Religion (can open, worms everywhere)

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Are people really that stupid?

Do you really ahve to ask that?

[gazzyk1ns]

Science is not a philosophy in the religious sense though. Science never says 'live your life like this' - it is utterly amoral, .

Hey that's a very good point IMD, it shows the ridiculousness of comparing science and religion.

Jutl and Rats seem to think that my views here are critically flawed because they are closed and static. But so is religion. So if not being open to suggestion or being suggestible to new and different ideas when it comes to this sort of thing is foolish, then... my views are no more flawed than religion itself, surely?

Science is not only open to suggestion and change, it actively encourages it in order to find "a correct answer", whatever it may be. Religion says "live to these rules, do this, don't do that, if you deviate then you're a sinner and you must beg forgiveness or go to hell."

As I've said before I'm even uneasy still mentioning science and religion in the same breath because I think it's going too far, I don't think religion deserves the amount of debate and attention it gets because it's obvious to me how and why it exists. Again though, power in numbers...

[jutl]

Science is not a philosophy in the religious sense though. Science never says 'live your life like this' - it is utterly amoral, .

Hey that's a very good point IMD, it shows the ridiculousness of comparing science and religion.

Jutl and Rats seem to think that my views here are critically flawed because they are closed and static.

No - what I was/am saying is that anyone trying to oppose religious assertions on the grounds that they are 'impossible' needs to be careful that they understand exactly how it is that they are assessing what is possible and what is not. It's easy to overlook the assumptions we ourselves make, while making a song and dance about the assumptions of others.

But so is religion. So if not being open to suggestion or being suggestible to new and different ideas when it comes to this sort of thing is foolish, then... my views are no more flawed than religion itself, surely?

No - in fact from my point of view your assessment of the development of religion seems fairly sound. Still, when you say:

I don't think religion deserves the amount of debate and attention it gets because it's obvious to me how and why it exists.

...it seems to me that you are once again claiming to resolve an irresolvable situation.  The reason science gets dragged into this is because, like it or not, that's what you are doing when you say "Solution x is more likely because it makes more sense". There isn't a kind of Rational Method Lite for use in discussing religion...

[Raminagrobis]

Science is not a philosophy in the religious sense though. Science never says 'live your life like this' - it is utterly amoral, .

Hey that's a very good point IMD, it shows the ridiculousness of comparing science and religion.

It is a good point, but surely it undermines the larger part of what you (and others) have been saying in this thread? To my mind there are many compelling arguments against choosing to be religious in the world we live in today, but the majority of arguments in this thread have been addessing other issues, and failing on their own terms. In my opinion the flawed arguments against religion have been based on the following assumptions:

--seeing science and religion as answering, or trying to answer, the same questions.

--making an argument that conflates an idea of religion based on the present-day practices of certain believers and an idea of religion as a historico-cultural phenomenon

--saying 'it's obvious why and how religion exists' without taking into account the sheer complexity of its history and the range of practices/beliefs that fall under the umbrella term 'religion'.

--(as a corollary) assuming that all religions are, at base, easily understood in grossly simplified socio-cultural terms

--refusing to see that the history of science is inextricably bound up with the history of religion, not always in terms of a manichean struggle for supremacy.

As far as I can see, the main problem arises when you start collapsing two parts of the argument together: (1) that there is no justifcation for being religious today (which I, personally, agree with) and (2) that religion represents a relic of a benighted stage of human history that had to be overcome, and that science put us in a position to see this with clarity, objectively and with no taint of perspective (which I do not agree with).

[gazzyk1ns]

No - what I was/am saying is that anyone trying to oppose religious assertions on the grounds that they are 'impossible' <snip>

OK, let me reply just to that - I'm not saying that religious assertions are 'impossible', I'm saying that they are fictitious becuase I can see why and how they were 'invented'.

I am not challenging the theory behind gods/supernatural beings/the human soul/the holy spirit/whatever existing, I am simply saying I believe it is obvious how and why "religion" was cooked up, here on Earth, by humans. Therefore any theoretical reasoning about the possibility of supernatural beings or "faith" in the religious sense existing are irrelevant... separate... to what I am saying.

This is my objection to your arguments, I am aware that I cannot say that something is impossible. Nobody ever can, for sure. But I think it's a useless point to make in a debate, bearing that in mind.

I realise how brash and arrogant it might sound for me, a 22 year old, to say "Oh I know how and why all religion exists." But this is part of my point, I don't think it deserves the credit and attention it gets because it's a very basic... "con". I can't understand why people buy it.

[jutl]

No - what I was/am saying is that anyone trying to oppose religious assertions on the grounds that they are 'impossible' <snip>

OK, let me reply just to that - I'm not saying that religious assertions are 'impossible', I'm saying that they are fictitious becuase I can see why and how they were 'invented'.

I am not challenging the theory behine gods/supernatual beings/the human soul/the holy spirit/whatever existing, I am simply saying I believe it is obvious how and why "religion" was cooked up, here on Earth, by humans.

This is my objection to your arguments, I am aware that I cannot say that something is impossible. Nobody ever can, for sure. But I think it's a useless point to make in a debate, bearing that in mind.

Well that's certainly a point of view - and usually I'd agree with you. If we were discussing Iraq here and I came up with: "Iraq may not even exist" then you could quite rightly call me a cunt. This is an argument about the nature of existence though - one in which many people would maintain that science has provided a rock-solid basis from which to debunk the claims of the religious. In those circumstances, I think it is fair to draw their attention, not only to the ultimate unresolvability of any question, but also to the fact that the scientific method they appeal to is the strongest example of the fact of that unresolvability.

[gazzyk1ns]

I just edited another little paragraph into my post there, if you didn't notice (not that it affects your reply).

What I am trying to say is that science does not... or rather, need not... debunk religion because religion debunks itself, I believe it is very clear how and why it is man made fiction through simply reading the Bible and talking to religious people.

If it was only me and you posting in this thread then I dare say the word "science" would not have been typed.

[wasp_f15ting]

nature of existence though - one in which many people would maintain that science

Funny when you look back into the creation of existence neither side has provided a solid base for us to rely on. Whether it be god with his clay men, or 10 gazillion multiverses. Both don't seem to have any ground able explanation for our existence at its core. The common theory is an anomalies occurred rendering the narrative effect of our physics unusable. So if that is the case, isn't it much like the omnipresent doesn't have to show himself, no need for explanation god?

[Abbie]

I once dealt with a motor claim for a Nissan Sunny which had been written off.  The owner valued it at £1,000,000 on his claim form.  When I asked him why he felt his car was worth so much, he told me that Jesus had once been a passenger in it.  I requested some supporting evidence which he never did send to me and in the end we settled for £250 (less his £100 excess).  

Seriously though, I have spoken to God and she told me that Jesus was just the lacky they used to send down now and then, usually when they had run out of ciggies and the only place open was the 24 hour garage in Jerusalem.  Turns out he used to big himself up to the checkout girls whilst he was down there.  Typical man.

[european son]

What I am trying to say is that science does not... or rather, need not... debunk religion because religion debunks itself, I believe it is very clear how and why it is man made fiction through simply reading the Bible and talking to religious people.

gazz, i dig what you're saying, but you're judging all of both theism and religion (which can be separate) on your limited knowledge of one religion.

you're beef with christianity/the three major faiths, or as you see it, your analysis for why they are followed does little to explore the roots of theistic thought itself, pre and apart from such organised structure.

moreover, you're still attempting to reject any notion of truth in theism/eligion on the basis of a psychological study of people, rather than touching the metaphysical question of what there is, or (if that is a far too "abstract" task, which i agree with your implication that it may well be) even the epistemological question of what can we know?


i still reckon they're different issues we're touching here, but that you're using one (the study of people) to answer another (what can we know), which i don't think works.

[gazzyk1ns]

I don't really understand that, but I do admit that I'm saying "religion" when I mean mostly christianity.

[Munday's Chylde]

I don't really understand that, but I do admit that I'm saying "religion" when I mean mostly christianity.

Well just stop it.

[gazzyk1ns]

Get out of here or I'll twat you one, shorty.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

The arrogance of the antireligious aside, it's worth saying that those attempting to argue for theism aren't arguing for religion, just belief in God. And particularly that such proponent's arguments seem to give off a very ad hoc air. Is that just my reading into things? No one else feels that justifying particular kinds of beliefs in God rigourously/rationally after having been taught to believe those things  smacks of begging the question? While it obviously doesn't undermine the arguments, it certainly removes my charity towards them

[Hairy Chin]

Get out of here or I'll twat you one, shorty.

That's a hate crime, that is.

[Nearly Annually]

So there we go - UK among most secular nations - in this morning's news, for some reason (ie: the BBC have a programme on tonight which they'd like you to watch). Don't it make ya proud.

"Only Russia and South Korea produced results similar to the UK. The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria, India and Indonesia.

"However, the US also stands out in contrast with the UK. The US is the richest nation polled and yet has a very high level of belief."

Yet:

"Almost 30% of all atheists surveyed said they sometimes prayed"

Something to do innit.

[hencole]

Those willing to die for their God, or their beliefs, included more than 90% in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in Lebanon and the US.

Among Israelis only 37% were willing to take this ultimate step, and only 19% of Britons, 29% of whom said the world would be more peaceful without beliefs in God. Very few people in other countries agreed with this.

I find the above highly worrying.

[wasp_f15ting]

There is a debate about to start on bbc 2 for those who can be arsed.

21:00 26/02/04 (for reference)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/

heh I bet they came and saw this thread and decided to make a programme again /paranoid ego vwhore mode

EDIT: Too bright and cheezy for my likings.. If anyone else watches this, i'd like to hear how it went on :)

[Nearly Annually]

Saw the last half hour. Jeremy Vine in yellow, so yeah, bright and breezy. Everyone agreed that they all believed the same really, and home in time for tea.

44% of atheists said that believing in God makes you a better person.

Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha!

[Pinball]

So there we go - UK among most secular nations -

Interesting. Presumably that's a manifestation (or more likely the cause) of the British "dry wit"/cynicism. We don't blindly accept things unquestioningly, relatively speaking. Together with the high religious belief in the US it could also explain why the US/UK difference in sense of humour is so profound. After all, it is surprising given our shared language...

[elderford]

On the Bill Hicks item on the Today wireless programme this morning John Lahr said something along the lines of:

Hicks's irony: better appreciated in UK than USA because, USA optimistic so prefer black or white, whereas UK quite happy with the grey and don't culturally require black or white.