March

[Spider Lad]

I never said it was true? Or that it justifies being true?

I just don't see why people have such a problem with people believing in what they want to believe...it's their choice, not ours.

Ok, so wide spread delusion is ok by you is it?

That kind of thinking is the enemy of reason. Is there not something rather backward about teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world?

[anzo]

Ok, so wide spread delusion is ok by you is it?

That kind of thinking is the enemy of reason. Is there not something rather backward about teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world?

Delusion is all around us, not just with religion.

You're obviously not a religious person, I'm just failing to see how you give a shit what the rest of the world thinks beyond you're little bubble.

To be honest, I'm glad we live in a world with diversity of beliefs, it'd be a pretty boring place otherwise. Look at the good side of religion...it brings people together in hardship, it gives people hope and faith. I'm a complete Atheist, but I don't think we have any right what so ever to judge anyone else on what they believe.

[beigemaster]

Delusion is all around us, not just with religion.

You're obviously not a religious person, I'm just failing to see how you give a shit what the rest of the world thinks beyond you're little bubble.

To be honest, I'm glad we live in a world with diversity of beliefs, it'd be a pretty boring place otherwise. Look at the good side of religion...it brings people together in hardship, it gives people hope and faith. I'm a complete Atheist, but I don't think we have any right what so ever to judge anyone else on what they believe.

Have to agree with you there. Intolerance, dogma, arrogance and ignorance are all corrosive elements of people, not religion as a concept. Even if you were to hypothetically wipe religion out of society, do you think life would really be better? Maybe I'm pessimistic but I have a sneaky suspicion that people would simply find other things to argue, take offence or fight over.

Like it or not, this nation does have Christian routes and underpinnings which will always influence society as a whole. For example, a lot of historians have argued that capitalism is a direct consequence of the protestant work ethic. Or, if you're not a massive fan of capitalism how about the socialist structures created in this country such as the welfare state or the NHS, both of which (some argue) are routed within Christian ethics. How about Human rights- Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius and John Locke- all natural law and natural rights philosophers who founded their principles on Christian values such as all men being equal. There is no question that these men have all influenced and constructed what we now call Human Rights, a concept that is actually difficult to justify on secular grounds.

Of course you can argue that a lot of these ideas could be conceived and created within a secular context and in most cases I would agree. However, this does not reject that fact that these structures were created when Christianity was within the mindset of the majority of the population and still affects the UK today.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone's religious views or ideas that aren't open to reason or speculation forced down my throat, but neither would I simply try and dismiss all religious sentiments and ideas from the democratic arena. Like I said before, there are closed minded ignorant people on both sides of the argument which is why a balanced democracy with free speech and open debate is so important.

Oh forgot to mention, if anyone thinks I'm being biased towards Christian influences see Islamic Golden Age and read about the 100's of examples of Islamic revolutionary advances in sciences, technology and philosophy

[1a2bcio8]

Here you go again with your 'eastern solution' to religion. You may also consider learning a bit more about secularism. Government is too intwined with religion and this has a marked influence on it's decision making and forming of laws. It is not enough to argue that this reflects the public it serves because that is simply not true.

From a heterophenomenological point of view it is very easily justifiable for me to 'push aside' your 'mystical experiences'.

I can actually see there's little point in discussing, arguing, etc. much with you because you are quite rigid in your views which leads you to be dismissive without much explanation. It is a shame about how dismissive you are though because you're clearly an intelligent chap and discussion with you about all this in a more reasonable fashion would be enjoyable and perhaps constructive. You're also more likely to leave me open to what you're saying if you actually explain yourself without the dismissive condescension.

I will say though that my "eastern solution" above isn't about Buddhism or Daoism as a solution despite the fact they may or may not relate to human health and sanity. The point was to illustrate the differences of the various systems, practices, sects and histories that fall under the title of religion. Regardless of the benefits that may or may not entail from the practice of Buddhism, a consideration at least of its intents and a history of how it has manifested in a social sense is prudent for judging if it is also liable to the criticisms leveled at parts of Christianity and Islam. It's so important not to mistake a part for a whole. A proper 'rationalistic' approach certainly wouldn't dismiss across the board all variations of religion simply because of the actions of some. In the same way I do not judge all French people on the experience of just one, a few or even many. The situation is much bigger and more complex and needs to be appreciated as such with evidence pertaining to all variation where it exists.

Another valid point, as mentioned above is that blaming religion seems to remove a consideration of general psychology that will apply itself regardless of whether religion is available or not. Political ideology has probably been just as harmful and as much an enemy of reason as religion. People gravitate toward dogma with reference to any system of thought, practice, etc. because there are psychological (albeit limited) benefits of doing so. We need to address the psychology of dogma and attachment, not the varying things that people get attached to and dogmatic about. It's the wrong end of the stick. I actually believe that we're in an era of scientifc dogma and faith, which although much more benign in certain senses, is incredibly malign in others. Science, unfortunately, doesn't do much to address morals or personal experience in terms of happiness. We don't want to simply end up as robot humans who only reason, which is probably impossible anyway. We have broader emotional requirements which require differing considerations which religious, and philosophical to a lesser extent, systems are able to offer.

It's clear though that you're in line with individuals such as Dennet and Dawkins from the position you hold. As you suggested some reading material in the philosophy thread, perhaps you'd be interested in some antithetical material to each of them. "The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" by Bennet and Hacker and "Evolution as Religion" by Midgley against Dennet and Dawkins respectively, although Bennet and Hacker also have relevance against Dawkins regarding their "mereological fallacy" but this criticism really relates to the general conception of genetics within that science. A consideration of mereology is also applicable to our discussion, because it considers the relations between parts and wholes.

I'm quite curious as to what exactly you mean by a "heterophenomenological point of view" that can lead you to dismiss my mystical experiences. If you could explain I'd be grateful? By the way, none of these experiences were of angels, demons, etc. They have all related to the way I feel or percieve my experience. For instance, do I indentify myself (via feeling) with my body, my mind, my thoughts, etc. Previously I identified with my body but I no longer do that and the feeling is that my body is just another part of my environment, similar in feeling to an object in my experience such as my laptop in front of me. I've also experienced this with thoughts/ego (mental chatter/imagery), which we easily identify ourselves with. Not identifying with these things alters your reaction to them in emotional terms; things become more peaceful. Do these seem really far out and without a doubt not true? I'm not exactly claiming that God is talking to me.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[1a2bcio8]

Like it or not, this nation does have Christian routes and underpinnings which will always influence society as a whole. For example, a lot of historians have argued that capitalism is a direct consequence of the protestant work ethic.

On this point, it was Christianity that initially installed an early capatalistic ethic in terms that weren't so isolating and harshly competitive. In contrast to contemporary capitalism where everybody is out for themselves regardless of the detriment to the livelihood of another, early capitalism existed with the standard whereby nobody would interfere with the livelihood of anybody else. The idea of undercutting somebody else was abhored. There was a definite consideration of your fellow man that followed from a religious moral, which in my opinion is a much more desirable one than the current mentality of greed which negates the consideration and thus worth of your fellow man.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[Adam-Griffin]

So the plane takes off?

[1a2bcio8]

So the plane takes off?

No, Spider Lad converted to Islam and suicide bombed it

[beigemaster]

On this point, it was Christianity that initially installed an early capatalistic ethic in terms that weren't so isolating and harshly competitive. In contrast to contemporary capitalism where everybody is out for themselves regardless of the detriment to the livelihood of another, early capitalism existed with the standard whereby nobody would interfere with the livelihood of anybody else. The idea of undercutting somebody else was abhored. There was a definite consideration of your fellow man that followed from a religious moral, which in my opinion is a much more desirable one than the current mentality of greed which negates the consideration and thus worth of your fellow man.

Very interesting point, so one could argue that by removing the religious element then the system actually becomes worse, or at least a lot less morally acceptable. In the interest of balance, this is a wiki quote on the decline of Islam's cultural and scientific movement

There was an increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought, with some seminaries systematically forbidding speculative philosophy, while polemic debates appear to have been abandoned in the 14th century. A significant intellectual shift in Islamic philosophy is perhaps demonstrated by al-Ghazali's late 11th century polemic work The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which lambasted metaphysical philosophy in favour of the primacy of scripture, and was later criticized in The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes.

Some have argued that if Islam had a reformation (like Christianity did with the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin) then it would have continued to develop way ahead of the West.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Oh forgot to mention, if anyone thinks I'm being biased towards Christian influences see Islamic Golden Age and read about the 100's of examples of Islamic revolutionary advances in sciences, technology and philosophy

"The Islamic Golden Age or the Islamic Renaissance, is traditionally dated from the 8th to 13th centuries A.D." It appears at that point the world of Islam just stopped... So many of their beliefs, customs and laws seem to be similar to how we were in the dark ages. Purely picking up on the way they treat their women is just unbelievable in this day and age. That and Shariah law are enough for me to hate the concept of islam more than they hate Kurt Westergaard.

Did anyone see any of 'Mulsim Driving School' on BBC 2 last night? Seriously, if I saw her:

Driving towards me in a city somewhere I'd want to get the hell out of there sharpish! Islamophobic and proud .

[Spider Lad]

cba

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spider Lad

[beigemaster]

"The Islamic Golden Age or the Islamic Renaissance, is traditionally dated from the 8th to 13th centuries A.D." It appears at that point the world of Islam just stopped... So many of their beliefs, customs and laws seem to be similar to how we were in the dark ages.

That's the point I'm making though, back then we were in the dark ages and the Islamic world was way ahead of us. I agree that unfortunately it grounded to a halt and has since been left behind which I suppose is the result of a dogmatic attitude and a lack of willingness to accept new ideas. I think it's a good warning to any culture of what those corrosive attitudes can lead to.

[MadManMike]

Proof that not all Muslims are bad, as a lot of narrow minded people believe...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100113/twl-ny...-i-3fd0ae9.html

[Spider Lad]

All the people going on about the importance of religion to our history are totally missing the point.

Steam trains are very much an important part of our history, infact I'm rather fond of steam trains but that doesn't mean I believe steam trains are necessary today. Their time has passed.

[beigemaster]

All the people going on about the importance of religion to our history are totally missing the point.

Steam trains are very much an important part of our history, infact I'm rather fond of steam trains but that doesn't mean I believe steam trains are necessary today. Their time has passed.

I can see where you're coming from but I think you might be slightly misguided. I'm not suggesting we should go back to the good ol days when men were men, everything was black and white and we all went to church on Sundays. I'm simply saying that some of the core foundations of our society are grounded within certain religious ideologies and you can not simply shake them off. To borrow your analogy, it's not so much dismissing the steam train but dismissing the entire railway or public transport system in favour of the car. The scientific model is fantastic and has contributed to some of the greatest achievements in human history, but I wouldn't want my life/society to be focused entirely on this worldview. There are many questions that science can't answer by its own credentials and if you don't want to look to religion then look to philosophy, ethics and metaphysics, these are some of the ideas that I fear would diminish in an entirely secular world.

[Spider Lad]

I can see where you're coming from but I think you might be slightly misguided. I'm not suggesting we should go back to the good ol days when men were men, everything was black and white and we all went to church on Sundays. I'm simply saying that some of the core foundations of our society are grounded within certain religious ideologies and you can not simply shake them off. To borrow your analogy, it's not so much dismissing the steam train but dismissing the entire railway or public transport system in favour of the car. The scientific model is fantastic and has contributed to some of the greatest achievements in human history, but I wouldn't want my life/society to be focused entirely on this worldview. There are many questions that science can't answer by its own credentials and if you don't want to look to religion then look to philosophy, ethics and metaphysics, these are some of the ideas that I fear would diminish in an entirely secular world.

Religion isn't at the core of a moral society as you seem to be suggesting. Religion seizes upon morality. The modern interpretaions of beliefs are often hardly recognisable from the way they were followed in the past. The unchanging word of God appears to be very malleable. They just reflect the shifting moral zeitgeist we all adhere to.

You don't seem to understand what science or secularism is.

Science; Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Some questions don't deserve an answer. If you know enough about the universe you will understand that posulating "why?" can be rather silly but there is always a "how?" and this what science attempts to answer.

Secularism; The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Secualrism does not reject ethics, philosophy or metaphysics.

[beigemaster]

Religion isn't at the core of a moral society as you seem to be suggesting. Religion seizes upon morality. The modern interpretaions of beliefs are often hardly recognisable from the way they were followed in the past. The unchanging word of God appears to be very malleable. They just reflect the shifting moral zeitgeist we all adhere to.

You don't seem to understand what science or secularism is.

Science; Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Some questions don't deserve an answer. If you know enough about the universe you will understand that posulating "why?" can be rather silly but there is always a "how?" and this what science attempts to answer.

Secularism; The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Secualrism does not reject ethics, philosophy or metaphysics.

So if you could enlighten me, how does science answer questions such as how should we govern our society? I'm sorry, but to try and dismiss normative questions as being "silly" is just ludicrous (unless I have misinterpreted what you ment) Science can only answer the descriptive but there are important normative (or 'why') questions that do require answers, like the one I just gave who questions such as WHY be moral or WHAT is good? Note this is a metaethical question not an ethical one, science could potentially postulate a type of behaviour that may benefit the species (although how this is possible using only description seems rather unlikely) but even if it could build such a theory, it could not defend it without stepping outside the ideas of science because you have to justify WHY your theory is a good theory.

I am aware that secularism and science are too different things. However, as you have just demonstrated, the types of individuals who strive for a secular society tend to also believe that science can and will have all the answers, science effectively becomes a religion. If that’s your view then that's fine, but it's not one I share nor one I would want pushed onto me. I fear the secular society is a slippery slope to loosing the other values that I discussed (philosophy ect). If you embrace a secular state you are affectedly saying "Your religion in wrong and I'm not allowing it in my society" which is fair enough IF YOU believe that, but then why not say "Your worldview is wrong" or "Your concept of rational morality is wrong" ect. How many do you ban and how do you decide exactly what is religious?

A quick side note, I'm not suggesting that religion is the core or grounding of morality but it has been the means to which it has been brought to the masses. I don't know if you have studied any of the great ethical thinkers (Kant, Aristotle ect) but they deal with very complex (although brilliant) ideas in defence of morality. Unfortunately, not everyone will have the time or ability to understand the groundings of these types of works, however religion can often break down these complex ideas into simple proverbs/teachings or parables. It is potentially a way to teach certain moral truths in a simple way.

[Spider Lad]

So if you could enlighten me, how does science answer questions such as how should we govern our society? I'm sorry, but to try and dismiss normative questions as being "silly" is just ludicrous (unless I have misinterpreted what you ment) Science can only answer the descriptive but there are important normative (or 'why') questions that do require answers, like the one I just gave who questions such as WHY be moral or WHAT is good? Note this is a metaethical question not an ethical one, science could potentially postulate a type of behaviour that may benefit the species (although how this is possible using only description seems rather unlikely) but even if it could build such a theory, it could not defend it without stepping outside the ideas of science because you have to justify WHY your theory is a good theory.

I am aware that secularism and science are too different things. However, as you have just demonstrated, the types of individuals who strive for a secular society tend to also believe that science can and will have all the answers, science effectively becomes a religion. If that’s your view then that's fine, but it's not one I share nor one I would want pushed onto me. I fear the secular society is a slippery slope to loosing the other values that I discussed (philosophy ect). If you embrace a secular state you are affectedly saying "Your religion in wrong and I'm not allowing it in my society" which is fair enough IF YOU believe that, but then why not say "Your worldview is wrong" or "Your concept of rational morality is wrong" ect. How many do you ban and how do you decide exactly what is religious?

A quick side note, I'm not suggesting that religion is the core or grounding of morality but it has been the means to which it has been brought to the masses. I don't know if you have studied any of the great ethical thinkers (Kant, Aristotle ect) but they deal with very complex (although brilliant) ideas in defence of morality. Unfortunately, not everyone will have the time or ability to understand the groundings of these types of works, however religion can often break down these complex ideas into simple proverbs/teachings or parables. It is potentially a way to teach certain moral truths in a simple way.

Noboody ever put 'science' forward as a way of answering societal problems. You're inventing something to score a point on an argument that doesn't exist.

As for your sweeping generalisation: "the types of individuals who strive for a secular society tend to also believe that science can and will have all the answers". What types of people are these because they certainly aren't scientists nor are they secularists? None that I know.

On a quick side note, I have actually studied Christian theology and the influence of Kant on it.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spider Lad

[1a2bcio8]

.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[beigemaster]

Noboody ever put 'science' forward as a way of answering societal problems. You're inventing something to score a point on an argument that doesn't exist.

As for your sweeping generalisation: "the types of individuals who strive for a secular society tend to also believe that science can and will have all the answers". What types of people are these because they certainly aren't scientists nor are they secularists? None that I know.

Some questions don't deserve an answer. If you know enough about the universe you will understand that postulating "why?" can be rather silly but there is always a "how?" and this what science attempts to answer.

Is that not an example? I maybe I have misinterpreted what you said so please feel free to correct me. I'm afraid that people DO put science forward as a way of answering societal problems in the modern debate. Politicians will now tend to use recent scientific research (say for example recent neurological research in relation to when children should start going to nursery) and will attempt to use this as a sweeping statement to close of any other discussion. Now obviously in some areas this is very useful, say for example with climate change, but it is gradually starting to creep into more of social policy where normative questions will be far more beneficial. There was a good episode of "The Moral Maze” all about this topic but unfortunately iPlayer has wiped it off. I should mention that this point was put forward by Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (whose website it down as I'm typing this so I can't provide a link) who is a humanitarian with no religious convictions at all.

Or, if you want a slightly different example, looks towards market mimicking governance. This is position put forward by Prof Sandel who argues that moral questions have been squeezed out of world politics in favour of a misguided faith in market values (I say misguided because now we are all too aware of what can happen when the market is left unregulated). Although this is not strictly a relation to science, he argues that normative questions have been left to economists rather than moral or philosophical thinkers. I highly recommend you listen to some of his lectures HERE. He argues that politicians are often too afraid to make judgements based on moral principles so will often hide behind economic qualities to defend their position that (to a balanced reader) sound unbelievable. If you listen to the last lecture, he cites some good examples such as the economic advantages of encouraging people to smoke more so they die younger so effectively reducing the net cost.

As I said, although these are not technically scientific issues they demonstrate that there already is a battle to keep moral issues alive in politics at the moment and politicians are now hiding behind scientific ideologies in the same way they currently hide behind economics.

[Spider Lad]

You're geting yourself all tied up in knots here. Blaming science for the decisions that politicians make. Not scientists. Science has no agenda as you see it, nor do scientists, else they wouldn't be true scientists.

With regard to the questions that don't deserve an answer I was referring to things within the scientific scope which religion claims to be able to answer. The "why are we here?" questions. Sometimes there is no "why" to be answered in the context how how we perceive purpose. The "how" can, however be far more fascinating and investigable.

You dig?

Edited January 14, 2010 by Spider Lad

[1a2bcio8]

You're geting yourself all tied up in knots here. Blaming science for the decisions that politicians make. Not scientists. Science has no agenda as you see it, nor do scientists, else they wouldn't be true scientists.

That just might be the myth of science whereby it's considered not to be permeated by subjectivety regarding alterior motivation, desire, etc. Scientists, despite their title, are still humans after all and although one might get quite good at moving toward 'pure' objectivity, it simply can't happen because all awareness of object is through subject. Again, I suggest a reading of Mary Midgley who looks at individuals such as Dawkins who, although seeming to be these extraodinarily rational beings who make purely scientific statements, overextend the nature of science into something which it is not through alterior subjective motivation. It's really very interesting how scientists end up sounding more like religionists, residing under their omnipotent, omniscient practice that is erroneously applicable to a sphere other than its own. This is probably always going to happen to one degree or another, it just so happens that, supported by the popular denial of its occurence, it's quite prevalent to a larger degree.

This is in no way a denigration of science, which within its own sphere is quite amazing. It's just a consideration of what gets done with science by both laymans and scientists alike.

I think it again illustrates an underlying human condition whereby we always end up 'religious' or mythological, regardless of whether it's Buddhism, Christianity, Science or Communism. Although this is where I appreciate the concept of sunyata in Buddhism which means emptiness. Specifically, it's the situation whereby we experience reality in the absence of concept. In than sense although we may have used a religious practice, we end up transcending it to a situation of neither religion or non-religion. We leave the religion boat at the shore of naked reality after we cross the river of concept, to modify an old Buddhist expression

Edited January 14, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[manuel]

Science will never become a "religion" that is the whole point of science...

they should be allowed to march - they have a point. The chosen march venue is a little insensitive but the most likely to get attention and at the end of the day, as long as they arent marching on day that there is an actual funeral on (which they wouldnt be allowed to do anyway) its hurting nobody.

the whole "religion has had its time" I completely agree with. I have no problem with people believing in what ever they want. I do have a problem in people believing in what they are told that has absolutely no proof of fact at all. Some religions promote a great way of living, however some (a lot) just are there for control, limiting things people are "allowed" to do/experience and in some cases, just for money. People need to think for themselves more...

"yes we are all individual"

[beigemaster]

You're geting yourself all tied up in knots here. Blaming science for the decisions that politicians make. Not scientists. Science has no agenda as you see it, nor do scientists, else they wouldn't be true scientists.

With regard to the questions that don't deserve an answer I was referring to things within the scientific scope which religion claims to be able to answer. The "why are we here?" questions. Sometimes there is no "why" to be answered in the context how how we perceive purpose. The "how" can, however be far more fascinating and investigable.

You dig?

Of course not no agenda there at all. If scientists have no agenda, then why are we even debating the existence of a secular society? I don't blame science for bad political decisions, I just worry that politicians rely upon science too much in the same way they definitely rely on economics far too much (to pretty much everyone's loss). A healthy democracy is a varied democracy by it's own definition, this includes certain concepts found in religion as well as science.

[1a2bcio8]

Science will never become a "religion" that is the whole point of science...

It's not quite that simple though. Often scientists attempt to extend their practice into the area of religion, politics, etc. This usually relates to a mentality which similarly defines faith within religion and thus we can say of scientists that they act in ways toward their practice that religion is criticised for by science and science is therefore being religious in that sense. It's a great irony.

edit: forgot to actually complete what I was saying before

Edited January 14, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[Spider Lad]

Of course not no agenda there at all. If scientists have no agenda, then why are we even debating the existence of a secular society? I don't blame science for bad political decisions, I just worry that politicians rely upon science too much in the same way they definitely rely on economics far too much (to pretty much everyone's loss). A healthy democracy is a varied democracy by it's own definition, this includes certain concepts found in religion as well as science.

Concepts that are also found outside of religion and not wholly attributable to religion.

It's not quite that simple though. Often scientists attempt to extend their practice into the area of religion, politics, etc. This usually relates to a mentality which similarly defines faith within religion and thus we can say of scientists that they act in ways toward their practice that religion is criticised for by science and science is therefore being religious in that sense. It's a great irony.

Please back this 'often' up.

I think what you're noticing is religious people seeing that science explains our existence and place in the universe far better than the creation stories and solipsism of scriptures and are then having to defend the science against religious outcry.

Yes, of course scientists need motives to begin enquiry but if the evidence proves otherwise then they accept that. That is the beauty of science. This simply does not happen in religion. Scientists don't manipulate the facts to prove a previously held belief (which I might add is what is happening with regards to 'scientists' proving creation).