The Intransigence of Religion

[Pyro_Fish]

i think i disagree
religion (my observation of it) prevents thought
here's how i veiw the "science vs religion" thing
let's say person A has an immovable obect in her apartment (let's say bolted to the floor) then let's say person B want's to know what that object looks like
science
says that person B should travel to person A's apartment and see the object for herself
religion
says that person A should describe the object to person B so that the traveling is not neccassary
the problem here is that person A is lying when she describes the object
Christianity tells us that "homosexuality is a sin" despite science telling us that there is a bio component, and that whithout religion homophobia doesn't make sense, as long as nobody is getting raped, how could it be problem if the 2 people are the same gender?
Cristianity tells us that the creation of the universe is 6 days before the creation of "Adam" even though that puts the cration of the universe AFTER the extinction of the dinosaurs

this doesn't exactly say what i meant it to
religion takes away existential/philosophical thought, imagination, inheirent human inquisitiveness, america has becaome so Christian-ized that there are black people who really truly believe that blue eyes are the "mark of Cain", there are white people who truly believe that being "black" is the result of God cursing one of Noah's sons, when "david fought goliath" there are people who believe david was "white" and that goliath wasa "black" and also vice versa, white supremisists and malcolm X worshippers use these biblical references to support racism, homophobics use "man shalt not lie with another man as he would lie down with a woman" as an excuse to actually kill homosexuals (i've personally seen it with my own fucking eyes) we, as Americans have become so Christian-ized that we actually care about what color/texture Jesus of Nazareth's hair might have been, and whether or not he had a child with magdeline, INSTEAD OF actually trying to follow the tenets of the sermon on the mount!!! (black people think Jesus' hair was the TEXTURE of wool, white people think Jesus' hair was the COLOR of wool, from the verse that says "His hair was LIKE wool" (emphasis mine)
i could go on and on but it's not really neccassary
my point here is that americans believe what we are told when it comes to us being told nonsense, just because the specific nonsense has a Christian slant

 

[LinuxNerd]

Norsemaiden, I think we should have a clear definition of science. Not all rationalist thought is scientific. I like to think of science in the Popperian sense. It is the falsification of theories through experimentation. In quantum mechanics we have probability; but in some sort of a Newtonian alternative universe, one can say that if you know the position of all particles in a specific moment you can accurately predict the future at any given point. However, philosophy does not make prediction and it is not concerned with practical things. Often philosophers make psychological observations but that's something else. Can you call the concept of Schopenhauer's "will" scientific? It cannot be falsified in an experiment.

Another thing important to philosophy is that not all knowledge can be formalized, like Russel's logical atomism. There exists intuitive knowledge (I don't mean the difference between bookish knowledge and practical knowledge, like knowing history and knowing how to cook), a sense of being that its source is not abstract thinking or understanding but rather the fact we are part of the world, unlike in science when we are mere observers of phenomenon.

Beat me to the punch with this post Science by it's very nature cannot be proven. It's more of a quest to discover how the things around us work through trial and error. Theories are often superceded by better models, such as the work of Kepler slowly being compiled and incorporated into bigger and more comprehensive studies of astrophysics (not sure how much sense that last sentence makes, but we'll leave it at that)

Or, Nietzsche would argue, they have found out all too much: that life is meaningless. There is no heaven, no hell, no reason to strive. We can sit around and watch television and find eternal truth in momentary pleasures. Technology will save us. Enjoying yourself through instant gratification is all that matters in life. That's the truth. Hail hedonism.

Nietzsche asks us to weigh the value of truth. Can untruth ever be preferable to truth? I would suggest, knowing your beliefs, that if a religion arose that condemned fat, lazy, wilfully ignorant, selfish, interracially married people to hell, you would favour it, despite it being metaphysically untrue, for the values it would instill upon life.

I find the fact that life is meaningless as an excuse to carve out my own meaning, rather than doing what's expected of me. In relation to the paragraph on untruth vs truth: I think people often bring politics to the table as a way of condemning people they don't like; religion isn't the only culprit

yeah, yeah yeah, blah blah blah, pretentious Nietzsche quoting, etc. Most people have found a way for religion and science to coexist without disregarding any aspect of science.

But as a result of this we have people trying to rip down the institution of science with their own brand of bible-compatible (re ID) psuedoscience

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

How are we to experience true wonder, even dread, if beings are understood as substantiality and nothing more?

Is it outside of the realm of careful thinking to not see "the Truth" and "Life" as mutually exclusive?

"Substantiality and nothing more" is how you refer to the human brain - with its hundred billion neurons and its trillions of synapses perhaps the most intricate collection of matter in the universe. Each of those neurons formed from the heavier elements that exploded out of the hearts of ancient stars.

I can leave the question of being to the quantum physicists without sacrificing my wonder at the universe. Life emerging from almost nothing in a universe that emerged from literally nothing is an aesthetic that I enjoy, although perhaps it is a pleasant distraction from thinking. I hope that the existentialist hand-wringing is a symptom of our species' adolescence.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

But as a result of this we have people trying to rip down the institution of science with their own brand of bible-compatible (re ID) psuedoscience

Forgive me if this seems like a stupid question, but.... we do?
It's just that, in my experience, all science it bible-compatible.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

Forgive me if this seems like a stupid question, but.... we do?
It's just that, in my experience, all science it bible-compatible.

not really
according to biblical chronolgists, the date for "creation" is a date AFTER the date that the dinosaurs became extinct
there's a lot of other shit but i'm too lazy to find/post links
there's several sites that can supposedly scientifically prove the bible to be wrong

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Well http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is a good place to start considering the corpus of the bible as it exists. If you get into the actual field of textual criticism and early christian history there's lots of other interesting data.

 

[Astrum]

Aren't religions, by definition, intransigent regarding anything that contradicts or even slightly draws into question, basic tenets of the faith?

And are we agreed that science is supposed to be the opposite of intransigent?

Philosophy is the opposite of intransigent, not science.

edit-sorry didnt read the thread. nevermind.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

Well http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is a good place to start considering the corpus of the bible as it exists. If you get into the actual field of textual criticism and early christian history there's lots of other interesting data.

this was posted in a thread here years ago
i remember spending a huge amount of time looking at that linked page before this