Religion & Theology (& should we respect beliefs)

[Evil Inky]

I just find a certain interest in the fact that the true atheist is very quick to denounce all things spiritual and then take a traditional christian holiday without so much as a placard.

You don't need to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to enjoy Christmas or Easter, so why the perceived need to believe in God ?

[Rasmie]

Styles wrote

I allways like the old testement far better than the new, God really knew how to kick ass then

 

As thats the Jewish part of the bible, doesn't that make you Jewish??

[DeMascus]

Noplace? As both spiritually and culturally the majority of the population "worship" machines in the same manner now that our predecessors "worshipped" the land, the kirk and the community?

I don't think we all can be seen to be treading water. Only those in the furthest recesses of our planet are still "treading water" and the west is doing everything possible to bring them under the scrutiny of the "machines" in a similar manner.

 

I don't know if I would use worship to describe this, I believe we have gone trough a large leap of consciousness in the last 4000 years. From a bicameral consciousness, where humans actually had a connection to a 'God' and lived it's life thus, to a complex and rational consciousness where there is a need to analyse and problem solve, try to find an example of this in Homer's Iliad.

 

I would fear that I may be underestimating reality and overestimating my Ego if I stated that I knew the nature and wishes of the driving forces.

 

I would say this is only one way of rationally understanding the problem. A lot of people may just trust their judgment and believe that it is god, it is not less a leap of faith than thinking that science will solve global warming.

 

Is "worshipping" machines actually going anywhere positive, or is it simply side-stepping a little, or even taking a step backwards?

 

As each new generation is born the eldest one is still dropping off the other end at circa three score and ten years, yet are we really any further ahead in comprehending what it's all about, why any of this is here, than our predecessors of Millennia past with their sun gods and idols were? Certainly our understanding of our surroundings has moved some, but in terms of the big picture, is that increase in understanding really worth tuppence?

 

Maybe this is just my current belief system playing with me, but being able to understand and make judgments about the world around us is of great use, and probably moving forward. I don't know if most people understand why they are doing all of this, generally I see most people working towards the procurement of wealth, but where does that leave their mental wellbeing or purpose?

 

A little standup about religion by doug stanhope. (just for laughs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4-UouZOIlg

[Mcdilly-Willy]

A lot of people may just trust their judgment and believe that it is god, it is not less a leap of faith than thinking that science will solve global warming.

 

Yes I heard the IPCC had changed there minds, held god responsible, and figured that he'd sort it....

 

Religions jump to conlusions without the need for any evidence; isn't that a huge leap of faith?

 

What would be the reaction be if I were to write in the shetland times next friday that a pig had been seen over muckle flugga wearing goggles and a scarf? (was that on SIBC?)

 

Well all religious people should believe me surely... Who needs evidence?

 

I cant believe in this day and age people still believe that tripe...

 

Science is much much much, oh sooo much closer than "god" to solving the global warming issue. Science gathers evidence then provides answers...where's the leap of faith?

 

But hey maybe it's "meant to be", gods plan and all that nonsense....

[DeMascus]

Breaking News (year 2100) :

 

The planets entire ecosystem has collapsed, there will be approximately 24 hours to make your peace!...

 

In other news the most detrimental event to the planet was a jump in energy use in 2009 which caused the pollution of the environment to increase exponentially. The reason for this jump was a word-wide network attempting to predict environmental impact of the human race using games console's spare clock-cycles.

 

Oh, whats that called again? it's got a name..... lumpsooker things up royally!

 

But really, you don't know, god may be, well, right on it. as soon as he recovers from the depression he has been in since his son rebelled and became a freedom fighter, god is within you!

 

Considering you could hold science partially responsible for the global warming crisis, at least good old wrathful god wasn't indiscriminate, and he never used an A-Bomb. That's ascribing human characteristics to god which if you accept will in turn mold you with these characteristics. What about science if you accept that as your doctrine where does that leave morality? it is currently being fought out in the courts by lawyers and special interest groups, the same people who gave us patents and litigation, oh wonderful.

 

 

Haile Selassie

[peeriebryan]

What about science if you accept that as your doctrine where does that leave morality? it is currently being fought out in the courts by lawyers and special interest groups, the same people who gave us patents and litigation, oh wonderful.

Do you think scientific principles promotes a lack of morality? Does belief in religion make someone somehow 'more moral'? I don't see how

 

re: patents (and intellectual property in general) are, broadly speaking, a product of ancient Greece, where such matters were hot philosophical talking points - If folk are rewarded for physical exertion and creativity, why not mental exertion and creativity? There's nothing wrong with patents

 

And what's wrong with litigation? A legal process to resolve dispute....

[DeMascus]

Do you think scientific principles promotes a lack of morality? Does belief in religion make someone somehow 'more moral'? I don't see how

 

Taking this from a human perspective the society you grow in feeds you all sorts of information on how to behave. You see someone doing something and and you think, i like that, I thing I'll use it. You read something in a book you mind makes a mental scenario around it and you may also take that on board. You read someone on a web forum making a very persuasive point and you believe it!

 

If you hold science as a giver of your knowledge you will follow scientific principles in everyday life, I have never heard of the 10 scientific commandments, think of the stem cells. There isn't a whole lot of morality in science esp' not in human or social relations, But there is a tried and tested model already written down and followed by more people than currently follow scientific atheism.

 

 

 

re: patents (and intellectual property in general) are, broadly speaking, a product of ancient Greece, where such matters were hot philosophical talking points - If folk are rewarded for physical exertion and creativity, why not mental exertion and creativity? There's nothing wrong with patents

 

And what's wrong with litigation? A legal process to resolve dispute....

 

Probably discussions for another thread Brian. .tut. .tut.

 

PS. had a bit of DB trouble there??

[peeriebryan]

If you hold science as a giver of your knowledge you will follow scientific principles in everyday life But there is a tried and tested model already written down and followed by more people than currently follow scientific atheism.

I do believe in science as a 'giver of knowlege', but it doesn't follow that I act in a less moralistic way than someone who follows a prescribed religion. Following a religion doesn't make someone more 'ethical' or 'moral' than an aethiest

 

You mention that there is no 10 commandments of science, but there is a clear code of ethics. Stem cell research is an excellent example of how 'science' follows this code of ethics. We have the technology to progress at a much more rapid pace than we do, but ethical debate within the legislative and the scientific community has prevented science for science' sake

 

re: patents such matters were hot philosophical talking points

Probably discussions for another thread Brian. .tut. .tut.

Erm, religion, philosophy etc etc

 

PS. had a bit of DB trouble there??

Indeed. Lucky Trout was on hand to bail us out again

[DeMascus]

I do believe in science as the 'giver of knowlege', but it doesn't follow that I act in a less moralistic way than someone who follows a prescribed religion. Following a religion doesn't make someone more 'ethical' or 'moral' than an aethiest.

 

True, I remember hearing a member on the clergy on the radio once explaining how someone who doesn't believe in god has not right to a moral viewpoint, which I don't agree with at all, everyone has the right to a moral viewpoint.

 

You mention that there is no 10 commandments of science, but there is a clear code of ethics. Stem cells is an excellent case to use as an example of how 'science' follows this code of ethics. We have the technology to progress at a much more rapid pace than we do, but ethical debate within the legislative and the scientific community has prevented science for science' sake

 

I don't know if there is a clear code of ethics. The debate about stem cell was brought about by pressures on the industry from inside and outside the industry by mainly religious groups and individuals.

 

I would say the code of ethics involved in science is probably very similar to what is practiced in most 1st world countries, and is derived from Christian teachings. Science could be best described as a method of scientific analysis (mainly empirical) or the wealth of knowledge we also call science, neither of these things have any need to be reflective on the human related moral aspects of the subject. The morality injected would be the own individuals cultural or religious morality.

 

PS. had a bit of DB trouble there??

Indeed. Lucky Trout was on hand to bail us out again

Good Old Trout!

[Njugle]

A brief sound-bite from one who has a desire to stick his oar in, but has little time to do so. Our culture is based or grown from about 1700 years of christian-based culture incorporating the morality thereof. At times that religion has been in dubious ethical territory, but nonetheless until very recently it has been the foundation of our laws.

 

Now, dare i ask, what in the name of science restricts us from eating our enemies, pillage, rape and a whole hornets nest of other moral crimes?

 

 

Also, drawing back to my point on machine worship, a progression of that is the point that law today is tending in some respects toward that which is acceptable to the majority. The future fearsome element of this trend is that of the de-sensitisation of the masses to violence and amorality through multi-media sources. To quote the most benign example, channel hopping alledgedly affects attention span during development. What effect then does constant news and drama featuring knife and gun crime, gang identity and the inflamatory elements of social inadequacy stemming from the culture of celebrity and the worship of wealth as mentioned by Demascus earlier.

 

Answer all that and it may be worth publishing to a University.

 

[edit] and of course those of intelligence and relatively secure background can attribute upbringing for their morality alone, but that is not a science and does not have any general bearing on society. eg it was in the news today of a 24 yr old mother feeding her child methodone to quiet it, and also the murder of a 14yr old by a 13yr old with a knife. Scientifically explain the immorality behind that. "Because it is the law" is not an answer.[/edit]

[NewMagnie]

A brief sound-bite from one who has a desire to stick his oar in, but has little time to do so. Our culture is based or grown from about 1700 years of christian-based culture incorporating the morality thereof. At times that religion has been in dubious ethical territory, but nonetheless until very recently it has been the foundation of our laws.

 

Now, dare i ask, what in the name of science restricts us from eating our enemies, pillage, rape and a whole hornets nest of other moral crimes?

 

You could take a wholly rational/scientific view that engaging wholesale in 'moral crimes' is likely to engender a moomin for tat situation which leads to general social collapse and a generally unpleasant life experience which is best avoided.

 

However; its a bit of a false argument - to collate every viewpoint which falls outwith the religious canon as 'scientific' is fallacious.

 

The broadly humanist/secular viewpoints held by many are based on a respect for life, security and property which are held by choice rather than a fear of damnation, and are probably stronger for it, rather than science as such.

 

Furthermore to award all moral thinking to religion, particularly christian religion, is pretty ropey as well (general point, Njugle, aware that you didn't raise this one) After all, it hasn't been around that long in the grand scheme of things and it does appear that animist societies, for example, manage to get along without murdering, raping or thieving from each other (at least to any greater degree than we do) without the benefits of the moral guidance of the church.

 

There's also evidence of highly organised, law abiding societies which substantially predate the christian church which probably indicates that the moral precepts we associate with judaeo/christian tradition in fact predate both it and their multiple-theistic ancestors and are based on a human need for social order rather than divine instruction.

[Njugle]

*quick lazy response alert*

 

Many of whom ate their enemies, sacrificed eachother and raped their enemies.

 

[edit] But! i do not restrict my scope to christian ideologies, it is but one example, relevant to the debate in the context of those within it[/edit]

 

Even in western europe evidence of sytematic cannibalism has been found in relatively recent times. North America more so. (though this is an awkward point for me to use given the absolutely abhorrent actions of those who "educated" north America away from former cultural behaviours such as cannibalism)

 

My specific point here, though not from a religious stance, is that asides from any question of the existance of theological entities, religion has served history well in maintaining order in a manner unequalled by the modern judicial system. "Burning in hell" wins hands down over "Nice warm cell, playstation and conjugals" in terms of mass control. Especially when the power is not abused.

[NewMagnie]

*quick lazy response alert*

 

Unacceptable Njugle, especially given your sweeping generalisations regarding the behaviour of so called primitive peoples.

 

What's the effective difference of being killed as a human sacrifice by pre christian/judaic/islamic/etc society or being burned alive by the inquisition?

 

Agreed, the christian tradition is a relevant example when discussing the development of western european society and since that appeared to be the gist of the thread I'm not quite sure what you're taking issue with here.

 

Yes, religion served as a useful tool to control the masses - particularly when the masses were an illiterate, superstitious horde.

 

"Especially when the power is not abused" though? Care to explain how telling peasants fairy stories about burning in hell if they don't observe their feudal duties can ever be construed as non abusive?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Demascus wrote:

god wasn't indiscriminate, and he never used an A-Bomb

-

Tell that to the Dinosaurs.

[DeMascus]

god wasn't indiscriminate, and he never used an A-Bomb

Tell that to the Dinosaurs.

Very good.

When I find a dinosaur with a concept of god, I'll be sure to pass that on.

 

Unacceptable Njugle, especially given your sweeping generalisations regarding the behaviour of so called primitive peoples.

 

What's the effective difference of being killed as a human sacrifice by pre christian/judaic/islamic/etc society or being burned alive by the inquisition?

 

I think this would still fall into religion because a sacrifice would be an act to please some deity.

 

Agreed, the christian tradition is a relevant example when discussing the development of western european society and since that appeared to be the gist of the thread I'm not quite sure what you're taking issue with here.

 

I think a good question about religion is: Are we as a species dependent on the moral guidance that religion gives?

 

Yes, religion served as a useful tool to control the masses - particularly when the masses were an illiterate, superstitious horde.

sweeping generalisations regarding the behaviour of so called primitive peoples

 

"Especially when the power is not abused" though? Care to explain how telling peasants fairy stories about burning in hell if they don't observe their feudal duties can ever be construed as non abusive?

 

That is an interesting question. It could also be assessed as terror, is the Roman Catholic Church a terrorist organisation, or is God the new Bin Laden. You have to ask if there was already a framework of religious belief built into the human brain which the major religions have successfully tapped into, or did religion create a social model that bred this.