Reconciling science and religion

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Read a newspaper.
You will find plenty of people killed in petty squabbles, but the mass killings by one individual (or small groups) are often religious.

But often not? It is all a bit vague and impressionistic. Would it be equally acceptable to say, "there is a lot of petty crime but the serious crimes are often committed by black people"? 

[MigL]

I know plenty of people who like to kill people, John.
Most of them are in jail, but I'm sure there are a lot more who aren't.

I would think Government and nationalism are two institutions that are responsible for the deaths of way more people than religion.
( over 60 million in just WW1 and WW2 )

Yet anti-religion people are atheists and anti-government people are anarchists.
One good, the other bad.

Or do you consider both good ?

[Prometheus]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not a problem; hypocritical religious people seem to work just fine.

Interestingly this exact conversation was happening elsewhere: Delta raised some good points there.

 

All beliefs are to one degree or another a la carte. You will be hard pressed to find to people whose beliefs are exactly identical on a wide range of topics. That disagreement means that there is rarely a set of canonical beliefs that fall under a single label which are not disagreed on at any point by people who take that label for themselves.

As such, applying labels to any set of beliefs is not a practice of objective classification but really one of taxonomy. It is grouping non-identical things into categories of likeness.

And any such taxonomic classification is going to, to some degree, be arbitrary and subjective with some blurriness on the edges.

To describe yourself as a religious person, do you need to share all of your religious beliefs with every other person who describes themselves as religious? Of course not. Similarly, I do not think that one must share all of their Christian beliefs with other Christians in order to qualify as a Christian. Just like you cannot reasonably expect a person to defend the existence of Krishna just because they describe themselves as religious, I do not think that you can hold everyone who describes themselves as Christian to defend every belief that is common among some groups of Christians.

 

Christians existed for centuries before the Bible was put together into the canon that we are familiar with today. I don't think that there is really any definitive text that one must subscribe to in order to consider oneself a Christian. I'd say that the bare minimum is probably that one consider oneself a follower of Jesus. But that encompasses a very broad range of possible beliefs that may or may not include any adherence at all to anything written in the Bible and may not even necessarily include a belief in a literal resurrection.

 

 

But if you insist on using a definition that hardly anyone else uses who am i to argue. To paraphrase Charlie Brooker, 'Surely if I choose to redefine a spoon as something I shove up my arse, it doesn't stop you enjoying your pudding... unless I used your spoon.' Enjoy your spoon.

 

[Strange]

Thanks for posting that. (I did glance at that thread previously, but I couldn't understand what it was about !)

[Delta1212]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I know plenty of people who like to kill people, John.
Most of them are in jail, but I'm sure there are a lot more who aren't.

I would think Government and nationalism are two institutions that are responsible for the deaths of way more people than religion.
( over 60 million in just WW1 and WW2 )

Yet anti-religion people are atheists and anti-government people are anarchists.
One good, the other bad.

Or do you consider both good ?

There are some people who consider both to be bad.

Also, all anarchists are anti-government by definition. Not all atheists are anti-religion. 

[Randolpin]

There are portions of the scriptures like in the Old Testament that seems not good. For example the way that God did to Canaanites. It should be understood that God did this as way of judgment against Canaanites for their corruptions. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this thread's topic of discussion is "Reconciling science and religion". Not dissecting religious thought or belief.

 

[Randolpin]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this thread's topic of discussion is "Reconciling science and religion". Not dissecting religious thought or belief.

 

I posted that because I read some post that there are contradictions in the Bible which is not. So I gave that example. If God is loving "Why He destroy the Canaanites?" which some think it contradicts to the notion that God is love. We should know that God at the same time just. He hate sin and imperfection because He is perfect.

[DrP]

10 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I posted that because I read some post that there are contradictions in the Bible which is not.

Yes there are, there are loads! - we have had threads discussing them before...  there are videos showing the contradictions. I'll look one of the vids up and post it for you.

11 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

 If God is loving "Why He destroy the Canaanites?" which some think it contradicts to the notion that God is love. We should know that God at the same time just. He hate sin and imperfection because He is perfect.

He hates imperfection, but we are ALL imperfect according to the bible...  so he hates us?   No - he loves us. He loves everyone, if they are perfect, if not, it doesn't matter because he'll forgive you if you repent....  otherwise you will be tortured for all eternity ..  unless you are Canaanite...  then he just kills you anyway.  But he loves you so that's alright.

Can't you see that this is total BS? You are believing this claptrap out of fear of hell..   It is clearly nonsense as it/he/she/the thing/entity/idea you call god just doesn't exist.  

[Prometheus]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Yes there are, there are loads! - we have had threads discussing them before...  there are videos showing the contradictions. I'll look one of the vids up and post it for you.

I like this one:

 

I think people accepting there are contradictions of the Bible is a necessary step if Christianity and secularism are to reconcile. I've emphasised the need for secularists to compromise on certain issues, but there is plenty for religious people to do too. 

[DrP]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I like this one:

 

So do I.     I was going to look that up when I got home. I think it might have been you that posted it originally.

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I posted that because I read some post that there are contradictions in the Bible which is not. So I gave that example. If God is loving "Why He destroy the Canaanites?" which some think it contradicts to the notion that God is love. We should know that God at the same time just. He hate sin and imperfection because He is perfect.

!

Moderator Note

Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, AFAICT. (also, I didn't quote your post; I was not directing this at you in particular.)

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

I posted that because I read some post that there are contradictions in the Bible which is not. So I gave that example. If God is loving "Why He destroy the Canaanites?" which some think it contradicts to the notion that God is love. We should know that God at the same time just. He hate sin and imperfection because He is perfect.

So your topic is dishonest, you just want science/everyone to just accept God/religion as you do, that's not reconciliation that's blind faith, science/atheists will never accept that, why should we.

Edited August 22, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

Fundamentally, it's not that I don't recognise that people derive solace from their religion, but that I think it's not enough of a benefit to offset the cost.

OK, so Gladys can sleep soundly in her bed in the old folks' home, "knowing that she will meet her husband again in the afterlife".

That's very sweet.

Where we disagree is that I think this sort of thing is too high  a price to pay.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jehovahs-witness-parents-refuse-consent-for-sons-lifesaving-blood-transfusion/news-story/464cc5ffff82c6240977d0b52c4a3651

but you think it's OK.

It doesn't look like we are going to change each-other's minds.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Fundamentally, it's not that I don't recognise that people derive solace from their religion, but that I think it's not enough of a benefit to offset the cost.

That's fine because you don't have to do it.

Quote

OK, so Gladys can sleep soundly in her bed in the old folks' home, "knowing that she will meet her husband again in the afterlife".

That's very sweet.

Where we disagree is that I think this sort of thing is too high  a price to pay.http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jehovahs-witness-parents-refuse-consent-for-sons-lifesaving-blood-transfusion/news-story/464cc5ffff82c6240977d0b52c4a3651

So are you assuming that Gladys is a Jehovah's Witness? Or Gladys can't sleep soundly because there are people with stupid beliefs? Or the parents did something idiotic because Gladys is sleeping soundly?

There seems to be some sort of false dichotomy going on here but your argument is rather irrational so I'm not sure what your point is.

(I can't read the link; it seems to require a subscription.)

Quote

but you think it's OK.

Don't be silly 

Every year people die climbing mountains. I recognise that some people get pleasure from their hobby but I don't think its enough of a benefit to offset the cost. But that's OK because I don't have to do it. If I followed your logic, I would argue to ban mountain climbing because of the occasional bad consequences.

Many people are actively engaged in politics. Some of those people espouse hate and encourage the killing of minorities. I realise that politics can be useful but I don't think its enough of a benefit to offset the cost. But that's OK because I don't have to do it. By your logic we should ban politics because some people do bad things in its name.

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

but you think it's OK.

And, presumably, you think it is OK for white supremacists and nazis to mow down innocent bystanders at a rally.

But of course you don't. You know that some people who engage in politics are idiots or worse. And you address the problem by tackling those people and their views, not by saying all politics should be banned.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Strange
Address MigL's comment

[MigL]

My, oh my...

A lot of 'dicks' are being tossed around here lately.

[Area54]

On 18/08/2017 at 0:38 PM, Area54 said:

A proper answer would require a book length treatment, composed over a decade, with several hundred pertinent references.

One of the many improper answers would be that it can offer a cogent, organised ethical focus for individuals predisposed to be followers rather than leaders.

You seem to be an intelligent person. I find it unlikely that you cannot produce even better examples to answer your question, if you try.

John Cuthber replied: "But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.

I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can."

John, perhaps you are not taking this thread seriously. I say this because, based on those of your posts I have read, you do not suffer from poor reading comprehension. Therefore, I am puzzled that you, apparently, do not know the meaning of "improper".

If I state that offering a "cogent, organised ethical focus" is part of an improper answer might it not mean that one or more of those characteristics is invalid? And yet, apparently thinking you are disagreeing with me, you choose to repeat my observation. Odd!

 

[John Cuthber]

On 8/23/2017 at 11:21 AM, Area54 said:

John Cuthber replied: "But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.

I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can."

John, perhaps you are not taking this thread seriously. I say this because, based on those of your posts I have read, you do not suffer from poor reading comprehension. Therefore, I am puzzled that you, apparently, do not know the meaning of "improper".

If I state that offering a "cogent, organised ethical focus" is part of an improper answer might it not mean that one or more of those characteristics is invalid? And yet, apparently thinking you are disagreeing with me, you choose to repeat my observation. Odd!

 

It's a fair cop.

Incidentally, if I post this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/despite-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-activists-in-minnesota-refuse-to-back-down/2017/08/21/886cca3e-820a-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.fa409111ccd4
people will tell me that not all anti vaxers are religious.

Tue, but they are all part of the same group that feed off eachother's irrationality.

(autocorrect messed that up)

Edited August 24, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Manticore]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Incidentally, if I post this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/despite-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-activists-in-minnesota-refuse-to-back-down/2017/08/21/886cca3e-820a-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.fa409111ccd4
people will tell me that not all anti vaxers are religious.

Tue, but they are all part of the same group that feed off schoolteacher's irrationality.

 

Why is that Wakefield shitsucker not in prison?

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

people will tell me that not all anti vaxers are religious.

Tue, but they are all part of the same group that feed off schoolteacher's irrationality.

So you are attacking religion because there are people with irrational (and sometimes dangerous) beliefs. Would it be better to tackle antivaxers as a whole, rather than just the religious ones?

You are attacking something completely irrelevant to the problem.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a fair cop.

Incidentally, if I post this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/despite-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-activists-in-minnesota-refuse-to-back-down/2017/08/21/886cca3e-820a-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.fa409111ccd4
people will tell me that not all anti vaxers are religious.

Tue, but they are all part of the same group that feed off eachother's irrationality.

(autocorrect messed that up)

I am not prepared to invest the time in confirming this, but my education leads me to believe that a singnificant proportion of the first vaccination programs in Africa were promoted, supported, facilitated or delivered by missionaries and church groups. Now, I am not going to deduce from this that all religious are logical and committed to such programs, but I don't think you are standing on solid ground when you appear to assert the opposite.

[John Cuthber]

Looks like I was pretty close.

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

Would it be better to tackle antivaxers as a whole, rather than just the religious ones?

Wouldn't it be better to tackle anti-rationalism as a whole, rather than just antivaxers?

35 minutes ago, Area54 said:

but I don't think you are standing on solid ground when you appear to assert the opposite.

That's nice; but I didn't assert that.

I asserted that faith in irrational things is correlated with faith in other irrational things.
Care to try again with less strawmanning?

[Area54]

50 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Looks like I was pretty close.

Wouldn't it be better to tackle anti-rationalism as a whole, rather than just antivaxers?

That's nice; but I didn't assert that.

I asserted that faith in irrational things is correlated with faith in other irrational things.
Care to try again with less strawmanning?

Point 1: I said you appeared to assert that. I left an element of doubt.

Point 2: Your central thesis has been that religion is "bad". The irrational beliefs is one example of this. The opposition to vaccination is a consequence of these irrational beliefs. You have used this and other examples to support your contention that religion is bad. You present a one-sided view.

Point 3: I cite examples of the good work done by religious groups in delivering aid in third world countries. At the same time I acknowledge, for example, the child abuse  by a subset of priests. I hold a more balanced view.

Point 4: Making that point is not attacking a strawman it is dismantling your central thesis.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Looks like I was pretty close.

Wouldn't it be better to tackle anti-rationalism as a whole, rather than just antivaxers?

Maybe (although that may be impractical). But that (again) seems to be orthogonal to the issue of religion. Not all religious people are irrational and not all non-religious people are rational. Attacking or banning religion won't help increase rationality. 

For example, I am totally in favour of teaching young children the basics of philosophy and critical thinking. That might help avoid the problems of anti-vaxers, conspiracy theorists, homeopathy, reading the Daily Mail, and all sorts of other irrational behaviours.

p.s.I think it is odd that you want to tackle irrationality when you are irrationally obsessing over something that is only incidental to the problems you see. It is like trying to improve road safety by banning left-handed people (because they are responsible for some accidents).

Edited August 24, 2017 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

20 hours ago, Strange said:

Not all religious people are irrational

Believing stuff with no evidence brings their rationality into  question.

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

Point 1: I said you appeared to assert that. I left an element of doubt.

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.

On 8/21/2017 at 9:16 PM, Strange said:

Would it be equally acceptable to say, "there is a lot of petty crime but the serious crimes are often committed by black people"? 

I should have picked up on this one earlier.

It would be if there was a "Book of being Black" that told people to commit  serious crimes (like murdering gay men) in the same way that there's  "Book of being Christian" which does tell people to commit crimes like that.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

For example, I am totally in favour of teaching young children the basics of philosophy and critical thinking.

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.