Reconciling science and religion

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Believing stuff with no evidence brings their rationality into  question.

As there are great many very rational people who are also religious, that appears to be false.

 

[iNow]

It's called compartmentalization. People can be rational in some areas of life and irrational in others. Accepting the claims in religious texts as a whole as true clearly falls into the latter category. 

[Strange]

And maybe the fact that we are able to compartmentalise is one of the reasons that religion and other (non-religious) irrational beliefs are still around.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Someone, and it may have been you,  asked earlier about how we might get rid of religion.

You seem to have answered the question; as long as we explain that religion is also subject to critical thinking- rather than somehow exempt as it usually claims.

Probably not me.

But the fact there are many very rational people who study religion (using critical thinking skills) suggests that it is not considered exempt. Most, but not all, theologians are also believers. And some of the brightest minds around have often been theologians.

And the existence of compartmentalisation shows that teaching critical critical skills would not eliminate religion. (Although it might, perhaps, reduce the proportion of people who follow formal religions.)

[Prometheus]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's called compartmentalization. People can be rational in some areas of life and irrational in others. Accepting the claims in religious texts as a whole as true clearly falls into the latter category. 

Or religious people can simply discard the irrational part of their religion. As much as some people insist, irrationality isn't a defining quality of being religious, even if it a very common feature.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Believing stuff with no evidence brings their rationality into  question.

Actually, that isn't irrational. It is perfectly normal. I suspect everybody does it to some extent.

Continuing to believe something when the evidence shows it to be wrong, might be irrational. But, of course, that doesn't apply to the existence of god.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Actually, that isn't irrational. It is perfectly normal.

Who said rationality was normal?

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Or religious people can simply discard the irrational part of their religion

And I asked before  (repeatedly) "What's left?"

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Who said rationality was normal?

OK. Let me rephrase that: 

Actually, that isn't irrational. It is perfectly rational. Continuing to believe something when the evidence shows it to be wrong, might be irrational. But, of course, that doesn't apply to the existence of god.

[John Cuthber]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

... Continuing to believe something when the evidence shows it to be wrong, might be irrational. ...

Fine.
Now, given that the record shows that the Bible contradicts itself something like 400 time, but some people still think it's literally true...

It's a long time ago that I studied pharmacology; one aspect of that is the use of drugs to address psychosis.

To do that you need to define what psychosis is.

It's not, for example, a mental heath problem if you are sad because your spouse just died. But it is a problem if you are still unable to live your life because of the grief of the death of a spouse ten years ago.
And the definition given then was that it's psychotic to believe something (for example that you are Napoleon) when most people accept that the belief isn't supported by- or is contradicted by- the evidence.

Somewhere along the line, you have to accept that most religions lack rationality.
As I said earlier; there's  the bit about believing the Book or the evidence.

Only one of those options is rational.

No prizes for guessing which side religion is on.

[Strange]

As people are able to hold such beliefs and still be perfectly rational, there doesn't seem to be problem with this. Other than the fact it annoys you.

[Manticore]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

As people are able to hold such beliefs and still be perfectly rational, there doesn't seem to be problem with this. Other than the fact it annoys you.

If they have such beliefs then they cannot be perfectly rational.

On the other hand, I have never met anyone who is.

I don't think I am - I would probably turn into a pink unicorn and vanish if I was.

[Prometheus]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And I asked before  (repeatedly) "What's left?"

Many rational people believe that there is no permanent and unchanging self: no soul separate from the body. It's one thing to know this intellectually, quite another to experience life like this. This is what the practice of meditation in Buddhism trains someone to do. 

There are no secular methods to this end. There is a secular mindfulness meditation movement, but that is designed for stress relief rather than fundamentally changing how you engage with reality.

This is the only example i can give because this is the only religion i practice. Why have you got such a big problem with how i live my life?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And I asked before  (repeatedly) "What's left?"

Why do you care? Apparently, enough is left for a lot of people. That may bother you, but maybe you just need to get over it.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Strange

[Area54]

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That sort of thing gets us nowhere.

I could say that I interpreted that as you appearing to say that you like poking pigeons with pork sausages.

The fact is that I didn't assert what you said I "seemed" to.

Not the same at all. There was good reason to suspect what you meant was what I saw as a possibility. There is no good reason to consider that I was talking of pigeons and porcine product. I included the "appears" as a courtesy to you. If you prefer, I can avoid courtesy in future posts.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Why do you care?

I already answered that about a dozen times.

It leads people down the path of illogicality.

That's what gets us racism, Trump, and Michael Gove saying "I think  the people have had enough of experts" followed by a disastrous Brexit.

It leads to kids dying because their parents believe nonsense
All these are part of the same  lack of understanding that reality is real.

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Many rational people believe that there is no permanent and unchanging self: no soul separate from the body. It's one thing to know this intellectually, quite another to experience life like this. This is what the practice of meditation in Buddhism trains someone to do. 

I'm not sure I ever believed that I had a soul separate from "me".

So I have lived my adult life like this without needing the "training" which you say is necessary.

I contend that you are mistaken, and I cite myself as a counter-example.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I already answered that about a dozen times.

It leads people down the path of illogicality.

That's what gets us racism, Trump, and Michael Gove saying "I think  the people have had enough of experts" followed by a disastrous Brexit.

You are the one who appears to be illogical. There are non-religious racists. Arguably, being anti religious is akin to racism (most advanced countries treat religious prejudice as equal to racial prejudice). And claiming that Brexit is caused by religion seems a stretch. Do you just blame everything you don't like on religion?

Quote

It leads to kids dying because their parents believe nonsense
All these are part of the same  lack of understanding that reality is real.

And, again, not necessarily anything to do with religion.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Manticore said:

If they have such beliefs then they cannot be perfectly rational.

On the other hand, I have never met anyone who is.

I don't think I am - I would probably turn into a pink unicorn and vanish if I was.

It's true that nobody is totally logical.

I can't logically justify my preference for roast lamb over roast beef.

But I can analyse this illogical behaviour and conclude that it has practically no effect on anyone but me (and not much effect on me)

 

And I can contrast that with the anti-vaxers's belief which does affect others. It kills children.

 

If the only difference that religion made was that people went to a building with a pointy roof and sang songs on a Sunday morning then there wouldn't be any issue here.

But, and this brings us back to the topic of the thread, religion sticks it's oar into things where it has no place.

Religion shouldn't dictate things that matter.

Those things should be decided rationally- not by a misinterpreted record of a 4000 year old goat herder's creation myth. (and in fairness to DimReeper's comments, it shouldn't be decided by a political power grab by the rich)

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, again, not necessarily anything to do with religion.

I didn't say it was.

I said that religion is one big source of irrational behaviour that we would be better off without.

There are lots of sources, but  religion is portrayed and perceived as authoritative, which makes it particularly pernicious. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

But I can analyse this illogical behaviour and conclude that it has practically no effect on anyone but me (and not much effect on me)

Other people's religion has no detectable effect on me.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

And I can contrast that with the anti-vaxers's belief which does affect others. It kills children.

And, again, nothing to do with religion.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Strange said:

Other people's religion has no detectable effect on me.

Yes it does. It has you taking your shoes off at airports. It has your neighbour's kids who are immune deficient (and can't be vaccinated) dying from measles because other people didn't vaccinate their healthy kids and maintain herd immunity.

 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And, again, nothing to do with religion.

And again, I didn't say it had to be.

But it often is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

so you can't say it's "nothing" to do with religion.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one who appears to be illogical

Really, I'm not the one pretending that I'm isolated from the rest of the world. I'm not seeking to convince people that I'm unaffected by the beliefs of others.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

It has your neighbour's kids who are immune deficient (and can't be vaccinated) dying from measles because other people didn't vaccinate their healthy kids and maintain herd immunity.

NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

Sheesh.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But it often is.

As are many things.  Good and bad. But it is not the cause. Unless you have evidence that Andrew Wakefield was driven by his religious beliefs?

[John Cuthber]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

And claiming that Brexit is caused by religion seems a stretch.

Again, how fortunate that I didn't clam that.

What I said was that religion legitimises irrational behaviour.

Saying that we don't need experts isn't rational. How did a senior politician get away with it?

Part of the answer is that facts have lost respectability and part of the reason for that is religion.

[Strange]

As you appear to jumped the rhetorical shark. I will leave to stew in your bigotry.

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

Yes it is even if you claim it isn't in CAPITALS.

There is documentary evidence to show that it is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

You keep saying it isn't; in spite of the evidence that it is, and then you call me irrational...

 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

unless you have evidence that Andrew Wakefield was driven by his religious beliefs?

He was driven by greed.

I never said that all bad things were caused by religion.

What I said was that many of them are caused, or helped by the lack of rationality which religion preaches.

Edited August 26, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes it is even if you claim it isn't in CAPITALS.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

How exactly are problems with polio vaccination Africa going to result in "your neighbour's kids who are immune deficient (and can't be vaccinated) dying from measles because other people didn't vaccinate their healthy kids and maintain herd immunity."

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Strange said:

How exactly are problems with polio vaccination Africa going to result in "your neighbour's kids who are immune deficient (and can't be vaccinated) dying from measles because other people didn't vaccinate their healthy kids and maintain herd immunity."

I didn't say "next door" neighbours.

Are you certain that none of the antivaxers  in your area are religiously motivated?

Perhaps more importantly:

Are you really totally unconcerned with those poor kids dying, because they are in Africa?

Doesn't it trouble you at all?

[Strange]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

I didn't say "next door" neighbours.

So? Neither did I. Is there a relationship between polio and measles I wasn't formerly aware of?

Quote

Are you certain that none of the antivaxers  in your area are religiously motivated?

Do you have any evidence they are? 

Quote

Perhaps more importantly:

Are you really totally unconcerned with those poor kids dying, because they are in Africa?

Doesn't it trouble you at all?

Why would you think that? It's a ridiculous idea.