Print

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

[SalmonGod]

Not really.  Information is meaningless without interpretation.  We also all have our own perceptions of the world through which our interpretations will filter.  It's not necessarily a process of failing or twisting.  Just disagreeing.  The only literal failing is to make use of bad information.  I will concede this about very few things because I generally hate it when claims are made about anything like human nature, but this is just a part of the human condition.

[Vector]

To say that stones falling prove the existence of force but that people acting kindly does not prove the existence of divinity is a matter of reference frame.  Y'all do know the story of the five blind men and the elephant, right?  Just because they all learned different things about the elephant doesn't mean that any of them was wrong.

[MonkeyHead]

People dont like the unknown. Whatever fills that void is fine (to a certain extent, or course) - the issue is when people assume thier point of view is the only correct one and start forcing it on others.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To say that stones falling prove the existence of force but that people acting kindly does not prove the existence of divinity is a matter of reference frame.

People act kindly because we are a species that survives and thrives off of having a stable society. If we didn't have that we would have gone extinct from preying upon one another.

[MonkeyHead]

So anything that encourages, reinforces or teaches that behaviour is a good thing - be it faith, education, parenting...

[Nadaka]

So anything that encourages, reinforces or teaches that behaviour is a good thing - be it faith, education, parenting...

unless it encourages other more negative behavior more.

[MonkeyHead]

I am struggling to think of an example that teaches both altruism of an inclusive nature and socially destrucitve or harmful behaviour to large numbers of individuals...

[Tellemurius]

I am struggling to think of an example that teaches both altruism of an inclusive nature and socially destrucitve or harmful behaviour to large numbers of individuals...

Social Studies?

[Leafsnail]

To say that stones falling prove the existence of force but that people acting kindly does not prove the existence of divinity is a matter of reference frame.

...Uh, no, not really.  One is something that can be directly observed and tested while the other seems to be assuming a whole lot.

I mean, stones falling upwards on a regular basis would invalidate the idea of a force that pulls things downwards.  Does the fact that many people act unkindly disprove the existence of a deity?  If not, how can you take the fact that some people act kindly some of the time to prove the existence of a divinity?

Y'all do know the story of the five blind men and the elephant, right?  Just because they all learned different things about the elephant doesn't mean that any of them was wrong.

Sure, and that seems to be how a lot of science develops at first (I mean, quantum theory and relativity don't mix too well but they explain their own areas and make predictions very well).  But if the 5 men all made wild guesses about the elephant without even touching it there's no guaranteeing that any of them are right.

[Darvi]

"It's pink!"
"No it's not!"
"Then prove that it isn't!"
"... but we can't!"
"Therefore, because you cannot disprove it, it must be pink!"

[MonkeyHead]

Ah, invisible pink unicorns...

[SalmonGod]

I think you guys are missing the point...  there is a process to science to ensure that the information it produces is as confirmed as possible.  But information is just information.  What people decide to do with that information afterwards is a completely different matter that is not science. 

Try getting into a debate with a hardcore eugenicist sometime. 

There is a slight shade of difference in the way a person justifies their agenda with science vs the same with religion, but I think it roughly equals out.  Religion dictates morality directly, without any solid information to back itself up with.  Science doesn't dictate morality, but provides solid information which a person can use to back up whatever morality they personally invent.  I find the former to be more often abused, but the latter tends to be far more dangerous...

[Leafsnail]

Sure it's just information.  As you say, science tells us absolutely nothing about how we should behave, and anyone who claims it is doing so is pretty much making a logical nonsequiter ("This kind of thing happens in nature therefore we should do it").  But I don't think religion is helpful in the other area ("what should we do") either.  There's some stuff moral people could agree with in there, but unless you're moral in the first place you won't be able to identify which bits to follow and which bits to ignore.

[Vector]

Religion used to provide a way of navigating the social contract and various personal failings, which are now negotiated through drugs and psychotherapy.  The therapist is the new priest.  I realize I may be making myself unpopular by saying this, but I'll take the cathedral over the psychiatric hospital any day.

[G-Flex]

Speaking at someone who was brought up in the Catholic Church and has a bit of first and second hand experience with psychotherapy (and secondhand experience with psychiatric wards and the like), I can honestly say that you are really treading on thin ice by comparing the two. Hell, my own experience aside, the comparison just seems ludicrous. Psychiatric medicine is extraordinarily far from perfect, but to pretend it's equivalent to dogmatic religious education is flat-out ridiculous, and I believe you're more than a little bit biased from your own experiences here. If I were to seek help for my problems, I'd much prefer what is at least an honest attempt at genuine methods of therapy than a priest making me feel guilty as sin (quite literally) for being human. Do you really think you'd be better off with that kind of perpetual self-loathing and denial? I sure wouldn't, at least.