Vivian on 7/8/2009 at 09:58
Beleg's right. I mean, what is science anyway? It's only a rigorously and extensively cross-checked system of logically inferred theories based on as many observations about the universe as possible, that grew from and in fact is nowadays the most prominent school of philosophy. What do they know?
Beleg Cúthalion on 7/8/2009 at 10:36
You guys got some talent in almost consequently misinterpreting what I said. Do you think there was a whole philosophy about limits of science and its results if it was plainly clear that everything presented is perfectly true? This is not an evolution-is-crap-because-there-are-holes-in-it argument.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Ok, tell me what's modern religion like? Has it stopped trying to control things (including people who don't belong to the church in question) and don't want to affect on secular laws? Is there no more semi-forced, pushy attempts of converting? Are there no more judgemental statements on lifestyles that don't follow their [usually so far very heteronormative, nuclear-family based] dogma? Is there no more the "if you don't X or do Y, you will go to Hell" -threat? Do they let people believe, worship, be part of a community and yet live their lives in ways that feels right to them?
That's basically what I learned religion to be like (that is, here in Western Europe etc. etc.). Of course they throw in their ideas in discussions about abortion or family rights but so does everyone (and it would be a huge misunderstanding of seperation of church and state to see this as a problem) and they do have missionaries all over the world who work for development aid even in countries like Yaman where you practically cannot convert anyone. I believe I even know a non-married couple with children going to church regularly without anyone taking offence at it. I know women of the not-so-wallflower-sort working in service. That's what religion or church
can be today. There's not only the bunch of stick-in-the-muds. Plus, this sort of modern interpretation doesn't mean at all that the amount of "liberality" means to stray away from the true spirit of it, like some of the atheist religious critics claim.
DDL on 7/8/2009 at 11:03
Quote:
1. People tend to rely on science and its results as if they were final and completely reliable
And here was me thinking people tended to rely on scientific theories because they're actually testable, falsifiable and the best current models we have for basically everything. Faith based jumbo-jets are not, as far as I'm aware, terribly popular.
See one of the best things about science is that...honestly, we don't know what the results might be. We know that our precious theories could come crumbling down at any moment, we accept the fact that we could in fact be wrong about any given thing. Most really interesting scientific discoveries are not in fact heralded by eureka moments, they're heralded by experiments that give unexpectedly weird results, which you then follow up on. You might spin it later to seem like you postulated this and that, but basically: you grope around in the dark, find out what's there, and then devise the best explanation that fits that evidence. Who knows, you might find more stuff later that forces a revision, but that's FINE.
Science accepts that the current models it has MAY BE WRONG, and is fine with that. If you could honest to god (no pun intended) find convincing evidence for deity-based influence on human development, with no apparent other explanation possible, science would accept that. Wouldn't be happy about it, I suspect, but would accept it.
It's really a completely different thought structure from religious faith.
Beleg Cúthalion on 7/8/2009 at 11:21
I don't think the god thing would work, but that's a different issue. Basically I agree, no problem. I just often miss the careful distinction between:
Quote:
best current models we have
and "that's it, period". Religion has a different realm (again, NOMA concept, this time not my personal version of it) and cannot simply be tested or proved by natural laws and experiments etc., but it's not the only thing in this world which is like that.
DDL on 7/8/2009 at 13:03
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I don't think the god thing would work, but that's a different issue. Basically I agree, no problem. I just often miss the careful distinction between [best current models] and "that's it, period". Religion has a different realm (again, NOMA concept, this time not my personal version of it) and cannot simply be tested or proved by natural laws and experiments etc., but it's not the only thing in this world which is like that.
Well, yes...but for something like evolution, the evidence in favour is...well, I can't think of a better way to say it than OVERWHELMING.
It IS a theory, it COULD be wrong, but the chance of that is rapidly becoming
vanishingly unlikely. And thus far, using it as 'the model' has worked extremely well, and enabled a great many discoveries and inventions.
You could say the same thing about the big bang. All evidence points toward that theory being essentially correct.
And there are lots of good, reasonable evolutionary and memetic reasons why intelligent species might spontaneously generate (and then subsequently cultivate) religious belief. None of them need actually include a real god.
I guess my main irritation is just that once you've got past the primitive, superstitious stage of intellect development, religion seems so
unnecessary. And from an external standpoint, it seems ludicrous, especially given the sheer NUMBER of mutually-exclusive religions out there. It's sort of like still needing a comfort blanket when you're 30, or something.
Vasquez on 7/8/2009 at 13:23
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Of course they throw in their ideas in discussions about abortion or family rights but so does everyone
Well, you're absolutely right. I didn't even think about it from this point of view :o
Your church does sound nicely modernish, I have to admit.
Stitch on 7/8/2009 at 14:54
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Religion has a different realm (again, NOMA concept, this time not my personal version of it) and cannot simply be tested or proved by natural laws and experiments etc.
Replace religion with "the existence of god" and I'll readily agree. Whether or not that renders the existence of god irrelevant in a practical sense is up for debate.
june gloom on 7/8/2009 at 17:11
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
You guys got some talent in almost consequently misinterpreting what I said.
Welcome to TTLG.
Beleg Cúthalion on 7/8/2009 at 18:56
I thought I'd have at least one big discussion about religions on an internet forum in a foreign language. :D And I just got myself a whole bunch of work, I guess I'll leave the larger replies to others now.
Queue on 8/8/2009 at 01:44
I'm too lazy.
