Religion is a good thing.

nyarlothothep

Joycey wrote: »

According to Adorno, they can both be viewed as totalising worldviews. If someone can explain what he means by that better then this attempt id like to hear it because im pretty sure my understanding is poor.

They are ways of seeing/understanding the world which purports to encompass and explain everything. The purpose of this way of looking at the world is in order to "objectify" it (in the sense of making things universal and repeatable, not of turning the world into objects like tables etc). What follows from this "scientific worldview" or what Adorno calls "Enlightenment thinking", is a reduction of the grandness and fundamentally non-totalisable world to something which is easily compartmentalisable and manipulable for our petty purposes. While he doesnt oppose the employment of technology or science for specific uses, he feels that to sublimate (is that the right word?) all of existence under this purportedly all encompassing worldview takes away from the world and the quality of our lives. He borrows a word from Weber and calls this scientific worldview a "re-enchantment" of the world which gradually fills the void left after the disenchantment which followed from the abandonment of religious "knowledge".

Adorno is a tool, there I said it:p. Well no, while I agree with his views on art mostly, here he is completely wrong. Science is a tool/methodology for understanding natural phenomena, nothing more. Therefore calling it a religion/ideology is missing the point of what it is.

People who use science to justify a world view or ideology, for example eugenics are just purporting their own ideology and hijacking science to pass it off as objectives or natural, which is nonsense, the two are separate.

Joycey

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Adorno is a tool, there I said it:p. Well no, while I agree with his views on art mostly, here he is completely wrong. Science is a tool/methodology for understanding natural phenomena, nothing more. Therefore calling it a religion/ideology is missing the point of what it is.

People who use science to justify a world view or ideology, for example eugenics are just purporting their own ideology and hijacking science to pass it off as objectives or natural, which is nonsense, the two are separate.

No I have to disagree with you there. Its not about using scientific evidence to justify a given ideology, thats a seperate issue.

We have come to a state of affairs whereby there is a belief that it is possible, and indeed desirable to attempt to quantify the totality of existence. This is done through the method of scientific enquiry, but this unfounded belief which, even if not made explicit is evidenced by such attempts at quantification as have been made in the study of happiness, say, or of spirituality. This belief has become ideology. Im sure there are much better examples of attempts to quantify and explain that which is fundamentally unquantifiable but I cant think of them at the moment .

I cant remember the Adorno I read well enough to do it anything like justice, but I think a useful concept I found for understanding it was Lyotard's adoption of the notion of the sublime, lifted from Kant.

There are things in the natural world which are fundamentally incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility leads to a sense of powerlessness and awe in those who are confronted by it. An overcoming of this feeling of fear and powerlessness without destruction or apropriation of that which is incomprehensible leads to the feeling of the sublime in the subject.

If you have an ideology which attempts to quanify and reduce in order to make manipulable then we loose some vital aspect of the natural world: its incomprehensibility and its capacity to evoke a sense of the sumblime in us.

nyarlothothep

Joycey wrote: »

No I have to disagree with you there. Its not about using scientific evidence to justify a given ideology, thats a seperate issue.

We have come to a state of affairs whereby there is a belief that it is possible, and indeed desirable to attempt to quantify the totality of existence. This is done through the method of scientific enquiry, but this unfounded belief which, even if not made explicit is evidenced by such attempts at quantification as have been made in the study of happiness, say, or of spirituality. This belief has become ideology. Im sure there are much better examples of attempts to quantify and explain that which is fundamentally unquantifiable but I cant think of them at the moment .

I cant remember the Adorno I read well enough to do it anything like justice, but I think a useful concept I found for understanding it was Lyotard's adoption of the notion of the sublime, lifted from Kant.

There are things in the natural world which are fundamentally incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility leads to a sense of powerlessness and awe in those who are confronted by it. An overcoming of this feeling of fear and powerlessness without destruction or apropriation of that which is incomprehensible leads to the feeling of the sublime in the subject.

If you have an ideology which attempts to quanify and reduce in order to make manipulable then we loose some vital aspect of the natural world: its incomprehensibility and its capacity to evoke a sense of the sumblime in us.

The idea that its possible to quantify everything is separate from science itself. Science is used to explain phenomena, the ideology if you will to become masters of the universe is separate. I see no harm or ideology though in explaining whatever interests us, even if that means it eventually amounts to the totality of existence.

Trying to quantify things like happiness is very difficult because there are so many variables to take account of. We can't really do justice to the notion of appreciation of a fine work of art for example through science. But one day, perhaps we will. Certain scientific studies are pointless like racial IQ. This is about as interesting and meaningful as measuring the length of blades of grass. So certain scientific studies may be carried out to reinforce existing ideologies although I must reiterate when it comes to society/people I don't really give them much credence because they deal with so many variables as to become unreliable beyond their confines.

Finally I think nothing should just be accepted as a mystery. It should leads to an acceptance of things the way they are. Rather, I prefer to think of mysteries as being there to be solved and understood, not to be worshiped in awe. Why is the sublime important?

nobodythere

Joycey wrote: »

There are things in the natural world which are fundamentally incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility leads to a sense of powerlessness and awe in those who are confronted by it. An overcoming of this feeling of fear and powerlessness without destruction or apropriation of that which is incomprehensible leads to the feeling of the sublime in the subject.

Very well put.

Indeed science is an attempt to inquire into the nature of existence without bias.

Edit: I'm sticking this in here because it belongs here

nyarlothothep wrote:

Trying to quantify things like happiness is very difficult because there are so many variables to take account of. We can't really do justice to the notion of appreciation of a fine work of art for example through science. But one day, perhaps we will.

The main discovery of science in the last 400 years is that the physical world behaves, or at least appears to behave, deterministically (i.e. as a machine does). Certainly the proof of this is in our technology. However, the assumption (and assumption is the reason I compare it to a religion) is the extension of this discovery to encompass all of existence.

For example, if one is depressed, it is considered to be a chemical imbalance in the brain, and one simply needs the proper technology, the proper manipulation of the physical world, to fix this. The only inquiry into another possible cause is external, such as stress at work etc. because this is the only domain in which medical science knows how to operate.

If someone asks a doctor about their weight problems, the doctor will tell them to "eat less and exercise more". If it were that simple, most people would not fall so flatly on their face attempting it. Seeing the patient from a scientific, objective perspective, the doctor cannot give the patient the tools to accomplish this. Since there is denial of ones own nature, one ends up in a frustrating battle of being unable to operate the "machine" which they supposedly are. Again the defect is considered to be one of mutation, a defect of the brain which is regarded as consciousness itself.

The denial of the validity of one's own experience is the cause of much suffering in our part of the world, or at least it certainly was the cause of mine. I'm sure many of you felt that "itch you couldn't scratch", and I'm sure many of you still do.


I wish I could explain this better but unfortunately I can't seem to.





I'm not saying that this is inherent in the method of science, but only when its conclusions are regarded outside of their proper spheres, which I believe most self-professed "men of science" are guilty of. If science is merely a method, then what is a "man of science"?

Modern views on science are at least 100 years behind where science is actually at, most people are still in the Newtonian mindset. I'm a complete beginner to quantum physics, but this should be enough to make anyone pause for thought (Explanation of the Double Slit Experiment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukhh2cWEiK8







Ultimately the method of inquiry cannot describe the ultimate nature of reality as its queries are within the confines of this reality. To borrow from Aleister Crowley, the question and the answer are ultimately interdependent and thus cancel out the absoluteness of either (though he was talking about the question of the meaning of life).

Joseph Campbell said:
Take any object, e.g. this watch. Draw a ring around it, forget you know anything about it. What is it?.... The mystery of the being of this watch is the same as the mystery of your own being. Anything can be dissociated from its concept context and regarded in the dimension of its mystery. And there is only one mystery

I don't know if that has the same impact as when you hear him say it though

We are no closer to the fundamental mystery of life, save for this discovery of determinism, and in this discovery we have attempted to make a subset of reality appear to be the whole.

Upon realising this many of the Eastern systems and to some extent Western occult systems and mystery traditions, whose foundations are in the ultimate, indescribable mystery of being, open up their doors.

Edit 2: I don't believe we can ever be closer to this fundamental mystery of life on an intellectual level, only through our own experience. I find that the closer you get to the "source" so to speak, the less that words can help you to describe it. I see this as "emanations" from the source, and my experience correlates with the core of many systems, to the extent that I can go beyond the classifications of a particular system/tradition/religion and find the same truth in all of them. But I really don't know if I could explain that.

nyarlothothep

grasshopa wrote: »

Very well put.

Indeed science is an attempt to inquire into the nature of existence without bias.

Edit: I'm sticking this in here because it belongs here


The main discovery of science in the last 400 years is that the physical world behaves, or at least appears to behave, deterministically (i.e. as a machine does). Certainly the proof of this is in our technology. However, the assumption (and assumption is the reason I compare it to a religion) is the extension of this discovery to encompass all of existence.

For example, if one is depressed, it is considered to be a chemical imbalance in the brain, and one simply needs the proper technology, the proper manipulation of the physical world, to fix this. The only inquiry into another possible cause is external, such as stress at work etc. because this is the only domain in which medical science knows how to operate.

If someone asks a doctor about their weight problems, the doctor will tell them to "eat less and exercise more". If it were that simple, most people would not fall so flatly on their face attempting it. Seeing the patient from a scientific, objective perspective, the doctor cannot give the patient the tools to accomplish this. Since there is denial of ones own nature, one ends up in a frustrating battle of being unable to operate the "machine" which they supposedly are. Again the defect is considered to be one of mutation, a defect of the brain which is regarded as consciousness itself.

The denial of the validity of one's own experience is the cause of much suffering in our part of the world, or at least it certainly was the cause of mine. I'm sure many of you felt that "itch you couldn't scratch", and I'm sure many of you still do.


I wish I could explain this better but unfortunately I can't seem to.





I'm not saying that this is inherent in the method of science, but only when its conclusions are regarded outside of their proper spheres, which I believe most self-professed "men of science" are guilty of. If science is merely a method, then what is a "man of science"?

Modern views on science are at least 100 years behind where science is actually at, most people are still in the Newtonian mindset. I'm a complete beginner to quantum physics, but this should be enough to make anyone pause for thought (Explanation of the Double Slit Experiment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukhh2cWEiK8







Ultimately the method of inquiry cannot describe the ultimate nature of reality as its queries are within the confines of this reality. To borrow from Aleister Crowley, the question and the answer are ultimately interdependent and thus cancel out the absoluteness of either (though he was talking about the question of the meaning of life).

Joseph Campbell said:
Take any object, e.g. this watch. Draw a ring around it, forget you know anything about it. What is it?.... The mystery of the being of this watch is the same as the mystery of your own being. Anything can be dissociated from its concept context and regarded in the dimension of its mystery. And there is only one mystery

I don't know if that has the same impact as when you hear him say it though

We are no closer to the fundamental mystery of life, save for this discovery of determinism, and in this discovery we have attempted to make a subset of reality appear to be the whole.

Upon realising this many of the Eastern systems and to some extent Western occult systems and mystery traditions, whose foundations are in the ultimate, indescribable mystery of being, open up their doors.

Edit 2: I don't believe we can ever be closer to this fundamental mystery of life on an intellectual level, only through our own experience. I find that the closer you get to the "source" so to speak, the less that words can help you to describe it. I see this as "emanations" from the source, and my experience correlates with the core of many systems, to the extent that I can go beyond the classifications of a particular system/tradition/religion and find the same truth in all of them. But I really don't know if I could explain that.

With regards to weight loss etc, certainly the methods to achieve this can be explained very well by science. Theories offer at best a tentative description of reality. You can come up with a better theory and so that one offers a more complete picture and so on. Therefore with the weight example our knowledge of why certain people are unable to lose weight is incomplete, the devices we have at our disposal are better than none at all without science and I think that as our understanding of the human mind progresses we will have more effective treatments for such maladies, such that we will one day have a proper cure.

Yes you're mentioning how science can be used as a justification de-humanize people and rightly acknowledge that this has nothing to do with science itself and I fully agree with you here. Science only describes physical conditions, it does not offer personal judgements on them and to trivalize our experiences, our humanity to inhumane mechanistics goes against our own experience of life and our sense of worth. But this would be a personal judgement. And if some scientists are like this, not all are. Politicians have often used scientific theories for their own aims. I don't think its relegated just to scientists, but to a more fundamental problem of personalities and it seems to be usually worse when politicians get involved because they are essentially managers of people and have greater influence than any one scientist.

I believe there is a platonic aspect to life, and it manifests itself in many ways. So for example a computer program is the sum of its parts, but the experience of it through the user if greater than the whole. This I believe also applies to human existence. Therefore scientific inquiry into our humanity will only explain the mechanics, to deny the feeling/interpretation of the product of those mechanics is to deny our humanity. Or better put, I think yes, understanding how everything works is good, but making subjective judgements to justify courses of action which have societal reprecussions in terms of equality, rights etc is where the science ends and the politics and obfuscation begins.

I don't think there is any mystery to life, just things we don't understand yet. Therefore we don't have a full knowledge of quantum mechanics but this doesn't equate to it being inherently incomprehensible. Also the watch analogy, if you disassociate it from its meaning, you couldn't help but interpret it and give it meaning in order to percieve, thereby depriving it of its mystery. Would you not immediately say, this is circular, has symbols and has an apparent function, given the number of symbols it may be used for measuring something, without an obvious scale of measurement or input source, one can deduce that it measures time. Therefore it is a watch. What is mystery, is it completely incomprehensible? If its fully incomprehensible should we even know about it? If we don't know about it, does it exist?

O'Coonassa

"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.


But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.


I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.


All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."


Tom Paine. Age of Reason worth a read

philologos

I'd argue that religion can be a good thing, and religion can be a bad thing depending on it's implementation and depending on the values actually encouraged by it.

I believe God in the Jewish and in the Christian interpretations is a just God, who punishes fairly and is patient and only punishes those who are truly deserving of receiving judgement for their wrongdoing. I also believe that God has created life, and God has every right to take it away for such transgressions.

Religion to me is more than a set of values, a lot more infact. Continuing with the Judeo-Christian understanding, there is much benefit to be found:

1) Provides a set of community values that we can rely on. Those who follow Christianity are more likely to be assured that others share the values they do on certain issues than others who have formulated understandings outside of that sphere. It allows for cohesion when a grouping shares values in common.

2) Provides a sense of duty to ones neighbour. If you read the Jewish Torah, the Jewish Tanakh, and the Christian New Testament you will find the whole way through that there is a sense that those who have been blessed with wealth and riches have a social duty to ensure that the lesser in society can get along on an equal par. This is why by and large you see a huge Christian effort in charitable projects all over the world.

3) Is a psychologically healthy option. Studies have shown that suicide rates are much lower for those who attend religious services on a weekly basis and take an active role in a religious community than those who do not.

4) Takes the stance that man is fallen, that man has made mistakes and that man is not perfect, and cannot ever be perfect during his earthly existence. This understanding allows for mercy to set in. Forgiveness for the offender as we know that we can just as easily screw up should we be in their situation. The understanding of the Cross and of the Crucifixion and the salvation of Jesus Christ helps us to realise that we should be a second chance people, and indeed we are a second chance people, saved by His blood.

Psalm 103:12 wrote:

as far as the east is from the west,
so far he removes our transgressions from us.

If we have messed up, we can become dead to our sins and we can become a live in Jesus Christ. Now whether or not you believe that this is the case, the place of forgiveness in our society is a crucial cornerstone of human understanding.

It leaves no place for arrogance. No human is better than another. Grace is of God it is nothing that I can boast of as being my own. This sense of equity in transgression puts us all on an equal footing. This characteristic is not found in many other world faiths.

5) It gives us a target to reach. Despite our understanding of how human beings always will end up slipping and falling, human beings are ambituous. Christianity has given us a target to reach, it has given us a goal to serve God and others in this world. We see moral commands in how we should serve another, and in how we should act and how we should live, and these allow us to test ourselves to see if we are doing as we should, and if we are not it allows a constant reference by which we can be corrected in our understanding.

6) It promotes individuality, standing out for what you believe in even when it may be unpopular, and even when it may not be received well. It promotes a sharing of ideas within our society. The insistence to be separate from the world allows people to be themselves, and it allows people to live in the world without an insistence just to be like everyone else.

7) Prayer allows us to release any tensions or any issues instead of bottling them up and causing anger or tension. Communication with a higher power or going to confession can help us to understand that recognising what we have done and who we are is key if we are to understand how we are to move forward and to benefit peoples lives. Even in a secular sense taking stock of what you have done in the past, and how you aim to live your life in the future can be an overwhelmingly positive thing to do if it affects both your personal happiness and the happiness of those around you.

Joycey

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion to me is more than a set of values, a lot more infact. Continuing with the Judeo-Christian understanding, there is much benefit to be found:

1) Provides a set of community values that we can rely on. Those who follow Christianity are more likely to be assured that others share the values they do on certain issues than others who have formulated understandings outside of that sphere. It allows for cohesion when a grouping shares values in [common.

This doesnt seem to me to be a valid reason to maintain religious belief. This is a functional motivation for living in a community where some normative framework is shared, it has nothing to do with any kind of spiritual connection with God or relative level of "purity" or whatever in your soul. Entirely possible to replace this with a non-religious normative framework.

2) Provides a sense of duty to ones neighbour. If you read the Jewish Torah, the Jewish Tanakh, and the Christian New Testament you will find the whole way through that there is a sense that those who have been blessed with wealth and riches have a social duty to ensure that the lesser in society can get along on an equal par. This is why by and large you see a huge Christian effort in charitable projects all over the world.

Again an entirely functional motivation for holding religious belief. Although this practise is motivated by religious teachings, you can see many charitable projects which are areligious and do as good if not better work in helping people. As a result, the religious motivations are superfluous to the good action.

3) Is a psychologically healthy option. Studies have shown that suicide rates are much lower for those who attend religious services on a weekly basis and take an active role in a religious community than those who do not.

Yet another functional reason for having faith. I would argue that this is, in addition, an entirely selfish motivation for your faith, surely something God frowns upon.

4) Takes the stance that man is fallen, that man has made mistakes and that man is not perfect, and cannot ever be perfect during his earthly existence. This understanding allows for mercy to set in. Forgiveness for the offender as we know that we can just as easily screw up should we be in their situation. The understanding of the Cross and of the Crucifixion and the salvation of Jesus Christ helps us to realise that we should be a second chance people, and indeed we are a second chance people, saved by His blood.

So aside from the superfluousness of the religious influence on this belief (i am not religious, I believe forgiveness is a very positive emotion and that offenders are hurt individuals and their crimes are symptoms of this hurt or void), I dont see how ingraining some notion of "I am sinful" in children from day one is in any way positive. Why should I teach my children to believe that they are inferior to some metaphysical entity without knowledge of its existence? My children aren't perfect, obviously, the idea of perfection is an entirely human construction, we dont need Christianity to tell us this.

It leaves no place for arrogance. No human is better than another. Grace is of God it is nothing that I can boast of as being my own. This sense of equity in transgression puts us all on an equal footing. This characteristic is not found in many other world faiths.

So what you are saying is a good point of Christianity is the recognition of some purported shared inferiority which is the essential aspect of the human condition. I see this as exceptionally negative.

5) It gives us a target to reach. Despite our understanding of how human beings always will end up slipping and falling, human beings are ambituous. Christianity has given us a target to reach, it has given us a goal to serve God and others in this world. We see moral commands in how we should serve another, and in how we should act and how we should live, and these allow us to test ourselves to see if we are doing as we should, and if we are not it allows a constant reference by which we can be corrected in our understanding.

I would take this to mean that Christianity is of benefit to the holder of the set of beliefs because it makes their lives that little bit easier, in that rather then having to think through some issue for themselves, or take some responsibility for the actions and decisions they make, they have a doctrine which they can adhere to and thus pretend to themselves they have acted morally, when in fact they have evaded reflection entirely.

6) It promotes individuality, standing out for what you believe in even when it may be unpopular, and even when it may not be received well. It promotes a sharing of ideas within our society. The insistence to be separate from the world allows people to be themselves, and it allows people to live in the world without an insistence just to be like everyone else.

Yeah Christianity has a fantastic record of "promoting individuality". When they were burning Galileo or torturing heretics they showed remarkable tolerance of views which differed from their rigidly middle-of-the road, orthodox view of the world.

7) Prayer allows us to release any tensions or any issues instead of bottling them up and causing anger or tension. Communication with a higher power or going to confession can help us to understand that recognising what we have done and who we are is key if we are to understand how we are to move forward and to benefit peoples lives. Even in a secular sense taking stock of what you have done in the past, and how you aim to live your life in the future can be an overwhelmingly positive thing to do if it affects both your personal happiness and the happiness of those around you.

This seems to me to fill a functional niche once again. From your above account, its not because you become closer to God that you pray, but in order to feel better. Is this not entirely selfish, and therefore unChristian?

philologos

Joycey wrote: »

This doesnt seem to me to be a valid reason to maintain religious belief. This is a functional motivation for living in a community where some normative framework is shared, it has nothing to do with any kind of spiritual connection with God or relative level of "purity" or whatever in your soul. Entirely possible to replace this with a non-religious normative framework.

Stop and think. Is this what I was discussing? Am I discussing reasons for my belief? No. I amn't. Read the title of the thread.

"Religion is a good thing".

I am arguing that yes, religion is a good thing. I'm not explaining to you why I believe in Christianity, that's an entirely different thing altogether.

Functional positives are to be considered if we are to take a full view of the positives that have been brought by religion in the world.

If you want to replace it with a non-religious framework go ahead, I really haven't seen much success in creating a coherent set of community values. Religion really does have the lead in this respect. In the vast majority of cases I will find the Christians I speak to on a daily basis to have morals which are very similar to my own.

Joycey wrote: »

Again an entirely functional motivation for holding religious belief. Although this practise is motivated by religious teachings, you can see many charitable projects which are areligious and do as good if not better work in helping people. As a result, the religious motivations are superfluous to the good action.

Again! Think. The thread is about religion being a good thing. It isn't about reasons for holding religious belief. I would use different reasons than these to explain that. Reading the question is always important.

There is a much larger percent of religious charity than non-religious charity. David Quinn noted this in the Irish Independent a while back. His assessment is entirely fair. Functional positives about religion are important as this is how we see religion manifesting itself in reality. Faith without works is dead after all if we are to consider the Bible to be true (James 2:14-17)

Joycey wrote: »

Yet another functional reason for having faith. I would argue that this is, in addition, an entirely selfish motivation for your faith, surely something God frowns upon.

Read the question again! I'm not discussing motivations for my faith, but the benefit of Christianity on the world and on it's believers. This is definitely not a reason for belief by my book but it does show that religious belief is beneficial.

Joycey wrote: »

So aside from the superfluousness of the religious influence on this belief (i am not religious, I believe forgiveness is a very positive emotion and that offenders are hurt individuals and their crimes are symptoms of this hurt or void), I dont see how ingraining some notion of "I am sinful" in children from day one is in any way positive. Why should I teach my children to believe that they are inferior to some metaphysical entity without knowledge of its existence? My children aren't perfect, obviously, the idea of perfection is an entirely human construction, we dont need Christianity to tell us this.

Yes, well you can expect a Christian like myself to have religious influences. It is up to you whether or not you want to tolerate them.

I grasped that you weren't religious by now. It's not about ingraining any notion, it's the truth. Mankind sins again and again and again. Or in secular terms man screws up again and again and again. Surely you would have recognised that trend by now.

Of course the creation would be inferior to the creator. What other understanding could you possibly have of it.

You really got to stop with distorting what I actually am saying:
I never said that you needed Christianity to tell you anything, I'm merely saying that it is one of the benefits of it on the world.

Joycey wrote: »

So what you are saying is a good point of Christianity is the recognition of some purported shared inferiority which is the essential aspect of the human condition. I see this as exceptionally negative.

Again how on earth do you suggest the creator can be equal to the created unless we created the universe ourselves?

Continuing on however. Christianity puts forward the equality of mankind. I see that as overwhelmingly positive. Many other ideologies don't recognise this at all.

Joycey wrote: »

I would take this to mean that Christianity is of benefit to the holder of the set of beliefs because it makes their lives that little bit easier, in that rather then having to think through some issue for themselves, or take some responsibility for the actions and decisions they make, they have a doctrine which they can adhere to and thus pretend to themselves they have acted morally, when in fact they have evaded reflection entirely.

Well Christianity is of benefit to everyone who seeks to subscribe to it. It allows people to have a focused plan of how to be better moral actors in the world. Due to ambiguity in secular moral code it is very hard to determine this with a secular world view. This would be why there is more benefit in Christianity than secularism on it. Coherency is key to running a united society. As for not thinking through an issue for yourself, infact I'd argue the Bible allows people to do that. It merely gives people food for thought. It certainly has in my case.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you think that people of faith don't reflect over their morals, and that you think they don't reflect over their beliefs. If you act morally irrespective of the source it is still acting morally. I can't see why this segment of your post is really an issue to what I originally posted.

Joycey wrote: »

Yeah Christianity has a fantastic record of "promoting individuality". When they were burning Galileo or torturing heretics they showed remarkable tolerance of views which differed from their rigidly middle-of-the road, orthodox view of the world.

Christianity as in the Bible != Christianity abused by a minority of people.

I outright disagree with the mistreatment of Galileo and with the distortion of Christianity by the Catholic Church in the Dark & Middle Ages. It's quite incredible that you expect me to apologise for something that isn't even advocated in Christian scripture?

In other respects Christianity has promoted individuality in putting forward that you can come to God as you are, and Christ will work through your life. You can serve God in many different ways. So yes I do think it promotes individuality.

Joycey wrote: »

This seems to me to fill a functional niche once again. From your above account, its not because you become closer to God that you pray, but in order to feel better. Is this not entirely selfish, and therefore unChristian?

I never said that it wasn't about becoming closer to God. It's precisely because people can come closer to God and pray to Him that the peace of His understanding may come upon them (Philippians 4:7). It's due to His guidance that we can communicate our feelings to him. We are told to let our grievances be known to God in prayer and supplication (Phillippians 4:6). So it really isn't selfish to ask for God's help in life and in the lives of others. I don't think it's selfish to suggest that when praying that people are at ease and it does perform a psychological purpose, and it's probable that God could have intended for this to be the case.

Joycey

Yeah sorry your right, I was argueing against something you didnt say. Not really the thread for what I was getting into...

Húrin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I would not use the bible as a moral compass. The god in it is a monster, especially if you read the old testament.

The thing is there are predominantly atheistic societies were most people follow the law and have a strong sense of right and wrong. Which society is more moralistic, one without religion where people try to do the right thing due to their understanding of justice or one where people only do the right thing out of fear of being punished by a wrathful god?

Justice as a reality is a product of a religious world-view where right and wrong are absolute. All of the predominantly (organically) atheistic societies were most people follow the law are post-Christian societies.

Also I find that religious ceremonies are a bit circumspect. There is something akin to brainwashing in the respect that people chant in unison and perform rituals repeatedly.

Much like music concerts, political meetings, education and many other secular human activities.

The one positive thing I can say about religion is that it alleviates fear of death, but I think as a species we should eliminate this imposition through science.

Eliminate death, or fear of death through science?

I have no problem with religion as long people keep it to themselves and don't force their values on others, the problem is this never happens.

Nonsense. Most religious people I know are not loud and forceful about it.

Húrin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That may be. Though I would say religion can distort ethics based on an appeal to divine prescription, which is unprovable. Example, a religion states gay marriage is bad because God stated this is so. Well, does God exist and who does gay marriage actually harm? Ergo how is it wrong for all instances? In addition religion tends to mystify ethics through this divine appeal system. In an ideal humanist society people would live in a culture of ethics and would be encouraged to critically evaluate their own sense of morality.

In such an ideal society there would have to be no media or any of those agents of socialisation that would let people critically evaluate their own sense of morality. Most people in any society, including the atheist utopias you mentioned follow popular morality. And to go back to the OP, is it actually desirable that people come up with myriad views of morality? Society would no longer be workable; there would be no law. There would only be conflict between fashions. That's the ugly reality of human nature that humanists love to wish away.

The evolutionary precedent doesn't lessen our own ethics. There is a tendency to think that because something isn't objective it no longer counts. But if someone say steals your bike, yes your outrage is subjective but its no less significant than a tangible effect. I also think there are moral patterns which though subjective generally hold throughout culture, eg murder is considered wrong in almost all human societies though killing is not necessarily.

Humanity's common moral axioms are contradictory to natural selection. Much of medicine functions to allow people who would not survive natural selection to support themselves. We understand that this is more moral than to let them fall by the wayside.

I agree with politics very strongly. Dogmatic thinking should be eradicated, ideal vision yes but imo its best to strive towards an ideal because eventually the hardest obstacles will be chipped away, even if it takes millenia.

All dogmatic politics comes from utopian visions. There is nothing special about your ideology that makes it resistant to dogmatism.

In relation to music, the ideologies while dumb are harmless, (ideological threads in music have rarely if ever developed into sustainable movements, the radicalism of the 60s would be a prime example) and I think the same would probably apply to sport disregarding the violent outbursts of fans from time to time.

Religious people are mostly harmless, disregarding the violent outbursts of God's fans from time to time.

Human nature is entirely malleable. There is no reason we cannot alter ourselves.

We can alter ourselves, but we will not improve ourselves. The flaws and oversights of the designers of the 'supermen' will be passed into the new DNA.

This is the next step, our potential has been leading us up to this. However it does depend on how we use the technology, for example I'm not down with the idea of parents superficially selecting traits for their children as I can imagine it being disasterous. You could end up with too many politician and business leader personality types/aptitudes and not enough artists/scientists.

This is the kind of thing I am thinking of, and this would be the least worst result I would think is realistically likely.

Finally I didn't say that science should be our only recourse to higher evolution. Of course not, a mechanistic approach would be blind. But I do believe that as a branch of our identity it will be constitute a significant role in our evolution. Progress should occur in all areas of human endevour.

Progress towards what?

dreamlogic wrote: »

A bit ironic then that you are posting on the internet?

I don't see how it's ironic unless af_thefragile claimed to be "getting humanity somewhere" with his posting.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No, science is a method. It cannot be a religion.

True, but it can be an aspect of the humanist millenial narrative in which the dark forces that have hereto ruled over humanity are soon to be overthrown, ushering in an era of happiness and tolerance for everyone.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

People who use science to justify a world view or ideology, for example

...humanism?

nyarlothothep

Húrin wrote: »

Justice as a reality is a product of a religious world-view where right and wrong are absolute. All of the predominantly (organically) atheistic societies were most people follow the law are post-Christian societies.

Justice is more recursively a product of evolution. Our empathy and sense of right and wrong has developed from the fact that we are social creatures.

H&#250 wrote: »

Much like music concerts, political meetings, education and many other secular human activities.

Everyone doing the same thing at a music concert is relatively harmless. As conformity pertains to political meetings and education and areas which seriously impact on society I think a strongly held skepticism and willingless to question everything, in addition to acceptance for this, rather than dismissal as it goes against the group think, would be beneficial.

H&#250 wrote: »

Eliminate death, or fear of death through science?

Whatever one chooses.

H&#250 wrote: »

Nonsense. Most religious people I know are not loud and forceful about it.

That doesn't reflect the historical reality.

H&#250 wrote: »

In such an ideal society there would have to be no media or any of those agents of socialisation that would let people critically evaluate their own sense of morality. Most people in any society, including the atheist utopias you mentioned follow popular morality. And to go back to the OP, is it actually desirable that people come up with myriad views of morality? Society would no longer be workable; there would be no law. There would only be conflict between fashions. That's the ugly reality of human nature that humanists love to wish away.

Well I would see no problem with the dissemination of commensical and/or logically established moral prescriptions, we are ultimately socialized entities. My point was that in such a society there would be a popular discourse which encourages independent thinking which would in turn be used to develop a greater moral rigour.

H&#250 wrote: »

Humanity's common moral axioms are contradictory to natural selection. Much of medicine functions to allow people who would not survive natural selection to support themselves. We understand that this is more moral than to let them fall by the wayside.

I agree though natural selection still exists and will continue to exist, its an inevitability.

H&#250 wrote: »

All dogmatic politics comes from utopian visions. There is nothing special about your ideology that makes it resistant to dogmatism.

Theres no reason to suppose it applies to all utopian visions. All I would like to see is constant improvement, the refinement of human society through the lurch towards a combination of rationality and empathy, through any methodology including my own views. Ergo, the only ideological precedent, if you can call it that, is to create a better world, where people have as much freedom as possible and where systems can function rationally to the benefit of the collective good, sustainability and long term vision, consequently eliminating institutions of control and exploitation which have no justification for their existence.

H&#250 wrote: »

Religious people are mostly harmless, disregarding the violent outbursts of God's fans from time to time.

Some people are harmless, some are dangerous, some can be motivated into being either depending on the circumstances. It has nothing to do with being religious or not, if we're talking about an initial state. However religion can be used to modify behaviours in a powerful way.

H&#250 wrote: »

We can alter ourselves, but we will not improve ourselves. The flaws and oversights of the designers of the 'supermen' will be passed into the new DNA.

Whether these flaws have major reprecussions isn't a given. I believe enough tests and analysis would minimize the risk substantially.

H&#250 wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I am thinking of, and this would be the least worst result I would think is realistically likely.

What could you think of as worse. I enjoy good nightmare scenarios.

H&#250 wrote: »

Progress towards what?

Perfection, higher planes of existence? What I'm trying to say is that humanity should reach a state of affairs whereby a constant path towards rationality and liberty should be attained. Patterns of behaviour which are illogical and have negative effects on others shouldn't be accepted as they are now.

H&#250 wrote: »

True, but it can be an aspect of the humanist millenial narrative in which the dark forces that have hereto ruled over humanity are soon to be overthrown, ushering in an era of happiness and tolerance for everyone.

I agree with this.

thebouldwhacker

Religion evolved from many threads of society such as a way of explaining the way things are (close links with natural occurances, rebirth feasts = spring time: death = autum etc) now we (400 yrs or so) have science to explane the way of the world and so is quite often at odds with these old ways...

Religion is now a method of power and control, either sought or imposed. ie
imposed: Power of the RC in Irish history
sought: I have no direction in life- religion gives this to me

Religion is good when its good, bad when its bad... thing is that some times one persons good can be anothers bad: forced religious convertion.
But its always led and governed by man, thus the question can be asked in tandum: Is man a good thing (?)

Húrin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Justice is more recursively a product of evolution. Our empathy and sense of right and wrong has developed from the fact that we are social creatures.

This is descriptive of the historical fact of evolution. Justice as we understand it is prescriptive. Since we "disobey" historical trends in order to do what we want in many areas, we need the concept of absolute morality to prescribe justice.

Everyone doing the same thing at a music concert is relatively harmless. As conformity pertains to political meetings and education and areas which seriously impact on society I think a strongly held skepticism and willingless to question everything, in addition to acceptance for this, rather than dismissal as it goes against the group think, would be beneficial.

Of course. Most religious groups also evolve through internal criticism (remember, not every religion is the Roman Catholic Church; just like not every political party is the Bolsheviks).

Whatever one chooses.

Both are mere fantasies.

That doesn't reflect the historical reality.

It doesn't need to. You tarred with such a wide brush that I only needed to bring up contemporary reality to refute it.

Well I would see no problem with the dissemination of commensical and/or logically established moral prescriptions, we are ultimately socialized entities. My point was that in such a society there would be a popular discourse which encourages independent thinking which would in turn be used to develop a greater moral rigour.

We are socialised creatures, which means that most people will never think independently about morality. A minority will, just as a minority does today.

I agree though natural selection still exists and will continue to exist, its an inevitability.

This means that the evolutionary precedent does lessen our ethics. If we look to natural selection as a moral prescription then we get ideas that are anathema to humanists.

Theres no reason to suppose it applies to all utopian visions. All I would like to see is constant improvement, the refinement of human society through the lurch towards a combination of rationality and empathy, through any methodology including my own views. Ergo, the only ideological precedent, if you can call it that, is to create a better world, where people have as much freedom as possible and where systems can function rationally to the benefit of the collective good, sustainability and long term vision, consequently eliminating institutions of control and exploitation which have no justification for their existence.

Someone could have written this 100 years ago. Why not try to learn from the history of the 20th century? Many people wrote similar things... such views gave rise to technocracy that is still with us. Some elements of it did work well. The emancipation of women and nuclear weapons both came out of the same 'enlightened' culture.

However, human nature means that there have always be plenty of people who had no interest in the collective good (especially in the highly individualistic cultures you seem to also favour) and new institutions of control and exploitation have risen out of the ashes of the old ones.

Some people are harmless, some are dangerous, some can be motivated into being either depending on the circumstances. It has nothing to do with being religious or not, if we're talking about an initial state. However religion can be used to modify behaviours in a powerful way.

So can sport, or politics. Why do you warn of religion being dangerous, but not sport?

Whether these flaws have major reprecussions isn't a given. I believe enough tests and analysis would minimize the risk substantially.

When they're messing with the DNA of large numbers of people of course major reprecussions are a given.

What could you think of as worse. I enjoy good nightmare scenarios.

Governments manipulating soldiers to be better "fighting machines" would be a likely result. If we've learned anything from the 20th century it's that nearly all technology is put in the service of both good and evil causes.

Perfection, higher planes of existence? What I'm trying to say is that humanity should reach a state of affairs whereby a constant path towards rationality and liberty should be attained. Patterns of behaviour which are illogical and have negative effects on others shouldn't be accepted as they are now.

How do you know that behaviour which is logical would not have any negative effect on others? What would "a constant path towards rationality and liberty" (this sounds especially dated) actually look like?

What on earth is perfection? Who sets the bar on that? What is a higher plane of existence? How can an inherently irrational, selfish and violent species like ourselves attain perfection?

I agree with this.

Which shows just how much your world-view owes to religion (the original millenial narrative). I would strongly recommend a book called Straw Dogs by John Gray.

Affable

The main argument against the OP is that you cannot possibly go around with a headful of scriptures as background noise before you make your every moral decision. It's counterproductive and impractical, not to mention it negates free will. We don't need God to be good, religion has done good and terrible things under it's name but that's not really the argument in my view.

This might interest you, from a religion I'm particularly interested in-

http://www.taoism.net/articles/mason/ethics.htm#Non-Contrivance

Taoist thought teaches wuwei (nonaction) as the supreme course of human action and behavior. Nonaction does not mean being passive and doing nothing, but rather means never acting but leaving nothing undone. Taoist thought believes that any willful human intervention into the natural order interrupts and ruins the processes of transformation. The most ideal way of existence is thus to be in tune with and in symbiotic relationship with nature. As all things come from and return to Tao, the all-encompassing life force, life and death are understood to be essentially one. As Taoism evolved into a folk religion, however, various rituals and practices for attaining longevity, even immortality, came to occupy a prominent place.

nyarlothothep

Húrin wrote: »

This is descriptive of the historical fact of evolution. Justice as we understand it is prescriptive. Since we "disobey" historical trends in order to do what we want in many areas, we need the concept of absolute morality to prescribe justice.

This applies to religious people. Morals existed before religion which just codifies them for easy assimilation.

H&#250 wrote: »

Of course. Most religious groups also evolve through internal criticism (remember, not every religion is the Roman Catholic Church; just like not every political party is the Bolsheviks).

If they did I would expect that they would discover the irrationality of their beliefs.

H&#250 wrote: »

Both are mere fantasies.

Actually this isn't a given, there are bioerontologists or geneticists who believe and are making great strides in the project of eliminating death. The main obstacle resides in public not taking the idea seriously.

H&#250 wrote: »

It doesn't need to. You tarred with such a wide brush that I only needed to bring up contemporary reality to refute it.

Well the contemporary reality doesn't reflect that either in many instances and in the cases where it does, those freedoms against religious oppression were hard won.

H&#250 wrote: »

We are socialised creatures, which means that most people will never think independently about morality. A minority will, just as a minority does today.

I don't agree with this, independent thought is like language or whatever, everyone is born with it, it just depends on the culture. Certain cultures will give rise to individuals that sway one way or the other, eg finnish culture produces quieter individuals, american cultures produces louder types. Human nature is very multifaceted and malleable.

H&#250 wrote: »

This means that the evolutionary precedent does lessen our ethics. If we look to natural selection as a moral prescription then we get ideas that are anathema to humanists.

No, but I wasn't making a point on that so far as I can recall. I just pointed out that natural selection occurs. Evolution doesn't cheapen morality, it merely explains where it comes from. The greater than the sum of its parts principle comes to mind.

H&#250 wrote: »

Someone could have written this 100 years ago. Why not try to learn from the history of the 20th century? Many people wrote similar things... such views gave rise to technocracy that is still with us. Some elements of it did work well. The emancipation of women and nuclear weapons both came out of the same 'enlightened' culture.

I don't really see these as relevant. The principles are sound, historical scenarios etc just leads to a messy back and forth concerning interpretations, examples and counter examples, it basically gets very ideological. There is much to learn from history though through detached analysis.

H&#250 wrote: »

However, human nature means that there have always be plenty of people who had no interest in the collective good (especially in the highly individualistic cultures you seem to also favour) and new institutions of control and exploitation have risen out of the ashes of the old ones.

So what do you propose? To do nothing because such people exist as thats "the real world."

H&#250 wrote: »

So can sport, or politics. Why do you warn of religion being dangerous, but not sport?

Sport or more significantly politics can certainly be made dangerous. Its just that religion claims absolute authority over explaining reality, thats a very powerful precedent.

H&#250 wrote: »

When they're messing with the DNA of large numbers of people of course major reprecussions are a given.

It depends on the implementation so its not a given.

H&#250 wrote: »

Governments manipulating soldiers to be better "fighting machines" would be a likely result. If we've learned anything from the 20th century it's that nearly all technology is put in the service of both good and evil causes.

I'm mainly putting it out there as an idea but there may already be genetic engineering at work albeit at a subconscious level, seeing as business and political qualities seem to be valued over other ones.

H&#250 wrote: »

How do you know that behaviour which is logical would not have any negative effect on others? What would "a constant path towards rationality and liberty" (this sounds especially dated) actually look like?

I don't really care for things sounding dated or not. I only think of these as abstract principles, how they can be implemented depends on empirical factors which must be considered in relation to the success and failures of past historical implementations. There is no end solution, it will require refinement in itself. In fact one way to do this might be to look at every social system, corporations included and to evaluate them according to criteria, eg inequality of the many vs the few, whether their practices unduly harm people or the environment, basically to look at whether any self interest there is justified and if not then to systematically dismantle illogical processes. Therefore to basically "evolve" a more just and equal society. This is very general so obviously its not thought out as regards to how it might work in practicality.

I find there are a lot of flaws for the pragmatic realist attitude to social engineering. The ends do not justify the means, and I think long term vision and thoughtful reflection are orders of magnitude above shoot from the hip decisions and accepting existing states of affairs as the "real world" of exploitation and lip service to power, despite such a world being a constructed social reality which has no natural/objective/inherent basis.

H&#250 wrote: »

What on earth is perfection? Who sets the bar on that? What is a higher plane of existence? How can an inherently irrational, selfish and violent species like ourselves attain perfection?

Perfection is perhaps unpossible. Though the ideal is in striving for it, not to necessarily attain it. Its why we go through education, learn new skills, work, experience different facets of life because the alternative is to dis-improve.
Which path do you want humanity to take?

H&#250 wrote: »

Which shows just how much your world-view owes to religion (the original millenial narrative). I would strongly recommend a book called Straw Dogs by John Gray.

All I was saying is that I agree with you that science has been hijacked for causes. It has nothing to do with religion. Its a method, thats all.

philologos

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This applies to religious people. Morals existed before religion which just codifies them for easy assimilation.

Do you ever sit and wonder that if morals existed before religion, where on earth did they come from?

I like you believe that morals existed before religion, but I go one step further. I believe that morals existed before morality, and that they were gradually revealed to mankind.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If they did I would expect that they would discover the irrationality of their beliefs.

And atheism isn't irrational at all right?

In fairness rationality is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally consider atheism to be both non-sensical and irrational. Yet, somehow I can contain myself from constantly saying so in discussion with atheists. That's why I think it's ridiculous that nearly every discussion I have with an atheist this fallacious claim is made

I think atheists abuse the word "rational". There is no point in talking about reason if you do not have empiricism (experience, or source data) to go with it.

I contend that both atheists and theists are rational. However, we use different empiricism in doing so. For example, atheists will not consider the Bible or any divine scriptures to reason upon. Christians will consider the Bible to reason upon for a greater understanding of the world as well as reasoning on external factors. The difference is that Christians consider one more source of empiricism than atheists do. You could put x religion and holy book y to any example of this also.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Actually this isn't a given, there are bioerontologists or geneticists who believe and are making great strides in the project of eliminating death. The main obstacle resides in public not taking the idea seriously.

I don't think I'd like to live on this earth forever. However, on a lighter note, wouldn't it just be crackerjacks to try live on this world forever if there is an afterlife in the hereafter . I guess it's all on how willing human beings are to trust the record of divine revelation.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well the contemporary reality doesn't reflect that either in many instances and in the cases where it does, those freedoms against religious oppression were hard won.

Húrin is correct. Most people of faith are and weren't loud about it. Mind you it might be a curious example to bring in but I find that aggressive secularists are pretty much as extreme as those who would be considered distortionists or "fundementalists" (I personally find distortionist a more accurate word, fundementalism refers to a theological outlook in the USA during the 1950's) in our circles.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't agree with this, independent thought is like language or whatever, everyone is born with it, it just depends on the culture. Certain cultures will give rise to individuals that sway one way or the other, eg finnish culture produces quieter individuals, american cultures produces louder types. Human nature is very multifaceted and malleable.

Why are quieter types so much preferrable to louder types? I personally wouldn't like anyone to be of any extreme on the spectrum.

If I am interpreting your view correctly it's effectively that religious people should shut up so as to pave the way for aggressive secularism in our societies?

I think all people whether we like to hear them or not should have equal rights to free speech.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No, but I wasn't making a point on that so far as I can recall. I just pointed out that natural selection occurs. Evolution doesn't cheapen morality, it merely explains where it comes from. The greater than the sum of its parts principle comes to mind.

I find that evolution is utterly irrelevant to morality. Leave evolution in biology. Move on to philosophy or other fields which are relevant for discussion of ethics and morals.

I strain to come to the conclusion that morals came from evolution.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't really see these as relevant. The principles are sound, historical scenarios etc just leads to a messy back and forth concerning interpretations, examples and counter examples, it basically gets very ideological. There is much to learn from history though through detached analysis.

It's totally relevant. People professed the same type of stuff that you did concerning "rationality" and similar themes centuries ago. Remember the "God is dead" declaration of Friedrich Nietzsche in the Parable of the Marketplace. That was written in the 19th century. We haven't seen any reason why God is going to be completely purged from our societies.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Sport or more significantly politics can certainly be made dangerous. Its just that religion claims absolute authority over explaining reality, thats a very powerful precedent.

It claims that God is a God of justice and will judge you for what you do in this lifetime you mean? I don't see how that is in any way dangerous. It's no more dangerous than saying our State advocated justice, and will judge you for what you do in that State. I don't consider the State dangerous by extension, nor do I consider the legitimate judgement of God to be dangerous.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't really care for things sounding dated or not. I only think of these as abstract principles, how they can be implemented depends on empirical factors which must be considered in relation to the success and failures of past historical implementations. There is no end solution, it will require refinement in itself. In fact one way to do this might be to look at every social system, corporations included and to evaluate them according to criteria, eg inequality of the many vs the few, whether their practices unduly harm people or the environment, basically to look at whether any self interest there is justified and if not then to systematically dismantle illogical processes. Therefore to basically "evolve" a more just and equal society. This is very general so obviously its not thought out as regards to how it might work in practicality.

I do. Why does things sounding dated matter? Well, due to the fact that it failed, and that these viewpoints weren't consistent with reality back then, and it probably isn't consistent with reality right now.

As for "illogical" thought processes. Again, that is in the eyes of the beholder. I see no reason why religion should be purged from society no more than I see no reason why atheism shouldn't be purged from society.

As I said above. I find atheism to be utterly illogical to my mind. Yet, I do not advocate it's destruction. Why not? Due to the fact that freedom of religion is a right. I can't help but thinking about the times of state atheism in the 20th century when I read posts like these.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Perfection is perhaps unpossible. Though the ideal is in striving for it, not to necessarily attain it. Its why we go through education, learn new skills, work, experience different facets of life because the alternative is to dis-improve.
Which path do you want humanity to take?

What is perfection?

I personally want humanity to take a path towards fulfilment and to enter into a relationship with God. You want the opposite. What a funny world we live in!

nyarlothothep wrote: »

All I was saying is that I agree with you that science has been hijacked for causes. It has nothing to do with religion. Its a method, thats all.

Considering that science in Europe originated with Christian support, and that science in the Arab world originated with Islamic support, I'd have to disagree with you there.

thebouldwhacker

Considering that science in Europe originated with Christian support, and that science in the Arab world originated with Islamic support, I'd have to disagree with you there.

Sorry Jack, I disagree on a number of your points but thats only cos they clash with my take on things therefore your view is equal to mine but this is simply untrue. I'm no expert but i was a student of this topic and your statement is false. Briefly put science did not originate through churches, it was controlled by them.

After all the dark ages are so called due to negative actions by several religions. It is only since people stood against the religious power base that science flourished. Established churches saw what was happening and sought to control its use, application and spread amongst the populations. thankfully since science is now slowly being dragged into popular culture. All the houses of science are still recovering from the control of religion. quack doctors and witch midwives, flat earth at the centre of the universe, teaching of physics as an attempt to undermine the power of god, chemists as 'mad scientist' or alchemists who work only toward gold and greed etc etc. Even to this day certain churches have banned certain medical procedures, reject evolution, measure time by the birth of their christ etc.

In the spring of 1633, Galileo Galilei, an Italian scientist, was delivered before the dreaded Roman Inquisition to be tried on charges of heresy. He was denounced, according to a formal statement, "for holding as true the false doctrine . . . that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the earth moves!" The statement went on to read that "the proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and... heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture!" Galileo was found guilty and forced to renounce his views. Ill and broken in spirit, he was sentenced to a life of perpetual imprisonment and penance

.

Great reaction there ehh? And that was just the guy who built a telescope!!!!!

Perhaps many centuries ago churches were the home of learning but that was because they had a them and us attitude . Considering the fact that the ancient Greeks had the round earth problem sorted, recognised the stars for what they are, not to mind their advances in chemistry, physics, bioliogy etc etc churches could hardly be called friend of science not to mind the originators.....

tolteq

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its something i've been pondering over for a while.
I've lately become sick of people blaming religion for all the troubles in the world. People saying "if it wasn't for religion diving people, the world would be a much better place" and "religion is the root cause of all the conflicts and wars in the past and the present".
I think all this has also been reiterated by the recent atheistical movement of "religion being devised out of human imagination as a tool to control people with".

Now i fail to see things this way. I don't see how religion is evil and how without it the world would be a better place. I also fail to see how without religion there would be any less conflicts in the world, infact from my point of view there would be a lot more conflicts if there wasn't a rule book around to differentiate between good and evil in such a black and white manner.

So here's my first topic of discussion:
Religion is a good thing.

I believe religion has done a lot more good to humanity than it has done any evil. Leaving aside all the aspects of god, heaven and hell for the moment and just focusing on morals religion has given something for people to align by. If one considers all holy books such as the Bible, Quran, Torah etc. to be more like books of clear morals, one would start to see where i'm coming from. Religion has integrated more people than it has divided. Religion gives people a sense of community and something they can relate to. Religion keeps people from doing harm to the society by stating harmful acts as immoral, evil and punishable. Religion gives people something to align to. Religion teaches people to take control of their desires, greed and need. Religion tells people to spread love and help the needy. Most importantly religion gives people positivity. It gives people hope and the power of faith. The light at the end of the tunnel. Faith, hope and general positivity are essential for us humans to grow and take those leaps of faith that we wouldn't usually take with the amount of uncertainty in the world around us. This is a very empowering feeling and can distinguish between the people who achieve something significant from the ones who don't.


Now for the second aspect of my discussion:
Religion needs to be black and white.

I believe religion needs to be the rigid, black and white form it is in. There can't be loop holes or soft edges in religion which people could exploit. Religion theoretically is the absolutely authority over life and that needs to be rigid cuz we humans are bound to lose path and break some rules of the rule book. By being rigid, people are less likely to break the rules than they would if religion had soft manipulable edges. Like for instance stealing is a sin. Thats a rigid rule with no room for getting around. It states it clear that stealing is prohibited under all circumstances and so people are less likely to do it.
If it instead stated "stealing under most circumstances is a sin", then people would start to manipulate the circumstances stealing would be a sin for and would look to get away a lot more by doing it. Probably by hiring good lawyer (like in the courts of today!).



Now i don't wanna go too deep here with getting into discussions of god and the afterlife and its implications to the world. But away from the talk of logic and reason, i see those entities to give humans a feeling of faith, hope and positivity which helps them with their life. Even if such a thing exists or not. If it helps and affects millions the lives of people around the world in a positive way, then what's wrong with it?

Now we could also speak about all the absurdities in religion and all but if we could look past those absurdities and pick out at least all the good things that make sense to us, then couldn't religion be a good thing after all??
Instead of looking to work up new morals of ethics and conduct, why couldn't we just update or reinterpret what we've already got to better suit todays world instead of pushing it aside stating it to be outdated and absurd?

I'ld like to know what your opinion would be on this topic.
Is religion a good thing or will the world be better off without it?

Thanks.

Nah. Religion is a waste of time. Certified.

dny123456

Communism is good thing too. Problem comes when people pervert the original principles to advance their own gains. Religion might be a good way to brainwash the general populace to behave in a desirable way, but history has taught us that it can and does get perverted.

Better to live in reality and accept that not everyone will behave. Using superstition to control people, doesn't work out in the long term. There will always be people who see through it (and/or exploit it).

Húrin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This applies to religious people. Morals existed before religion which just codifies them for easy assimilation.

No, behaviours existed before religion. Religion isolated some behaviours and called them moral. These behaviours were prescribed as being better than the behaviours which were not chosen.

If they did I would expect that they would discover the irrationality of their beliefs.

I don't think that you are in a position to claim to be the judge of rationality. You're just another human. Perhaps they know something you don't and their beliefs are in fact rational? Perhaps rationality is not their priority at all?

Actually this isn't a given, there are bioerontologists or geneticists who believe and are making great strides in the project of eliminating death. The main obstacle resides in public not taking the idea seriously.

Source? (not a conspiracy theory website please)

Well the contemporary reality doesn't reflect that either in many instances and in the cases where it does, those freedoms against religious oppression were hard won.

So you're going to stick to your ridiculous claim that no religious person ever keeps it to themselves? All of them are oppressors?

I don't agree with this, independent thought is like language or whatever, everyone is born with it, it just depends on the culture. Certain cultures will give rise to individuals that sway one way or the other, eg finnish culture produces quieter individuals, american cultures produces louder types. Human nature is very multifaceted and malleable.

There is no historical precedent to provide evidence for your speculation. W have seen conformist cultures and individualist cultures, and in both, most people don't think apart from the herd. The main advantage of the latter is that you don't get punished to the same degree for disagreeing with fashionable morality. Like a lot of atheist humanists, you provide wishful thinking cloaked in a disguise of science.

No, but I wasn't making a point on that so far as I can recall. I just pointed out that natural selection occurs. Evolution doesn't cheapen morality, it merely explains where it comes from. The greater than the sum of its parts principle comes to mind.

Morality is greater than natural selection? Where does that value judgement come from?

I don't really see these as relevant. The principles are sound, historical scenarios etc just leads to a messy back and forth concerning interpretations, examples and counter examples, it basically gets very ideological. There is much to learn from history though through detached analysis.

If you think we can learn from history, you are right. Why not try it yourself?

So what do you propose? To do nothing because such people exist as thats "the real world."

We both want a better world. I just think you should pick more realistic targets than just blaming religion for everything. I think you should inform yourself with history. Human reason and good will has not proven to be very reliable.

Sport or more significantly politics can certainly be made dangerous. Its just that religion claims absolute authority over explaining reality

Does it?

Perfection is perhaps unpossible. Though the ideal is in striving for it, not to necessarily attain it. Its why we go through education, learn new skills, work, experience different facets of life because the alternative is to dis-improve.
Which path do you want humanity to take?

I think humanity would be doing well to simply survive the next century in similar numbers to what we are today.

conchubhar1

religion is neither good nor bad.

people are either good or bad.

ChocolateSauce

conchubhar1 wrote: »

religion is neither good nor bad.

people are either good or bad.

Religion makes good people do bad things. If it were not bad, that wouldn't happen.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Religion makes good people do bad things. If it were not bad, that wouldn't happen.

On the other side of the coin it also makes people do good things. It depends whether or not it is abused or not. Any ideology including secularism or atheism can make people do bad things if it is abused.

Mind you anyone can quote Steven Weinberg if they want:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm wrote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Be original

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

On the other side of the coin it also makes people do good things. It depends whether or not it is abused or not. Any ideology including secularism or atheism can make people do bad things if it is abused.

Mind you anyone can quote Steven Weinberg if they want:



Be original

Being just as original as I was above, I'll say I can't think of any good deed done that couldn't also be justified without religion, unlike some bad deeds I can think of.

An oldie but a goodie

conchubhar1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Religion makes good people do bad things. If it were not bad, that wouldn't happen.

it gives bad people, things to justify what they do.

i was raised catholic, kinda still am, yet i dont do bad things because of the religion.

can good people, do evil?
whatever the cause for that - religion in your example.

that doesnt seem plausible - they are not good people if they do evil.....

Chi chi

My friend said that, even if there was no god, we still need to create one, so that our souls have a shelter.

minusorange

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

I see Religion as something good for younger people only and I'm really only talking about ehhh 4-10 years of age.

Is removing a young boy's foreskin without his permission good for him?
How about removing a young girl's clitoris without her permission? When there is no good medical reason to do either?

If you think I'm being a bit dramatic I can assure you I'm not. These are very real religious practices and discussing any particular religion without referring to its specific religious practices is a fruitless exercise.

minusorange

conchubhar1 wrote: »

religion is neither good nor bad.

The same goes for Hitler's Mein Kampf. It's perfectly reasonable. How could a book have any moral significance one way or the other? Its laughable. Only when people take a book literally and try and apply its practices and principles does it become a prob......ahhhh! ....????

Get off the fence, read the core texts and let's call a spade a spade.

Religion is dependent on its core texts. The problem lies in the core texts. When are we going to see these books for what they really are?