Reconciling science and religion

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

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

Do you have any evidence they are? 

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

I'm puzzled that you are unaware of the link. People who oppose vaccinations against one generally oppose vaccinations against the other.

Well, since I didn't define "your area" and diseases can get round the world these days by air travel, yes- those people in Africa and India will do as examples.

 

You said it didn't affect you at all.

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

Have you recognised that you were mistaken about that?

Other people's religion leads to kids dying needlessly and that affects you -at least to some detectable extent.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Other people's religion leads to kids dying needlessly and that affects you -at least to some detectable extent.

Again, better to tackle the problem itself rather than something incidental. And one good way might be to get religious organisations to help.For example, an Imam in the UK is running an anti-terrorism workshop this weekend. 

So maybe it could be more effective to get the churches, mosques, etc to explain to people why they are mistaken about vaccines. Certainly better than attacking their religious beliefs, which would probably only entrench their views.

Anyway, this is going nowhere. You are stuck in your narrow-minded and bigoted worldview. So I think I'll leave it there. I'm getting a bit sick of your offensive innuendos.

[John Cuthber]

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

 better to tackle the problem itself rather than something incidental.

The problem itself is religion deliberately getting in the way of progress.

That's hardly "incidental".

I take it you have accepted that you were wrong to say other people's religion doesn't affect you.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The problem itself is religion deliberately getting in the way of progress.

I don't believe you. All your examples are cases where there are other causes.

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I take it you have accepted that you were wrong to say other people's religion doesn't affect you.

And, therefore, no.

Bye.

[John Cuthber]

I don't understand how you can read this

"Religious opposition by Muslim fundamentalists is a major factor in the failure of immunization programs against polio in Nigeria (2), Pakistan (3) and Afghanistan (4). This religious conflict in the tribal areas of Pakistan is one of the biggest hindrances to effective polio vaccination."

and say 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

All your examples are cases where there are other causes.

 

[Strange]

Sigh. This getting pathetic. Not all anti-vaccination reasons are religious. I'm not even convinced a majority are. You have evidence of one example.

 

[John Cuthber]

No, that's 3 countries worth of examples.

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not all anti-vaccination reasons are religious.

I know

 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I didn't say it was

 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

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

 

On 8/21/2017 at 7:48 PM, John Cuthber said:

It's not that religion is the only cause of slaughter

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

No, that's 3 countries worth of examples.

Still only one example. One paper. But I'm sure you can find more. But be sure to ignore any research that shows religious organisations helping with education and distribution of vaccines and other types of healthcare. Wouldn't want to disturb your belief system.

If you want to get into the "here is bad thing that religious people do" "here is a good thing that religious people do" argument then I can't really help you. I'm not interested in that sort of silly cherry picking of "evidence".

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I know

So why keep banging on about it. 

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

So why keep banging on about it. 

I'm not.

But you keep saying the same thing and I just pointed out that I had replied to it lots of times.

It doesn't seem to have worked, because you said the same thing again.

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

But be sure to ignore any research that shows religious organisations helping with education and distribution of vaccines and other types of healthcare. Wouldn't want to disturb your belief system.

 

You don't seem to understand that I only need to find one case where religion led to the death of a child in order to show that other people's religion does affect you.

I already did that.

I think it was this case.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/05/jehovahs-witness-parents-refuse-life-saving-treatment-for-son/

but you seem to have ignored it- and only think I cited the other paper about vaccinations.

If someone asks what is 2+2? and you say 4, you don't expect them to argue that there are an infinite number of numbers, and you have cherry picked an answer.

If you say "what's the problem with religion?" and I say- it sometimes encourages people to commit crime, it isn't cherry picking to leave out any other aspects of it.

It's just answering the point raised.

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm not.

But you keep saying the same thing and I just pointed out that I had replied to it lots of times.

It doesn't seem to have worked, because you said the same thing again.

 

You don't seem to understand that I only need to find one case where religion led to the death of a child in order to show that other people's religion does affect you.

I already did that.

I think it was this case.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/05/jehovahs-witness-parents-refuse-life-saving-treatment-for-son/

but you seem to have ignored it- and only think I cited the other paper about vaccinations.

If someone asks what is 2+2? and you say 4, you don't expect them to argue that there are an infinite number of numbers, and you have cherry picked an answer.

If you say "what's the problem with religion?" and I say- it sometimes encourages people to commit crime, it isn't cherry picking to leave out any other aspects of it.

It's just answering the point raised.

How far off topic are you going to take this thread to justify your intolerant, fundamentalist POV? 

Can religion be reconciled with science? Yes, of course, it can, Catholics have acknowledged evolution and the church of England have women bishops, not to mention gay clergy.

Your cherry picking, dishonest arguments shows your extreme belief is little different to the worst religion has to offer, in that it's ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded, dogmatic and unforgiving.

Edited August 26, 2017 by dimreepr

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

But you keep saying the same thing and I just pointed out that I had replied to it lots of times.

Oh the irony. 

[iNow]

10 hours 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.

Except when those irrational beliefs affect policies that influence us all, such as what gets taught in public schools or whether insurance plans cover contraception. 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Oh the irony. 

What Irony?

You keep banging on about the fact that religion sometimes manages positive things.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that fact.

You keep on repeating it anyway.

 

Don't you realise it's like saying "the Kray twins were nice to their mother so they are OK- we should let them off multiple counts of murder"?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Don't you realise it's like saying "the Kray twins were nice to their mother so they are OK- we should let them off multiple counts of murder"?

If you say so. But I always thought you were slightly brighter than that. Just goes to show that even a Resident Expert can be pretty dumb about the things that they are emotionally bound up with.

You might be delighted to know that your Resident Expert status apparently means I can't put you on my ignore list. Which, on second thoughts, is probably a good thing because on almost every other subject you have intelligent and insightful things to say.

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you say so. But I always thought you were slightly brighter than that. Just goes to show that even a Resident Expert can be pretty dumb about the things that they are emotionally bound up with.

You might be delighted to know that your Resident Expert status apparently means I can't put you on my ignore list. Which, on second thoughts, is probably a good thing because on almost every other subject you have intelligent and insightful things to say.

You forgot to answer the question.

What irony?

[Area54]

The irony is that you have been saying the same thing, even although multiple members have refuted/destroyed/countered your arguments/evidence/assertions.

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You forgot to answer the question.

What irony?

I assumed it was a rhetorical question because it was so obvious. But Area54 has kindly explained it for the hard of thinking.

[John Cuthber]

What I have said is that I agree that religion sometimes does good things.

I have also said that the Bible tells its followers that they should kill people.

I pointed out that religious interference in vaccination programs leads to the deaths of children.

I pointed out that those deaths upset people and that's proof that people's religious belief causes effects on others.

 

What bits of that were  refuted?

[Prometheus]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

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.

I'm not talking about believing, i'm talking about experiencing.

Most people experience life as if they exist somewhere behind their eyes, like a homunculus regardless of whether they actually believe in this ghost in the machine. If you don't, that's a rare thing.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Except when those irrational beliefs affect policies that influence us all, such as what gets taught in public schools or whether insurance plans cover contraception. 

That's a perfectly reasonable exception. Is anyone here arguing otherwise?

[Area54]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

What I have said is that I agree that religion sometimes does good things.

I have also said that the Bible tells its followers that they should kill people.

I do not know if I capture accurately the views of other members, but these are the problems I have with the second of those statements.

If we are talking Christianity, which I understand we are, then you have to distinguish between Old and New Testament. I have forgotten the correct terminology, but basically the birth of Christ alters the ground rules. Christ basically teaches forgiveness and a fair amount of pacifism. In continually pointing to something from the OT that has been superceded you are fighting a strawman.

Now what is very definitely a personal view, but I believe it is one that is well supported: politicians, tyrants, etc have often used religion to achieve their goals. In these circumstances religion and their followers are victims just as those they may be "told to kill".

Humans will use any excuse to fight each other. Religion is so often just that - a convenient excuce. That's a fault of humans, not of religion.

Quote

I pointed out that religious interference in vaccination programs leads to the deaths of children.

But you argued that the root cause was religion, but failed to demonstrate that.

Quote

I pointed out that those deaths upset people and that's proof that people's religious belief causes effects on others.

Your nonsense in this thread has upset me. That's proof that smart people talking crap can annoy other smart peopke who aren't. More to the point, you are seeking to place virtually all the blame on religion and give it virtually none of the credit. That is what I - and I think others - are objecting to.

What bits of that were  refuted?

[John Cuthber]

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

But you argued that the root cause was religion, but failed to demonstrate that.

You keep saying that, and it keeps not being true 

I didn't just argue it, I cited published references and a report of a court report.
But even then I didn't say it was the sole factor. I already pointed that out when I said

 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I didn't say it was.

 

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

but basically the birth of Christ alters the ground rules.

Not according to Christ, (as reported by Matthew  in the NT) it doesn't.

And I already pointed that out.

 

26 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 

That's a perfectly reasonable exception. Is anyone here arguing otherwise?

It depends on your interpretation of this

 

8 hours ago, Strange said:

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

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

What I have said is that I agree that religion sometimes does good things.

I have also said that the Bible tells its followers that they should kill people.

I pointed out that religious interference in vaccination programs leads to the deaths of children.

I pointed out that those deaths upset people and that's proof that people's religious belief causes effects on others.

I can't see that obsessing over religion as the/a cause is not very productive.

Firstly, it doesn't help at all with the non-religious causes or influences. For example, the Troubles in Ireland were entirely political in origin. The fact that the political boundaries coincided with religious boundaries made the issues more complex, but religion was not the root cause. Similarly, the underlying causes of Islamist terrorism are socio-economic rather than purely religious.

Secondly, I'm not sure it helps with finding a solution even with the cases where religion is part of the cause. Other than getting religious organisations to use their influence to campaign against violence, for vaccination, etc. 

[John Cuthber]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

I can't see that obsessing over religion as the/a cause is not very productive.

Clearly true- albeit, I suspect, by accident. You keep obsessing over it.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

All your examples are cases where there are other causes.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

. Not all anti-vaccination reasons are religious.

But at last you have company.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

But you argued that the root cause was religion, but failed to demonstrate that.

 

And yet, you never actually showed that I disagreed, and the pretty clear evidence is that I did accept that religion wasn't the whole cause.

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I didn't say it was

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

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

 

On 8/21/2017 at 7:48 PM, John Cuthber said:

It's not that religion is the only cause of slaughter

 

[Strange]

So you agree we should drop the issue of religion been a problem and focus on the actual problems and their causes. Good.

[John Cuthber]

 

"So you agree we should drop the issue of religion been a problem and focus on the actual problems and their causes. Good."

Actually, I think we should focus on the topic.

Of course, if you think that religion is a probe (and you accept that science isn't) then you have found a fundamental difference between the two which can't be reconciled and you have shown that  the answer to the thread is that they can't be reconciled.

 

In any event, science and religion cant't be reconciled because they have totally opposed views to evidence.

It's been pointed out that, for example, some of the major churches now accept evolution.

Great, but in doing so they are not being religious, but being scientific.

If they did the same thing with all of the areas where there's a disagreement- contraception, sexuality, racism etc they would stop looking like a religion and look like a social club.

Science and religion would- in a way- be reconciled by that process, but only by the death or religion. Virtually nothing would be left that was "an article of faith" rather than a matter of reasoned opinion.

The suggestion has already been made that we ensure that critical thinking is taught in schools.

That would bring about progress towards this sort of "reconciliation".

Edited August 27, 2017 by John Cuthber