Originally posted by Hannu Mutanen
I agree that it is foolish to deny evolution only for the sake of a book, e.g. the Bible, and to explore our physical existence only within a religion's borders, but simultaneously it is completely absurd to neglect the importance of religion because of its lack of scientifical value and what people have done with using it for their own ends. Morale has significance in this discussion as religion has been drawn in as well, and like we know, that is what religion is about.
I was under the impression that this was a thread about the cold evidence regarding the ascent of man, and in that context, morale is insignificant because morale is a consequence and tool of our evolution, not a physical law which contributed to our evolution in the first place.
Ethics of course has it's place, but when we are talking about dna formation and cell division and such, it's irrelvant.
Morale has got nothing to do with the physical/observable origins of life. Therefore neither does religion.
Agreed, dispite the fact that religion does attempt to explain the actual origins of life nonetheless, and it is mindless for doing so.
You, however, adhere to the same idea as your christian counterparts do: by taking their taught concepts of 'god' and 'religion' for granted and not looking beyond that.
I take it for granted that MOST people take a quite literal interpretation of religions because most people that follow a religion enough to become actively involved in it DO take it literally. I think this goes without saying. I have no issues with anyone using any myth to guide them in their lives, I just happen to think that taking such myths too literally is counter-productive and can lead to many problems in individuals and socieities.
Dogmatic religious people neglect the worth of science as a way to understand our existence;
Yes.
dogmatic scientists neglect the worth of religion as a means to understand another level of our existence.
"another level or our existence"?? What are you talking about? Ethics? Spirituality? These are more in the area of psychology than the origin of species, therefore, they should be neglected, of course. Do we bring in ideas pertaining to spirituality and ethics when we try to determine the formation of stars? The mating habits of turtles? No. Evolution is no different from these things.
Anyone can give anything a morally questionable value, and so has unfortunately happened with many forms of human developement, be it science or religion.
Science has nothing to do with your conceptions of morally questionable value.
This, however, does and should not make the philosophies within these forms of exploration questionable!
When such exploration is not built in logic or evidence but instead built on speculative humanistic bullshit, then the exploration is not only questionable, but absurd and unworthy of being taken seriously.
The primary, original idea of religion is not a medium of control;
Religion is born of politics, politics came about from a need for social structuring and rules, and social structuring/rules are about controling the masses. Religion is politically oriented, regardless of what you feel the "original intent" was, this is what religions were originally used for.
but the values of the people who use it as a means of control should be opposed and questioned.
Just as I question the fabricators of religion, they created something which by all reflection and study looks as though it was created as a means to control the masses by taking control of their minds and not giving them the option of escaping (or even wanting to escape cuz of the fear involved).
This is not limited to religion.
Obviously, but religion is particularly sinister about it.
Should we scream for the destruction of the media because it attempts to indoctrinate us continuously?
No, we should request honest media, and failing that, each of us has the right to choose whether or not we believe what the media is telling us, that is our right and we do it all the time. When I see a commerical telling me that Tide is the best laundry detergent on the market, I KNOW not to take that as completely factual. However, when a religion adopts a child and mind-fucks them into being a loyal follower of their dogma, this child does NOT have the choice to disregard what they've been taught, with their immortal "soul" on the line, how could they? This lack of a choice is the problem.
The inherent value of the media is to give out information and news, but it is used otherwise.
And we are free to disregard any and all of it without any fear of divine retribution or whatever, unlike religion.
Should we go into anarchy because our leaders control us with law?
If the laws are unjust and impede our freedoms without good reason (like religion), absolutely.
The basic meaning of politics is to take care of public affairs, but it used by egocentric politicians to satiate their will to power.
Just like religion.
Should we retaliate against science because researchers have developed devices for mass destruction?
No, we should retaliate against the devices of mass destruction themselves and those that seek to create them and further their development.
Can you deny that physicists may not have studied ethical philosophy and thus are not aware of the miniscule particles constituting morale?
This is just far too whacky for comment. Where are you getting this nonsense from? What are these "miniscule particles constituting morale" that you are talking about? Morale comes from reason/mind, not from quantum physics. This is simply ridiculous. Are their miniscule particles constituting a passion for sushi? How about memory?
I really don't care if a scientist has studied ethical philosophy, if he is studying the raw and observable orgins of life, modern ethics is completely irrelevant in that venture. Cells divide, organisms propogate in relation to their environment, what does our current conceptions of "right/wrong" have to do with this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. You are attempting to blur the 2, mesh them together, and that's simply ridiculous.
(Some may have, but most probably have not [studied ethics]) That leaves them without the knowledge of what it is beyond our primality, in the world of ethical concepts, theories and development.
Which is completely irrelevant in the study of genetic mutation, environmental adaptation, etc.
Morale is not black and white, it is not about only the ultimate right or wrong. The saying 'one should stick to one's own' should sum this up nicely.
If you are trying to make some sort of a point with this, I fail to see what it is, this is a thread about the origins of life, not about what morale is. You are confusing the two.
Equally, a philosopher with deeper insight into only distinctly ethical issues should not consider oneself to be able to examine the scientific realm and have valid opinions about a thing one may not actually have a clue about.
Which is why such ventures are left to scientists and not philosphers.
(Furthermore, I would personally like to know what is so psychological in this philosophical idea of morale I mentioned.
Morale is psychological because it stems completely from mind, it is a mental construct and nothing more, it doesn't and cannot exist independent of mind.
Is it bullshit that the existence of Jesus negates your assertion of christianity being based on mere myth?
A short story to illustrate the point you are missing:
Satori was born long, long ago in a galaxy far, far way. After consuming several black holes for dinner, Satori strokes his schlong and ejaculates all over Jupiter's two largest moons. "Meow" said uranus, "I'm jealous".
Does the existence of me (Satori) make this story any more than just a myth?
Just cuz Jesus existed doesn't make the bible literally true.
Just cuz Sator exists doesn't make the above story true.
How you couldn't see this on your own, I can't understand. If you are coherent enough to type and use the internet, then you should be coherent enough to see that the existence of historical figures DOES NOT validate historical stories as factual.
That is just downright blind.
No, what's blind is that you think christianity isn't a myth purely because one of the characters in the story was a real person. Not only is this blind, it's ridiculous.
Christianity is based on the teachings of a wise man.
Dispite the fact that you don't seem to take it literally you still believe the myth was created for good and non-political purposes. You actually believe that Jesus was the creator of christianity. I suggest you do some reading about how the bible was constructed and WHO constructed it. There is a great deal you are unaware of. Studying such things, you will soon realize that Jesus was NOT the creator of christianity, it was Paul, 30 or so years after Jesus' death. Until Paul came along, there was no such thing as christianity and this whole "jesus was the messiah" crap was not even conceived of. Jesus was not the messiah and he never claimed to be, this status was awarded to him long after his death as a justification for creating a new political system.
This man just happened to live two millennia ago as a jew and have individual thoughts regarding the hypocritical way the priests lived and preached, as well as their religion's very core - the ideology, their god.
Complete nonsense. Jesus was a jew who fought and died defending judaism, only to have his character twisted many years later by those responsible for fabricating christianity.
Perhaps what he has taught is not to be interpreted the way it dominantly is
What he taught was judaism, and he taught it very well, something I think you should be aware of.
and if one cannot see his teachings as metaphors and interpret them realistically, then one is just as dogmatic and fundamentalistic as the religious people are in your opinion.
Nonsense, religion is not and is rarely (if ever) presented to the masses as a metaphor. If it were, then I wouldn't have such huge issues with it as I do. It is presented as factual, and people are told they must convince themselves to literally believe this load of implausible crap or else risk their immoratal "soul". You are attempting to sugar-coat.
Its idea just has different variable values: there has to be a distinction between religion as an institution and religion as a system of understanding the world within and without our comprehensible realm of existence.
Religion cannot be used to understand the world, only to understand human nature and psychology.
Institutionalised, it may seem horrible, and in particular (familiar to us) cases, it holds awful things within: exploit, control, blindness, abuse, crusades. Religions as philosophical means of understanding the world are a different story.
Religions do not help us understand the external world, only ourselves.
I find good things in many religions, but still I keep away from them because of what they have become outside their initially primary objectives.
You are suggesting that you are aware of the initial/primary objectives of religion, but all you have is your opinion on this. You think religions were made only for "good", but you neglect the fact that religions spawned out of politics and and to this day remain strongly politically influential.
If the primary objectives of relgions were spiritually oriented, there would be no need for all that dogma, lies, brainwashing, perpetution of ignorance, and fear-mongering. The existence of these things in religions suggests they were more than mere ethical pursuits, they were political and therefore, like all politics past and present, inherently corrupt.
(I personally think 'religiously', pondering on spiritual matters in stead of thinking of physics, but I am not part of any religion except through what influence christianity has had on me through its status in our culture.) But if a religion is murderous and blood-thirsty in its teachings, it makes one question whether this particular religion is good at all. No, it clearly is not. But does this spoil ALL of religion? Granted, we have twisted, harmful and completely senseless forms of religion, but this is a problem that should, and hopefully will be solved, and certainly does not form the whole idea of religion.
Agreed. Not the "whole idea", but most of the idea.
As an example, the Wiccan system is not born of will to power. It still is a religion, none can deny that.
Hehe, those evil pagans and their occult practices.
I have no problems with wicca, it is a peaceful/metaphorical religion that has not been historically used to fuck people. I am also quite enamoured with its environmental respect, as with native religions.
And Satori, just to let you know, christianity was not born for domination, but as a counteraction to the religious climate of that time. Anyone who has read religious history should know that.
This depends entirely on what religious history you read. Regardless of this however, it was used for domination purposes very early on, and this has remained its purpose in many parts of the world.
It's been fun,
Satori
<------click it
