Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Dawkins were preaching an atheistic religion, then there would be:

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

In line with the opening paragraph on religion in Wikipedia. There isn't a codified set of beliefs however so he isn't preaching a religion. It's very simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course science has a codified set of beliefs, it's called the scientific method.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

No, it has a method. Like everything else in science it can, and will, be changed if it is found to be inadequate. Since you are unable to propose or demontrate a better way of working out what is true, it will stand for the time being.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, it has a method. Like everything else in science it can, and will, be changed if it is found to be inadequate. Since you are unable to propose or demontrate a better way of working out what is true, it will stand for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible to determine what is "inadequate" if it is merely a method? Science must obviously hold some set of beliefs in order to make such conclusions.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

It would be inadequate if it was shown to not produce (and re-produce) results consistent with reality as perceived by everyone (normally minded) doing the experiments.

Good science tries to cover all bases and state all assumptions including method so if, in future, something was found to be wrong (method included) then the conclusion could be re-visited.

Religion has nothing reproducible and in many ways has nothing at all except "we have a book that says this happened x years ago". If it were true that this happened then (assuming reality hasn't changed materially) it would be reproducible.

This is why I like science. Everything ever worked out can be re-worked out tomorrow. Religion can't do that. I don't need the argument from authority, though like most lay people I accept it. If I really distrusted someone saying sound travels at x m.p.h then I could test it for myself.

You know all this, I'm wondering where you're trying to lead me.....

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in whether or not religion is net a "good" or a net "bad" because I think the question is silly. Religion is far too big a concept to neatly pigeonhole as "good" or "bad".

However, certain common characteristics of religion are clearly harmful and so I choose to target my attacks there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I might have misunderstood the intentions of your post. I was mostly still trying to argue against the fact that religion was a harmful institution throughout human history and was detrimental to the well-being of civilization. I agree that it today's world it is often misguided and harmful and that we should try to eliminate these elements from religion.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I'm leading you to the conclusion that even science is subject to philosophy. And philosophy is subject to theology.

What you perceive as reality, may not be what other people perceive as reality. And true, they may be absolutely nuts and not "normal" for thinking the world is flat, but what are you going to do about it? How are you going to impose your "scientific beliefs" on them? And what will you do when they claim YOU are not normal?

Dostoevsky dealt with these issues very thoroughly. "The Underground Man" is a case of a person deliberately acting against reason out of sheer spite. And so long as human beings have free will and an intellect, science alone will not satisfy them. Dawkins' total FAITH in science shows utter contempt and ignorance about human nature, and the ways to satisfy it.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm leading you to the conclusion that even science is subject to philosophy. And philosophy is subject to theology.


[/ QUOTE ]

You invoke a hierarchy which is interesting - is theology subject to anything or is it the ultimate holder of all truth? No separate realms of knowledge or schools of thought that work in parallel with no overlap, or even the converse, schools of thought that continually battle each other?

It is also very interesting that you already know what conclusion you will reach.

You appear to wish to subjugate all knowledge and truth under the Vatican Roof or perhaps a cadre of Jesuit Professors to which all of humanity is subject. I think this rot of course. But fanatical religion goons, high priests or shaman, along with their megalomaniac henchmen, are a perennial force in any cultural and civilization. The credulous are always ready to take up whatever scheme or chimera that comes down the pike, sometimes hatched by well-meaning dupes, sometimes by scoundrels and charlatans; which almost always evolves into some orthodoxy that wishes to sustain itself, for which an organizational hierocracy is build up to maintain influence, power, and self glory. The wretchedness of a beuearacray is thus easily fostered and perpetuated in a framework of religious orthodoxy sustained by morons, mountebanks, parasites, or the likes of a Thomas Aquinas, a John Calvin or better still: Torquemada or Girolamo Savonarola. [added in edit: or Cardinal Gibbons]


Soli Deo gloria!

What is your opinion on Stephen Jay Gould’s separate magisterial concept (in regards to religion and science), which Dawkins disagreed with by the way?

-Zeno, The Antipope

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I agree that we differ in perceptions of reality but what of it? I'm not going to do anything about people who insist the World is flat except, perhaps, explain and show them satellite pictures of a round Earth. If it had to be settled one way or the other then we could find someone to do a test we could both witness and agree to accept the results.

Science is a way of settling arguments over facts that does not involve "my personal intuition tells me it's true". It's outside of any one individual and is cumulative across the thousands of scientists around the World. How do religious people settle their differences? Well, you can see that around the World easily enough.

Dawkins total faith is science extends as far as identifying the truth. There is nothing wrong with science working to understand human nature, it's just the work in that area is fairly new - for instance, altruism has always been though uniquely human but it's now been experimentally demonstrated in chimps too. The tests are being re-done to check it's genuine of course. The point is that science is about understanding. The first scientists were clergymen trying to understand God's universe. If there's something not understood then get scientific about it. Standing around making stuff up doesn't help.

As for science being subject to philosophy being subject to theology. I don't know enough about philosophy to say abut the first part but the theology link is just out of date by a few hundred years.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

So religion is harmful because it limits understanding.

How many agricultural improvements has the bible given us in the last 200 years? Ever?
How many vaccines? How many pain reduction compounds?

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

"
Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded. "

Like how 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' has been superceeded by 'we can invade whoever we want for whatever reason we want'? Some truths are universal.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can wisdom about agriculture supersede wisdom about morality or eternal life?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.


[/ QUOTE ]


What medieval agricultural wisdom in the Bible?
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can wisdom about agriculture supersede wisdom about morality or eternal life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man I hate the word "wisdom" because people toss it around way too casually.

There's nothing particularly wise about 99% of what most religions have to say about "eternal life". Morality can be debated.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Law = modern morality. The delusionist in you wants to believe that without a scripture, every person on the globe consequently believes it is okay to kill thy neighbor. Every actualization of democracy has proven that this is not the case. Further, and most importantly, law allows for adaptation to the dynamics of a social environment.


[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Law = modern morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like calling law and morality synonymous. However, modern coded law has certainly superceeded ancient morality codes.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I agree with Gould's separate magisterial concept. The problem is we have scientists like Dawkins who think their knowledge of biology makes them qualified philosophers, which is not the case. True religion and true science don't quarrel.

Your criticism of organizational hierarchy applies just as well to science as it does to religion. Scientists want recognition, power and glory as much as anyone else.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

[/ QUOTE ]

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The delusionist in you wants to believe that without a scripture, every person on the globe consequently believes it is okay to kill thy neighbor.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the realist in me recognizes that without an absolute reference point no person on the globe can justify the precept that it isn't okay to kill just anyone you please, a precept more easily recognized in earlier times than in today's society which seems to think the precept that something that can be true for me but not for you doesn't at least logically remove any reasonable objection to murder.

[ QUOTE ]

Further, and most importantly, law allows for adaptation to the dynamics of a social environment.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Nazis dynamically adapted to their social environment though law in a way that isn't very acceptable to most - but, hey, it was true for them.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Heliocentricity


[/ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the book of broken promises.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the book of broken promises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing. NotReady doesn't consciously realize that he's actually trying to convince himself to stop believing irrational things.

But, to answer his question:

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture


[/ QUOTE ]

See:

the web

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your criticism of organizational hierarchy applies just as well to science as it does to religion. Scientists want recognition, power and glory as much as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about this also while writing it out, and as far as it goes what I said applies to a variety of hierarchical groups, say, government organizations, philosophers, and other examples could be mentioned

I have read Gould's essay on his magisterial concept and I am fairly certain that in the past I have posted about it, and provided a link to the essay, in some thread on this forum. It is an excellent essay and well written. I can't honestly say that I agree with certainty with his concept. But it is worthy of consideration.

-Zeno, The Antipope

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.


[/ QUOTE ]


What medieval agricultural wisdom in the Bible?
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought someone else mentioned agriculture, I didn't mean it was biblical, just setting up my set of 3 comparable successions.

2nd question has been done to death over and over, I'll assume noone is in such serious denial to cover it again.

3rd is the more interesting. We can show that modern moral thought has superseded Biblical thought by the number of times religious people have to use the word "interpret".

On a cold, literal reading, as atheists are often 'accused' of doing, there is almost nothing of value that can be gleaned from the Bible. And there are many, many examples of things we would all consider horrendous moral practice.

I doubt you'll admit it, but you mostly use a modern, atheist, moral code when deciding which bits of the Bible 'applies today', and how you will interpret those parts.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I doubt you'll admit it


[/ QUOTE ]

At least something in your post is right.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture


[/ QUOTE ]

See:

the web

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of creation science being assembled by an international team of editors. All creationists are welcome to get involved with the development of this ever-growing resource, which currently consists of 2,950 articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a link to your source. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's a link to your source.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, sometimes I go too fast.

Nice post, though.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Superceeding does not mean replacing.

Things which were correct are kept, things which wrong dropped.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

[/ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove they didn't happen. Go ahead. I dare ya.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Prove they did. The burden of proof is on you as you believe them to be true in spite of modern science saying they can't happen.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

modern science saying they can't happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

modern science saying they can't happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is a shock to you. None of us has ever seen or heard any evidence of these things happening except through religious traditions. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove that these things didn't happen? Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of science as knowledge about the physical world learned through falsifiable testing through the scientific method.

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not. Have you heard or seen credible evidence of any of those things happening in the past 500 years? We make the assumption that the physical laws of the universe haven't changed in the past million years. You do not, or at least you believe that God bent these laws to suit his whims in the past. Since we don't see evidence of this bending today, doesn't it fall on you to show us that this is even possible?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone possibly not see that this guy is just trolling?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since we don't see evidence of this bending today, doesn't it fall on you to show us that this is even possible?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not in NR's world. And he thinks we're all fools for even suggesting such a thing.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Ben said it does. Which is it?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Ben said it does. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly arguing his point though. I'm saying that the burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence that these supernatural events could have occurred. I'm asking you to tell me why I should believe in these supernatural events if I don't believe in a divinely inspired Bible?

Why are you ignoring the rest of the body of my posts?