More on Rationality and Religious Belief

[ydoaPs]

There's a myth that runs rampant among many fundamentalist circles that the would would plummet into chaos without religion. I've brought up the data showing that religious belief is actually inversely correlated with several measures of societal health.

 

In terms of rationality, I've brought up the data showing that analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief, and the data showing an inverse relationship between religious belief and intelligence. There's also data showing that children raised to be religious have more difficulty in telling the difference between fact and fiction.

 

Now, there's a new study. In this one, the data shows that religious belief is inversely correlated with scientific advance.

[Ten oz]

I too have always found the world of chaos without religion theory ridiculous. Humans need other humans. We are a cooperative species. Humans thrive in groups. We are not solitary animals. A humans alone would be too preoccupied with the daily chores of life to do anything else. Creating societies large enough that different people can focus on different aspects of life (farming, building, educating, etc) has been critical to human advancement. God or no god doesn't change the basic fact that humans succeed through cooperation.

[pears]

Do you have a specific example of the argument you're attacking? It would be useful to have something concrete to discuss otherwise this could be a very one-sided conversation

[Phi for All]

The political power of the religious groups in each country is the major factor here, imo. Religious groups that get involved in politics as religious groups seem to have the influence to block advancement they don't approve of. And because many of these groups are fairly fundamentalist-leaning, they don't approve of much when it comes to science.

 

I think it's always been organized religious groups that cross over from their religion into other aspects of life that cause problems for non-believers. Groups that stay focused on their own group and don't try to impose their beliefs via legislation don't seem to be much of a problem.

[iNow]

Do you have a specific example of the argument you're attacking? It would be useful to have something concrete to discuss otherwise this could be a very one-sided conversation

It's hard to share "just one" because it's such a common theist screed. This argument is incredibly common and used all too frequently against atheists despite its ridiculous premises.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Positions_on_religion_and_morality

[s1eep]

It's not to say that there should be nothing opposed to science, because without some entity governing our scientific advancement we will destroy ourselves. However, I agree, the religion of today and those that include God can be rid of and harmony still pertain.

[zapatos]

It's not to say that there should be nothing opposed to science, because without some entity governing our scientific advancement we will destroy ourselves. However, I agree, the religion of today and those that include God can be rid of and harmony still pertain.

I don't think you can equate 'an entity governing our scientific advancement' with being 'opposed to science'. Just the opposite in fact. I would suggest that entities governing our scientific advancement are supportive of science.

Unless of course the 'entity governing our scientific advancement' you are referring to is on par with religion. In which case I would have to disagree with you for other reasons.

 

Why do you think we will destroy ourselves without something opposed to science? Have we diverted any disasters in the past due to opposition to science?

[s1eep]

I don't think you can equate 'an entity governing our scientific advancement' with being 'opposed to science'. Just the opposite in fact. I would suggest that entities governing our scientific advancement are supportive of science.

Unless of course the 'entity governing our scientific advancement' you are referring to is on par with religion. In which case I would have to disagree with you for other reasons.

 

Why do you think we will destroy ourselves without something opposed to science? Have we diverted any disasters in the past due to opposition to science?

I think you can consider a subjective entity as opposite to science, there are lessons to learn from analysing both science and religion; I'm sure that we can learn from observing mistakes, and because these mistakes happen in nature they are effected by nature, they revolve around a particular meaning that is true (or real), but they don't correctly express it. Basically, as oppose to science we can put humans or multiple humans using a word/communicating; I think that what's "opposite" doesn't always have to be exactly opposite, or relevant in some way, but there are simplified opposites such as standing next to someone, and there can be different frequencies and levels of opposites.

[zapatos]

Sorry to be so blunt, but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[Skeptic134]

It's not to say that there should be nothing opposed to science, because without some entity governing our scientific advancement we will destroy ourselves. However, I agree, the religion of today and those that include God can be rid of and harmony still pertain.

 

Science is a tool only, it doesn't need to be reined in as it has no motives of its own. Promoting and fostering good science on the other hand is very important but we don't need religion to do that.

[Phi for All]

It's not to say that there should be nothing opposed to science, because without some entity governing our scientific advancement we will destroy ourselves.

 

Whoa, give us some credit here. We're 70 years into the nuclear age. After discovering the fissionable capabilities of uranium, we've managed to avoid "destroying ourselves" with a weapon that's several orders of magnitude more destructive than anything we had previously. It's not any single governing entity that keeps scientific advancement from destroying us. I'd have to chalk that one up to an general mutual distaste for mass murder.

 

I think you can consider a subjective entity as opposite to science, there are lessons to learn from analysing both science and religion; I'm sure that we can learn from observing mistakes, and because these mistakes happen in nature they are effected by nature, they revolve around a particular meaning that is true (or real), but they don't correctly express it. Basically, as oppose to science we can put humans or multiple humans using a word/communicating; I think that what's "opposite" doesn't always have to be exactly opposite, or relevant in some way, but there are simplified opposites such as standing next to someone, and there can be different frequencies and levels of opposites.

 

You've GOT to stop doing this. Step away from the salad tongs! Words are not meant to be tossed around this way. They lose their meaning easily if you've just stitched them together without considering that nobody else knows what you mean by "simplified opposites" or that "'opposite' doesn't always have to be exactly opposite, or relevant in some way".

 

IOW, it doesn't make you sound as smart as you think it does, or as smart as I know you really are. Just sayin'.

[s1eep]

 

Whoa, give us some credit here. We're 70 years into the nuclear age. After discovering the fissionable capabilities of uranium, we've managed to avoid "destroying ourselves" with a weapon that's several orders of magnitude more destructive than anything we had previously. It's not any single governing entity that keeps scientific advancement from destroying us. I'd have to chalk that one up to an general mutual distaste for mass murder.

This is just poetry, it's not a rational analysis of scientific advancement, in all it's kinds. Though you are right in thinking we are able to control it; what I'm saying is that this control is as oppose to science; as a child is as oppose to it's mother and father. Religion is a reflection of this control in conjunction with a word which restricts us to a singular perspective (there are plenty of forms of communication with far more complex meanings; far more advanced forms of words beyond words---imagine talking in pictures), and yes, religion is an abomination, it's not really the true representative of "what's opposed to science?", the control, the regulation, faith.

Edited September 9, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

This is just poetry, it's not a rational analysis of scientific advancement, in all it's kinds.

What?! Annihilation via nuclear or biological warfare is one of the explanations for the Fermi Paradox. That we haven't wiped ourselves out after 70 years of knowing exactly how to is a very good argument that other intelligent life exists in the universe. That we haven't yet been visited by such life forms might say something about how difficult this is and how well we're handling such knowledge.

 

Though you are right in thinking we are able to control it; what I'm saying is that this control is as oppose to science; as a child is as oppose to it's mother and father. Religion is a reflection of this control in conjunction with a word which restricts us to a singular perspective (there are plenty of forms of communication with far more complex meanings; far more advanced forms of words beyond words---imagine talking in pictures), and yes, religion is an abomination, it's not really the true representative of "what's opposed to science?", the control, the regulation, faith.

I don't understand anything about the above, other than you think "religion is an abomination".

 

Just an observation, but it seems like you have this sort of over-arching concept you're struggling with, a patchwork hypothesis you've developed to take the place of some ideas you no longer support. Now you're trying to equate EVERYTHING with this idea of yours, but you're having trouble communicating that to others. You don't know the standard terminology, so you're stringing together words that make sense to you in a context nobody else shares.

 

This is another reason why mainstream studies are important.