BEAR on 10/4/2008 at 04:39
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
jay pettitt-
You said: "and the religions we've relied on over the past few thousand years should be retired just like all the others have been." in your post that was linked.
Religion, being more than simply the Judeo-Christian view of creation, actually
does have beneficial uses in the areas of self-discovery and inter-personal relations. Therefore, by retiring religion, you are also retiring these beneficial side products as well. While science may one day explain why or why not the Golden Rule, being a mainstay and central theme in many religions, works in society, isn't it just easier to intuitively trust such an idea and watch the benefits first hand?
In other words: the idea that science itself can replace every facet of religion is absurd.
You know, I've realized something: the entire argument here has nothing to do with the issues, its reading comprehension :/
Saying "and the religions we've relied on over the past few thousand years should be retired just like all the others have been." is nothing more than saying that current religions are outdated and increasingly incompatible with our current world. I personally dont think that they ALL are, there are plenty that have serious conflicts. These religions have done some bad and some good, and possibly have more good left in them. The problem comes from the fact that when they originated, there weren't explanations for the things we can explain today, so you end up with some absurd ideas requiring lots of faith and very little reason. While religion in and of itself isnt a bad thing, our major religions have become bloated and dont fit with the things we
do know. I think the mental need for spirituality/religion wont go away until we foribly remove it, and I dont know that we should do that. I would love to see that energy channeled into something that could take into account the laws of our world and the rules we've placed on ourselves rather than what was going on 2000 years ago when people thought that mice were (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Spontaneous_generation) made from straw. I know someones going to come back and say "but they knew things we dont" because people love the thought that mystics of the past had some special knowledge that we lack (I want to be a wizard as much as anyone), and I cant prove that they didnt, but they didnt.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Im not going to cut and paste all of them posts, just check for yourself- each and every time someone here asked something along the lines of "but can science teach me about how to treat my fellow man" or "can science tell me why am I moved to tears by that particular piece of art?" and such like. Youv'e answered "yes" in a very self-assured manner.
Those are two entirely different questions, and I dont believe anyone here has claimed science has an answer to the first one. The first question "but can science teach me about how to treat my fellow man" cant be answered scientifically, its inherantly a human question that varies depending on many variables, some of which follow scientific laws. Science would be for answering WHY we treat our fellow man in various ways. Why (physically) some people have very little problem doing violence to others while some abhore violence. Its been observed quite a lot that those exposed to violence early and often have less problem inflicting violence, and vice versa. Therefore, I would suspect that science could help to offer a solution to what the differences physically are between said individuals.
As for "can science tell me why am I moved to tears by that particular piece of art?", it sounds very profound to use phrases such as "moved to tears", but break it down into its composit parts. What you are really asking is can science explain why certain sound patterns cause emotional response, and how do we define emotional response, to which the answer is yes. Whether we've totally nailed it down yet is beside the question, these effects have testable componates that are well within the realm of our understanding, and needless to say there are very smart people working on those types of problems right now (the new scientist had a cool article about this lately, but you have to be a subscriber to read it and I think I would be breaking the rules by pasting it).
Im sorry to keep beating this poor corpse of a horse, but Its bugging me to hell that we're not
really disagreeing so much as misunderstanding eachother. I think we should probably just pull the plug on this thread and give it peace :sweat:
Nicker on 10/4/2008 at 05:22
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Stopped reading here.It's
"An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things: "
and NOT
An example why reductio ad absurdum is a bad thing.
My god, you are so dumb. Go away.
Yeah Benn, why waste your time addressing the sound refutation of your argumants when you can cherry pick bits to play at semantic subterfuge.
Let's see... Reductio ad Absurdum deliberately leads to absurd conclusions - therefore RaA is a good source for your daily not-recommended allowance of crap arguments. Particularly as used by yourself. Let's keep the context of my comments in mind please.
Furthermore, I did not significantly edit any of my previous post after your reply so please don't be making out like I am back pedaling or moving goalposts.
I'd straighten you out some more but since you have made it evident you won't read anything I write that doesn't agree with you, I'll save the bandwidth.
Other than to say - You have some nerve calling anyone on this board stupid and a very short memory to be telling anyone to go away. It's comchat, and I was here before you - get used to it, Benn.
Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 07:08
Quote:
Saying "and the religions we've relied on over the past few thousand years should be retired just like all the others have been." is nothing more than saying that current religions are outdated and increasingly incompatible with our current world.
I'm setting myself up for disappointment here, I know, but is there any way you can be more specific with these statements? Like, which religions are falling under your banner here, specifically, and for what reason? Can you quote any scriptures at all that led you to this conclusion? Or to be more blunt about it: try and make me believe that there is some sort of intelligent reasoning behind your post's gross over-simplifications.
And be sure to make your points simple and concise. My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be :(
jay pettitt on 10/4/2008 at 09:29
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I
am godless. I don't believe in a creator either. This fact does not stop me from acknowledging the wisdom within religious text however.
There's some wisdom for sure, but wisdom is hardly the preserve of religion. There's also an awful lot of fluff. More signal and less noise is readily available elsewhere.
Also, what Bear said, except for the bit about not being able to explore questions about how we should treat each other and why through study of the natural world (by which I of course include the study of ourselves). That strikes me as being an entirely good idea. (edit - and I think Bear sort of says as much anyway)
Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 09:42
Quote:
More signal and less noise is readily available elsewhere.
Please point me in the general direction. I love wisdom... can't get enough of the stuff! Guess you could say I'm addicted :erg:
That being the case, I can't find any more wise words than that which comes from Buddhism. It's really a great little religion. And as an added bonus, atheists can't complain about it because Buddhism lacks any mention of creation! ;)
Matthew on 10/4/2008 at 10:31
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
He equated his teachings to a man pointing to the moon.
Every time I read that, I hear Bruce Lee voicing it.
catbarf on 10/4/2008 at 10:38
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I'm setting myself up for disappointment here, I know, but is there any way you can be more specific with these statements? Like, which religions are falling under your banner here, specifically, and for what reason? Can you quote any scriptures at all that led you to this conclusion? Or to be more blunt about it: try and make me believe that there is some sort of intelligent reasoning behind your post's gross over-simplifications.
And be sure to make your points simple and concise. My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be :(
I imagine it's the increasing redundancy of the 'God of the gaps' used to explain things that nowadays science can, and probably because of the wars fought over religion even today.
Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 14:23
'God of the gaps' is not a religion though. As I've pointed out, creation accounts for only a small part of Judeo-Christianity while other religions like Buddhism don't believe in a creator period. And while there may be people who twist the creation stories of Christianity to suit their own agendas, calling for the summary dismissal of all religion based on that is like calling for the dismissal of all of physics because someone used its principles to create an atom bomb.
Just as Einstein didn't intend for Hiroshima to be vaporized because of work he contributed to, war and silly ID'ers are not the logical end results of Christ's message but merely an unfortunate side effect.
d0om on 10/4/2008 at 14:39
Most self described Christians don't act in a way which is compatible with Christian beliefs. I think this is the main source of confusion.
I don't remember the line in the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone... unless the accused is gay, then its a free for all."
The_Raven on 10/4/2008 at 14:57
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
As I've pointed out, creation accounts for only a small part of Judeo-Christianity while other religions like Buddhism don't believe in a creator period.
I was waiting for someone to bring up Buddhism. Whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy is very much debatable. I for one classify it as a philosophy since, from my understanding, they do not believe in a supernatural entity and essentially lay out that selfish actions have a tendency to some full circle. The good that comes from religion is derived from its inherent philosophy, not from all the supernatural "jealous god" elements. All these benefits can be derived just as well from the philosophical writings that have been made over the years. My personal stance is that the religions that possess strong supernatural elements, and that's most of them, create a mentality that is just too easily abused in order to serve someone's agenda. While philosophy and other texts are not immune to that sort of abuse, it's generally harder to conscript large groups of people into that kind of mentality.
