ercles on 15/12/2008 at 19:22
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
The basic train of thought is that we have phased out many religions before and labeled them as mythology, a prime example being the Roman pantheon. The general consensus is that the Roman deities were created in a time when the world was a very frightening place; where things happened for, what appeared at the time to be, absolutely no reason. They didn't know that thunder was caused by a bunch of ionized air particles, or that volcanoes erupted because the internal pressure of the magma exceeded what could be withstood by the volcano. Since they had no idea of the mechanisms behind such things, they drew the only logical conclusion available: deific concourse.
Considering we now have evolution and it has some pretty significant evidence backing it, anti-theists believe that its time for creationism to be relegated to the role of mythology as its place has been taken by a more logical conclusion to the question of our creation.
Two things, firstly I basically don't respect anything he says because I honestly believe that his style of extremism is just as dangerous and unhelpful as religious extremism. Secondly, I am certainly no history major, but how long have the abrahamic faiths been around compared to Roman mythology.
Personally the main place I see this whole replacing religion with science thing falling down is that they are completely incompatible, and can't really be compared. Religion is a faith based approach, whereas science is logic based, and as such they are so completely different in their underpinning mindsets that I can't ever see one replacing the other.
Also, fett, you are one seriously interesting guy.
Starrfall on 15/12/2008 at 22:09
Quote Posted by BEAR
Have you read either of these? Can you suggest one over the other? I noticed C. Hitchens and Richard Dawkins both come up on "people who bought this also bought", at least there is no shortage of books on the subject to read (though Hitchens is only entertaining when he's berating people face to face, I don't actually go in for his confrontational attitude, I think its counterproductive if cathartic).
I read all of the first and most of the second for an ev psych class in undergrad. Religion Explained is probably better because it's a little broader and you can just skip to the "Why Rituals?" and "Why Doctrines, Exclusion, and Violence?" chapters.
I haven't read any Dawkins but I understand him to be more of the "religion is dumb" persuasion. Those books are more about why religion makes sense. They might still offend people who think only THEIR religion makes sense because it is the One True Faith, but they're really not confrontational.
fett on 15/12/2008 at 22:42
Quote Posted by BEAR
Would you still consider yourself a spiritual person or did you pretty much abandon the whole thing?
I'm not sure what I am now. A realist. A father and husband. A writer, a musician. Maybe one of those 'free-thinker' nutjobs I keep hearing about. :)
Quote Posted by BEAR
I'm also interested to see that both yours and Queue's stories are fairly similar. It seems to take something pretty drastic, which is unfortunate. It would be nice if it could be done less painfully, or even less fully.
I think it depends on the person. For those who casually go to church and do the religious thing, it's easy to 'fall away' gradually. For myself, I was very 'hardcore' (and not in the fundamentalist way). I spent time in dangerous places (Sudan, Uganda, etc.) because I took what James says seriously - none of this 'be warmed and filled stuff'. I didn't do evangelism, I did food, shelter, clean water, medical clinics, etc. My whole life, every single decision was based on the example of Jesus, to the point that I was financially destitute and had surrounded and exposed myself and my family to some Very Bad People (I actually re-located to escape a few situations like this). I've had guys threaten to kill my wife and kids (while pointing a gun at me) because I couldn't fix their marriage/psychological problem/economic situation by waving my magic pastor wand. I've been shot at several times, almost stabbed once, and held in detention overnight in foreign countries for giving away bibles (nevermind that the bibles were compulsory, and the main thing we were giving away was clothing). The reason I go into all of that is to say that when you live in such a way because of an idea, and are willing to die for that idea, stepping away from it has to be just as radical and 'hardcore' I think. There was no way to gradually back away from the things I was involved in - there had to be a clean break and an explanation for it to the people around me. So the strong commitment kind of necessitates a strong divorce from it (I hope that makes sense).
Quote Posted by BEAR
Edit: Another question, what type economic background did you and/or the people you related to religiously come from? I've noticed that the most dogmatic, stubborn Christians have often been those with the most need for faith. People like my mother especially who had a pretty comfortable growing up were not as sucked into it as people who had less. I wonder if the negative impacts of religion could be reduced simply by improving the quality of life of people in general.
Exactly right for most people - I find that to be true as well. I'm a bit of an oddball because I came from a normal, marginally religious family that was working middle-class (air force). Looking back, I don't think I gravitated toward trying to imitate Jesus' life because of any void or lack, but because it was "sexy" (using an old analogy borrowed from Stitch) to be radically more committed and serious about belief than even the other Christians around me. The prevailing attitude of the church (propagated through christian media) is that *they* are in fact the minority, holding the line against the godless culture surrounding them. For a teenager, that is very appealing. In my high school, I was one of a small group of "serious" christian that wore the t-shirts (before they were popular), listened to all the "white" metal bands (this was in the mid-80's), and carried bibles around. I was even more of a minority because I was a metalhead, had hair down to my ass, etc. - but I was a christian, and people couldn't figure out how all of that worked together, which I liked. It was just another way of standing out, no different really from your average goth or whatever.
Volitions Advocate on 16/12/2008 at 00:00
Quote Posted by ercles
Personally the main place I see this whole replacing religion with science thing falling down is that they are completely incompatible, and can't really be compared. Religion is a faith based approach, whereas science is logic based, and as such they are so completely different in their underpinning mindsets that I can't ever see one replacing the other.
I disagree with this statement. Not to start an argument of course but I dont think that they are exclusive of each other. To believe that God created the earth without the use of science is a little crazy I think. How did Jesus transmute or .. transform or whatever water into wine? Miracle ...no ... I dont think it was un-explainable magic. Scientists are continally claiming that there is so much we dont know, going as far as to say that there are truths in science that we don't ahve the ability to imagine at this point in our development. How did Moses part the red sea? I don't believe it was magic. I believe God knew how to do it, because he understands that aspect of chemistry and physics that we are unable to grasp even with all our technology, and its not for us to understand in this state, which is where the faith comes in. God is THE scientist.
and THATS the reason I think this Science vs. Religion thing is silly. I suppose i"m agreeing with you, only for a different reason.
Queue on 16/12/2008 at 00:12
Or it's all just metaphor in the greatest work of fiction ever created--one so convincing that people take it literally.
BEAR on 16/12/2008 at 01:18
Quote Posted by ercles
Two things, firstly I basically don't respect anything he says because I honestly believe that his style of extremism is just as dangerous and unhelpful as religious extremism. Secondly, I am certainly no history major, but how long have the abrahamic faiths been around compared to Roman mythology.
Personally the main place I see this whole replacing religion with science thing falling down is that they are completely incompatible, and can't really be compared. Religion is a faith based approach, whereas science is logic based, and as such they are so completely different in their underpinning mindsets that I can't ever see one replacing the other.
Also, fett, you are one seriously interesting guy.
When I think what religion is at its very most basic, I don't see whats really the contrast. If you tell me you think the universe was created, or that you find some exterior meaning beyond just living and dying, I can't
really argue. The nature of existence and the creation of the universe is a rather large and complex topic, one which we are far from understanding (if we in fact ever will). The fact that religion and spirituality takes so many forms shows me that it doesn't
have to be anything. It could be anything. Not all religions frown on science, not all of them are dogmatic and exclusory.
You could claim that some force knowingly or not created the universe as it was as a place for life to develop (or not), or even that some force created a universe for us to live in the hopes that we will eventually reach the point to where we can understand that creation. I would have a hard time disputing that, and I don't see why I would really want to. No skin off my teeth. If believing that gives you a sense of connection to the universe (which we all want in some form), wheres the harm? I find a certain spiritual pleasure in such thoughts myself.
The funny thing is I can't think of anything more rawly spiritual than contemplating the nature of existence in real terms. I find a lot more pleasure in that than some contrived self centered book that ignores the entirety of the rest of the universe. Humanity really isn't that interesting when we consider how little a part of what is we make up.
My point is I don't think religion and science have to go head to head over everything. We view this in a pretty short time-frame. Just like the first black president and the first woman president, we want everything right now. This is one of those things that will come to a head eventually, maybe or maybe not in our lifetimes. This is a struggle of forces and I don't see religion gaining any ground, historically they are on the way down and they will get with the program or face extinction, so while its a little irritating to me I'm not particularly worried in the long term. Gays will get the right to marry, a woman will be president, and religion will come to to terms with science unless we genetically engineer it out of existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't push, without us pushing now these things wont come to happen, but as long as we keep along this path (and don't kill ourselves in the process) I've little doubt they will.
Here are some links I looked up briefly (trying to find the article in the front of a new scientist I had but no luck so far).
(
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13722-evolution-myths-religion-and-evolution-are-incompatible.html)
(
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)
Bah, I found it but its "premium content", and my subscription just lapsed.
Also to mirror ercles, I find you to be more awesome Fett with every post you make. Your post is just one more reason I'm not quite ready to close the book on spirituality, we might could do without religion, but I think spirituality might just another emotion that allows us to go above and beyond what we could do on our own. Without love and compassion and the things that spirituality can enhance, there are good things that could go undone. It might be that steady, non-judgmental secular help could do better overall, but having highly motivated people really believing in what they are doing is not the worst thing humanity has to offer. Problems is that coin has two sides.
ercles on 16/12/2008 at 01:22
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I disagree with this statement.
Okay, seriously, you think that religion is a little crazy, but you are trying to explain miracles in the Bible as unexplainable magic? I honestly don't think there is some hidden area of science that allows us to raise people from the dead or part a sea.
BEAR on 16/12/2008 at 02:19
Uh, yeah, I don't think I read his post before but yeah thats a strange point to be making.
I really fucking hate those "Hey science can explain all your miracles!" We don't have to explain them, they are in a thousands of years old book that has no proof whatsoever, they don't have to be proven or explained. Anyone who focuses on those miracles as the basis for their religion is missing the point anyways, so they a really the least important part of this whole discussion (excepting perhaps their relevance as an example of what we humans will willingly believe in the face of all that is reasonable).
fett on 16/12/2008 at 02:25
Quote Posted by BEAR
. It might be that steady, non-judgmental secular help could do better overall, but having highly motivated people really believing in what they are doing is not the worst thing humanity has to offer. Problems is that coin has two sides.
I think it depends what they do about it. I was fortunate enough to fall in with a group of people who were more interested in imitating Jesus than in being part of a church or religion, so it seemed natural to me very early on that my belief (or faith) was useless unless it really did something meaningful to affect the world - the here and now world, not just the afterlife. Sure, there's always the motivation to proselytize and evangelize when you're a religious person doing charitable work, but the philosophy of 'ministry' I was part of believed that if your actions didn't automatically attract people to also want to imitate Jesus, then you really didn't have a right to try to talk them into it. The reverse of that (and what is prevalent) is trying to prove to people that the bible is true, christian belief is right, and make humanitarianism the icing on the cake (a missionary friend of mine used to say 'humanitarianism IS the fucking cake!). Problem is, the second option is the most viable for folks who are comfortable in their 3bd 2bth 2.5 kids. Western Christianity in a nutshell.
Volitions Advocate on 16/12/2008 at 03:25
Quote Posted by ercles
Okay, seriously, you think that religion is a little crazy, but you are trying to explain miracles in the Bible as unexplainable magic? I honestly don't think there is some hidden area of science that allows us to raise people from the dead or part a sea.
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that people who use science as a basis to disprove the christian mythos are missing something. I'm saying I DON'T believe in magic. I believe that the entire system of christian religion... if understood properly can be viewed in an exercise of mathematical logic and common sense.
The biggest beef I have with most christian religions is that everything is so convoluted, when the truth is really quite simple, and logical.
What I'm saying is.. why say God doesn't exist because of science, when if look at the claims of christianity (ie. god created the earth) through Logic. It could easily be surmised that God created the Earth with Science.
Now proving that is where faith comes in. If you believe the tenants of christianity; you can not prove anything to a person. I do not have the power to make you believe. Only God can do that, through the holy spirit, if you are willing. Thats where you separate the faith from the science. Because I cannot use science to prove that god exists, and even if I could... nobody would listen anyway.
