|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th December 2018, 12:00 PM | #161 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
9th December 2018, 12:10 PM | #162 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
It's more convenience than comfort. When the topic of "science conflicts with religion" comes up, evolution and heliocentrism are always the go-to examples. However, science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, so if that idea is true, we should see such conflicts escalate. Yet we don't. Thus people have to "round up the usual" (with a nod to the movie 'Casablanca') two examples each time.
What examples have there been from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history? |
9th December 2018, 12:54 PM | #163 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
|
Because religion lost and got left behind. There's no conflict because there's no comparison. Take, for example, all of modern medicine. Prior to a century ago the typical treatment for anything was to get it blessed/make a sacrifice, and then drink heavily until you got better or died happy. Now people actually survive instead. Is that a conflict? Basic germ theory would have been easy to insert in any holy scripture among the tirades about braided hair. Why isn't it there? Wouldn't god's chosen people have gotten by a lot better if he'd told them to boil their water before drinking it? That's not conflicting explanations, that's a total failure because religion didn't even know there was something to explain.
|
9th December 2018, 01:38 PM | #164 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Could the answer to this question be, that all the popular claims made by the religious referring to their scripture, have already been soundly refuted? Religious utterances are finite, unlike scientific endeavour. There may be some claims made in religious scripture, and perhaps embellished by modern theologians, no one has seriously sought to refute, being so ludicrous. The scouring out of the Grand Canyon by the receding waters of Noah's flood comes to mind. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
9th December 2018, 01:43 PM | #165 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Are you seriously asking that question? The examples are that ordinary people are not only beginning to understand both heliocentrism and evolution, and in many countries they've achieved levels of prosperity and health care where they no longer have to live in constant fear of losing their lives to diseases and starvation, which means that they now feel so safe and secure that they are leaving religion behind: And people are not only leaving organized religion behind: The institutions of organized religion themselves are being secularized. These are some of the examples "from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history." |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
9th December 2018, 01:47 PM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
9th December 2018, 02:04 PM | #167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
Yes.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... OK, let me explain. Science does not, as a matter of definition, make negative claims, so science cannot claim that religion is untrue. Science is not a religion, or even an opinion. Science is a method for discovering facts. Science is also the recognition that a fact is only a fact pending contrary evidence. Religion is faith. It can make any claim, and it does not need evidence, only faith. So, obviously, you can do science, and have faith in something, at the same time. Even the basic faith that science will eventually explain all. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
9th December 2018, 02:59 PM | #168 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Science is only a method. It's the method of science and the method of religion that are in conflict and are mutually exclusive.
To use your own words . . . Science method - "Science is not a religion, or even an opinion. Science is a method for discovering facts." Religion method - "Religion is faith. It can make any claim, and it does not need evidence, only faith." Diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive methods. Applying the scientific method and the religious method to the same thing at the same time results in cognitive dissonance. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
9th December 2018, 03:30 PM | #169 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
I don’t know why some theists are so keen to “buddy-up” with science. Don’t they realise they already have the “winning” formula with magic, miracles, mysterious ways and "ours is not to question why"? This formula means anything is possible, nothing is impossible, nothing needs to be explained or justified, and nothing can be disproved.
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
9th December 2018, 04:11 PM | #170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Perhaps you don't know what finite means or is it you have not been following the conversation? I was replying to a post by GDon where he was suggesting that scientific refutations of things religious was pretty much confined to the evolution and heliocentric topics. My post was suggesting the number of religious utterances were finite, (talking about the past here ...... get it?), and many so ridiculous nobody would feel compelled to refute them. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
9th December 2018, 04:50 PM | #171 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
Well, yes and no. Most claims in the Bible aren't refutable by science, because they don't intersect with it. What tests would you run to confirm a Psalm or a Proverb is true? What about Ecclesiastes?
Most of the issues come from Genesis, with describing the creation of the world and man. Even then, once those stories are treated as metaphor (which has been done for thousands of years), what then? How does science disprove a metaphor? Yes, that's more along the lines of the sort of example I had in mind, though even here there is no religious dogma around the Grand Canyon. Young Earth Creationists want to believe in a young earth with a world-wide flood, but YECism is a modern phenomenon, for what that's worth. |
9th December 2018, 05:18 PM | #172 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
Yes, I am seriously asking that question. "In the last 100 years, science says X, which conflicts with religion that says Y." If increasing science leads to increasing conflict, then you should be able to find examples, with more recent examples given that science grows exponentially.
From a 2013 study of world wide religion trends, comparing 1910 to 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20130927...674547-196.pdf ... the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.” |
9th December 2018, 05:25 PM | #173 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
Oh c'mon. I don't mind a little hyperbole at times, but that is ridiculous. I'm sure the physician Galen, living two thousand years ago, would disagree with you there.
And that's why I get sucked into these threads. By making such ridiculous statements you are basically crapping on the history of the development of ideas by mankind. Exactly. Religious doctrine isn't refuted by cloning, nuclear power and other things developed in the last 100 years, because religion has absolutely nothing to say about such matters. (I'm not trying to defend religion here, but history.) |
9th December 2018, 06:14 PM | #174 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,781
|
We are making serious strides here in the US in terms of fewer people believing in Sky Daddy, however, 62% still believe in life after death.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._the_afterlife |
9th December 2018, 08:28 PM | #175 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Hi P.J. Thanks for the welcome and the response, including the synopsis of your own background.
I realize my OP came across like "my experience is good, so it must be true", as you and others have understandably interpreted. I meant it more as an explanation of why it's very hard for me to simply discount it all, and why the process of re-evaluating my faith and experiences more critically is something I am doing carefully and gradually. You're spot-on on your assertion though that I have historically believed Christian accounts of miracles, while discounting those of other religions. And I've even been more readily skeptical of Christians from other denominations than of my immediate community. Some other recent events have helped me recognize, and begin to change this way of thinking and I'm making progress. As others have pointed out in this thread, it's not easy to recognize, let alone change, all of one's own prejudices, whether religious or other. (I could make a dig at the politics of my beloved neighbours to the south here, but I'll refrain). Regarding dividing lines, those are in flux at present, and I wouldn't say there are things I believe that I don't think are true, so much as things things I recognize I cannot prove, or even test in a meaningful way, which I've tried to express as best I can throughout the thread. Sorry, that's not a thorough response to a very good question and I'll try to articulate more later if I can. |
9th December 2018, 08:51 PM | #176 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Hi Thor 2. The last bit first. I don't know if it's his original joke (likely much older), but I heard that years ago in a stand up routine by a comedian named Emo Philips (he had a bit part as "the clumsy table saw operator" in Weird Al Yankovic's classic film "UHF" I believe). It brought back memories of the rest of the routine as well, which was hilarious (or struck me as such ~25 years ago, not sure if it would hold up now.) Anyway, thanks for the laugh and the trip down memory lane. Also, he makes a good point.
As for the wanting to tear down faith, I understand what you are saying and have had several atheist friends who have felt similarly. I can empathize too, having attempted for example to dissuade other friends from taking/promoting homeopathic remedies to treat cancer or instead of vaccines. I appreciate your emphasis of attacking the faith, not the faithful, but I'm sure you've found it a hard line to walk, with the faithful sometimes (possibly always) feeling attacked whether it was your intention or not. It's pretty similar to the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach, which is similarly not well received by most "sinners" I think. I won't try to dissuade you from it, but I would encourage you to critically evaluate whether it's effective (you pick the metric ). Interestingly, it does remind me of another historical figure who aggressively worked to tear down misplaced faith and the institutions that surrounded it, so maybe you're being more Christ-like than you know Thanks for the good dialogue. |
9th December 2018, 09:50 PM | #177 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
|
9th December 2018, 11:07 PM | #178 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,573
|
Hi attempt5001, welcome to the forum.
On the issue of miracles, I don't share the position that they are incompatible with scientific understanding (although perhaps incompatible with the assumptions required for science). I have more of a problem with their compatibility with a just and loving god. I'd be interested in what denomination and beliefs you have been associated with. Christianity is pretty broad and there are definitely some approaches that conflict with sceptical thinking more than others. Are you familiar with some of the progressive Christian writers and their approach to faith? |
__________________
"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel "A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler “When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb “A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer |
|
9th December 2018, 11:25 PM | #179 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
9th December 2018, 11:50 PM | #180 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
And 77% of Americans believe that Jesus rose from the dead: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._from_the_dead I wonder what caused the discrepancy between the two numbers. Did the respondents think of the question as Biblical in one case? 'According to the Bible, did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?' but more 'real-world-like' in the other? 'Considering what I know about what happens when people die, is it very likely that there is life after death?' Americans appear to be as divided about the question of religion as they are about Trump's presidency. Still, there must be whole communities where almost 100% are believers, and (a few) others where a majority aren't. Since I'm aware that a large majority of Americans are religious, I'm sometimes surprised by the response of audiences to stand-up comedians' jokes about religion, but I guess that these comedians may cater to the 23% minority. |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:00 AM | #181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
It also says :
Quote:
The religious landscape has also changed significantly since 2010. For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ion-is-rising/
Quote:
|
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 12:04 AM | #182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Christians managed to kill millions in Indochina in the 1960s and '70s, but the millions weren't Christians, of course. Christians also killed millions in WW1 and WW2. In WW1 most of the victims were probably also Christians, but that was now more than 100 years ago, of course. Are you saying that atheists killed and tortured more people than Christians did? Or is it because your definition of monsters is a different one? People who aren't Christian, maybe? (And if you don't like sneering bigots, how come you're so fond of Trump?!) |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:13 AM | #183 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I had misunderstood you. You mean "conflict between science and religion". Is it not?
The struggle of religion against heliocentrism was not against Galileo only. The same with evolution. They were a broad battle against every idea with any hint of going against the churches' Sacred Magisterium. It lasted four centuries and caused countless victims not so famous as Galileo or Darwin. Besides this, the fight was not limited only to heliocentrism or evolution. Miquel Servet was burned alive in Geneva for his ideas about the blood circulation; Giordano Bruno because of his defence of the infinity of the universe. The churches also chased the atomism, the scientific method and even mathematics as devil works. Even when it was absolutely discredited, the Catholic church promoted the sacred-finalist version of evolution by Teilhard de Chardin. In the twentieth century! Nowadays it seems that the pockets of religious resistance to science are reduced to fundamentalism . This is a victory of science, not a gracious churches' gift. Efforts of intelligent religious people are directed now to maintain private grounds and churches attack basically in the field of morality. But nothing assure us that an involution cannot be possible. The times are turbulent and rampant-far right. And extreme right wing and Inquisition are close friends. |
10th December 2018, 12:15 AM | #184 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
A lot of Christians can laugh at the absurdity of their belief, and many feel very negatively towards "organized" religion.
Carlin's "religion is BS" skit was kind of instrumental in my own leaving Christianity, tho. I remember thinking after watching it, that it was only the tip of the iceburg he touched upon, because I actually believed there's was an invisible man who lived in the sky who had to become his own child, and killed himself as a sacrifice to himself to appease his own bloodlust, AND after death he came back as a sort of functional zombie before floating away into the sky, AND now all of us followers regularly ate his symbolic flesh and drank his symbolic blood as part of a weird "symbolic cannibalism" ritual. |
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 12:31 AM | #185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Like I said: If people learn science and get better living conditions, religion loses its grip on people. However, an awful lot of people don't!
Quote:
List of countries by irreligion (Wikipedia) I guess that deprivation is the best way to keep religion alive and well: The Death of Religion thread. |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:38 AM | #186 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
And Christians killed hundred of thousands children in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Balkans, Ireland, etc., etc. Add the First World War and the Christian-Nazis killers in the Second World War. You can add the millions of Americans, Asians and Africans killed under the Christian colonialism and the apartheid regime. All Criminal Christians.
Now we can pass to the Shintoist criminals in China, Korea, the Philippines, etc. And we cannot forgot the populated variety of Islam criminals with the extermination of Armenian people in first place. If we added the Hinduist criminals, etc., etc., etc., the "Atheist crimes" are in the caboose. Theist criminals won by a landslide. And I don't count the victims of Christian capitalism, because the recountsum would never end. |
10th December 2018, 12:44 AM | #187 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Yes, that appears to be what he means. However, in my own country the death of religion didn't mean that there was any big conflict the way that GDon seems to believe. On the contrary: What has happened is that people are slowly losing their need to believe. They actually stay in church (it's where you get married and buried), they just don't go to church:
Quote:
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:48 AM | #188 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:52 AM | #189 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 12:55 AM | #190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
What I kind of "came to" with that was beginning to see faith (in the strictly religious sense) as a vice and skepticism as a virtue. It was incredible painful and darkly surreal, but I'd been suffering from significant cognitive dissonance trying to hold the "truths" of Christianity in my head and chase objective reality at the same time.
I realized that I'd been indoctrinated into Christianity (to the point of brainwashing,) and I felt that if god was real, I'd need to figure that out on different terms other than the "faith" method of getting in touch with the truth. I knew from watching others that people can fully believe anything if they're determined to believe it. I couldn't shake the suspicion that I was doing that same thing myself with Christianity. I still kind of hope to one day discover something like god. It seems less and less likely as the years pass, though. When I first said a sort of "goodbye prayer" to god and took the cognitive dive into agnostic-atheism, I really expected to be Christian again within a year. Or a deist, at least. Heh. But nope! While I have days where I feel like a deist, I'm always aware that it's likely just a strange mood, and it passes quickly. I am somewhat intrigued by some of the arguments about cosmological fine-tuning, though. That's as close as I get to theism. There are certain...neural networks leftover from my former Christian mind which are permanent fixtures in my psychology, though, and I'm ok with that. When I look at someone needing my help, my mind goes right to seeing them as "sacred", a la "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me...". And when I think about stuff like the altruistic instincts the various social species have, it strikes me as a sort of "divinity" (just sans any connection to deities or anything supernatural. ) |
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 12:56 AM | #191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
|
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 12:59 AM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 01:10 AM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
Well, religions are unlikely to come up with their own new theories of weather, cosmology, and the origins of humanity now. Those particular types of truth claims were finite. I guess some new age religion could take off looking at the "spirituality of quantum physics" or whatever, tho (like Deepak Chopra tries to do.)
|
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 01:17 AM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
You are both wrong: Science is not a way of discovering facts. Newton didn't discover the fact of gravity. He explained gravity. People had actually already noticed that apples don't fall upwards: "he discovered the laws of gravity" (ignore the title; they get it right in the article). And Darwin may have discovered a lot of fossils and new species, but his major contribution to the knowledge of mankind was that he explained how they were connected, evolution. Which he did, of course, by using scientific reasoning, the scientific method ... |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
10th December 2018, 01:24 AM | #195 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
That's right. Since science has increased so dramatically in the last 100 years, if science conflicts with religion is true, then we should be seeing increasing conflicts. Instead, people have to go back hundreds to a thousand years to find examples.
No it didn't cause countless victims. Darwin was not a victim by any means. Galileo would have been allowed to teach heliocentrism as a theory in universities except that he tried convincing the church that they were interpreting scripture incorrectly. You need to read Tim O'Neill's excellent blog series "History for Athiests", where he goes through topics about history to show that some atheists are simply repeating myths rather than history. Tim is an atheist historian, and he is even more annoyed than me on how these myths keep getting repeated uncritically. https://historyforatheists.com/ Okay. Pretty much, yes. |
10th December 2018, 01:28 AM | #196 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
..and I think you are all correct in different ways. People mean different things when they say "science". The totality of the topic of "what is science?" is not something most people ever really think about comprehensively, and it's really more complex than you'd guess right off the bat.
You're all describing different aspects of science, IMO. |
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
10th December 2018, 02:59 AM | #197 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
The increase in science in the 20th century has been accompanied by a decline in ecclesiastical pressure in the Western world. It would be necessary to discuss which is the cause and which is the effect. I believe that the decisive factor has been an increase in secularism in civil society. It is relatively much less in the Muslim or Hindu, where the conflict is still strong.
When I speak of victims, I do not mean victims of physical attacks alone. The victims have been also teachers expelled from their chairs, intellectuals ostracized and exiled or even those who have had to censor themselves, such as Darwin. |
10th December 2018, 03:18 AM | #198 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I don't think Tim O'Neill's blog is excellent. He says he's an atheist, although I don't think so. What he's trying to do is a work of historical revisionism denying what he calls "myths" of atheism. The ones I've read are a ceremony of confusion.
To demystify the persecutions against Copernicus is fine, but it cannot be ignored that Copernicus was not persecuted because he published his masterpiece in the same year of his death and because he did everything possible to link it to the Scholastic Authority. And whatever happened to Copernicus, it would be foolish to deny the fierce persecution of heliocentrism by the church. Without these important facts, O'Neill's demystification is the creation of a new myth. Something similar happens with his "demystification" of Hypatia. If you want you can call him a "historian". He defines himself as an amateur historian. He fits better. |
10th December 2018, 04:37 AM | #199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
Thank you for taking the time to respond, you've had a lot of responses so it is appreciated. If you can settle on an example that you think has sufficient 'legs' to discuss specifically I for one would definitely be interested, although you might like to start a fresh thread for it, I think it could be a productive discussion. Either way, I look forward to hearing your perspective on some of our on going religious discussions.
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
10th December 2018, 04:46 AM | #200 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
It's not a question of what I believe, but of what some claim: that increasing science conflicts increasingly with belief, therefore people stop believing. But there is simply no evidence for that particular claim. Religious dogma says nothing about cloning, nuclear physics, etc, so scientific discoveries in the last 100 years have no direct impact on religion.
Instead, I think it is along the lines you propose: there is no need to attend church and no need to adopt religious dogma, so people drift away; but I'd put that down to social conventions -- e.g. less pressure to be seen as religious due to declining social power by religions. Part of that may indeed be the idea that we have science, so we don't need religion. But that is due more to fashion rather than any particular scientific discovery. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|