Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[PeterJ]

Oh dear Moontanman. Bronze age savages. Clearly you have done no research and have no interest in the topic. I can't imagine why Fred would bother arguing with you, or why you bother joining the discussion. Why get involved? To display your lack of interest? To proudly display your ignorance?

 

We won't be able to define religion here. I have seem many people try to do it and the result is never quite satisfactory. By many definition Moontanman's view would qualify, and by other definitions there are some religions that would not qualify.

 

At least we should be able to agree that God is not a necessary phenomenon for religion, since the evidence is clear, and that's a start.

 

And we can be very sure that no sensible discussion can flow from ad hominem blanket attempts to dismiss religion as the work of savages. We should be identifying the claims of religion and testing them in logic and experience, not waiving our arms angrily around like know-it-all teenagers and making fools of ourselves.

 

If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced. This requires engaging with the topic. If we do not engage with it, then our posts are likely to do no more than make ourselves look lazy and foolish, and they will give our opponents nothing to argue about.

Edited July 4, 2014 by PeterJ

[Phi for All]

I find it very curious that you are "opposed to religion".

 

I used your words, "opposed to religion", to describe my personal state. I don't ascribe to one, but I don't oppose the concept or the choice for others.

 

This is another strawman. Religion inadvertently created science because its explanations weren't good enough over time for many people, they couldn't keep up with our evolving intelligence. But we have a lot of people, and I understand that religious explanations are good enough for some. It's irrational to think all of us here to think the same way, respond the same way, and have identical worldviews. I'm skeptic enough to reject religion personally, but remain open to the possibilities inherent in the objective response, "We don't know".

[John Cuthber]

 

 

At least we should be able to agree that God is not a necessary phenomenon for religion, since the evidence is clear, and that's a start.

 

And we can be very sure that no sensible discussion can flow from ad hominem blanket attempts to dismiss religion as the work of savages. We should be identifying the claims of religion and testing them in logic and experience, not waiving our arms angrily around like know-it-all teenagers and making fools of ourselves.

 

If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced.

It's true that there are religions without God(s).

And it's also true that there are bank statements without God(s).

But that doesn't make my bank statement a religion.

And, like that bank statement, atheism doesn't have God(s) and it's not a religion.

 

Whoever wrote the Bible (OK, I know it's not the only example but...) thought that, for example, killing people for their sexuality was an appropriate way to behave.

That's savagery.

They wrote it about 2000 BC and that's pretty much slap in the middle of the bronze age.

 

So, where's the ad hom attack in saying that (at least in the case of the origins of the worlds major religions) religion was started by bronze age savages?

 

 

 

"If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced."

I presume you are aware of lists of such absurdities.

Edited July 4, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

Sorry. I forgot where I was for a moment. Please don't let me disturb your game of fantasy religion.

[dimreepr]

Sorry. I forgot where I was for a moment. Please don't let me disturb your game of fantasy religion.

 

 

You do realise this kind of fallacious argument reflects rather badly on the poster?

 

You’re just pointing out, to all, that you have no legitimate argument, remaining.

 

 

Edit/ Or drunk.

Edited July 4, 2014 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

Sorry. I forgot where I was for a moment. Please don't let me disturb your game of fantasy religion.

Just out of idle curiosity, is it Islam, Judaism or Christianity that you are writing off as a fantasy, or are you equally oblivious to the fact that all three are (whether you like it or not) based on their beliefs of some bronze age savages?

Seriously, are you going to justify your position with some semblance of evidence?

I asked a simple question.

So, where's the ad hom attack in saying that (at least in the case of the origins of the worlds major religions) religion was started by bronze age savages?

are you going to answer it?

Edited July 5, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

Oh dear Moontanman. Bronze age savages. Clearly you have done no research and have no interest in the topic. I can't imagine why Fred would bother arguing with you, or why you bother joining the discussion. Why get involved? To display your lack of interest? To proudly display your ignorance?

So ridicule, misdirection, and an attack on my inteligence is the best you have?

 

We won't be able to define religion here. I have seem many people try to do it and the result is never quite satisfactory. By many definition Moontanman's view would qualify, and by other definitions there are some religions that would not qualify.

Possibly you would be kind enough to tell me what my point of view is?

 

At least we should be able to agree that God is not a necessary phenomenon for religion, since the evidence is clear, and that's a start.

No as i have already said it's the supernatural that defines a religion.

 

And we can be very sure that no sensible discussion can flow from ad hominem blanket attempts to dismiss religion as the work of savages. We should be identifying the claims of religion and testing them in logic and experience, not waiving our arms angrily around like know-it-all teenagers and making fools of ourselves.

So you give me an ad hominem attack and then accuse others of the same thing. Last time I checked The Bible and most other modern religions had their start in the bronze age as the writers of the bible plagiarized earlier poly theistic beliefs?

 

If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced. This requires engaging with the topic. If we do not engage with it, then our posts are likely to do no more than make ourselves look lazy and foolish, and they will give our opponents nothing to argue about.

That is pretty much has been done over and over and over, religion is PRATT your personal attacks on my intelligence and character show you for what you really are..

[Fred Champion]

...

 

... I accept reality as authority not an ancient book or books.

 

...

 

I see no reason to accept an authority based in mythology.

 

...

 

Living your life by following the morals of bronze age savages is not a valid way to live your life..

Well, I think we're finally getting somewhere. You at least seem to recognize the concept of authority.

 

What or who is it that you accept, or believe, as the authority for the truth of the last statement above?

Oh dear Moontanman. Bronze age savages.

 

...

 

If someone wants to argue against religion ....

I really don't see where we, the human race in general, are much evolved from "Bronze age savages". Our technology is what I will call "better", but our relationships with each other, the other creatures on the planet and the environment don't seem to have changed much. I have to wonder if the smart people of today really are any smarter than the smart people of that time.

 

 

This thread is (was) not about arguing for or against religion. Nicholas asked about reconciling science and religion. I believe he meant a reconciliation of the two in how he would deal with both in his thinking and his life, not in some way making one fit inside the other or one superior to the other.

 

I see no justification for demanding he give up one and hold to the other. Much better, I think, to encourage him to seek answers from as broad a spectrum of ideas as he can manage. My experience is that the more one questions, the closer one gets to the truth.

[John Cuthber]

 

I really don't see where we, the human race in general, are much evolved from "Bronze age savages".

Well, most of us have ditched barbaric ideas like stoning adulterers to death and trial by ordeal.

Do you see that as an improvement?

Do you realise that it happened through the abandonment of the idea that religion gives the right answers (i.e that religion has authority)?

[Moontanman]

Well, I think we're finally getting somewhere. You at least seem to recognize the concept of authority.

 

What or who is it that you accept, or believe, as the authority for the truth of the last statement above?

Again as I said in the quote you used... What not who and the what is reality with a large helping of empathy thrown in..

 

I really don't see where we, the human race in general, are much evolved from "Bronze age savages". Our technology is what I will call "better", but our relationships with each other, the other creatures on the planet and the environment don't seem to have changed much. I have to wonder if the smart people of today really are any smarter than the smart people of that time.

People in the past were as intelligent as we are they just didn't have the knowledge base that we do to build on... It's our culture that has evolved significantly since then not us.

 

 

This thread is (was) not about arguing for or against religion. Nicholas asked about reconciling science and religion. I believe he meant a reconciliation of the two in how he would deal with both in his thinking and his life, not in some way making one fit inside the other or one superior to the other.

Reconciliation, as long as you don't require your god or reality to conform to the writings of bronze age savages I think the disconnect is much smaller and easier to deal with..

 

I see no justification for demanding he give up one and hold to the other. Much better, I think, to encourage him to seek answers from as broad a spectrum of ideas as he can manage. My experience is that the more one questions, the closer one gets to the truth.

The only problem I have with this is seeking answers from religion when religion has no answers only dogma...

[Nicholas Kang]

Personally, this thread, for me is a remarkable success. I have never ever post a topic with 1299 views and over 109 replies. I am very very happy.

 

Or at least it seemed that way.

 

I am getting lost in this topic. I don`t know what are all of you talking about. My question is simple. Can we unite religion and Science. if yes, why? if no, why? Really simple. But I don`t understand why all of you are getting lost from the main point.

[Fred Champion]

Well, most of us have ditched barbaric ideas like stoning adulterers to death and trial by ordeal.

Do you see that as an improvement?

Do you realise that it happened through the abandonment of the idea that religion gives the right answers (i.e that religion has authority)?

I expect you know that adultery in pre "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" times was defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. Men and unmarried women would not be charged with adultery. I think it is necessary to understand in that strict patriarchal society the laws on property rights and inheritance were such that bastard children were effectively non-members of the society. A woman pregnant with a bastard child would be shunned or put out and about the best she could do even in another society was to be taken in as a slave. There were no treatments for STDs. By committing adultery a woman proved she could not be trusted by her husband to keep her marriage vows and condemned herself, and her child if one survived, to a life of misery.

 

Was a quick death seen as better than a life of misery? Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion? Perhaps if the people of those times had had better medical technology they would have left the stones on the ground.

 

Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage? No, I don't think I do. And I don't see a social system that keeps unmarried women and fatherless children in ghettos as government pets with very little hope of a life outside of drugs, gangs, prison and an early death as much improvement either. In another two or three thousand years will we not be seen as "Information Age barbarians"?

Personally, this thread, for me is a remarkable success. I have never ever post a topic with 1299 views and over 109 replies. I am very very happy.

 

Or at least it seemed that way.

 

I am getting lost in this topic. I don`t know what are all of you talking about. My question is simple. Can we unite religion and Science. if yes, why? if no, why? Really simple. But I don`t understand why all of you are getting lost from the main point.

Nicholas, you are going to have to decide on terms and definitions to get a clear answer. "Unite" is not the same as "reconcile". "Religion" is not the same as "belief in a God". Present the terms and definitions you want others to use and they will use them.

[Nicholas Kang]

Now only I realise why. Need to do some homework.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[John Cuthber]

I expect you know that adultery in pre "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" times was defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. Men and unmarried women would not be charged with adultery. I think it is necessary to understand in that strict patriarchal society the laws on property rights and inheritance were such that bastard children were effectively non-members of the society. A woman pregnant with a bastard child would be shunned or put out and about the best she could do even in another society was to be taken in as a slave. There were no treatments for STDs. By committing adultery a woman proved she could not be trusted by her husband to keep her marriage vows and condemned herself, and her child if one survived, to a life of misery.

 

Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion?

 

Thanks for pointing out yet more examples of their barbarity- for example the disparity between men and women. (This may be news to you, but the promulgation of sexually transmitted diseases generally requires both sexes to be involved. On a related note it takes two to tango so this "Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage?" is insanely sexist)

 

You seem to overlook the fact that, had a woman felt that her life was no longer worth living (because of the religiously enshrined attitudes of the shits around her) she could always kill herself without enlisting the help of a mob.

Ought the choice be hers?

Oh, no, I forgot- the church condemns suicide too.

And, on a related matter, they don't support euthanasia so, if it thought that this was in some sense a "mercy killing" it would be forbidden, rather than compulsory (Though the church is no stranger to that sort of hypocrisy)

And, in reply to your question " Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion?"

No, we don't.

It's possibly a factor in some people's decision, but the simple reason for the legality of abortion is that we recognise the woman's right to choose.

[Moontanman]

I expect you know that adultery in pre "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" times was defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. Men and unmarried women would not be charged with adultery. I think it is necessary to understand in that strict patriarchal society the laws on property rights and inheritance were such that bastard children were effectively non-members of the society. A woman pregnant with a bastard child would be shunned or put out and about the best she could do even in another society was to be taken in as a slave. There were no treatments for STDs. By committing adultery a woman proved she could not be trusted by her husband to keep her marriage vows and condemned herself, and her child if one survived, to a life of misery.

 

Was a quick death seen as better than a life of misery? Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion? Perhaps if the people of those times had had better medical technology they would have left the stones on the ground.

 

Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage? No, I don't think I do. And I don't see a social system that keeps unmarried women and fatherless children in ghettos as government pets with very little hope of a life outside of drugs, gangs, prison and an early death as much improvement either. In another two or three thousand years will we not be seen as "Information Age barbarians"?

 

 

 

 

We may indeed be barbarians to our descendants but at least we don't kill people for working on Sundays or support slavery or genocide or child molestation. Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions are not only barbaric but they are morally bankrupt, my morals are far better than that god or his followers if they follow his moral code...

 

As for abortion religious people insisting on restricting birth control and or information about birth control result in more abortions than educating people.

 

In fact the most religious areas of the country that refuse to teach sex education other than abstinence have much higher abortion rates than less religious areas. In fact the most religious extreme states like Texas where teaching young people about birth control is not allowed have higher rates of second abortions than any one else...

 

Religion is barbaric, only a barbaric culture would follow the barbaric immoral code of the Abrahamic god and religion only serves to impede science while it uses the very thing it denigrates to convince more people to follow the religion.

 

Science works, religion does nothing, gives us no new knowledge and it, religion, had to be gelded by secular governments before we could even begin to form first world societies based on the scientific method.

 

Make no mistake, take away religion and the world is no worse than it already is, take away science and the progress it has given us and millions begin to die immediately, with in months billions will be dead. Pray for sanitation, pray for electricity, pray for food...

[dimreepr]

I expect you know that adultery in pre "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" times was defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. Men and unmarried women would not be charged with adultery. I think it is necessary to understand in that strict patriarchal society the laws on property rights and inheritance were such that bastard children were effectively non-members of the society. A woman pregnant with a bastard child would be shunned or put out and about the best she could do even in another society was to be taken in as a slave. There were no treatments for STDs. By committing adultery a woman proved she could not be trusted by her husband to keep her marriage vows and condemned herself, and her child if one survived, to a life of misery.

 

Was a quick death seen as better than a life of misery? Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion? Perhaps if the people of those times had had better medical technology they would have left the stones on the ground.

 

Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage? No, I don't think I do. And I don't see a social system that keeps unmarried women and fatherless children in ghettos as government pets with very little hope of a life outside of drugs, gangs, prison and an early death as much improvement either. In another two or three thousand years will we not be seen as "Information Age barbarians"?

 

 

Misogamy, literally, describes a hatred for marriage, not women, in the past; but this post describes, accurately, the etymological difference, between then and now.

[Fred Champion]

...

As for abortion religious people insisting on restricting birth control and or information about birth control result in more abortions than educating people.

...

The thing that "results" in more abortions is more women getting pregnant outside marriage. It should be obvious that these women are not holding to any religious code regarding sex outside marriage. Sorry, but you cannot blame their sexual activity, their resultant pregnancy rate or their abortions on a religion they are not practicing.

 

I absolutely agree that we should educate young people about sex, and relationships as well. Education on relationships might just be more important. If I had my way, we would have bins of condoms and morning after pills free for the taking at the entrance to every business. It would be much better if we could put something in the water to prevent conception and require genetic and mental tests as well as proof of ability to provide for a child before issuing a license for the antidote, but then we would be accused of eugenics.

 

Besides all this, the point of my post was that religious practices, and religion in general, are part of the culture. I expect we cannot say fairly that religion builds culture. Culture must be in place first before a religion can address issues in that culture. Best example I can think of is the prohibition against eating cattle in India. It was made to break the cycles of plenty and famine resulting from eating the cow after a crop failure leading to a smaller planting since there would be no animal to pull the plow the next season. Of course human nature being what it is, we do seem to be prone to taking even the best ideas to extremes.

 

Nicholas, in your efforts, I hope you will investigate how ideas become religions.

... insanely sexist

 

... we recognise the woman's right to choose.

Men don't get pregnant.

 

We leave the decision to terminate another's life to the individual. And why not, we leave the decision to engage in the activity which created that life to the individual.

 

Am I allowed to suggest that society (you and I) should be more than just offended by a woman deciding to engage in an activity that may burden the rest of us with providing for her and a child? She has that "right"? What about our rights? And let's not bring up the politically un-correct notion that the child has rights.

[dimreepr]

Men don't get pregnant.

 

 

 

But they do impregnate, this post just blames those who carry the can, which seems fair.

Edited July 8, 2014 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

The thing that "results" in more abortions is more women getting pregnant outside marriage.

The thing that "results" in more abortions is men.

And it is absurd to lose sight of that and blame the women.

[Delta1212]

If I set a house on fire, are you going to blame the house for being flammable?

[Moontanman]

The thing that "results" in more abortions is more women getting pregnant outside marriage. It should be obvious that these women are not holding to any religious code regarding sex outside marriage. Sorry, but you cannot blame their sexual activity, their resultant pregnancy rate or their abortions on a religion they are not practicing.

 

I absolutely agree that we should educate young people about sex, and relationships as well. Education on relationships might just be more important. If I had my way, we would have bins of condoms and morning after pills free for the taking at the entrance to every business. It would be much better if we could put something in the water to prevent conception and require genetic and mental tests as well as proof of ability to provide for a child before issuing a license for the antidote, but then we would be accused of eugenics.

 

Besides all this, the point of my post was that religious practices, and religion in general, are part of the culture. I expect we cannot say fairly that religion builds culture. Culture must be in place first before a religion can address issues in that culture. Best example I can think of is the prohibition against eating cattle in India. It was made to break the cycles of plenty and famine resulting from eating the cow after a crop failure leading to a smaller planting since there would be no animal to pull the plow the next season. Of course human nature being what it is, we do seem to be prone to taking even the best ideas to extremes.

 

Nicholas, in your efforts, I hope you will investigate how ideas become religions.

Men don't get pregnant.

 

We leave the decision to terminate another's life to the individual. And why not, we leave the decision to engage in the activity which created that life to the individual.

 

Am I allowed to suggest that society (you and I) should be more than just offended by a woman deciding to engage in an activity that may burden the rest of us with providing for her and a child? She has that "right"? What about our rights? And let's not bring up the politically un-correct notion that the child has rights.

 

 

Fred, what religious code are we talking about here? Are talking about the one that allows a man to take his wife to the priests if he thinks she has been unfaithful so the priest can force an abortion on her?

[John Cuthber]

My word! surely only some weird crank religion would suggest that. Which one is it?

[Fred Champion]

 

 

Fred, what religious code are we talking about here? Are talking about the one that allows a man to take his wife to the priests if he thinks she has been unfaithful so the priest can force an abortion on her?

What religious code? Do you mean the one the woman is not practicing? Difficult to determine what she is not doing since she is not doing it.

 

Please tell us which religious text and the part in it that you refer to. I recall none that allow forced abortions.

 

Both John Cuthber and I would like to know.

The thing that "results" in more abortions is men.

And it is absurd to lose sight of that and blame the women.

No pregnancy equals no abortion. Very scientific.

 

Without unwanted conception there would be no reason for abortion.

 

Human nature: men will have sex with anything that will let them. Very scientific.

 

If woman doesn't allow, man must commit crime of rape.

 

Unless and until we evolve to where men get pregnant, women must bear the responsibility for pregnancy.

If I set a house on fire, are you going to blame the house for being flammable?

Since you didn't say, I will suppose the house doesn't have to be particularly attractive to you in order for you to get up what it takes to set it on fire. If you're like most men, if a house will open its door you will enter. If a house is willing to have you inside, shame on the house for not protecting itself from your fire starter.

I mean really people, let's talk real world.

 

In general: A man doesn't give a rip if a woman gets pregnant because he has sex with her. He sees it as her problem, not his. All the man is after is the sex. He will say and do pretty much anything he has to to get it. No ladies, he doesn't love you and he won't respect you the morning after. Get over it. Men have always seen women as sex objects. Its the old Clint Eastwood movie thing: if you can't eat it, fight it or f__k it then piss on it; if women didn't have a pu__sy there would be a bounty on them, they would just be varmints.

 

Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Fred Champion

[iNow]

Get over it. Men have always seen women as sex objects. Its the old Clint Eastwood movie thing: if you can't eat it, fight it or f__k it then piss on it; if women didn't have a pu__sy there would be a bounty on them, they would just be varmints.

 

Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

Well, no. It's not. Perhaps you believe it to be true because you have a warped sense of reality and believe in bronze age era tribal nonsense, but the quickest and most obvious counter example is a father of daughters (where none of those generalizations apply). Same for brothers with sisters, and frankly any man not raised by a knuckle dragging booger eaters.

 

Not all men are asshats and some recognize and respect the core humanity in others, even when they happen to have lady parts.

[John Cuthber]

 

No pregnancy equals no abortion. Very scientific.

 

Without unwanted conception there would be no reason for abortion.

 

Human nature: men will have sex with anything that will let them. Very scientific.

 

Well, if (and it's a big "if") you are right the problem is the men. They will screw anything so the women will end up pregnant and unmarried.

That is, you claim, the root of these abortions.

So why do you keep blaming the women?