Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,236
- Reactions
- 8,479
I am not a physicist, so rather than debate me here, why don't you take up your grievances with the scientific community.
Religion IS crazy!
- Thread starter Sean K
- Start date
I am not a physicist, so rather than debate me here, why don't you take up your grievances with the scientific community.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Thankyou for acknowledging that.
Years ago I saw an interview where a well known scientist claimed that most of his knowledge was learned from mistakes.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Please do me the courtesy of not misquoting me!
Ask yourself this! What do those disinterested in theism get from repetitively inferring moral and intellectual superiority over those subscribing to theistic beliefs?
My intention is to highlight the multitude of behavioural parallels in the vain hope of saving science from repetition of the mistakes made by its ancestral religions.
As I've said before, science is a great religion! It has enormous potential. I despise the manner in which some insecure individuals choose to misuse it. I don't want to see its progress inhibited by the narrowmindedness and bigotry of such misguided individuals. The jaundiced behaviours of some(not all) advocates for science are threatening to stifle the progress of humanity's quest for knowledge. I am opposed to such individuals. (Please note I am cognisant of the hypocrisy inherent to my opposition.)
Must I continue sermonising, or have the acolytes of the pseudo scientist "Dawkins" gotten my message?
Edit:
P.S. I vaguely recall asking a question of you some time ago lindsay, but do not recall receipt of a response.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Then you'll love mine!
I'm partially descended from life in another galaxy!
Please don't ask me to prove it to you. I do not wish to submit my DNA samples to the scrutiny of the moderators.
The Nigerian school massacre by Islamic lunatics is truly horrific. Every decent person, whether Christian or not, will be appalled by such barbarity.
And yet this sort of cruelty and senseless killing is nothing new, in fact it’s quite common in the bible, with in some cases the Christian god himself ordering the killing or actually carrying out the murders in person.
Remember, this is the Christian god we’re talking about, the god who Christians regard as a role model who's kind and just and full of compassion and love.
God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
(Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
My experience with ancient civilisations that are considered widely by historians to be "successful" or "monuments of all time" (or whatever historians call them) is that most of them had strong value systems that were communicated through myths, legends, magic tales of beauty, wonder, life, death.... abstraction as opposed to the mundanity of every day life. They had something else to explain the unexplainable, and built their cultural purpose around it. They embraced art and the human condition (the search for meaning in an irrational universe), and this heavily revolved around their spirituality. Their cultural truths about were not necessarily a literal interpretation of their myths and art, but as a metaphor for expressing life as something worth living, in a way that is otherwise unexplainable.
In my view, it is hard to find within the history of man societies without a strong sense of spirituality / myth (call it religion if you wish), that were highly successful in the long-run (that didn't completely destroy themselves from within due to having weak core values before they really got going). More so, because it is hard to bind and build a whole culture around a common purpose and set of values without attempting to explain the unknown.
In my view, it is hard to find within the history of man societies without a strong sense of spirituality / myth (call it religion if you wish), that were highly successful in the long-run (that didn't completely destroy themselves from within due to having weak core values before they really got going). More so, because it is hard to bind and build a whole culture around a common purpose and set of values without attempting to explain the unknown.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Ves, I must say that I've quite enjoyed reading your perspective on this!
I was also impressed by your inclusion of the word "bind" into your rationalisations. (I surmise that this was done intentionally.)
I was also impressed by your inclusion of the word "bind" into your rationalisations. (I surmise that this was done intentionally.)
It seems essential from my somewhat unlearned perspective!
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,236
- Reactions
- 8,479
Do you think it is better to fill the unknown with real facts or would you still suggest the myths are better even after the facts have been discovered.
Yes, old societies had some great artwork inspired with religion, however a lot of them also have other things such as human sacrifice. As i said earlier, religion has some bad side effects, i dont believe any of the good aspects rely on the religion.
You can still have all the values, art etc with out the beliefs that lead to war and human sacrifice.
I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this. But if something is "unknown" you cannot fill it with real facts, because the assumption is that you don't have any real facts yet. It sounds like you are asking two questions at once in the same sentence. Actual facts always take precedence over myths; but conversely they must first be actual facts. Science cannot possibly answer the meaning of life, because the universe itself is by definition devoid of ultimate meaning or purpose. It is at this stage, based on current evidence, fairly hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine science answering every single question imagined under the human condition. At this point in time, art and culture and religion fill that void.
All I will say is that the two are not mutually inclusive. Success or longevity of such a state is not dictated by perfection of execution as is demonstrated by pretty much any society that you can imagine. Utopia is a pretty useless concept in reality.
Religion / spirituality / whatever is not mutually inclusive of war and human sacrifice by definition. Science does not deal in morality or purpose, it is supposed to be a way of gaining knowledge about the natural world (or the universe). Morality is subjective, not objective, so how can science assume this mantle?
Can you name any societies that got by with just science or atheism that we can study?
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
It seems I have my answer!
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,236
- Reactions
- 8,479
Yes, but many of the phenomenon worshipped by the older societies you mentioned have been explained, and we are continually explaining things. In my opinion it is better to say "We don't know" to the things we don't know rather than make up an answer. And there are things that have been explained now which religious groups actively protest against, eg evolution
And religions often discourage investigations that uncover evidence that goes against a core belief.
True, but neither can any religion.
I actually don't think there is a meaning of life, other than the meaning or purpose you give to your own life, and to think someone else can tell you what the meaning of your life should be seems silly to me.
I heard someone else say, "its like someone asking what's the meaning of a mountain, what's its purpose, science can tell us the geologic cause of mountains, but to think mountains have some spiritual purpose that needs explaining is silly, mountain are because they are, life is because it is"
No, but looking around it does always seem to have its grubby little hands in the majority of conflict and human sacrifice.
And as I stated earlier, it seems to me conflicts drag on much longer when the sides are divided by religion, the conflicts divided by religion tend to be multi generational.
I don't believe religious morality is best, morality has developed over a very long period of time, and will continue to do so. Religion tends to try and drive a stake in the ground and say "this is moral, nothing can change that" that's why you see people using religion as a reason to discriminate against others such as the LGBT community.
I think what is considered moral needs to be reasoned and thought out and debated and be subject to change, this is not what happens when it gets ordered down by a high priest using his interpretation of a 2000 year old book.
VC - all I'm saying is this:
To have a successful civilisation you need to be able to bind most people to some sort of moral code, which filters down from the culture and values of said civilisation. You cannot have a highly individualistic based moral code (ie. everyone picks their own destiny and their own morals), because eventually you will have anarchy after everyone clashes and the knives and guns come out again.
Such wide moral codes are generally always assessed from first principles (higher powers, meaning of universe, human condition & raison d'être etc) - it's hard to see how it is unavoidable to not incorporate something unexplainable or abstract in any such reasoning (I use this word loosely). So how can you just say "we don't know"? There's so many morality codes in existence that it's fairly hard to see how any of them could be anything approaching objective or scientific, instead they are approximations that were at some point to be agreed best, working theories (sound familiar?) to form the basis of society.
To have a successful civilisation you need to be able to bind most people to some sort of moral code, which filters down from the culture and values of said civilisation. You cannot have a highly individualistic based moral code (ie. everyone picks their own destiny and their own morals), because eventually you will have anarchy after everyone clashes and the knives and guns come out again.
Such wide moral codes are generally always assessed from first principles (higher powers, meaning of universe, human condition & raison d'être etc) - it's hard to see how it is unavoidable to not incorporate something unexplainable or abstract in any such reasoning (I use this word loosely). So how can you just say "we don't know"? There's so many morality codes in existence that it's fairly hard to see how any of them could be anything approaching objective or scientific, instead they are approximations that were at some point to be agreed best, working theories (sound familiar?) to form the basis of society.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,236
- Reactions
- 8,479
Agreed, religion tends to divide people though, it creates ingroups and out groups. A moral code doesn't have to be religious. It can be based a rational, reasoned and debated system, enforced by laws which are not religious in nature.
I am not saying the moral code in individualistic, I am saying the "meaning of life"(as you put it) is individualistic and no religion can tell you what the meaning of your life is.
the guns and knives are already out, in the name of religion. Because there are people that know what their god wants, and he wants you dead, Nothing you can say can change their mind, because they know their interpretation of their holy book is correct.
This is the dangerous and harmful side of believing religious teachings and old scriptures, I don't believe any of the good things you have mentioned religion does rely on the religion, so I think they can be achieved in less dangerous ways.
I think the development of morals was a naturally explainable phenomenon, that has been high jacked by the religious, the introduction of false sins, and warped morals is a way of controlling people.
And as I said, morals tend to develop over time and improve, where as religions tend to try and drive a stake in the ground and say this is absolute, it can not be discussed.
You mixing two topics here. I am saying the best answer to unexplainable things about the universe is "I don't know", (nothing about morality)
I agree most moral systems were at some point to be agreed best, working theories by some group, But religions try to instill the idea that that group had it all figured out, and we can't go against what they said, no what what new information comes to light. This is wrong in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe there's a better way of making my point. I will try again.
Morality, may or may not exist in the universe - we don't know, but we use it as the best working and practical theory. That's what I meant about "we don't know" - the concepts of good / bad, right / wrong are far as we know are defined by humans not the universe. However, as a side note Kant and others had a widely accepted argument by both theists and non-theists alike that mere existence of objective moral truth would by definition imply the necessity of a creator or some sort of intelligent design. I don't really want to go into that but I thought I'd point it out if you wanted to research that argument in your own interest.
My point is that humans trying to define universal concepts such as good / bad and right / wrong is akin to making a leap of faith - there's possibilities for rationalisation and logic after these first principles have been defined, of course. Moral systems are constantly developing because they are subjective in nature.
They are based on what is accepted and works best at the time. But that does not change the very nature of their first principles. All of them have debatable motherhood statements at their very core (whether it's a God, a purpose or meaning of life, or anything).
I will also add that the very point of a moral code, is to some extent, exert control and order upon a whole group of people.
Morality, may or may not exist in the universe - we don't know, but we use it as the best working and practical theory. That's what I meant about "we don't know" - the concepts of good / bad, right / wrong are far as we know are defined by humans not the universe. However, as a side note Kant and others had a widely accepted argument by both theists and non-theists alike that mere existence of objective moral truth would by definition imply the necessity of a creator or some sort of intelligent design. I don't really want to go into that but I thought I'd point it out if you wanted to research that argument in your own interest.
My point is that humans trying to define universal concepts such as good / bad and right / wrong is akin to making a leap of faith - there's possibilities for rationalisation and logic after these first principles have been defined, of course. Moral systems are constantly developing because they are subjective in nature.
They are based on what is accepted and works best at the time. But that does not change the very nature of their first principles. All of them have debatable motherhood statements at their very core (whether it's a God, a purpose or meaning of life, or anything).
I will also add that the very point of a moral code, is to some extent, exert control and order upon a whole group of people.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,236
- Reactions
- 8,479
.
I think they are definitely defined by humans, and some one saying their morality comes from a god is just seeking to circumvent the rational debate and force their personal opinions on others.
I disagree, I think that the point of a moral code should be to improve the lives and personal freedoms of a whole group. Not to exert control a group of people.
I think you're both correct and both not 
My interpretation of a good moral code/ethics is a legal and governmental system that has evolved over time as a society's means of managing the best outcomes for the group as a whole. The first principle/motherhood statements may simply have been whatever was necessary to ensure the survival of the tribe.
I agree that the point is largely to exert control over a large group of people - hopefully to achieve the optimal outcomes for the majority.
I also agree that it's possible that the invention of a "God" may have been seen as the easiest way to get the masses to toe the line, with the promise of eternal life for being "good" and eternity in the fires of hell for being "bad" powerful tools to use on a suggestible and superstitious populace. I feel that as humans now understand so much more about our world and how it works than we did, the various religions are having to adapt and evolve themselves in order to retain their power. Increasing numbers of people have lost faith and belief. As a community's morals, ethics and cultural beliefs evolve, the various religions are not keeping pace - leading to great disharmony over matters such as sexual orientation, contraception, education etc. For a large number of people knowledge, aided by scientific discoveries, has served to remove the superstitious belief in an almighty supernatural creator. What once bound us, seems now to be dividing us.
Religious beliefs no doubt played a pivotal role in binding people to a moral code, but those same beliefs also have played a part in dividing one culture/community from another - often with violent and tragic consequences. Whether religion itself was always to blame for some of the wars fought in its name, or whether it was simply the easiest tool to use to rally the masses, may be debatable - but I think we are now increasingly a global society where the divisions between us are beginning to do more harm than good.
My interpretation of a good moral code/ethics is a legal and governmental system that has evolved over time as a society's means of managing the best outcomes for the group as a whole. The first principle/motherhood statements may simply have been whatever was necessary to ensure the survival of the tribe.
I agree that the point is largely to exert control over a large group of people - hopefully to achieve the optimal outcomes for the majority.
I also agree that it's possible that the invention of a "God" may have been seen as the easiest way to get the masses to toe the line, with the promise of eternal life for being "good" and eternity in the fires of hell for being "bad" powerful tools to use on a suggestible and superstitious populace. I feel that as humans now understand so much more about our world and how it works than we did, the various religions are having to adapt and evolve themselves in order to retain their power. Increasing numbers of people have lost faith and belief. As a community's morals, ethics and cultural beliefs evolve, the various religions are not keeping pace - leading to great disharmony over matters such as sexual orientation, contraception, education etc. For a large number of people knowledge, aided by scientific discoveries, has served to remove the superstitious belief in an almighty supernatural creator. What once bound us, seems now to be dividing us.
Religious beliefs no doubt played a pivotal role in binding people to a moral code, but those same beliefs also have played a part in dividing one culture/community from another - often with violent and tragic consequences. Whether religion itself was always to blame for some of the wars fought in its name, or whether it was simply the easiest tool to use to rally the masses, may be debatable - but I think we are now increasingly a global society where the divisions between us are beginning to do more harm than good.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Although I am interpreting this quoted excerpt outside of its intended context, I believe it offers some insight into certain aspects of this repetitious debate:
VC - my reading of our discussion is that we are probably fairly close to agreement on a lot of the key points.
It may be that my post last night could have been better served in the other "Science vs Religion" thread as posting it in this thread may have accidently meant that others could confuse me with someone who is taking sides of religion (in the sense that most of the debate in here is very combative "us" vs "them" and it was not my intention to participate in that way).
I was very careful not to strictly confine what I meant by myths and tales and legends to encompass a strict definition of religion (if you read back on my posts I tried fairly hard not to use the word religion unless absolutely necessary). Possibly splitting hairs, but the distinction between religion vs organised religion may have come in handy somewhere along the way too.
Perhaps I was better served by simply saying something to the extent of "Ancient societies were able to create a narrative to bind their peoples around a common value system and culture which enabled them to exist in a nature that many would deem successful until this narrative became corrupted further on in time."
It is this narrative that science itself cannot create because it is subjective, and for this reason the basis of any moral code, seems to me to encounter a suspension of reality or a reliance on people making a leap of faith to accept its validity. For that reason it may appear that the concept of ethics shares closer ties with forms of religion than it does science.
If you wish to remove religion then you need to replace its narrative with something from a similar sphere IMO.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs with this distinction. It's hard to say!!!
It may be that my post last night could have been better served in the other "Science vs Religion" thread as posting it in this thread may have accidently meant that others could confuse me with someone who is taking sides of religion (in the sense that most of the debate in here is very combative "us" vs "them" and it was not my intention to participate in that way).
I was very careful not to strictly confine what I meant by myths and tales and legends to encompass a strict definition of religion (if you read back on my posts I tried fairly hard not to use the word religion unless absolutely necessary). Possibly splitting hairs, but the distinction between religion vs organised religion may have come in handy somewhere along the way too.
Perhaps I was better served by simply saying something to the extent of "Ancient societies were able to create a narrative to bind their peoples around a common value system and culture which enabled them to exist in a nature that many would deem successful until this narrative became corrupted further on in time."
It is this narrative that science itself cannot create because it is subjective, and for this reason the basis of any moral code, seems to me to encounter a suspension of reality or a reliance on people making a leap of faith to accept its validity. For that reason it may appear that the concept of ethics shares closer ties with forms of religion than it does science.
If you wish to remove religion then you need to replace its narrative with something from a similar sphere IMO.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs with this distinction. It's hard to say!!!
It may be that the Cult of Reason provides a fairly good respresentation in history of what I am talking about.
Also found this interesting....
http://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641
Also found this interesting....
http://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641