Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[dimreepr]

If, as you say, the Bible teaches those things and is the source of our knowledge on those topics,

 

Come on iNow you know I didn't say/imply this, in fact I would suggest the opposite.

 

then how do people know which parts are okay to follow and which parts to ignore?

 

 

When it was fully understood, that was not a problem.

 

Too often these same bibles contradict themselves,

 

 

That's a problem of lost understanding.

 

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos. - Lao Tzu

then how do people know which parts are okay to follow and which parts to ignore?

 

 

If it say's judge, hate, kill... etc... Ignore.

 

If it say's forgive, understand, tolerate... etc... Follow.

Edited June 12, 2017 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

The bible/s were, originally intended to teach contentment

How do you know this?

[dimreepr]

How do you know this?

 

I don't, not really, how could I?

 

But, since I've discovered my own path BACK to contentment, I can recognise at least one path that leads the way/ seeks to teach.

[Bender]

... and whilst secularism is able to be content, it makes no real effort to teach it ATM; ...

Why do you think that? In non-religious schools in Belgium, children get a morality/ethics/reflection course instead of the religious course.

[Itoero]

I don't, not really, how could I?

 

But, since I've discovered my own path BACK to contentment, I can recognise at least one path that leads the way/ seeks to teach.

Don't assume that your interpretation has any scientific meaning because it helped you.

If it say's judge, hate, kill... etc... Ignore.

 

If it say's forgive, understand, tolerate... etc... Follow.

Shouldn't your parents teach you to be a decent person?

[dimreepr]

Don't assume that your interpretation has any scientific meaning because it helped you.

Shouldn't your parents teach you to be a decent person?

 

Did you miss the lesson?

[Itoero]

Did you miss the lesson?

Which lesson?

[dimreepr]

The one I forgot to mention.

[Itoero]

The one I forgot to mention.

I might have missed that one.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

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

You already tried that one.

You were unable to explain:

That it "teaches contentment" by teaching hatred which makes no sense. and

That contentment (as displayed by a sleeping baby) doesn't need to be taught.

[Itoero]

I think Einstein meant something like 'imagination'.

-Science without imagination is lame, imagination without science is blind.-

 

Some of the things he said/wrote, explain this.

 

*I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world*

 

*Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.*

 

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/01/einstein-imagination/

[iNow]

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.

 

I do understand and we do agree. Religion seems to sometimes magnify both the good and bad elements of humanity and nuance is important when in discussion about it.

 

 

[mp][/mp]

Come on iNow you know I didn't say/imply this, in fact I would suggest the opposite.

Apologies. I misread and consequently misrepresented you.

 

If it say's judge, hate, kill... etc... Ignore.

If it say's forgive, understand, tolerate... etc... Follow.

My larger point was that we must know what's right and wrong, good and bad, before the Bible ever enters the equation. Perhaps not you, but MANY many people argue that the Bible (Quran, whatever) is the source of our morality and it's what drives us to be good... that without it we'd all be eating babies and raping our neighbors.

 

This is self-evidently a nonsensical position since we already know what's right and wrong / good and bad beforehand... due simply to our tribal nature... where we are shunned and ostracized for failing to adhere to group norms... rewarded when we support them.

 

Our community teaches us these things. We understand these things absent any influence from religion. Religion may serve as another "community," but IMO it's the community that delivers these positive and negative expectations.

 

We know these things before studying those texts, and we simply must in order to be able to recognize (as you rightly remind us) the importance of following the parts referencing forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance while ignoring the parts referencing hatred, killing, and judgement.

Edited June 13, 2017 by iNow

[Prometheus]

Do people make such a (rather silly) generalization?

 

I think a few people do. Non-religious people are no more immune to our tribal instincts than religious people.

 

 

Religion seems to sometimes magnify both the good and bad elements of humanity and nuance is important when in discussion about it.

 

I have sympathy for your position, i know you are in an area of the world where religion is near its worst. It's easy for me here where religion is more moderate.

 

 

My larger point was that we must know what's right and wrong, good and bad, before the Bible ever enters the equation. Perhaps not you, but MANY many people argue that the Bible (Quran, whatever) is the source of our morality and it's what drives us to be good... that without it we'd all be eating babies and raping our neighbors.

 

This is self-evidently a nonsensical position since we already know what's right and wrong / good and bad beforehand... due simply to our tribal nature... where we are shunned and ostracized for failing to adhere to group norms... rewarded when we support them.

 

Our community teaches us these things. We understand these things absent any influence from religion. Religion may serve as another "community," but IMO it's the community that delivers these positive and negative expectations.

 

We know these things before studying those texts, and we simply must in order to be able to recognize (as you rightly remind us) the importance of following the parts referencing forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance while ignoring the parts referencing hatred, killing, and judgement.

 

I think you are making the same mistake religious people usually make regarding their sacred texts: taking it literally.

 

If instead you take it to be a piece of human literature then it is easy to understand that the author may well not have had a firm idea of right and wrong, but is exploring the idea in a public space. The story of Genesis is a good exploration (given it's well over 2000 years old) of the will to knowledge and power, and the narrative continues through great works like Paradise Lost and Frankenstein. And the narrative will never stop, so long as humanity continues to push itself. That is the greatest flaw, in my opinion, of most religions: they attempt to have the final say on that narrative, to close the book on our moral and spiritual development.

 

This is what religion provides for some people (although others may find it elsewhere, and some may simply not care): a place to explore where the rising ape meets the falling angel.

[tar]

I do understand and we do agree. Religion seems to sometimes magnify both the good and bad elements of humanity and nuance is important when in discussion about it.

 

 

[mp][/mp]

Apologies. I misread and consequently misrepresented you.

 

My larger point was that we must know what's right and wrong, good and bad, before the Bible ever enters the equation. Perhaps not you, but MANY many people argue that the Bible (Quran, whatever) is the source of our morality and it's what drives us to be good... that without it we'd all be eating babies and raping our neighbors.

 

This is self-evidently a nonsensical position since we already know what's right and wrong / good and bad beforehand... due simply to our tribal nature... where we are shunned and ostracized for failing to adhere to group norms... rewarded when we support them.

 

Our community teaches us these things. We understand these things absent any influence from religion. Religion may serve as another "community," but IMO it's the community that delivers these positive and negative expectations.

 

We know these things before studying those texts, and we simply must in order to be able to recognize (as you rightly remind us) the importance of following the parts referencing forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance while ignoring the parts referencing hatred, killing, and judgement.

 

iNow,

 

But suppose good/bad are, by your own definition, formed by the group. You please the group, that is good, you displease the group, that is bad.

 

This is not then morality being innate, but the impulse to please the group being innate.

 

Some people do not feel abortion is proper, that it is bad to kill unborn babies. Other people feel it is good for the woman. Some people think a slice of bacon is really good, others think eating a pig is bad because pigs have the same diseases we have. Some people think a burger on the grill smells REALLY good. In India perhaps you would be thrown in jail.

 

I think you have it backward, that innate morality informs religion. It is obvious that our morals and morays are informed by group consensus. And in this light we need to look at Einstein's consideration of superpersonal responsibility.

 

Regards, TAR

 

[dimreepr]

You already tried that one.

You were unable to explain:

That it "teaches contentment" by teaching hatred which makes no sense.

 

I was never invited too.

 

That contentment (as displayed by a sleeping baby) doesn't need to be taught.

 

 

When I think about it, in terms of a baby (or as I've previously mentioned, our animal brethren) you have a point.

 

A being without fear tends to be content and then we "grew up" and learnt how.

I do understand and we do agree. Religion seems to sometimes magnify both the good and bad elements of humanity and nuance is important when in discussion about it.

 

 

[mp][/mp]

Apologies. I misread and consequently misrepresented you.

 

My larger point was that we must know what's right and wrong, good and bad, before the Bible ever enters the equation. Perhaps not you, but MANY many people argue that the Bible (Quran, whatever) is the source of our morality and it's what drives us to be good... that without it we'd all be eating babies and raping our neighbors.

 

This is self-evidently a nonsensical position since we already know what's right and wrong / good and bad beforehand... due simply to our tribal nature... where we are shunned and ostracized for failing to adhere to group norms... rewarded when we support them.

 

Our community teaches us these things. We understand these things absent any influence from religion. Religion may serve as another "community," but IMO it's the community that delivers these positive and negative expectations.

 

We know these things before studying those texts, and we simply must in order to be able to recognize (as you rightly remind us) the importance of following the parts referencing forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance while ignoring the parts referencing hatred, killing, and judgement.

 

Indeed but someone had to start it (write the texts), which automatically means it predates religion; unfortunately for JC it would also suggest his core argument is wrong; wisdom can indeed exist in both camps.

Edited June 13, 2017 by dimreepr

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

Chicken and the egg here a little.

 

But in either case, moralitiy developed differently in different groups, in different religions, in different civil laws, in different club agendas, in different family rules in different party platforms...but in all cases it developed and was not automatically present in the genes.

 

Somebody wrote the holy books, but that does not mean they already knew the difference between right and wrong, that they had already eaten the apple and had wisdom and were good already. The whole idea of religion, in many cases I can think of, is to rise above sin, which would, in several cases make sin the natural condition, and rejecting sin the idea that developed over time, through the legends and stories and human consensus rules that "developed" prior the writing of the text.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Somebody wrote the holy books, but that does not mean they already knew the difference between right and wrong

Of course it does. They're the ones who structured the parables and chose the messages.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Mohammed rewrote the parables and stories from the bible, into the Koran, the various writers of the Bible, the different books, were informed by the legends and stories and civil situations they grew up with. The stories that worked to allow people to live together are the ones that survived through our civil development. Yes people chose the messages, and I am not in the slightest saying that God wrote the book, it has to be people that wrote it. But this discussion has to do with Einstein's use of the word religion. And since, according to reason and evidence there is no literal king of the clouds to talk to, in my philosophy and I am guessing in Einstein's use of the word religion, he is referring to the same overarching objective reality that you and I and Moses and Buddha and Mohammed and Plato and Shakespeare and Orge the cavepainter wrote about.

 

Regards, TAR

the extrapersonal, the superpersonal objective reality, that anybody here is responsible to and has come from is important...well its everything, and it includes iNow and TAR and our parent's and our laws and the agreements our groups have with other groups

 

a single person cannot bypass all other people and have a morality of their own, and go to a personal god

 

in that case they are talking to themselves

 

Einstein's statement, that without Religion, Science is lame, says to me that science has no muscle, no motive force unless one's information is taking from and applied to an objective reality that you love and respect, feel a part of, responsible to, and responsible for.

well maybe in the slightest I am saying God wrote the book

 

If God is taken as standing for objective reality, and objective reality wrote the book.

Spinoza God

Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

Spinozism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Edited June 14, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

well maybe in the slightest I am saying God wrote the book

 

Which one?

 

God may be the muse but never the author.

[tar]

Dimreepr,

Well yes, I do not think there is an anthropomorphic god, that feels and thinks and wants this and desires that. But that which is taken literally and that which is taken figuratively when suggesting that the objective world wrote the book, any book, is not the most important consideration. The fact that any writer is in and of the world, and concurrently is part of objective reality to any reader, is objectively true. Therefore, no matter if you are arguing that morality is informed by the genes, or if you are arguing that morality is informed by the writers, with genes, you are arguing that objective reality wrote the book.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

Dimreepr,

Well yes, I do not think there is an anthropomorphic god, that feels and thinks and wants this and desires that. But that which is taken literally and that which is taken figuratively when suggesting that the objective world wrote the book, any book, is not the most important consideration. The fact that any writer is in and of the world, and concurrently is part of objective reality to any reader, is objectively true. Therefore, no matter if you are arguing that morality is informed by the genes, or if you are arguing that morality is informed by the writers, with genes, you are arguing that objective reality wrote the book.

Regards, TAR

 

Or, none of the above.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

"Or, none of the above.​"

 

 

Possibly, but how so are you saying that? Seems to me there is a 100% chance that objective reality wrote all books. Proof being all books are real and there is no magical way, unassisted by reality, that a book could come into existence.

Regards, TAR

Edited June 14, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

"Or, none of the above.​"

 

 

Possibly, but how so are you saying that?

 

Literally, as in, someone wrote them.

[John Cuthber]

 

I was never invited too.

 

You were- at length.

You failed.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104032-does-almighy-god-view-all-people-in-the-same-light/page-6

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

I suppose I am allowing an obvious truth that you are for some reason not ceding. That is, somebody IS objective reality to anyone else. So If I, for instance, am wondering if objective reality can think, and reason, and you raise your hand and say "I can think and reason", then I have my answer.

 

Regards, TAR