Sciences vs. Religion

[Ecurb]

Note that I didn't ask about christians objecting to abortion - your reading comprehension letting you down again, sweetie?
I asked how old men screaming abuse at young women seeking abortions fitted into the wonderful "post religion" world that seems to be only in your head.

.

How kind of you to call me, "Sweetie". You are correct that I wasn't responding to you. You are not the only person in the world. I was responding to Morpheus. I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because I don't want to discuss it with you. Other than that, I shall be glad to agree with it all, just like Elinor Dashwood agreed with Robert Ferrars:

Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

[The Atheist]

I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because ....

...it doesn't conform to your Utopian "post-religion" world that exists somewhere in your head.

Nice of you to mention rationality in that context.

[MorpheusSandman]

Nonetheless, when he ridicules religion in an ethnocentric and bigoted fashion, he gives atheism a bad name. I'll bet some educated, liberal Christians object when some internet poster calls himself THE Christian, and then attacks all non-Christians with threats of hellfire and damnation.

There's a theory in sociology that states the minority are incapable of bullying because they are, in a larger social context, powerless. So even if, eg, a black man hates all white people, his "racism" is so impotent that it's really a misuse of the term racism (which typically includes a larger social component) that we shouldn't even consider it as such. Atheists are still quite in the minority, and the notion that one of them speaking up on an anonymous internet message is "bullying" in any meaningful sense of the term is, IMO, a bit ridiculous; nor do I think it gives "atheism" a bad name since atheism entails nothing but a disbelief in god(s). So that one atheist bullies or even mass murders means relatively little to atheism, in general. The latter notion is just one of those tics of habit where people try to associate characteristics, behaviors, actions, etc. with one aspect where there is no relevant connection (as any large studies on atheism across countries confirms). Besides, there are plenty of Christians that employ the exact same tactic on several message boards I'm apart of (go to IMDb's Religion, Faith, and Spirituality board and observe the abominable behavior of certain Christians like Erjen, Blade, and Ada); I don't think such actions speak poorly of Christianity, I just think those people are horrible human beings regardless of their beliefs.

A quick google reveals that in the U.S. about 3% of GDP is spent on scientific research, which amounts to about $510 billion. $4 million is .000008 of $500 billion.

I mentioned one notable (or rather notorious) religious organization; There are surely thousands of them if we include churches, TV networks, etc. Religion is surely a multi-billion dollar industry, so that ratio of yours is undoubtedly not representative of the total picture.

However, science prvides no alternative moral compass. In order to argue about morality, we must make a moral argument, not a scientific one. You are correct, though, in suggesting that the first step might be declaring moral arguments based on the indisputable truth of the Bible (or some other religious text) unreasonable.

Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being. Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.

[The Atheist]

Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being.

The best part is that many christians don't even get it regarding morality. They will point to the 10 Commandoes and say "an eye for eye" and seek capital punishment, while completely ignoring Jeebus' own demand that only those free of sin should be chucking bricks.

If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.

Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.

Bingo!

It is that simple.

The trick is getting them to accept it, and on that, I give you a very slim chance. Even lots of atheists are scared by the idea of a completely human-designed code of ethics, even though that's exactly what we have now.

[Pendragon]

People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.

Ecurb, could you in good faith back the Westboro Baptist Church and their vitriolic spewing of hate at Serviceman's funerals?? Or the so-called Christians who in the name of preventing abortions, murder Doctors and staff of abortion clinics or blow the clinic up? And yet you cannot see God as the spark of life which then evolved as needed to deal with a changing earth?

Pangera split up and drifted apart to form our continents today. Upon completion of this, animals in new circumstances had to evolve to survive. If you think different here's scripture for you. Gen.1 [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. One landmass, the rest ocean.

You appear to take any criticism as a personal attack while spewing rhetoric. My advice is to educate yourself. Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans.

The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.

Wake up, Ecurb, it's later than you think.

God Bless

Pen

[Ecurb]

I've been alive for some decades now, and have yet to see any continents "drifiting", Pendragon. So there. Also, we've had the coldest winter in decades here in the U.S. So much for global warming!

Actually, Pendragon highlights one of my objections to The Atheist. Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce.

Also, morpheus, I question your proposed approach to morality. It is probably true that we are "programmed" to propogated our genes (assuming that "programmed" is used metaphorically). It is probably also true that since morals (and religion) are "inherited" (not genetically, of course, but they are generally passed from parents to children) those moral tenets which promote genetic success will tend to spread, while those that inhibit it will tend to be eliminated. Indeed, this is one argument in favor of traditional morality (wheher religious or not): it has stood the test of time.

However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues. Surely every one agrees that if Auden's quote were "we must torture other people to death or die", we could hardly use the fact that torturing others was essential to our survival to justify it as morally correct. I'll agree that we should love one another (except for The Atheist), but cannot agree that Auden's reason grants moral credence to that proposition.

[Pendragon]

Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce.

Whoa. Time out. Do not presume to tell me what I am thinking. I in no way called you a religious fanatic. I pointed out that there are religious fanatics and asked if you in good faith would back them in their actions. I don't believe you would any more than I would or I would not have asked, I was sure you agreed. I didn't call you a science denier, but said you question something that can be proven true.

As for disagreements with TheAtheist or Morpheus,I disagree with many statements here, but
if I cannot be civil and extend a olive branch to one an all, I would count myself as fallen from grace. I did say Morpheus should not have said one thing he did, and when he disagreed, I let it go, causing hurt feelings isn't worth the fight.

Look, you can still fit the puzzle pieces together from continental drift. The rocks along continental edges match up. As I quote from scripture waters gathered IN ONE PLACE and the dry land appeared. Tell me that the waters are all in one place now. The difference between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans should take care of that.

I always encourage people to stick to their own principles or they will have no principles.

Good Bless

Pendragon

[YesNo]

Huh. Mocking an irrational belief is bullying, but standing and verbally abusing young women having an abortion isn't.

Three quick points:

1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK?

2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?

3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?

Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.

How does this relate to the science vs religious theme? In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method. Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions. They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.

[The Atheist]

Three quick points:

1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK?

You didn't - you just ignored the point.

2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?

Pretty sure if you check the thread I haven't abused anyone. (Maybe Ecurb, but it's mutual, and irrelevant as he isn't a christian) Some of the more idiotic "arguments" presented have been subject to abuse, but quite rightly so, I feel. Don't confuse derision of an idea with abuse of the poster.

3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?

What beliefs are these?

I don't know of any beliefs at all that pertain to atheism, which is a lack of belief in something. Haven't we covered this point ad nauseum several times? Claiming atheism is a belief in anything is just ignorance of what the word means. I do recommend you read the thread I linked for Glenn if you want to revisit that idea.

Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.

In all seriousness, it's people like Ecurb that convince me I'm on the right track.

Anyone who thinks we're living in a "post-religion" world is so misguided I wouldn't want to agree with them on anything at all. I'm actually staggered someone who goes outside his/her house could even posit such a thing.

How does this relate to the science vs religious theme?

It's not, but you, Glenn and Ecurb seem to think it does, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.

In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion.

Good spot!

Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.

Who and where was that claim made? I've never seen atheism claim anything, and I've taken great pains to point out that atheism embraces lots of non-science types - david Icke's an atheist and he's not exactly a science fan. Wiccans & Buddhists are mostly atheist, but don't call for sceintific enquiry of their claims.

If you think anyone has made a claim anywhere that rationality and the scientific method has any relationship to atheism, please post the evidence of get off the claim.

Just because some individual atheists use the scientific method doesn't mean its a trait of atheism. Just as I don't judge all christians by Jack Chick/Benny Hinn/etc.

Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think science needs any defence. I will attack people who misuse science or make untrue claims about it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with why I attack religion.

They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.

What ideology is that?

[The Atheist]

People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.

So far, I have you, Pope Franky and the former Archbishop Rowan Williams on my list of christians who live what they preach.

There are a few others, but few & far between, unfortunately. (Not that I expect Franky to take your position on abortion, but I can't see him standing and throwing blood-soaked dolls at young women either.)

Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans.

The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.

Are you actually Rowan Williams in disguise?

That is exactly the kind of answer he'd give.

Bravo!

(While I'm obviously never going to share your opinions, I admire your attitude.)

[Ecurb]

To Pendragon: I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I could see your questions were rhetorical, and assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that you were suggesting that I approve of abusing women getting abortions.

As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE. I stand by my statement that-- in general -- science is now in a post-religious stage, although the occasional Bryan College or Discovery Institute are (minor) exceptions to that reality. I have no problem being civil, either. With one exception.

[The Atheist]

As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE.

Yet that's nothing like what you said. Shall I refresh your memory?

We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age.

Not even slightly related to science.

But your goalpost-shifting is acknowledged. I agree that science is indeed more or less post-religion.

Nice of you to see sense at last.

[MorpheusSandman]

If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.

There are two great films that imagined what it would be like for a Jesus-like figure to return to the present day: one is Luis Bunuel's Nazarin (Bunuel was an atheist who was obsessed with religion; he made several great films on the subject), and another is Roberto Rossellini's Europa '51 (though the latter was said to have been inspired by Saint Francis of Assissi, whom Rossellini had already made a film about). Both film depict these figures as being persecuted again, with the latter even having its protagonist committed to a mental institution for leaving her bourgeois life (after the death of her son) to help the poor and downtrodden. Who was it that said if Jesus came back today they'd crucify him again?

[MorpheusSandman]

However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues.

I'm actually having this discussion on another forum right now; basically my position is that there IS no way to justify any normative ethical system because every such system will rest on assumptions that can't be proved by the system itself. Things like "it's better to live than die" and "it's better to live well than live poorly" are, themselves, merely assumptions for which nothing objective can justify us believing in them beyond our feelings and belief in them. However, once we DO agree with them, there are ways that are more and less efficacious (to use your word) in bringing them about. Moral issues about the correct course of action to take when one or one's social group feels threatened are some of the trickiest to deal with, and it's surely why "might makes right" reigns in nature and even has throughout human nature and history. Essentially, I don't think when it gets down to it you can justify any "shoulds" (or "oughts" to use the philosophical term) because all such things are necessarily subjective.

[MorpheusSandman]

after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century

There's one of your lies you love repeating.

In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.

Science is innately atheistic. What I mean by that is that it does not assume the existence of Gods in order to go about its business. It addresses how material reality works on its own terms without getting into the philosophical issues that people's belief in god(s) rest on. That said, religion VS science and religion VS atheism reside in two main areas:

1. Religion conflicts with science when science falsifies certain aspects of religious belief, mainly those about how material reality functions and how history happened, such as how the universe and human life came about or whether there was a mass Jewish exodus from Egypt.

2. For theists that accept science (like Pen), the only place where most atheists and theists differ is that atheists think that science's approach to and understanding of reality is sufficient and as complete as we can get; whereas theists contend that science is only, by its nature, addressing a limited portion/aspect of reality, while their religious beliefs are addressing the rest of reality that is inaccessible to science.

These are the two major conflicts I see between religion and science, and religion and atheism. As I've also said before, the religious method of generating beliefs (faith) is innately incompatible with science that relies on hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, empiricism, peer-review, repeatability, falsification, etc. I think all of these issues have been broached in this thread.