Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
That Religion Thing?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
It wasn't directed at me but I gotta bite. :pac:
Of course luck "exists" depending on how you define it.Ginja Ninja wrote: »I'm very scientifically minded as well and I have to disagree.just out of curiosity what would your opinion be on something else intangible,like luck?
I said several times during the election that that was pathetic. See here:Or something like faith in another person?[As in believing Obama can make a difference or something like that] would you also see that as pathetic?
0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not a primary / post-primary teacher, if that's what you mean? ... nor have I ever been.Are you a teacher by any chance?
That said, in several quite different roles, the word "education" (in it's very broadest sense) has probably always appeared *somewhere* in the job descriptions, probably one of the few words which would have been common to all of them!!
Why?!
0 -
randylonghorn wrote: »I'm not a primary / post-primary teacher, if that's what you mean? ... nor have I ever been.
That said, in several quite different roles, the word "education" (in it's very broadest sense) has probably always appeared *somewhere* in the job descriptions, probably one of the few words which would have been common to all of them!!
Why?!
Just practicing my Derren Brown based on what you were saying.
0 -
I'm supposedly a Catholic, though I've grown fairly apathetic about organised religion over the past few years and now I don't really know where I stand any more. I do believe that our universe is a strange aul' one, as universes go, and that there could be a much larger picture, hidden just about but forever out of our sight. Maybe a God could be responsible for all the unlikely rules our lives have to follow, or maybe the rules themselves are a kind of God? Hmm, I hoped I wouldn't descend into rambling nonsensery within my first paragraph, sorry about that.
I suppose I'm agnostic, if I were to put a ribbon on it.
I used to believe really strongly when I was younger, but I got disillusioned over time. A few years ago, my brother decided that he'd prefer being a Protestant. My mum was horrified by this, having grown up with all kinds of horrible, bigoted notions about a denomination that has almost exactly the same set of beliefs as Catholicism. She all but disowned him for a few years, completely shattered his confidence and self-worth, and there was this awful, awful atmosphere that lingered whenever my brother and my mum were in the same room. It was just so horrible... and all because of something so petty! So, that changed my views about religion a lot. I just didn't feel the same about it at all, I lost all enthusiasm for going to mass and would pretend to sleep in so that I wouldn't have to go but wouldn't have to confront my parents about it either.
Even though I can get really frustrated with religion and the ways it inspires war, injustice, prejudice, phobia, and hate, and so on, I still think it's a valuable part of humanity. Fundamentally, religion represents and teaches the best of human intentions, that we should love and treat one another with respect. You can't really find fault with an idea like that, and people who follow it in a considerate, genuine way do make the world better. The basic message is a good one, but things can go horribly wrong when people misinterpret religious texts or use them to defend their intolerance. Intolerance works both ways, too... self-righteous, dogmatic atheists are just as bad as any other kind of extremist.
Studying physics for the past couple of years has given me a tiny idea of how little we currently know about the way stuff works, and how what we hope to learn is also, ultimately bounded. I don't believe we can ever prove or disprove the existence of a higher entity, much like how we can understand that matter gravitates towards itself but never understand why it's in Nature's nature to do so. So, I think everyone's entitled to their own beliefs provided they treat others' with as much respect. Decent, considerate people should never be ridiculed for their faith or lack thereof, and you can shove Russell's teapot up your universally extrinsic orifice if you think otherwise. :P
As for an afterlife, or stuffs like that, I have a couple of views. Some are conventional, and others involve crazy, parallel universe sort of stuff that I won't get into because it's incredibly, embarrassingly stupid. :P Mostly I think that whatever happens, happens. Whatever existence has in store for us when we die is what awaits us, so, everything will be the way it should be. Death is sad and terrifying, but it could be kind of beautiful too, in a strange way.0 -
-
Indeed ... and just as I would not discriminate against or ridicule someone because they were gay or (say) Chinese, neither would I do so because they were Catholic, Quaker or Hindu.I'm sure the majority of people here find homophobic/racist views pathetic (whatever justification the holder of such views tries to use)
I have been known however to ridicule those who are bigots, whether that bigotry involves racism, or homophobia, or the assumption that those of a particular religion are superior to and in some way "know better" than others, or indeed the assumption that those of no religion are superior to / know better than others ... it's all bigotry of a type!
Um, not doing all that well then, I'm afraid! :pac:Just practicing my Derren Brown based on what you were saying.0 -
-
Bit difference between what race someone is born and their refusal to think critically about something.randylonghorn wrote: »Indeed ... and just as I would not discriminate against or ridicule someone because they were gay or (say) Chinese, neither would I do so because they were Catholic, Quaker or Hindu.
You're a bigot against bigots and I'm a pacifist bigot for wanting to free prople, that'll do.I have been known however to ridicule those who are bigots, whether that bigotry involves racism, or homophobia, or the assumption that those of a particular religion are superior to and in some way "know better" than others, or indeed the assumption that those of no religion are superior to / know better than others ... it's all bigotry of a type!
Wasn't too far off basing it off of one post I don't think.Um, not doing all that well then, I'm afraid! :pac:
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
For many centuries, those (whether religious or atheist) who followed logical/reason-based arguments *knew* that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. New knowledge questioned that contemporary scientific dogma, and now we all know that the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun.There is an element of danger in keeping faith-based/emotionally-driven ideas equal in status to logical/reason-based arguments. It does not set a good precedent.
I am not, by the way, arguing that it is likely that new knowledge will prove the existence of a god or gods. I am simply pointing out, despite my own personal predilection for logic and reason, that the logic and reason of one generation may look quite risible to the next. A blind belief in logic and reason (one might almost say the substitution of logic and reason as gods in the atheist pantheon!) ignores the reality that the beliefs founded on logical and rational thinking are only as valid as the known facts which underpin them.
No, it's a much broader philosophical concept than that, though it's often most practically represented and codified by legal systems at that level (remember that one of the main limitations of legal systems is that they find it much easier to deal with concrete, practical examples and find broader cultural and philosophical concepts very difficult ... one of the reasons why cases in constitutional law tend to make barristers very rich!I would have thought freedom of religion was about allowing people to hold certain religious views and (unobstructive) religious practices without being persecuted by the state on such grounds.
That said, in countries like Ireland, that summary isn't very far off the mark in practice, except that I would delete the phrase "by the state" as overly restrictive.
If one was to look at a theocratic state with a state religion, however, and such have existed often in history and still exist in other parts of the world, the relationship between freedom of religion and the freedom not to be of any religion becomes much clearer, even at a basic and legalistic level.
There is definitely a balance to be maintained between freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I would agree, as there is often a balancing act involved between the various freedoms which we take for granted. Just to give an (admittedly pretty simplistic) example, I am a free man, a citizen, with the right essentially to do what I want and make my own choices ... but that freedom is balanced and curtailed by the rights of others to make their own choices and enjoy a reasonable quality of life, so I can't, for example, walk around naked to do my shopping, or drive a car through a pedestrian zone, or wander into a church and start shouting insults at the congregation.I don't think it's fair that they be protected from criticism or ridicule however and in a way that seems to infringe more on others' freedom of speech.
Leaving aside the law for the moment, I would argue that if we all personally practised courtesy, tolerance and a little (un)common sense, we would live in a pretty idyllic world and wouldn't need much in the line of laws anyway. Never gonna happen, though, is it?
I agree.In essence I would think religious freedoms should merely be a subset of general freedom, that is you are entitled to think what you like and do what you like so long as you are not infringing on the freedom of others.
I pretty much agree, but I would argue that it has to be almost in the Boards approach of "attack the post, not the poster". Rational, courteous argument and disagreement should always be protected. Being bloody rude about it and bullying people shouldn't. Unfortunately, when people engage in "ridicule" they often don't seem to understand where the line is between those two, which is why for example the workload of a Boards mod is often far more hassle than it should be. (I am making a general comment, btw, David, not one aimed at you, or even at this forum ... this thread would have self-destructed long ago in many forums on this site, and the General Election thread is one of the very few politics-type threads on Boards over the last few weeks which hasn't degenerated into a row between partisan demagogues).In this case that does not mean that you are free from having your beliefs and opinions criticised or ridiculed by others.
On issues like the recent blasphemy law, I totally agree. The right to hold (or not to hold) religious views does seem to need special protection though, or that is what history has repeatedly taught those of us who started our careers as historians (there's a hint for amacachi!Religious views should not be afforded special protection ...).
Pontius Pilate: "Truth? What is truth?!"We should not be promoting a view because it feels good over the actual truth, such a thing can only be a disservice to us all.
What gives you the right to declare something as truth? Do you see yourself as an omniscient god?
Even at the most simple level, the nature of truth is contested. You might say to your mother "I got up early on Saturday, I was up at 10 a.m." She might accept that you were up at 10, yet to her, the "truth" is that you got up late ... because to her, 10 a.m. *is* late! Truth, far more than beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And truth changes, and has changed many times over the centuries (see the flat earth comments above, for example). I have always had the sneaking suspicion that there is no such thing as actual truth.
/philosophy (sorry!) 0 -
But you see, to you it may be "their refusal to think critically about something", but who made you the almighty judge? Another one who is aspiring to depose god and take her place, eh?Bit difference between what race someone is born and their refusal to think critically about something.
Seriously, an attitude of "they're obviously refusing to think properly because they don't agree with *me*" is pretty much the same attitude as that displayed by most strongly religious people.
But then I've always thought that rational atheism had many of the hallmarks of a religion, with the possible exception of a belief in a supernatural being or beings ... and I've met a few who seemed to have subconsciously elevated Dawkins to that position! >.<
Actually, I can live with that, I've often said that the one thing I can't tolerate is intolerance!You're a bigot against bigots ...
Mmm, depends on what you understand by the word teacher, I suppose (as I've said, truth is not a constant!). What most Irish people mean in the heads when they say "teacher" ... no, I'm not and have never been that.Wasn't too far off basing it off of one post I don't think.0 -
Critical thinking is what gave us space travel and electronics and medicines and surgery. It isn't answering every question with "God did it", except when asked about something unpalatable.randylonghorn wrote: »But you see, to you it may be "their refusal to think critically about something", but who made you the almighty judge? Another one who is aspiring to depose god and take her place, eh?
Seriously, an attitude of "they're obviously refusing to think properly because they don't agree with *me*" is pretty much the same attitude as that displayed by most strongly religious people.
But then I've always thought that rational atheism had many of the hallmarks of a religion, with the possible exception of a belief in a supernatural being or beings ... and I've met a few who seemed to have subconsciously elevated Dawkins to that position! >.<
I don't claim to be the the judge of defining words but I'm pretty sure that "because it says so in this book" or "because the priest said it more recently than that other priest said the opposite" counts as critical thinking.0 -
No, I wouldn't really argue for that as critical thinking, all right, but that tends to be what I would call "granny theology" (though I accept that in this respect many priests tend to be grannies!)It isn't answering every question with "God did it", except when asked about something unpalatable.
I don't claim to be the the judge of defining words but I'm pretty sure that "because it says so in this book" or "because the priest said it more recently than that other priest said the opposite" counts as critical thinking.
Many atheists over the centuries have come to religion through critical thinking, though, including eminent scientists ... usually because they found it impossible to believe that the universe, evolution, etc. all just happened without an underlying plan.
Personally, I don't know, but I will defend freedom of religion to the last, because, as I said, the freedom to believe and the freedom NOT to believe are the two sides of the same coin. And in defending freedom of religion I'm also defending your right not to believe!
0 -
randylonghorn wrote: »For many centuries, those (whether religious or atheist) who followed logical/reason-based arguments *knew* that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. New knowledge questioned that contemporary scientific dogma, and now we all know that the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun.
Well the people who followed logical/reason-based arguments generally changed their minds and admitted they were wrong when presented with new evidence about these things.
Those guided by faith and emotion often resisted new evidence fiercely and in many cases persecuted those who spread knowledge of the new discoveries/theories.
Pretty major difference there, beliefs founded on logical and rational thinking may be "only as valid as the known facts which underpin them" but beliefs based on faith alone can't come close to even this; and the willingness to revise your idea when new facts present themselves is a major part of logical/rational decision making IMO, not nearly as much as belief based on faith (after all, if your "faith" is shattered every time evidence rears its ugly head I'm not sure you can still call it faith-based belief).Rational, courteous argument and disagreement should always be protected. Being bloody rude about it and bullying people shouldn't.
I think we're all (well, mostly) agreed on that, but not everyone is agreed on where the line is.
It's hard to make any serious argument or complaint about religion (either in general or related to a specific issue) without someone claiming you're being aggressive or discriminating.Even at the most simple level, the nature of truth is contested. You might say to your mother "I got up early on Saturday, I was up at 10 a.m." She might accept that you were up at 10, yet to her, the "truth" is that you got up late ... because to her, 10 a.m. *is* late! Truth, far more than beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And truth changes, and has changed many times over the centuries (see the flat earth comments above, for example). I have always had the sneaking suspicion that there is no such thing as actual truth.
/philosophy (sorry!)
Well there you're not making a distinction between objective and subjective truth.
"I got up early on Saturday" may be true to you and not to your mother, because "early" isn't well defined and relies on our own interpretation (unless we can get everyone to agree on what time period constitutes "early", I recommend any time before 2PM).
On the other hand "I was up at 10AM on Saturday" is either true or false, belief doesn't come into it (unless for some reason you believe that they're talking about a different timezone or calendar system etc., but these can be clarified if needed).
We may not ever be able to agree on what actions are "right" and what actions are "wrong", we simply have to try and come up with a system that hopefully won't cause as much problems as others (IMO one not based heavily on books encouraging slavery and glorifying genocide would be good).
On the other hand, we don't have to "agree" on issues such as the shape of the earth, the existence of certain things or whether we were created in a week or over millions of years.
These are things we can (and do) seek out evidence of and develop informed ideas of, if there is no credible evidence of something we start to question whether it's the most likely explanation, if there is evidence of something it reinforces our belief in it; and most importantly, if new evidence contradicts old evidence we have to stop and think what it could mean and whether the theory still holds up, rather than covering our ears and insisting we already know the answer.
As for the flat earth example, that wasn't the truth changing, that was our understanding changing, we believed it to be the truth for a long time, but it was never actually true, we were simply incorrect for a long period of time, and for quite a while after that people resisted the new evidence and tried to ignore it.
As for gods, while I don't claim we can currently (or perhaps ever) prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being, it's something with no evidence to back it up, despite most believers claiming he (or she, or they) had a major role to play in the formation of the world/universe.
As for specific religions, all the major ones (and their associated holy books) tend to claim quite specific things about God's actions and their consequences; in these cases evidence actually is found on a quite regular basis calling these things into question, usually met at first with denial, then by reinterpretation, and finally by ignoring it or demoting the action in question from dogma to metaphor.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8
Advertisement