faith that religion could some day evolve into an even more positive force and learn to work with science instead of against. "I can see your point, but as far as any evidence I have seen the good done in the name of religion seems to be in spite of it rather than because of it. At its best religion seems to act as a nexus for altruistic people because they are brought up to believe "religion is good" therefore they gravitate there and meet other like minded people and unite their efforts to help others.
However, there is no indication that secular groups would not be as effective in gathering such people, there is no evidence that religion increases the percentage of such altruistic people in a society and unfortunately a wealth of evidence that peoples altruism occasionally gets subverted into the propagation of the religion itself or even diverted into ineffective or even harmful measures (such as abstinence-only sex education and HIV denialism).
All this also means that the suspension of critical faculties required for belief and faith are also there ripe for exploitation by a religious meme or unscrupulous preacher.
Graham wrote: "Hmmm, a touch of the slippery slope perhaps? or possibly an example of confirmatory bias?"Well to be fair my main point is about the lack of positive points to religious faith while the argument that the faith that followed in the wake of many religious reformers actually ending up more aggressive was a secondary one.
I would say it is not the slippery slope fallacy as I was not talking about hypothetical figures at all. Jesus is regarded as a reformist jew but compare the empires of Judaism and Christendom now and relate this to the history of violence and bloodshed in the name of Christ. In fact a lot of the violence directed at Judaism itself comes from Christian belief, the biblical portrayal of Jewish religious authority and of course the implicit denial of Christ's divinity and identity as the prophesied Messiah in remaining a Jew (and also of course Jewish isolationism and the historical fact that usury to Christians was once a crime punishable by death, leaving Jews to operate banks for profit. A law that is conveniently ignored by modern capitalistic Christians and their beloved investment markets). Meanwhile Judaism itself has been a lot less aggressive and indeed is not a religion of aggressive conversion.
The story of Mohammed is quite similar (though less familiar to me, probably due to my poor ability at Arabic), according to Muslim apologists Mohammed was a cultural reformer who stood up to the inequities of his tribes and formed a new religion based on charity and care of the needy. A care enshrined in such practices as fasting to share the experience of the hungry and poor and thereby generate sympathy. Despite this altruistic concept the result of Islam was an aggressive expansion and Imperialisation of the religion across the east and as far west as Spain, eventually culminating in the head to head struggles with Christendom over their religions (quite literal) common ground.
So slippery slope fallacy? I do not think so. Confirmation bias? Hard to tell, but I would call it an "observation".
Graham wrote: "What about other religions?"
Good question, but as I have already observed that polytheism has a tendency to be less directly aggressive and more assimilationist perhaps an unfair one.
The direct evidence of the reformist figures of Abraham and Moses in forging Judaism is unfortunately not very clear as the historical evidence is very shaky. The only other reformist figure I can think of in a monotheistic religion would be either Martin Luther & Henry VIII and the birth of protestantism or Akhenaten and the birth and sudden demise of Atenism. Unfortunately Martin Luther and Henry VIII did little to reform the morality of their religion and merely argued theological or even political authority and knowledge of Akhenaten is sketchy at best thanks to the priests attempts to obliterate his name from history. It does seem however that Akhenaten's religious reform from polytheism to monotheism was so unpopular that it did not survive his death.
Graham wrote: "Does the balance of evidence fit your hypothesis? You are using inductive reasoning, but as Hume questioned: are such assertions beyond the data reasonable?"
I would say that though the evidence is inconclusive, it does not support the hypothesis that another religious reform would be likely to deliver a more altruistic and gentle form of religion, and in fact would indicate the opposite.
Graham wrote: "Should we also give up on organised politics, because 20th century ideologies led to extremes? Just playing around at being the devil's advocate. ;-) "
Fallacy of False Equivalence? :-)
In fact if anything the 20th century political extremism is just more proof of the issues with belief and faith. At risk of falling foul of Godwin's Law the political ideology of fascism found fertile ground in the anti-Semitism inherited from a thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism (bodies are literally still being found in England from the various murders of Jewish immigrants over the centuries before the 20th and the fictitious religious crimes of blood-libel and host desecration levelled at Jews are fairly well documented). Fascism also benefited from a healthy belief in providence and divine mandate. At the other extreme Communism became an ideology that opposed religion simply because it could not tolerate another ideology. Political belief in the authoritative doctrines of Lenin etc. replaced religious belief on a one for one basis, yet it was still belief, not rationality. So again the reformist movement of Communism, based on altruistic ideas of social justice and universal fairness were subverted into an aggressive expansionist ideology that ended up oppressing more than it liberated.
Gary wrote: "If you deprive religion of its doctrine and dogma but not faith or belief then that faith and belief is then just waiting to be applied to another doctrine...."Go on, have a read of my review of Armstrong's book. It will save me having to repeat ideas from it:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I'm probably being a bit too lazy to take the time to explain myself very well here. I once again agree with most of what you say. During the Bush years when I lived in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia where evangelical religion was pretty big I had an approach similar to yourself. I remember rushing out to buy "The God Delusion", before getting bored whilst reading it. However, now I've spent a few years back in the less religious UK and I've had more exposure to academic science and philosophical scepticism I'm more interested in moving forward, rather going over old ground.
I don't think we should get bogged down addressing philosophically underdeveloped world views. Would you prefer to spend your time arguing against something you have a lot of confidence is nonsense, or moving forward with your own intellectual growth? I think it's more constructive to ignore the fundamentalists, reframe the issue and move the agenda forward. I agree that unquestioning respect for blind intellectual assent and the idolatrous nature of some modern religious belief is dangerous. But redefine religion as an epistemic practice that facilitates humble awareness of our sense of being within this unknowable reality (in a deeply sceptical ontological sense) and redefine faith as simply `trust, loyalty, engagement and commitment' to a practical way of life based on a shared compassion, and awe of nature and Being itself and you defuse the issue.
Wow. I feel dumb right now
Marie-pier wrote: "Wow. I feel dumb right now"I guess we are all 'dumb' when you think about how little we know compared to the amount left to learn. Only the wise feel 'dumb' :o)
Marie-pier wrote: "Wow. I feel dumb right now"You get used to it.
Gary says things we are all thinking, but he just says it better and smarter sounding than what I would have sound.
which leaves you impressed while wanting to slap the know-it-all.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Actually, some people are saying that "belief" itself is the problem. If you "believe" in science then you are not actually doing science.
Lillian wrote: "I think that the amazing things that science discovers is proof of a God, not proof that there isn't one. "
Why? Can you support that hypothesis?