Why does it matter if religion is anti-scientific?

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

Kind of. I would prefer that my children grow up to believe that they can be good without the need of the crutch of religion.

A lot of the religious that post on these boards only seem to think they can be good because of some imaginary supernatural force that apparently lives in their heart. My point, I suppose, was that if children were taught that they can be good, outside of a religious framework; this might be more useful than having to explain why religion is good.

MrP

Now I believe it does matter if religion rejects scienctific facts and rejects the obvious. Thomas the apostle was a sceptic.Also I believe some atheists are anti-organised religion and polarise debates but that aside.

But - with this inate goodness (and you know i am being genuine here)
would you object if a child of yours joined a religion and if for them they felt happier.The bible would be an external source of guidance.

Catholics have a Platoist take on the bible -so you have crossover.Many atheists turn to philosophy on ethical issues as an external source on complex matters. It may not be the bible but it gives an external source - (in one thread GX asked me about The Dialogues of Plato - the Euthyphro Dilemma so atheists are interested in ethics) but where do you stand?

You may not rely on the source -but memetics - may make you more of a christian then you would care to admit.Surely these beliefs do provide a framework albeit not as part of a Church or scripture but a framework nonetheless.

Isnt it an entirely different thing to say science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God then that science is anti-religion. By the same token isnt it equally valid to say that while christians may have ethical issues with certain branches of science then those concerns may be common ethical dilemmas with atheists-that does not make religion anti science.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wait, wut?

Haha. Bang goes your credibility.:D

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Now I believe it does matter if religion rejects scienctific facts and rejects the obvious. Thomas the apostle was a sceptic.Also I believe some atheists are anti-organised religion and polarise debates but that aside.

I think it would be fair to say, most if not all atheists are anti-organised religion. Religions are usually pretty harmless until some muppet goes and organises them:p

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say, most if not all atheists are anti-organised religion. Religions are usually pretty harmless until some muppet goes and organises them:p

If the Pope came to Ireland you would start a campaign for him to visit Mayo ,so you would, and just to support tourism.:D

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure if I like the word 'religion' there. Anyway, a good Christian parent I'm certainly does offer reasons. I know I was offered reasons.

I'm not trying to question your parenting skills, but from a moral standpoint, is it right to teach a child that one religion is definately right when you can't be a hundred percent sure that it is right for anyone but yourself?

CDfm

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not trying to question your parenting skills, but from a moral standpoint, is it right to teach a child that one religion is definately right when you can't be a hundred percent sure that it is right for anyone but yourself?

For any kids reading -the parent is the person with the pocket money - so at least pretend:)

Ickle Magoo

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not trying to question your parenting skills, but from a moral standpoint, is it right to teach a child that one religion is definately right when you can't be a hundred percent sure that it is right for anyone but yourself?

In fairness, parents don't tend to work like that. Most parents work on the premiss that they know what is best for their child by virtue of only wanting what is best for their child. I would think theists would include faith, the comfort their faith brings them - not to mention the raft of earthly & heavenly benefits - as excellent reasons to pass their faith on and so such teaching is, bearing in mind theist beliefs, very much in the best interest of their children.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

If that was true, there would be no religious scientists, just as there are no atheist Christians.

CDfm wrote: »

Science should be value neutral at least at it hypoteses stage.

Not all scientists are

Science isn't value-neutral. Nothing is.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Since you want to be nit picky, I'll spell it out clearer still. Religion has always done it, but doesn't do it always. A bit subtle, I know, sorry; I know not everyone gets subtle. If you think Galileo is the exception and not the norm, perhaps it is you who hasn't got a clue about history?

The fact that there are so few examples that one can pick out show that Galileo's case was a rare instance of religion hindering science. More often, religion encouraged it. The Irish church and the Muslims preserved ancient knowledge during the dark ages of europe; the mediaeval Catholic church sponsored 'natural philosophy' in the hope that it would confirm church teachings.

MrPudding wrote: »

Kind of. I would prefer that my children grow up to believe that they can be good without the need of the crutch of religion.

I would prefer not to live under such a self-righteous delusion (I don't have children though). I can't be good enough, since I do too many bad things. But religion offers me not goodness, but forgiveness.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Science isn't value-neutral. Nothing is.

"It is our conclusion, based on all available data, that the existence of rape within certain primate communities is now undeniable. Yes gentlemen; monkeys are evil. Dr. Immanuel Schneider will go into this in more detail in his paper on the Theory of Wicked Monkeys."

Seriously dude, what are you even talking about? In what way is science not value neutral?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

"It is our conclusion, based on all available data, that the existence of rape within certain primate communities is now undeniable. Yes gentlemen; monkeys are evil. Dr. Immanuel Schneider will go into this in more detail in his paper on the Theory of Wicked Monkeys."

Seriously dude, what are you even talking about? In what way is science not value neutral?

I agree- I may have issues with certain science or medical practice but thats on ethical grounds.

Even if I wasnt Catholic I would have issues with the UKs public policy on abortion. I know atheists that have real issues with it too. But thats not science its abortion.

Hurin- give some examples.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

If that was true, there would be no religious scientists, just as there are no atheist Christians.

There are tons of atheist Christians if you define a Christian as someone who simply carries out the practices of Christianity (going to mass, praying, saying grace, taking communion, ticking "Catholic" on the census form), in the same way that a scientist is simply someone who carries out study following the scientific method. They don't have to agree with it or even fully understand it.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

No we don't there are certain polarised pockets and extremists who may do.

THey are about as removed from the religion I belong to as a domestic cat is from a siberian tiger.

What scientific principles do we Catholics reject?

The easy one to say is we evolution -bollox we dont. The creation of the universe- thats tough because scientific facts are still the same no matter how the world and universe came into being.It is what it is.

If I put milk in tea it will still turn white irrespective of my belief in God.

Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

An atheist may say thats synonomous with no proof and reject the bible as a book of evidence that cannot be replicated as a scientific experiment. We all know that.

Thats hardly rejecting science IMHO - all its saying is that we dont need scientific proof as evidence.

By your logic there was no gravity before Newton discovered it.

Wicknight wrote: »

There are tons of atheist Christians if you define a Christian as someone who simply carries out the practices of Christianity (going to mass, praying, saying grace, taking communion, ticking "Catholic" on the census form), in the same way that a scientist is simply someone who carries out study following the scientific method. They don't have to agree with it or even fully understand it.

So you will have us all going around as goody goody saints. Its a reference point for our moral outlook and beliefs. AS Cousin Amos in Texas says " Just practising , aint got there yet".

You dont reject confusius or buddha of any of the eastern philosophies that have an "external" reference to their beliefs. Even doctors learn ethics and study philosophy to get"it". So why criticise an "external" source.

I think you have a God phobia.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

What scientific principles do we Catholics reject?

That you do not have enough (any) scientific models to determine accurately that God exists and is how he is described in the Bible and did the things claimed of him (created the universe for example).

CDfm wrote: »

Thats hardly rejecting science IMHO - all its saying is that we dont need scientific proof as evidence.

That is rejecting science.

If you don't need science accurately determine things about the world around us then what is the point of science in the first place?

CDfm wrote: »

By your logic there was no gravity before Newton discovered it.

No, my logic is that no one knew what gravity was before Newton.

If you want to say you don't know what is causing any of these natural phenomena that you attribute to being caused by your god, that would not be anti-scientific. But you don't claim that, you claim you believe your god did it.

CDfm wrote: »

So you will have us all going around as goody goody saints. Its a reference point for our moral outlook and beliefs. AS Cousin Amos in Texas says " Just practising , aint got there yet".

Yes but if the UN peace keepers cannot get into the compound then how can the president verify that his family are still alive?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

That you do not have enough (any) scientific models to determine accurately that God exists and is how he is described in the Bible and did the things claimed of him (created the universe for example).


That is rejecting science.

If you don't need science accurately determine things about the world around us then what is the point of science in the first place?


No, my logic is that no one knew what gravity was before Newton.

If you want to say you don't know what is causing any of these natural phenomena that you attribute to being caused by your god, that would not be anti-scientific. But you don't claim that, you claim you believe your god did it.



Yes but if the UN peace keepers cannot get into the compound then how can the president verify that his family are still alive?

Well if God was a drunk driver he would never be over the limit. The whole point of being a Supreme Being is the choice to do what you want when you want. Right then Ted whats this about God not wanting to submit to Wicknights testing.Well Dougal -Im glad you asked - but the church teaches us that it may be an objection to being tested by someone whose ancestors he knew when they were apes:D

Your logic would be that Sir Gallahad de Wicknight who accompanied Strongbow in his invasion of Ireland in 1170 (before Newtons theory) didn't make any connection between a big rock being dropped from a height on him and pain,injury and possible death and gravity.Dont think so. Wow - memetics really works.

So your President argument does not really change anything in the world as we know it or invalidate any scientific studies or hypothes.Science survives. Other then that a scientific God test doesn't exist and that the Wicknight family despite no scientific proof survived falling rocks for millions of years( the rumour is they understood gravity but we cant be sure as we cant test it)

CDfm

Wicknight has gone very quiet. Unlike him to concede so quickly.

CD strokes chin and ponders new thread on Christian forum-Wicknight:created by God or desended from apes?:D

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Well if God was a drunk driver he would never be over the limit. The whole point of being a Supreme Being is the choice to do what you want when you want. Right then Ted whats this about God not wanting to submit to Wicknights testing.Well Dougal -Im glad you asked - but the church teaches us that it may be an objection to being tested by someone whose ancestors he knew when they were apes:D

Your logic would be that Sir Gallahad de Wicknight who accompanied Strongbow in his invasion of Ireland in 1170 (before Newtons theory) didn't make any connection between a big rock being dropped from a height on him and pain,injury and possible death and gravity.Dont think so. Wow - memetics really works.

So your President argument does not really change anything in the world as we know it or invalidate any scientific studies or hypothes.Science survives. Other then that a scientific God test doesn't exist and that the Wicknight family despite no scientific proof survived falling rocks for millions of years( the rumour is they understood gravity but we cant be sure as we cant test it)

Yes but you aren't answering the question of how Castro could get to the different political parties to agree to the summit unless he could back it up with threat of sanctions?

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

If the Pope came to Ireland you would start a campaign for him to visit Mayo ,so you would, and just to support tourism.:D

Sure there's a recession on!!

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you aren't answering the question of how Castro could get to the different political parties to agree to the summit unless he could back it up with threat of sanctions?

Is that you conceding on this matter -its just I find your post overly allegorical and full of metaphor.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Is that you conceding on this matter -its just I find your post overly allegorical and full of metaphor.

Oh I'm sorry, were you discussing something with me?

Because for a while your replies to my posts had absolutely nothing to do with the posts themselves so I just figured you were some kind of automated internet bot that had thrown an exception and was now replying with random nonsense. I thought I would do the same to try and get you back on track.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, were you discussing something with me?

Because for a while your replies to my posts had absolutely nothing to do with the posts themselves so I just figured you were some kind of automated internet bot that had thrown an exception and was now replying with random nonsense. I thought I would do the same to try and get you back on track.

So we can agree that gravity existed before Newton "discovered" it.

We got stuck on what parts of religion are anti-scientific. We stalled on whether a God experiment was a viable proposal. I think not.

You were skirting around the issue of whether faith is verifiable scientifically. The general concensus being that atheist incredulity at the bible is that the events do not comply always with science especially physics and biology.

I replied flippantly because I thought your points were flippant - I would really enjoy going a bit further with this discussion- and get at the core facts.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

So we can agree that gravity existed before Newton "discovered" it.

I never claimed otherwise. Newton didn't discover gravity the phenomena, he discovered how it worked, that bodies of mass attract other bodies of mass. Not particularly accurately, his models have been updated greatly since then.

CDfm wrote: »

You were skirting around the issue of whether faith is verifiable scientifically.

I'm not. Christian faith isn't scientifically verifiable. You guys don't seem to care. It seems to you guys that this isn't important.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I never claimed otherwise. Newton didn't discover gravity the phenomena, he discovered how it worked, that bodies of mass attract other bodies of mass. Not particularly accurately, his models have been updated greatly since then.

but the non existence of scientific theory previously to this didnt lead anyone to reject his concept did it. it operated on a live and let live policy. Perhaps there is a lesson there.

I'm not. Christian faith isn't scientifically verifiable. You guys don't seem to care. It seems to you guys that this isn't important.

Does it affect you that christians accept that they need faith and dont require scientific proof in any real way. That we live in a secular state should tell you christianity is tolerant of non believers and generally seperates the political from the spiritual.The only way you could be affected is if a particular christian or christians wont reject their faith because of your rationale that God is not verifiable scientifically.

Otherwise its business as usual.The beliefs of others dont affect you.even if they do affect you ( a christian girl wont sleep with you but is saving herself for marriage. There are plenty of atheist women who may not have those values.

Catholicism does not reject science. OFF topic I know. But if gave examples where religion or religious beliefs affect you then i will happily discuss.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Perhaps there is a lesson there.

Well yes, religious people should stop pretending to know things they don't actually know. Up until Netwon and Galileo the classical idea of gravity was that heavier things feel faster than lighter things. That "made sense" to people.

How many religious notions of god and the universe do religious people believe because they "make sense" to them that way.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the last 400 years of science it is that the universe rarely works the way we believe it should.

CDfm wrote: »

Does it affect you that christians accept that they need faith and dont require scientific proof in any real way.

Beyond religious people doing silly things based on this belief, not really.

Does it effect you that atheists post on internet bulletin boards?

CDfm wrote: »

That we live in a secular state should tell you christianity is tolerant of non believers and generally seperates the political from the spiritual.

We only got a secular state when people started to properly reject the absolute faith in their religious beliefs.

This leads to better things. I think we should have more of it. Contrast today with 50 years ago in Ireland if you disagree.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, religious people should stop pretending to know things they don't actually know. Up until Netwon and Galileo the classical idea of gravity was that heavier things feel faster than lighter things. That "made sense" to people.

How many religious notions of god and the universe do religious people believe because they "make sense" to them that way.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the last 400 years of science it is that the universe rarely works the way we believe it should.

Lots of things make sence in a cultural way too. Ive read up on memetics and it made sense to me once I put it into perspective and I found myself enjoying the insight it gave me into the development of the philosophy/ethics of religion.

Not all beliefs are religious.

Beyond religious people doing silly things based on this belief, not really.

Does it effect you that atheists post on internet bulletin boards?

But believers do lots of not so silly things too. Good things and some stuff really not to be proud of at all.

It really used to upset me when I say intolerent or disrespectful posts- one particular thread on the Pope :mad:. It annoys me when I see catholic posters misrepresent Catholic Theology as it is very different to what lots of posters represent it to be.

We only got a secular state when people started to properly reject the absolute faith in their religious beliefs.

This leads to better things. I think we should have more of it. Contrast today with 50 years ago in Ireland if you disagree.

A secular state - mentioned on LL that in Ireland that Universal Suffrage(Voting) for Men was introduced in 1918 and for women in 1921 (the UK followed in 1928) and was met with deafening silence. So docterines build up their own myths if followed blindly.

Yup - that does sound like a good idea to do Ireland 50 years back.

Totally- I would be on for that.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

There are tons of atheist Christians if you define a Christian as someone who simply carries out the practices of Christianity (going to mass, praying, saying grace, taking communion, ticking "Catholic" on the census form), in the same way that a scientist is simply someone who carries out study following the scientific method. They don't have to agree with it or even fully understand it.

That's really not a sensible definition of a Christian. I think that most religious scientists have a more thorough understanding of both science and their religion than any supposed "Christian atheists" have of either Christianity or atheism.

Are you making the case that Christianity and atheism are not fundamentally opposed? Is there no analogy too ridiculous for you to argue?

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously dude, what are you even talking about? In what way is science not value neutral?

So, a method designed by humans who came from human cultures, all of which had values (from Abrahamic religions), is in fact value free?

Off the top of my head, some scientific values:

truth comes through measurement
the universe is rational and uniform
objectivity exists
progress exists

This is not an attack on science. I don't see it as any credit to science to claim to be value-free.

Wicknight wrote: »

That you do not have enough (any) scientific models to determine accurately that God exists and is how he is described in the Bible and did the things claimed of him (created the universe for example).


That is rejecting science.

I think you're confusing science with positivism. Catholics reject the latter but not the former.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Does it affect you that christians accept that they need faith and dont require scientific proof in any real way.

We've already been over this. It does affect us. It matters because that habit, that way of thinking, spreads to all aspects of life and society. It is that thought-habit (I don't know a word for it) that leads inevitably to the conflict between science and faith and ultimately does great harm to people. Some of those people harmed are not faithful at all, so it's not as if we can even leave the faithful to their own devices. Their impact is too far-reaching. We live in a world where it is still okay to fully believe in things without verifiable evidence in support of them. Certainly there are scientists who also have faith. The good ones compartmentalise. They simultaneously value faith and yet dismiss it when it comes to their work. But even their faith serves to validate evidence-free belief in others, perhaps even adding weight to that validation.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We've already been over this. It does affect us. It matters because that habit, that way of thinking, spreads to all aspects of life and society. .... Their impact is too far-reaching.

I dont really get this.

I can understand it to some extent in an academic area such as science and thanks for explaining how science research is conducted and peer review.

Surely then the only area of concerns would be whether the area being studies and its methods were actually ethical - the stem cell thing is covered elsewhere. But can you expand on how this effects life as you percieve it.

So you know - Ive read up on memetics out of interest rather than to debate - but what would the difference be between cultural beliefs acquired thru memes and religion.

On ethics -say you have an external source you read in philosophy like Socrates on ethical issues or even Confuscious how does that differ from religious beliefs?

A Primal Nut

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm assuming you're agnostic? As obviously your above issue applies to calling oneself atheist also. WN embraces this contradiction (As seen over in the Christianity forum). If you are an atheist, do you accept that your position is also a contradiction using your reasoning?

I assume the point you are making is that being an atheist should require evidence also. My point of view on this is there is plenty of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no Christian God, Allah...etc. There may well be a God of some type but nothing that is suggested by any of human's organised religions. They can all be proven wrong very easily without making a leap of faith.

I can sort of accept that it takes a minor leap of faith to be an atheist, but it certainly doesn't take a leap of faith to not believe in the Christian God, for example.

A Primal Nut

CDfm wrote: »

I dont really get this.

I can understand it to some extent in an academic area such as science and thanks for explaining how science research is conducted and peer review.

Surely then the only area of concerns would be whether the area being studies and its methods were actually ethical - the stem cell thing is covered elsewhere. But can you expand on how this effects life as you percieve it.

So you know - Ive read up on memetics out of interest rather than to debate - but what would the difference be between cultural beliefs acquired thru memes and religion.

On ethics -say you have an external source you read in philosophy like Socrates on ethical issues or even Confuscious how does that differ from religious beliefs?

Political decisions on important issues on stem cells, abortion, birth control, children born outside of wedlock, homosexuality etc, etc have often been made based on Christian beliefs, not to mention all the laws made based on Islamic beliefs. A lot of times religion has been the only authority whose position has been relevant on these issues for politicians, which is crazy. A lot of people make decisions on who to vote for based purely on some stupid 2000 year old book written by people living in a completely different society completely irrelevant to ours.

Its a lot rarer for politicians to make decisions based on their atheist beliefs, e.g. banning religion, although I accept this happened under many Communist governments who I would strongly condemn.

CDfm

Can we probably limit this to Ireland in the last 50 years - Wicknight suggested this and I reckon its got some merit.