A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, you assume she wants longevity of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting example-bound.
Nah, I'm like you. My default assumption with people is that they want to suffer as much as possible and then die young, so I don't push them out of the way of cars until I've discussed with them what their views are on early death or quadriplegia.

Let's pretend she's not your typical person and a conversation with her would go along these lines ..
" You're suffering in poor health and also shortening your life span, would you like to change those?"
" Yes."
" Not wearing your burka in the daytime hours would pretty well do it."
"oh, I couldn't do that, it's my religious belief".

or,
"your son needs a transfusion".. etc.

Now, I'd like to force a transfusion on her son, but if somebody wants accupuncture instead of radiation, or no blood, or keep the burka, that's their choice. But for the same reason that I like to see schools in 3rd world countries and arkansas - people having the knowledge to help them make better choices, their choices, is the reason I'd love to see religion eradicated.

We're a social animal, we're altruistic and empathetic ... what can I do about that? :-)

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"That is what I think folk like Dawkins take as their goal - and I just want them to say it, admit it. They want longevity of life and longevity of the human race. If that is one’s goal then just say it. If that is one’s goal then perhaps Religion is harmful towards achieving that goal.

(And then we can talk, too, about whether that is a worthwhile goal or not.)"

If you defend that flank you open yourself up from attack from the other flank. In other words if you claim that that people care about deeper or more worthwile things than merely being healthy, happy and feeling good, then I say what is deeper and more worthwile than "truth"?

Put another way the only arguments for religions (or any other ideas for that matter) are either that they make people happier or that they are true. Conversely the only arguments against religion is that they make people unhappier or that they are not true.

[vhawk01]

Right, and for some reason it seems that whenever anyone argues that religions arent true, religious folks feel they can take the easy route of claiming that at least they make people feel better. And whenever anyone argues that religion makes the world less happy, religious people whine about why no one is focusing on the 'truth.'

[RJT]

luckyme

Ok, let me try it this way, since the religion example seems to muddy the waters:

This past April I quite smoking cigars (which I enjoyed). I quit because there is a high probability that down the road, smoking will cause me health problems. A few weeks ago I found out my cholesterol is a bit high.

So, now I have to look to changing my diet (and start to exercise, which is no big deal). A few years ago I watched my wife’s brother die after laying in a nursing home for a year, paralyzed caused by a stroke. I fear such a death. I will probably choose to change my diet. But, I gotta tell you that if I knew that I would die instantly (from whatever cause), I might choose not to change my diet.

I enjoyed smoking cigars and I enjoy all the foods that are giving me high cholesterol. No, I’ll take a shorter life if I can smoke cigars and eat my salami and sharp provolone with a glass of red wine. Since, I can’t be guaranteed a quick death, I’ll change my lifestyle. (But, I might as well be dead - lol.) My point is that things aren’t so simple as: I want to live longer.

If the woman is happy with her burka, “God Bless” her. So long as she doesn’t have a bomb under it, why should anyone care?

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If you defend that flank you open yourself up from attack from the other flank. In other words if you claim that that people care about deeper or more worthwhile things than merely being healthy, happy and feeling good, then I say what is deeper and more worthwhile than "truth"?

Put another way the only arguments for religions (or any other ideas for that matter) are either that they make people happier or that they are true. Conversely the only arguments against religion is that they make people unhappier or that they are not true.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am not saying what is or isn’t worthwhile. And I am not arguing for religion. I am arguing against religion bashers like Dawkins. There is a difference.

Dawkins wants to destroy religion. Firstly, I see no reason to. Does he see it getting in the way of something? If so, what is that something? Secondly, he wants to destroy something that we don’t even know how it got started.

Religion either came into existence because of one of (at least) 3 reason (there might be other reasons that I can’t think of). 1) There is a God and there is Divine inspiration. 2) Because of ignorance and it has just perpetuated itself thus far. 3) Some evolutionary quirk or evolutionary need.

If #1 is true then he is in big trouble. If 2, then it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Let’s take 3 as very likely. We don’t know why we evolved to become beings, some of whom believe in certain things. Yet, we should destroy this evidence? That seems foolish to me.

I am not Don Quixote. I can’t fight windmills. Why does Dawkins, et al want to destroy Religion is all I would like to know? It seems like a precarious undertaking let alone such a waste of time.


(Btw, I agree with you when you ask “what is deeper and more worthwhile than “truth”. Right behind “Truth”, I think, is the search for “Truth”. But that is what I find worthwhile. Doesn’t mean it is for everyone.)

[alphatmw]

if religion has perpetuated itself out of ignorance and continues to do so, why do you say it doesn't matter one way or the other?

[luckyme]

"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect"

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins wants to destroy religion. Firstly, I see no reason to. Does he see it getting in the way of something? If so, what is that something? Secondly, he wants to destroy something that we don’t even know how it got started.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's keeping his reasons a secret. Besides the above, he objects to the brainwashing of children and it's rather cute to see the american fundamentalists discussing how the mulah's brainwash the kids in muslim countries. Really, there's no lack of Dawkins comments on 'why' he's taken this on, are you too angry with the title of his book to read a page or two ? :-)

Your second point - why would where it came from matter? The value of anything is the role it performs currently. Do you think Dawkins should think differently if he finds out it came from a lonely drunk in siberia, cave men wondering about lightening and dreams of dead parents, or political influence on our natural desire to assign cause-effect and intent to actions?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If the woman is happy with her burka, “God Bless” her. So long as she doesn’t have a bomb under it, why should anyone care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every 30 days I swear off of examples and analogies. I have no idea why people care about others ( ok, I do have a good idea but it's not relevant), but they do. You'll just have to learn to deal with it. ;-)

luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Is Dawkins only against fundamentalist religion? Because honestly, from what I've read from him, he is clearly against *all* religion. Maybe the articles I have read were a little more aggressive than he usually is, and it distorted his views somewhat?

I am at least *somewhat* hostile to fundamentalist religion as well. I don't necessarily think this means we should constantly attack it -- unless it begins to harm others (which, it can and often does... but it isn't necessarily true). I am hostile to it in the sense that I think it is less than optimal, and it would be a good thing of they didn't adhere so strictly to certain beliefs. So perhaps I agree, in part, with Dawkins and have an inaccurate view on his beliefs based on my few readings of him.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Is Dawkins only against fundamentalist religion? Because honestly, from what I've read from him, he is clearly against *all* religion. Maybe the articles I have read were a little more aggressive than he usually is, and it distorted his views somewhat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read his God Delusion, not likely to either, but from his other writing I'd say he is down on all religion, astrology, water dowsing, any magical/nonsensical beliefs. Fundamentalists just make the bad aspects obvious and, as we know, are more likely to be overtly dangerous.

So, I wouldn't take him off you 'evil' list yet :-)

luckyme