Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[iNow]

Understood, but pretty sure nobody was arguing that it was.

[dimreepr]

Understood, but pretty sure nobody was arguing that it was.

 

Ohhh man you've changed, I was expecting a broadside for that; TBH I secretly wanted it, a David Mitchell like rant, one can only admire.

[zapatos]

Understood, but pretty sure nobody was arguing that it was.

 

Neither was anyone here arguing that religion does not borrow things for leverage. Hence it was a bit unclear to me at least why you felt the need to point out that religion does borrow and use things for leverage.

 

I imagine nearly every institution or endeavor does.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

None at all, I've never suggested otherwise.

 

But what I did suggest is secularist lead politics has killed as many as religious lead politics.

When you say " your belief that religion can't possibly contain wisdom "

you suggest that religion contains wisdom.

It doesn't.

People contain wisdom.

So, unless you can show that there's some "special" wisdom to be found in religion you have said nothing.

 

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you had something meaningful to say.

 

And your suggestion that "secularist lead politics has killed as many as religious lead politics." just doesn't seem tenable.

Almost every war in history has had army chaplains on both sides explaining why the slaughter was right and that "thou shalt not kill" or its local equivalent didn't apply.

[dimreepr]

When you say " your belief that religion can't possibly contain wisdom "

you suggest that religion contains wisdom.

 

It doesn't.

 

OK, if you say so.

[John Cuthber]

 

OK, if you say so.

It's not "if I say so" .

I maintain that religion doesn't contain any wisdom.

It's a sensible contention unless you can show otherwise by (guess what) showing that there is some wisdom in religion.

[Eise]

Did you mean to say "moral development"? because that's an innate quality of many creatures, which includes humans.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Using the terminology of Einstein, the more you are able to subsume your actions on superpersonal principles, instead of more personal interests ("good means good for me"), the more morally developed one is. And where you are right that morality is an innate quality of many creatures, it is more like a moral faculty that can be developed.

 

I think perhaps the following is more precise:

 

So in my interpretation, Einstein wanted to warn us that our moral development wisdom lags wide behind our scientific development.

 

I think it is less precise. I would say it is more encompassing. And maybe Einstein would agree with you. But I did not want to get into a discussion about what wisdom is.

 

(Had I known that I would get into a discussion about 'moral development', I would better have used 'wisdom'...)

[dimreepr]

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Using the terminology of Einstein, the more you are able to subsume your actions on superpersonal principles, instead of more personal interests ("good means good for me"), the more morally developed one is. And where you are right that morality is an innate quality of many creatures, it is more like a moral faculty that can be developed.

 

 

I think it is less precise. I would say it is more encompassing. And maybe Einstein would agree with you. But I did not want to get into a discussion about what wisdom is.

 

(Had I known that I would get into a discussion about 'moral development', I would better have used 'wisdom'...)

 

OK, if you say so...

[John Cuthber]

 

OK, if you say so...

 

 

OK, if you say so.

And that's what Dimreeper does.

It is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

Same as here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104032-does-almighy-god-view-all-people-in-the-same-light/page-2

Edited June 11, 2017 by John Cuthber

[beecee]

 

Why do you bring this up?

 

To show the great man's thoughts on the title of the thread and what he may have meant.

[iNow]

it was a bit unclear to me at least why you felt the need to point out that religion does borrow and use things for leverage.

It rubs me wrong when religion gets credit for merely rebranding social (and otherwise helpful) activities that are themselves secular in nature. It seemed to me that maybe you and dimreepr were trying in your posts to allocate credit for these positive things to religion. While I may have misread you, I chose to push back on that a bit.

[KipIngram]

It rubs me wrong when religion gets credit for merely rebranding social (and otherwise helpful) activities that are themselves secular in nature. It seemed to me that maybe you and dimreepr were trying in your posts to allocate credit for these positive things to religion. While I may have misread you, I chose to push back on that a bit.

 

Wow, religion really bugs you, doesn't it? I've always found it strange how strongly people react to things that really have nothing to do with them.

[beecee]

In the case of many/most atheists, I suspect they don't consider the views of others have any validity precisely because they HAVE considered them (unlike many/most religious fundies), but I won't belabor it.

Plus of course any religious/supernatural view by definition is unscientific.

[iNow]

There's history there, Kip. I have reasons, many of which I've put lots of effort into articulating clearly and repeatedly through the years. It's not like I just up and decided one day that I needed an axe to grind.

[StringJunky]

There's history there, Kip. I have reasons, many of which I've put lots of effort into articulating clearly and repeatedly through the years. It's not like I just up and decided one day that I needed an axe to grind.

But perhaps the good humanitarian things only got properly established as societal norms due to religious decree at pain of the masses incurring the wrath of their deities.

[iNow]

Social norms of this kind are far more ancient than any religion or human based woo and wish thinking. We see norms and group expectations of this nature even in nonhuman animals, and not just primates

Edited June 12, 2017 by iNow

[KipIngram]

There's history there, Kip. I have reasons, many of which I've put lots of effort into articulating clearly and repeatedly through the years. It's not like I just up and decided one day that I needed an axe to grind.

 

Fair enough - I haven't walked in your shoes.

[tar]

Social norms of this kind are far more ancient than any religion or human based woo and wish thinking. We see norms and group expectations of this nature even in nonhuman animals, and not just primates

 

iNow,

 

I am leaning in StringJunky's direction. Particularly noting how Muhammed brought together the warring idol worshipping tribes. If you are basing your morals on tribal, pack mentality, then one is liable to exactly not be tolerant of someone not in your tribe, stealing your resources and your mates and your gold...unless you have an overarching maker of the rules that is going to judge even kings and emperors.

 

And as for other animals having morals based on the pack. This morning my wife was screaming in panic at the dog who had chased a rabbit across the yard, cornered it against the fence and it died of shock or perhaps it broke its neck. Same dog spent the winter chasing squirrels off the bird feeder at my command. It was a game of sorts, I would hear the woodpecker on the house or see the squirrel on the feeder and I would open the door and the dog would go charging out. She never caught a squirrel as they would dash over the fence or up a tree. I think she was expecting the rabbit to scale the fence. It did not. She killed it.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 12, 2017 by tar

[zapatos]

It rubs me wrong when religion gets credit for merely rebranding social (and otherwise helpful) activities that are themselves secular in nature. It seemed to me that maybe you and dimreepr were trying in your posts to allocate credit for these positive things to religion. While I may have misread you, I chose to push back on that a bit.

 

If you mean that you dislike when religion gets credit for being the source of morals, charity, etc., I agree with you.

 

I am trying to credit the good work done in the name of religion as so many people here overlook that when condemning the bad they do and even suggest religion should be eliminated. I would do the same for the Red Cross and Salvation Army but no one condemns them for borrowing the innate human qualities of charity and empathy.

[tar]

had we been a little more countrified we would have praised the dog and had stew, rather then scolding her...she does not go by the ten commandments it turns out

I don't think the superpersonal conscience is innate past the extended family. It is learned and taught and counters the we/they that is natural. In Islam you have for instance the we/they in the believers and non-believers and in the secular U.S over the last year we have formed the we/they with Fox on one side and CNN and CNBC and The Times on the other. Nationalism vs Globalism if you will. It takes some sort of religion to trump a nation, when it comes to looking out for each other. This weekend for instance there were demonstrations against Sharia law, as being incompatible with the constitution, met by opponents who considered it just cover for hate groups to hide behind.

 

A we/they, with the others considered stupid or deplorable or hateful or whatever. Making me wonder whether humanism is a religion on the order that Einstein was talking. Superpersonal rules of behavior, enforced by some global consciousness.

you can not have a superpersonal conscience by yourself

you cannot love humanity while hating humans

[John Cuthber]

 

Wow, religion really bugs you, doesn't it? I've always found it strange how strongly people react to things that really have nothing to do with them.

I wish I lived somewhere where religion was "nothing to do with" me; but I don't.

[Prometheus]

It rubs me wrong when religion gets credit for merely rebranding social (and otherwise helpful) activities that are themselves secular in nature. It seemed to me that maybe you and dimreepr were trying in your posts to allocate credit for these positive things to religion. While I may have misread you, I chose to push back on that a bit.

 

Then you should be able to understand why people are rubbed the wrong way when religion is blamed for merely rebranding social (and utterly destructive) activities. Surely it is a double standard to say, for instance, charity has nothing to do with religion, but war has everything to do with religion.

 

Surely we can agree the truth about our various social institutions (of which religion is one) is far more subtle than one religion bad, no religion good.

[Itoero]

Then you should be able to understand why people are rubbed the wrong way when religion is blamed for merely rebranding social (and utterly destructive) activities. Surely it is a double standard to say, for instance, charity has nothing to do with religion, but war has everything to do with religion.

Do people make such a (rather silly) generalization?

[dimreepr]

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Using the terminology of Einstein, the more you are able to subsume your actions on superpersonal principles, instead of more personal interests ("good means good for me"), the more morally developed one is. And where you are right that morality is an innate quality of many creatures, it is more like a moral faculty that can be developed.

 

 

I think it is less precise. I would say it is more encompassing. And maybe Einstein would agree with you. But I did not want to get into a discussion about what wisdom is.

 

(Had I known that I would get into a discussion about 'moral development', I would better have used 'wisdom'...)

 

 

 

OK, if you say so...

 

I'm sorry Eise this was a mistake, copy n pasted n posted without reading, Had to rush out.

It rubs me wrong when religion gets credit for merely rebranding social (and otherwise helpful) activities that are themselves secular in nature. It seemed to me that maybe you and dimreepr were trying in your posts to allocate credit for these positive things to religion. While I may have misread you, I chose to push back on that a bit.

 

My point has never changed on this, to summarise:

 

The bible/s were, originally intended to teach contentment (which I define as wisdom) and whilst secularism is able to be content, it makes no real effort to teach it ATM; we, by which I mean most animals, always have been able to be content and my dog show's no sign of worship, other than the last tree she saw a squirrel in.

But in a pack, there's always a hierarchy.

Edited June 12, 2017 by dimreepr

[iNow]

The bible/s were, originally intended to teach contentment (which I define as wisdom)

If, as you say, the Bible teaches those things and is the source of our knowledge on those topics, then how do people know which parts are okay to follow and which parts to ignore? Too often these same bibles contradict themselves, so it seems more likely that the source is outside the texts (otherwise, people would be confused and have no idea which parts to follow and which to ignore).