guenther wrote:First: Science vs. Religion
Why can't we be both nice and have clean water? You act like our toolbox is only big enough to hold one tool. We either have a hammer or a screwdriver, but never both. I'm of the opinion that our toolbox is big enough to hold multiple tools. There are some questions that are difficult to scientifically study or are simply outright unscientific. Faith can help here, though of course it has the power to do bad stuff too. And then there are other areas where faith will give consistently bad results but science will triumph.
When I said faith can impede science, I meant that if a scientist has faith in a certain outcome, it will bias their ability to objectively observe. But if that same scientist has a faith in God, it doesn't necessarily have to conflict at all. Only on one screw or nail do we have to choose, but that doesn't mean our life is either filled with only screws or only nails. Also there's a middle ground where faith is inappropriate, but the science is lacking.
This begs the question: How can we tell when each tool is appropriate?
Religion does more to impede science than you give it credit for. Religious people actively fight science. Hell, look at scientology vs psychiatry. Christianity is no better. If you disagree, I urge you to open a history book. You can't miss it.
guenther wrote:Second: Love your Neighbor
"Don't be a dick" is a weak version of "Love your neighbor", and I think it's sad that people conflate them. And the Bible without the magic stuff isn't simply a message that we should love, even though that's certainly the most important. The book has lots of wisdom on how to live life.
If you want to pick game theory over the golden rule for your morality, go ahead. I do think there's utility to it, particularly in politics where teams win points by fostering animosity towards each other. These negative emotions are powerful motivators to take action. However, I personally think it's trading short-term political gains for long term societal dysfunction. Politics creates a huge distortion of perspective where acting rationally is very challenging. I think your approach will further fuel this leading to greater distortions. I believe the fix is to challenge the sharp divide, which means challenging our internal negative feelings about the opposition. The natural hook to do this is to extend empathy and respect across dividing lines. I think this will improve people's ability to think critically and rationally. And it will improve our ability to work together to produce even better results into the future. But it does come with the downside of being less politically effective since it means rejecting hate as a weapon.
First off, what wisdom? The golden rule that predates Christianity by several centuries? An eye for an eye? That people should stay away from menstruating women? That non-jews are a worthless sub-species of human?
'Golden Rule' vs. 'Prisoner's dilemma' isn't the dichotomy. The GR is a possible strategy to use in the dilemma. It would be the 'always co-operate' strategy. The dichotomy is 'Golden Rule' vs 'Tit-for-Tat'. The Golden Rule provides demonstrably worse results than tit-for-tat. So even in this case, religious faith, religious dogma, hurts people. Following this teaching is harmful
. Promoting a harmful philosophy is evil
nitePhyyre wrote:I find the idea that perpetuating a lie to the masses as long as it serves an ulterior motive arrogant and offensive. This same logic that you to defend religion, is the the same process Bush used to get the States into Iraq. He preached the gospel of WMDs until enough people believed his subjective truth as objective truth.
I don't promote building up lies to serve ulterior motives. If you don't believe something you shouldn't promote it as truth. And if you do believe something and you promote it as truth, you aren't lying.
True. Although it seems like 'subjective truth' would be closer to the 'lie' end of the spectrum than the 'objective truth' end.
guenther wrote:Also, the analogy doesn't work. Who is making the case that we should have applied faith to the question of the existence of WMDs in Iraq? Who is saying that a question of war should be made on faith and not intel? Certainly I'm not, and I don't think Bush did either. Just because I believe that faith can have value doesn't mean we should apply it everywhere blindly.
The first thing that comes to mind is Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns' answer. Just to make sure we are on the same page. The thought process i'm talking about is the following.
1) Come up with something that 'feels right'
2) Use whatever fallacies, biases, and logical disconnects necessary to continue to believe what 'feels right' regardless of evidence.
3) Tell everyone you can, convincing them that what 'feels right' to you is the truth.
guenther wrote:A better analogy would be morality. For example, there's no way to measure the goodness/badness of homosexuality, so its truth is poorly define. But that doesn't stop people from actively professing their perceived moral truth as if it's objective fact. Not everyone describes this process as faith, but I think it's a similar phenomenon to the professed truths of religion.
Well, actually, no. You can easily define the goodness/badness of homosexuality. Once on the subject of sexual relationships, there are only so many possible options. You can have a relationship for sexual gratification, for reproduction, or for companionship. Most likely a combination of the three, with weights distributed differently between different people. There aren't really any other reason to enter a relationship. Given that entering a relationship is goal related behavior, it is easy to define the goodness/badness of orientation. For instance, if one was entering a relationship for the sole purpose of reproduction, a homosexual relationship would be a terrible choice.
That being said, the obvious winner in this case is bisexuality. Best of both worlds, none of the drawbacks. duh!
And how is being gay an analogy for WMDs in Iraq?
Ortus wrote:Faith has a different connotation here than I'm used to, and I think that's what is giving me the most trouble. Maybe I'm synonymising faith and philosophy (the ideal of philosophy, rather)? Anyways, as to the bolded: I wasn't aiming for that question exactly. I'm differentiating between SCIENCE and science, RELIGION and religion. SCIENCE (Science) is the scientific process, science is the actual stuff derived from that process (subject to change, essentially meaningless to the process). RELIGION (Religion) is 'faith' (or my interpretation of it, I guess) and religion is, say, Christianity or Judaism which is, essentially, meaningless to the idea of faith. That's where I'm trying to draw parallels, though I could be wrong in my assumptions. The idea that the actual substance of a science, or of a faith, is on some level irrelevant, as it is subject to change, to evolve and grow as our understanding grows and it is the process (Science and Religion) that is the thing that truly matters. If either faith or science fail to grow as our understanding grows, as in our substance (irrelevant things) and our essence (the process of the scientific method and 'faith') don't evolve with our understanding, I would label that as a failing (and failing is okay, it is [or should be ffs] encouraged) of the person/people perpetrating the understanding and not the actual idea of Science and Religion.
Were that to be the case, that the two were rather inseparable yet apart and capable of almost painless change, the amount of growth in both areas would be astonishing, even by today's standards. Or I could just be romanticizing the whole thing xD
First there is no reason to be all confusing with dIFferEnt capitalization schemes. We have terms for all your capitalizations, use them.
Science: The scientific method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained .
Faith is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof. Faith is also referred to as “confidence or trust in a person or thing”. As in, evidences of someone’s abilities gave him the faith that they had the ability to do the same (or similar) again. And therefore can be based on proofs or evidences, which can then be projected onto future events.
The word faith can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with trust, faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence." Informal usage of the word faith can be quite broad, and may be used in place of trust or belief.
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
Secondly, there are inherent differences in how religion and science changes. When Einstein come around and shows the inaccuracies of Newton's planet motions, it doesn't make Newton wrong. All it does is add nuance and subtleties to the old models. When a geologist comes along and says that the earth is 4.5b years old, it doesn't add subtly and nuance to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, it makes it flat out wrong. Science is designed to change. Religion is inherently static. How can a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient god evolve? It is counter to the very idea of god.
Jimmigee wrote:Extend this: "how can something exist WITHOUT a guiding hand in building the complexity" to a god and you'll see it has no use as an argument.
By the same token, if the universe could have given us sentient life, why could it not have given us a God as well?
It could have, but then that god wouldn't be the creator, would he?
Oh and occam's razor.
bobjoesmith wrote:And on this science vs. faith thing, distinguish religion from dogma. Earth is flat? Dogma. [Ok, and it makes me angry when people say this, because Pythagoras had found spherical Earth over a millenia ago. By Columbus, anyone learned could tell you the Earth was a sphere. they just didn't know if you could go all the way to China- and they were right] Jesus is God? Faith. Burn the witches? Dogma. God exists? Faith. Crusade for God? Dogma. God is good? Faith.
-> Distinguish clearly the manipulation of religion for human ends and what is in the bible. There is not a single sentence in the bible that says go and kill Muslims, nor does it once say to establish inquisitions. All the foul things listed were done by people to gain power. Hitler didn't have a religious end, and nor did Mao or Stalin. In fact Mao and Stalin detested religion, but caused just as much harm as "a metric fucktonne of crusades" as nitePhyyre said: in fact if you put "a metric fucktonne of crusades" into a single year of Stalin's rule, it would probably be sent to the gulags for being small and insignificant. Be clear on what religion says and what dogma says. The Pope may be the Catholic's rep on Earth and the King of England may've been the Anglicans' , but find me the sentence in the bible that says marry like 8 times and chop of bunch of their heads off [King Henry VIII cough]
Burn the witches?
There are several references to witchcraft in the Bible that strongly condemn such practices. For example, Deuteronomy 18:11-12 condemns anyone who "..casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you" (NIV); Exodus 22:18 states "Do not allow a sorceress to live" (NIV).
So how exactly do we differentiate what is dogma and what is faith?
bobjoesmith wrote:And this game theory vs. love each other is also something to express creation, or a guiding hand, or whatever phrase you want to term to there being a being of power. If we all came directly out of unadulterated evolution, why is it that humans can feel love, have devotion to mates, or have ethics ?
-> Love makes no sense. Having one mate is silly to natural selection: the people who had the most babies shoudl be the most expressed genes. Love should never have happened: it defies almost every rule of "survival of the fittest": its putting someone in your life ahead of your own importance. Its hard to spread your genes when you take that lion claw for your mate, but here it is. Its what makes Harry survive lord voldemort...
-> Ethics? Why ethics? Why is it that there is a general consensus that there should be fairness or equality. Laws have existed for as long as there has been recorded history: a society that creates at least a little bit of equity in a supposedly efficient free market of life or death. Merchants should all try and cheat people, and none of us should pay, but all steal. The first ethical mutation would have resulted in that guy being quite low on the food chain.
As said before "Don't be a dick." Yes but this in and of itself is something to show that something must have had a hand in our development. The guy who isnt being a "dick" is going to be the one screwed over by all the ones who havent learned not to be that way.
There is just so much ignorance in that block I am amused. It's also funny because Harry then goes on to marry Ginny and have three kids, ensuring that Harry's mother's genes get spread. Your example actually works against you. But seriously, you need to do some reading on evolutionary ethics. This crap you are spouting just embarrasses you.