Kenneth R.
Cináed
what issues? I also don't think humanity will outgrow religion. We will just continue to tailor it to fit our current social clime.
religion
- Thread starter Phanto
- Start date
Sauna
Member
- Mar 30, 2010
- 385
- 0
- 16
Like Wander wrote a couple of pages back, there are parts of the world which have basically outgrown religion already. I believe it will happen everywhere eventually, probably with the States and a couple of conservative countries in the Middle-East being the last bastions of religion before it finally dies out.
I still find it difficult to believe that we'd totally outgrow religion to be honest. The roots are too deep. On the other hand, they say that god lives in the gaps of science. Maybe if all those gaps can be closed one day?
I think that making children part of a church is wrong. I was probably lucky, cause I was a logical kid and became sceptical of invisible things early on. And also because my family was largely ignorant towards religion. But children born into proper religious communities or grown by parents with great devotion are not given a good chance to go anywhere else really. Threating children of hellfire is not a nice thing to do.
Speaking of hell, that's one of the earliest things that didn't make sense to me in christianity as a kid. What kind of a benevolent god would judge a perfectly good human being to hell for not being in the right religion? So dumb.
I think that making children part of a church is wrong. I was probably lucky, cause I was a logical kid and became sceptical of invisible things early on. And also because my family was largely ignorant towards religion. But children born into proper religious communities or grown by parents with great devotion are not given a good chance to go anywhere else really. Threating children of hellfire is not a nice thing to do.
Speaking of hell, that's one of the earliest things that didn't make sense to me in christianity as a kid. What kind of a benevolent god would judge a perfectly good human being to hell for not being in the right religion? So dumb.
Sauna
Member
- Mar 30, 2010
- 385
- 0
- 16
This immediately brought to mind the way some people have started calling the Higgs particle the "god particle". I don't think closing gaps will have any effect on people who are already firm believers, but then again, future generations (especially with proper education) are a whole different matter.
Are religions ever really supposed to make sense? What's in the bible is the truth because the bible says so, right?
Kenneth R.
Cináed
it won't go away because they are not in competition, and it is ever the mistake of society trying to compare science and religion as some kind of competition.
science will reveal what is true, what you can do.
religion gives people a basis for what is right, what you should do. Which is of course, much more subjective.
science will reveal what is true, what you can do.
religion gives people a basis for what is right, what you should do. Which is of course, much more subjective.
Sauna
Member
- Mar 30, 2010
- 385
- 0
- 16
Science and belief in a deity/overall spirituality aren't in competition, but science and organized religions such as christianity are. They have been ever since modern natural science started developing and will be until these religions have become such watered down versions of themselves that they wouldn't even be recognizable to their founders.
^---This.
And so atheists have no sense of right and wrong? Religion =/= ethics.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
it's so hard to have a discussion about the generalities of religion without people jumping onto the pre-made trenches and defending positions inexplicably.
First of all, on the religion v science thing: you're just saying that people have mistaken them for being in conflict. isn't that what I said? That some take those mistakes and propagate them does not affect the generalized case, instead it only serves to underline their error in understanding the nature of each. You specifically mentioned christianity. Are there not factions such as "christian science"? Debatable that it is hard science, but adherents believe the two compatible.
Atheists vs moral right : that's your defense you jumped to, if you read my post carefully I made no attack on atheism. I said that in general people turn to religion for moral authority. Not everyone does.
Given the status that so many DO turn to religion for ethical guidance, I don't see it disappearing even in the face of exhaustive scientific discovery - because again - they're not mutually exclusive nor are they in generalized conflict.
Sauna
Member
- Mar 30, 2010
- 385
- 0
- 16
I've no need to "defend" atheism, I just resent the way some claim religion is in some way a necessary ingredient in properly formed ethics, or the basis of ethics or whatever. If anything, it's the other way around. Ethics exists as a completely separate entity, and turning to religion for morals is no more mature than saying that thing x is right/wrong because law y says it's legal/illegal.
I don't feel it's debatable, I find it absolutely crystal clear that "christian science" is about the furthest you can get from hard science. I mean, spiritual healing and stuff? Come on.
Again, I don't think science in general and spirituality in general are in any kind of conflict. Natural science and organized religions such as christianity are, because the lore of the latter is in direct conflict with the findings of the former. And while the the moral side of christianity can co-exist with natural science just fine, the lore cannot---> the religion as a whole cannot. If you just cherry-pick all the moral lessons from the bible and ignore all the miracles and resurrections and stuff, it's no longer the same thing.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
sigh. still waiting for you to remove yourself from the equation here.
Your first paragraph, that's a nice opinion. But it's just yours, and you are in fact in the minority whether or not you recognize it. For better or worse, most humans appeal to moral authority in religion. I'm not making a value judgment on it, just stating the fact. You seem bent on refuting it by defending your own belief for some reason. Nonsequitor.
Again, your opinion, and one I agree with. But, some people believe otherwise, and in their belief there lies evidence that from the inside even, it can be viewed that the two forces are not in conflict.
And once again, you've narrowmindedly homed in on a specific religion to argue a strawman case. I'm done with this thread, because it is inevitably the case that people can't discuss this topic objectively.
Not sure where you're going with that "it's just your opinion" loop. What is so wrong about having an opinion here? Either I'm missing something, or you imagined this to be some kind of logical debate with parameters you defined. I don't see why we should stick to reporting facts about what the majority thinks (isn't that kinda stating the obvious?). i.e. I don't see why he should "remove himself from the equation". Personally I'm interested in what each one of you thinks.
Having said that, I too agree. I see no conflict between science and spirituality, but I do see one between science and organized religion. Science is a threat to religion's credibility and the reason behind the growing number of atheist/irreligious people. Oh, and people are not into religion for moral and ethical standards, there's more to it than that imo.
First of all, most religious people don't choose to become religious, it's the social indoctrination they go through, and what better proof of this than the nonrandom geographic dispersion of religions across the world map. Is that because people from the same area somehow all tend to "pick" the same religion? Surely the effect of social conditioning instead. They don't seek ethical guidance and find it in religion, they are BORN in ethical guidance as taught by religion. The only choosing they do is perhaps choosing not to look elsewhere.
Second, when people adhere to an organized religion such as Islam, they are not simply subscribed to some abstract source of ethics, they are accepting a complete system of belief and of worship that involves a lot of details that are considered unquestionable. Some of these guys pray five times a day, go to the mosque every week, believe in the Qur'an and all of its specifics as the absolute and timeless truth and Islam as the universal religion which someday will spread all over the world. Do you think they commit to this model of viewing reality merely/mainly due to the need for having ethical guidance in life? Partly so at best, but as I said, I can tell you that plain ignorance and social conditioning are the bigger factors at play here. Provide the right conditions and your chances of getting an irreligious person will dramatically increase.
Spirituality will carry on, but not organized religion. Sure it will keep getting tailored, but there's a limit to how much you can do that. According to evolution, we keep getting smarter as a species, and a smarter species = less likely to be religious.
Having said that, I too agree. I see no conflict between science and spirituality, but I do see one between science and organized religion. Science is a threat to religion's credibility and the reason behind the growing number of atheist/irreligious people. Oh, and people are not into religion for moral and ethical standards, there's more to it than that imo.
First of all, most religious people don't choose to become religious, it's the social indoctrination they go through, and what better proof of this than the nonrandom geographic dispersion of religions across the world map. Is that because people from the same area somehow all tend to "pick" the same religion? Surely the effect of social conditioning instead. They don't seek ethical guidance and find it in religion, they are BORN in ethical guidance as taught by religion. The only choosing they do is perhaps choosing not to look elsewhere.
Second, when people adhere to an organized religion such as Islam, they are not simply subscribed to some abstract source of ethics, they are accepting a complete system of belief and of worship that involves a lot of details that are considered unquestionable. Some of these guys pray five times a day, go to the mosque every week, believe in the Qur'an and all of its specifics as the absolute and timeless truth and Islam as the universal religion which someday will spread all over the world. Do you think they commit to this model of viewing reality merely/mainly due to the need for having ethical guidance in life? Partly so at best, but as I said, I can tell you that plain ignorance and social conditioning are the bigger factors at play here. Provide the right conditions and your chances of getting an irreligious person will dramatically increase.
Spirituality will carry on, but not organized religion. Sure it will keep getting tailored, but there's a limit to how much you can do that. According to evolution, we keep getting smarter as a species, and a smarter species = less likely to be religious.
Stupid observation!
You cornered him!
And he resorted to an authoritarian rhetoric.
Oh, what a spoiled child!
It seems hes the only one entitled to have an opinion.
I agree with Marwen on a lot of points. I am not against personal spirituality, but I am against organized religion. To me, one of the main problems is claiming to know something that cannot be known. By this I mean both claiming to know what exists beyond this life and how you need to live your life have some kind of reward after it.
When it comes to ethics, I am sure they can be discussed and reasoned without bringing magical tales, myths and ancient holy texts to the table.
When it comes to ethics, I am sure they can be discussed and reasoned without bringing magical tales, myths and ancient holy texts to the table.
Postulate
Have a nice day! :)
- Jul 17, 2008
- 1,474
- 0
- 36
The difficulty, Wander, comes in knowing then what it is appropriate to claim to know and not know. Clearly, the faithful think they do know, and so it's your word against theirs - and the liberty to practice as you please should win out in that situation, and each of you go your separate ways.
I really have nothing against organized religion, either. I think it's all a bunch of hokum, but I don't see any reason to actively try to get rid of it.
I really have nothing against organized religion, either. I think it's all a bunch of hokum, but I don't see any reason to actively try to get rid of it.
Some branches of it are clearly harmful. The death toll brought by Islamic terrorist attacks every year is in the thousands. thereligionofpeace.com apparently keeps a count of confirmed deadly attacks, apparently a total of 19 396 since 9/11. They don't keep a count of deaths, but even a very conservative estimation goes well beyond 100 000.
I know it is a small part of muslims who do this, but it is the very existence of the religion known as Islam that makes this possible. And I seriously doubt that Islam is doing enough good over there to negate these numbers.
Postulate
Have a nice day! :)
- Jul 17, 2008
- 1,474
- 0
- 36
I wonder what causes what, though. Is attacking or condemning Islam actually an effective method of stopping terrorism? Is it really Islam itself that's the cause of these things? I mean obviously it's implicated and I don't want to play any hand-waving "oh, but all real Muslims are peaceful, and thee radicals, they just pervert the religion!" liberal bullshit, but is Islam itself more conducive to terrorism than other religions in similar circumstances? There are Buddhist terrorists, after all, which makes me doubt whether the letter of the religion actually matters - just like it barely matters for Christianity in the West, which has almost been subsumed into secular culture in some parts of Europe, and has little to do with the Bible as a historical document or Christianity as a historical religion (or at the very least far less than it used to, and what little it has to do is still waning).
The only sensible route I can see is simply to hate terrorism itself, which is something almost everyone is agreed upon without the religion debate.
First of all, there's no pre-made conflict between organized religion and science. And organized religion isn't going away, at least for some thousands of years. Science and organized religion CAN BE in conflict.
As the world moves "forward", so does religion. Science will never unveil all misteries in the universe. First because we will never get to know it entirely, and second because newer generations will always have new opinions and interpretations on our history, our science and the way we produce them both.
When we put the blame of fundamentalist people on a book, whe are giving the book the same fundamentalistic value that those who believe in it gives. It's not the book, but how you read it.
As Luckacs would say, it's pretty easy to point all contradictions and prove a higher being doesn't exist. But the harder thing to do is explain why people believe in what they believe. Why so many people believe that free market is the best way to grant social well being? Why Cubans haven't overthrown their government yet if it's so bad?
If your answers to those questions are "because it's the only way you can achieve freedom" and "because they are kept ignorant and are manipulated by a Tyrant", you're doing it all wrong and you probably don't understand yet the complexity of the so called social construction. Just switch these two answers, and you're on the opposite political side BUT remains with a narrow view on the subject.
For those who are willing to read, let me give you an example of a religion that (tries to) evades the conflict between science and religion. I was borned and raised in it, but today I can't accept the idea of God, and my critical view point towards it is more political than religious. Their practice is still a classist one, but nonetheless i'ts a good example.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you ever heard of Allan Kardec? Born in the XIX century in France, he founded a religion (actually claims the spirits guided him through people who could talk to spirits) that pretended to be Philosophy, Religion and Science. Brazil is actually the major force in this particular form of Cristianity. Their main beliefs are reincarnation, the possibility to talk to spirits, and that Christ is the most perfect example of humanity. But they do not assume Jesus is God incarnated, it's the model of spiritual perfection we all are going to reach someday.
They have a strong logical/rational form of view, and it's actually pretty easy to fill the "gaps" in it because none of its principles negates science - there's obvious conflicting parts, but most of them (mainly reicarnation and the ability to talk to spirits) are based in indications that science treats as "gray areas". For example, Carl Sagan said that one of two things that sould be investigated more carefully are memory of past lives. That's one strong point they rely into. They even actually say "if science proves something wrong in Kardecism, stick with science".
Their major rule says "out of charity there's no salvation". That makes it clear for their followers that other religious forms and even those who don't believe in anything are not inferior or should disappear. State needs to be secular. They don't believe in hell or eternal damnation, but that every individual has its free-will and people have different rythms of reaching perfection.
It's actually one of the only logical ways I've met that can combine God and Free-will - we always evolve, and never in-evolve; we plant only what we have seeded, but everyone gets a happy ending. Yes even Hitler will be like Jesus someday.
Their organized form doesn't have an hierarchy, it's "centers" as they called (their temples) are maintaned by its own members and funding is never brought into public or forced, there's no rite of iniciation at all and you can be a member for life wihtout paying a cent. They have a strong humanist and secularist position. Stem-cell and different forms os sexuality are accepted and not condemned. Regarding abortion, it's just a debate of when the spirit unites with the body. Before that time, it's ok to do it.
But there's also people who rely on their main point of authority (talking to "superior" spirits) to opress people who don't agree with them. The way they pretend to make the world a better place is really conservative, a reflex of their main social group - the elite but mainly the middle class. But the way they define chairty can be interpreted in a major political - philosophical sense that creates the possibility of community work, political activism and collective ideals oposed to the main individual/egoistic values of our global culture.
It's main philosophical view comes from the enlightenment ideas. 1) pretends to be in no contradiction with science 2) there's a main principle of equality that stands above any cultural difference (natural law) 3) Unites hinduism principles with christian ones in a rare mix of eastern and western principles.
As every worldview, they have gaps but they're actually pretty easy to fill. Of course it's just a resume, but I am willing to explain it if anyone wants to debate it or question it.
Oh, and sorry for the eventual bad english.
As the world moves "forward", so does religion. Science will never unveil all misteries in the universe. First because we will never get to know it entirely, and second because newer generations will always have new opinions and interpretations on our history, our science and the way we produce them both.
When we put the blame of fundamentalist people on a book, whe are giving the book the same fundamentalistic value that those who believe in it gives. It's not the book, but how you read it.
As Luckacs would say, it's pretty easy to point all contradictions and prove a higher being doesn't exist. But the harder thing to do is explain why people believe in what they believe. Why so many people believe that free market is the best way to grant social well being? Why Cubans haven't overthrown their government yet if it's so bad?
If your answers to those questions are "because it's the only way you can achieve freedom" and "because they are kept ignorant and are manipulated by a Tyrant", you're doing it all wrong and you probably don't understand yet the complexity of the so called social construction. Just switch these two answers, and you're on the opposite political side BUT remains with a narrow view on the subject.
For those who are willing to read, let me give you an example of a religion that (tries to) evades the conflict between science and religion. I was borned and raised in it, but today I can't accept the idea of God, and my critical view point towards it is more political than religious. Their practice is still a classist one, but nonetheless i'ts a good example.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you ever heard of Allan Kardec? Born in the XIX century in France, he founded a religion (actually claims the spirits guided him through people who could talk to spirits) that pretended to be Philosophy, Religion and Science. Brazil is actually the major force in this particular form of Cristianity. Their main beliefs are reincarnation, the possibility to talk to spirits, and that Christ is the most perfect example of humanity. But they do not assume Jesus is God incarnated, it's the model of spiritual perfection we all are going to reach someday.
They have a strong logical/rational form of view, and it's actually pretty easy to fill the "gaps" in it because none of its principles negates science - there's obvious conflicting parts, but most of them (mainly reicarnation and the ability to talk to spirits) are based in indications that science treats as "gray areas". For example, Carl Sagan said that one of two things that sould be investigated more carefully are memory of past lives. That's one strong point they rely into. They even actually say "if science proves something wrong in Kardecism, stick with science".
Their major rule says "out of charity there's no salvation". That makes it clear for their followers that other religious forms and even those who don't believe in anything are not inferior or should disappear. State needs to be secular. They don't believe in hell or eternal damnation, but that every individual has its free-will and people have different rythms of reaching perfection.
It's actually one of the only logical ways I've met that can combine God and Free-will - we always evolve, and never in-evolve; we plant only what we have seeded, but everyone gets a happy ending. Yes even Hitler will be like Jesus someday.
Their organized form doesn't have an hierarchy, it's "centers" as they called (their temples) are maintaned by its own members and funding is never brought into public or forced, there's no rite of iniciation at all and you can be a member for life wihtout paying a cent. They have a strong humanist and secularist position. Stem-cell and different forms os sexuality are accepted and not condemned. Regarding abortion, it's just a debate of when the spirit unites with the body. Before that time, it's ok to do it.
But there's also people who rely on their main point of authority (talking to "superior" spirits) to opress people who don't agree with them. The way they pretend to make the world a better place is really conservative, a reflex of their main social group - the elite but mainly the middle class. But the way they define chairty can be interpreted in a major political - philosophical sense that creates the possibility of community work, political activism and collective ideals oposed to the main individual/egoistic values of our global culture.
It's main philosophical view comes from the enlightenment ideas. 1) pretends to be in no contradiction with science 2) there's a main principle of equality that stands above any cultural difference (natural law) 3) Unites hinduism principles with christian ones in a rare mix of eastern and western principles.
As every worldview, they have gaps but they're actually pretty easy to fill. Of course it's just a resume, but I am willing to explain it if anyone wants to debate it or question it.
Oh, and sorry for the eventual bad english.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
metalxmetalx
Member
- May 6, 2011
- 310
- 4
- 18
Great! You can't defeat somebody else's arguments, so you leave the battleground and declare yourself the winner!
Similar threads
