Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

I get the feeling that a lot of you are taking the standard atheist bylines about religion...

...on faith.   

Hohoho.  I'm with you on this one, though.

and that you should have 'faith' that the priest caste knows what's best for you, so you should let them tell you what to do, they then tell you to fear change because it endangers the faith they have indoctrinated one to have.

I was with you until you got here, which is when I started disagreeing.  I consider myself religious/faithful.  I have faith that things will improve, I have faith that in the end, life will work out, and I have faith in my own success.  I enjoy reading religious texts and yes, I pray, and I intend to go to some sort of church/cathedral when I'm older--if not to services, because I suspect I'll violently disagree with much that they have to say about the "natural order of things."

That said, I manage to do this without listening too hard to a. the priest caste or b. scientists, who are the "priest caste" of science.  I have a healthy amount of skepticism for both.

It isn't necessary to pick one or the other, dudes.  I firmly believe it's possible to combine faith with scientific inquiry.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Earthquake Damage]

Moreover, religion is one way to live one's life. A philosophy, a way of thinking. Science, more than a assemblage of fact, is another one. And the two are conflicting.

Science is a methodology, not a lifestyle.  It offers no values to live by.  Don't confuse science with an amalgam of science, secular humanism, and other philosophies/systems.

[Zrk2]

Well, the best way to put it is that I have not yet seen a religion I agree with, and cannot fathom one ever existing. I am a libertarian and feel that everyone should be free to make their own choices and that one should never interfere with the rights of others. (This is about the point where Aqizzar steps in to give me a stern talking to) However, religions claim that you must sacrifice of yourself with no hope of reward, yet they say you must do this to get the reward of 'heaven' or what ever their after life is.

One problem is that almost every religion holds that we are born in some sort of default 'original' sin and must spend our entire lives trying to make up for something we never did and is impossible to make up for, and that is apparently inherent in us. I have a real issue with that. The whole claiming we have a inborn debt to something? That just seems ludicrous.

[Criptfeind]

See. I find it hard to pay attention after you say you are a libertarian.

[Sowelu]

Yeah...While science doesn't generally burn its heretics at the stake, it's still not very welcoming of things that disagree with its current opinions, and it's way too accepting of some stuff.  Yes, the beauty of science is that it's changed, but hey an awful lot of religions have too.  (The bible said it's okay to keep slaves, but obviously we don't do that anymore.  Newtonian physics is now known to be false, but we still teach it and use it to inform our understanding of the world...etc.)

Let me toss out some examples of how science is pretty screwed up sometimes.

Climate change.  You'd be hard-pressed to find people on this forum who don't believe in at least some anthropogenic climate change.  Exactly how much, and what the effects will be, is still debate-worthy...but science boards frown OH SO VERY HEAVILY on anyone who dares to question, and can try to ruin peoples' careers over it.  Okay they don't burn people at the stake, but neither does religion anymore.  Me, I lean on the side of "oh shit this is serious", just for the record, I'm no denier.  But I gotta point out the similarities between that and what religion is accused of.  Not that different.

Medical research.  Totally screwed up field, even for people who mean well.  Reproducability is not always very good in this field.  You try out a thousand compounds, and ten of them actually work, you use a lot of rigor, verify your stuff, it's reproduced in other labs, you submit your paper...  And guess what!  It was still blind chance!  When people go back to duplicate the experiments, they get different results.  I've heard horror stories of advisors saying "Don't get your hopes up, chances are it's not going to work a year from now".  So much for peer review.  (Which is pretty terrible a lot of the time, anyway.  Outside of the main important work, the dark back roads of science are...not very well patrolled.)

[...] However, religions claim that you must sacrifice of yourself with no hope of reward, yet they say you must do this to get the reward of 'heaven' or what ever their after life is.

One problem is that almost every religion holds that we are born in some sort of default 'original' sin and must spend our entire lives trying to make up for something we never did and is impossible to make up for, and that is apparently inherent in us. [...]

Are you kidding me?  Have you ever, EVER studied religion formally in your life, or does your entire knowledge about all world religions come from nothing but the bible-thumpers next door?  News flash:  Christianity is not the only religion in the world.  Many of them are very, very different.  Christians aren't even the majority religion in the world; I don't think they're even second place.  Maybe third place?  Less? EDIT: Well screw me sideways, looking it up apparently I was wrong about that.  Weird; I'd always seen sources claim that Islam and Hinduism were both more prevalent.

[Glowcat]

One problem is that almost every religion holds that we are born in some sort of default 'original' sin and must spend our entire lives trying to make up for something we never did and is impossible to make up for, and that is apparently inherent in us. I have a real issue with that. The whole claiming we have a inborn debt to something? That just seems ludicrous.

Not really. In fact, I think the concept of original sin is limited to Christianity. At least it's the only one I can think of.

EDIT:

Climate change.  You'd be hard-pressed to find people on this forum who don't believe in at least some anthropogenic climate change.  Exactly how much, and what the effects will be, is still debate-worthy...but science boards frown OH SO VERY HEAVILY on anyone who dares to question, and can try to ruin peoples' careers over it.  Okay they don't burn people at the stake, but neither does religion anymore.  Me, I lean on the side of "oh shit this is serious", just for the record, I'm no denier.  But I gotta point out the similarities between that and what religion is accused of.  Not that different.

Even though the scientific consensus is VERY aggressive against new concepts, you've picked a terrible example. It took decades for the science behind Anthropogenic Climate Change to prove itself adequately and once it did it became accepted because no solid criticisms were left. There have been a few efforts by people who could actually be called "Climate Skeptics" to show alternative reasons for recent warming, but while they may have added some new information they couldn't explain the situation differently. Most of the efforts against AGW stem from an utterly non-scientific movement that can only be described as "Denialism" and this movement isn't excluded for being different, it's denied because it attempts to add nothing, attacks the character of people to reduce their legitimacy, and engages in outright distortion of facts to push itself into the public sphere.

Neither do you seem to understand the difference between holding a stance because of evidence and the holding a stance because of tradition. It is a virtue in the realm of science because eliminating bad information is the basis of the scientific method (and "good" information is only that which has so far survived criticisms). In religion there is nothing to make one claim more or less true than another, except in cases where scriptural literalism reigns, and even then those claims are only "true" within the circle that believes in scriptural literalism and the scripture isn't ambiguous or contradicted by other scripture. Using faith one cannot say any particular belief is more or less valid - whereas reality has the annoying habit of occurring whether you believe in it or not. Reality is also something that can be checked rigorously.

[Vector]

...

However, religions claim that you must sacrifice of yourself with no hope of reward, yet they say you must do this to get the reward of 'heaven' or what ever their after life is.

Shinto would like to argue with you.

One problem is that almost every religion holds that we are born in some sort of default 'original' sin and must spend our entire lives trying to make up for something we never did and is impossible to make up for, and that is apparently inherent in us. I have a real issue with that. The whole claiming we have a inborn debt to something? That just seems ludicrous.

I don't know how you missed this message, but the entire thing with Jesus dying on the cross was to absolve this "original sin."  No more tree of knowledge/tree of life problem.  We're now free to partake from both.

That's my interpretation of the text, anyway.  And hell, that's only... what, Catholicism?  I don't know about any religions that aren't "of the book" but still hold anything like that precept.  There's no mention of sin at all in the Native American creation myths, nor in Shinto.  I don't remember it being mentioned in Buddhism, either--not even the Jodo-Shinshu devotional worship branch, which is kind of Christian-flavored.

[Sowelu]

This is my problem with militant atheists:  They're almost universally vastly uninformed.  And when they are "informed", it's along the lines of "Did you know that this is what your book says?  Never mind the way you live your life or what your preacher says or your interpretation or the way you know your book is mistranslated, I know more than you about what's REALLY going on."  You might as well be handing someone a Chick tract about how Dungeons and Dragons is secretly satanic.

[Earthquake Damage]

Not really. In fact, I think the concept of original sin is limited to Christianity. At least it's the only one I can think of.

If you really stretch it, you could say that Hinduism (and/or Buddhism?) posits that you were born a human because you did not yet achieve Nirvana.  You could interpret that as "I was born not-good-enough" where "good" would be whatever behavior or mental state is necessary to escape the cycle of rebirth.

But, yeah, it's pretty much Christianity and maybe (?) Islam.  Way to hastily generalize, Zrk2.

[Vector]

If you really stretch it, you could say that Hinduism (and/or Buddhism?) posits that you were born a human because you did not yet achieve Nirvana.  You could interpret that as "I was born not-good-enough" where "good" would be whatever behavior or mental state is necessary to escape the cycle of rebirth.

Yes, Buddhism agrees.

However, it's detachment that is necessary.  The idea is that as long as you're attached to earthly circumstances, you'll keep being reborn on earth.  Once you're not attached (i.e. you've achieved enlightenment), you'll stop being reborn.

It doesn't really come off like a punishment thing to me.  It can be likened to the concept of purgatory, but ... really, it isn't.  Everything I've read implies that the time is sort of like a gift which allows one to slowly overcome one's issues, not a punishment for bad behavior.  Want to stay on earth?  Great!  Don't care?  Great!

Buddhism is to be applied only if you feel you are suffering and want a way out, and not otherwise.  That's what the Dali Lama says about it, anyhow.

[Leafsnail]

msg2109773
Climate change.  You'd be hard-pressed to find people on this forum who don't believe in at least some anthropogenic climate change.  Exactly how much, and what the effects will be, is still debate-worthy...but science boards frown OH SO VERY HEAVILY on anyone who dares to question, and can try to ruin peoples' careers over it.  Okay they don't burn people at the stake, but neither does religion anymore.  Me, I lean on the side of "oh shit this is serious", just for the record, I'm no denier.  But I gotta point out the similarities between that and what religion is accused of.  Not that different.

Really?  Perhaps you'll be ignored if you make papers which are poorly backed up, but can you think of any specific examples where the scientific community has come together to ruin someone's career solely because they went against man made global warming?

msg2109773
Medical research.  Totally screwed up field, even for people who mean well.  Reproducability is not always very good in this field.  You try out a thousand compounds, and ten of them actually work, you use a lot of rigor, verify your stuff, it's reproduced in other labs, you submit your paper...  And guess what!  It was still blind chance!  When people go back to duplicate the experiments, they get different results.  I've heard horror stories of advisors saying "Don't get your hopes up, chances are it's not going to work a year from now".  So much for peer review.  (Which is pretty terrible a lot of the time, anyway.  Outside of the main important work, the dark back roads of science are...not very well patrolled.)

Such is the nature of the scientific process: you won't always be right first time.  When you're dealing with something as complex as the human body, it's not really avoidable.  And if other people try to reproduce it and it doesn't work... well, isn't that peer review in action, not "so much for peer review"?

This is my problem with militant atheists:  They're almost universally vastly uninformed.  And when they are "informed", it's along the lines of "Did you know that this is what your book says?  Never mind the way you live your life or what your preacher says or your interpretation or the way you know your book is mistranslated, I know more than you about what's REALLY going on."  You might as well be handing someone a Chick tract about how Dungeons and Dragons is secretly satanic.

This feels a bit unfair, but I guess you've defined "militant" to be the kind of atheist you don't like...

Right.  We assume that the axioms apply to a given problem, without proof, because there is no proof.  Our observations are assumptions.

"Science," as an edifice, is far weaker than most people seem to think it is.

I'm kindof confused by this.  Science does this sometimes too, and assuming something's true without proof and then exploring the consequences of that isn't really the same as saying something's true and ending it there...

[Sowelu]

Confucianism might as well be a restatement of the Boy Scout's creed, all that stuff about being respectful, loyal, kind, and lots of other good words that I should remember but don't.  Also, "Don't be a dick; just be nice to people around you and life will be easier, here's some suggestions on how to do that".  Together with Taoism ("compassion, moderation, humility"), that's 400 million people right there according to Wikipedia, a lot of people who would also disagree with you about religion being all about original sin and self-flagellation.

msg2109773
Medical research.  Totally screwed up field, even for people who mean well.  Reproducability is not always very good in this field.  You try out a thousand compounds, and ten of them actually work, you use a lot of rigor, verify your stuff, it's reproduced in other labs, you submit your paper...  And guess what!  It was still blind chance!  When people go back to duplicate the experiments, they get different results.  I've heard horror stories of advisors saying "Don't get your hopes up, chances are it's not going to work a year from now".  So much for peer review.  (Which is pretty terrible a lot of the time, anyway.  Outside of the main important work, the dark back roads of science are...not very well patrolled.)

Such is the nature of the scientific process: you won't always be right first time.  When you're dealing with something as complex as the human body, it's not really avoidable.  And if other people try to reproduce it and it doesn't work... well, isn't that peer review in action, not "so much for peer review"?

Trying to point out that peer review fails much of the time.  It's useful, it's important, but science is far from perfect and not always trustworthy in some areas.  Some people put way more faith in it than it deserves, and that's just as dangerous as putting too much faith in Space Jesus.

Not trying to come across as anti-science.  Was just trying to argue against people who seemed to say that science is zomg perfect 100% of the time, and the scientific method means it will never be wrong for more than five seconds.

This is my problem with militant atheists:  They're almost universally vastly uninformed.  And when they are "informed", it's along the lines of "Did you know that this is what your book says?  Never mind the way you live your life or what your preacher says or your interpretation or the way you know your book is mistranslated, I know more than you about what's REALLY going on."  You might as well be handing someone a Chick tract about how Dungeons and Dragons is secretly satanic.

This feels a bit unfair, but I guess you've defined "militant" to be the kind of atheist you don't like...

I dunno.  I'm defining it as people who complain loudly about how all religion is evil.  Fair?  Accurate?  I think so, and I think it's a label they would accept.  There's no shortage of people who claim that religion is the root of all evil on this board; ask them if they consider themselves militant atheists and I bet you'll get a 'yes'.

[Vector]

Right.  We assume that the axioms apply to a given problem, without proof, because there is no proof.  Our observations are assumptions.

"Science," as an edifice, is far weaker than most people seem to think it is.

I'm kindof confused by this.  Science does this sometimes too, and assuming something's true without proof and then exploring the consequences of that isn't really the same as saying something's true and ending it there...

But does religion necessarily always say something is true and end it there?

Not in my experience.  You take some series of tenets as "true" and then extrapolate outwards into various implications.  There's a reason why we have Bible Studies classes.  You take the source material, interpret it, and move onwards.

[Leafsnail]

But does religion necessarily always say something is true and end it there?

Not in my experience.  You take some series of tenets as "true" and then extrapolate outwards into various implications.  There's a reason why we have Bible Studies classes.  You take the source material, interpret it, and move onwards.

Well... I've never had a Bible Studies class in any meaningful sense of the term.  I'm kindof curious, now, since I don't think I've ever seen religion used in an axiometric manner.