Secular Christian Indoctrination

Scilosopher,

Cris,
I'm glad you found my comments interesting even if you didn't respond to them.
Click to expand...
I responded to your comments as you were posting. I think it more polite to respond to each poster in a separate post and I simply responded to JR first.

I just wanted to pick out a couple of your points.

There are still many things you just can't know and it is important to have beliefs about them.
Click to expand...
This I think is a dangerous approach. Patience should be the rule. If you don’t know something is true and choose a belief that is false, then what value is that to anyone? There is no need to believe anything, just simply resist the pressure to believe something that might be false.

We have only been able to understand relatively simple phenomena. Read some dynamics books ... we just can't handle most nonlinear phenomena. Most of our social world is nonlinear and a lot of religion provides insight to this. In buddhism for example this insight is based on experience and thought. Which is really pretty scientific even if it doesn't quite fit the bill ...
Click to expand...
Ok I agree to some extent and the issues here are our low intelligence that makes us unable to comprehend more complex topics. Humans are the first species on the planet whose brains have reached a minimum of complexity that allows self-awareness. We now need to quickly progress to a state where we can massively enhance our intelligence and finally move on to greater things. And here we need science, genetics, neuroscience, and technology.

But I disagree that belief in a religion is necessary for speculation, and you have said elsewhere that you borrow from religions and do not necessarily follow their beliefs. So I think we agree that where a philosophy or a religion proposes a new, perhaps unusual, idea then its fine to explore that. And if there is a way to turn the idea into a reality then again we enter the world of science and technology for the implementation.

Cris
 
My 2 cents:

Religion is laws and rules to live by. If you do not follow the rules, you are punished, banished, outcasted etc. Once rules are made, it is very difficult to change just like most US city, state and federal laws. There is a whole group of people that adminster these laws. The entire group of justice branch or its counterpart religious branch does not produce a single grain of rice, a piece of paper, a bottle of water, a cup of coffee, a steak, a potato or even an apple pie - nor do they produce shelter, make bricks, produce power, keep you warm in the winter, heal your body, deliver your child by C-section or provide kidney dialysis.

Science on the other hand is the knowledge that produces tools and technology which in turn amplifies human mind and body so that you can live. People who are involved in science and technology do produce food including apple pies, shelter - produce power, keep you warm in the winter, heal your body, deliver your child by C-section and provide kidney dialysis.

May be it is not one against the other but a complimentary coexistence that is good for humanity. The civilization dies when the percentage of people working in the law department is more than the percentage of people in science. It happened to the Greeks, the Romans and the same can happen to us too...
 
Scilosopher,

Our posts are overlapping. :D

I think I have answered this in my last post.

remember there are things we know we don't understand. Does that mean we don't make use of beliefs in how to guide us in these areas?
Click to expand...
I think we are not using the word ‘belief’ in the same way.

What I am saying is that it is healthy to remain skeptical about any claims that cannot be shown as true. You don’t need to believe something is true to be able to explore that idea. A hypothesis is a good example. Here one would make a proposal and then set about trying to show it is true or false. One doesn’t need to begin by believing it is true at the outset.

You need rational beliefs to guide you. Irrational beliefs can be totally wrong and if you are guided by a false belief then you will become lost.

Look at religions with interest and understand their ideas and realize they could be totally wrong. What practical use are those ideas if you can’t rely on them?

Cris
 
kmguru wrote:

May be it is not one against the other but a complimentary coexistence that is good for humanity.
Click to expand...

A coexistence as it is, or as it could be? Interesting.

As it could be... a possibility, kmguru, but a tougher challenge for Religion, I think. It would require, for one thing, that Religion back off from insisting that it knows all the answers, and from trying to assert itself into or “over” everyone’s life. So while I’ll never say “never,” I have to wonder about how possible/probable this kind of change would be?

It seems that Science remains fairly open-minded overall in it’s approach to seeking for truth. (And yes, “truth” is a term that can be defined in many ways, understood.) But can Religion, as a whole, ever be satisfied to admit that it doesn’t have all the answers--and to stop behaving as though it does? (And ‘lest anyone be tempted to misunderstand, I’m not asserting that all who have “religious faith” are all rotten scoundrels.)

I do wonder however how much hope is justified when a proper balance between Science and Religion will depend upon those who cannot even recognize the virtue of trying to see anything other than what they want to see--or hear.

A world where people who wish to can believe in the supernatural (or anything) without trying to force others to embrace the same beliefs? I think it would mean the end of Religion as we’ve known it.

What are the chances?

~~~

Counterbalance
 
Imahamster wrote:

As for Counterbalance…well, Counterbalance has promised to be the bane of this hamster’s existence. What more could one ask from a good friend? :D
Click to expand...

And a promise is a promise, by golly!

;)
 
EDIT: interesting how you say you don't believe we need beliefs ...

That is it exactly! One does NOT require beliefs.

An article in a link that Cris provided explains this in detail. The article also provides examples that support the idea. One example, when in danger from a predator, the older dominant alpha male gorilla will hang back from the group and will engage the predator in what will most likely be a suicidal effort. He will do so not only in an attempt to protect the rest of the group but also to give the group a better chance of getting away. The older male simply buys time with his life, an act of courage and selflessness not learned from theology.
 
Coexistence and understanding is what I have been trying to argue for. As well as transfer of intelligent realization. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a religious context.

Kmguru, your definition of religion would end any chance of the American concept of separation of church and state ... but I certainly see what you're saying.

Cris, we certainly were using belief in a different way, but for me it is natural to think a belief can change. Otherwise I would say I knew it (even if I was wrong - I've certainly KNOWN [been convinced of] some incorrect things in my day). I have severe distrust of the role of language in the problems of the world. I admit that I did it myself in my EDIT comment, though. I think we basically agree, though you seem more set on things being absolute. I'm not so sure anything is ever totally wrong in that it is useless to comtemplate. In the mistakes people make are the secrets to understanding humanity. Of course that doesn't mean it isn't incorrect. I think there are typically some insights in all religion which can be disentangled by the thoughtful mind. That doesn't mean I think the religion was right, but I do think the religion was on to something in part. Certainly nothing that so many hold to so dearly is completely devoid of perspective.

Q, I have no idea what you mean. How does belief have anything to do with alpha male gorillas not acting for theological reasons? Which link? I'm sure there's a gem in there somewhere ... though maybe it does not address my usage of belief. (oh and my main point was the way belief was used in a sentence saying beliefs were not necessary - that seems a little odd.)
 
Q,
I'm quite familiar with the argument it presented and certainly agree with the view for the most part. It's not entirely clear to me that enlightened self interest will always make you do the right thing. There are crimes that no one is likely to catch you for, that really hurt no one, but are still wrong. Like the guy who wrote software for a bank that gave him all the sub penny interest. This is one of the reasons it can be good have people think someone else knows there thoughts and deeds and judge them. It forces them to judge themselves as they would judge others.

I don't think it discredits belief at all. If I help someone, I help them by giving them advice I believe will be useful. No science can tell you that. Frank Zindler is saying what he believes is a rational basis for morality. I believe it is a useful perspective to some extent. It isn't a proven theory though. Having looked up belief in the dictionary I may be the one to blame for the misunderstandings on belief as it does denotate conviction or acceptance of truth. I am not aware of a word that means what I mean and I thought that was what a conviction was. I think the way I use it makes more sense, if you don't know something and think it's the truth, you should not necessarily hold tight to that idea. Besides you can just say conviction if you do. From now on you know what I mean by belief. If I start having convictions I'll use that word.
 
<b>Cris</b>

In most respects, I agree with what you have said. Personally, I find that atheists, despite their protests, are too certain about the non-existence of God for me to call myself one of them. I prefer to identify myself as an agnostic.

I agree that scientists and religious people often argue at cross purposes, neither really understanding the position of the other, particularly as regards what constitutes evidence. For that reason, I think recognition of difference is more important than setting up religion and science as opposites.

You said: <i>Having considered the issues for several decades I have become convinced of what I consider valid evidence. I am sure religionists would claim the same for their case.</i>

Hence we find ourselves at an impasse. You will probably not convince the religious, and they will not sway you, at least not while you use different ideas of what is valid evidence.

My point about "how" vs. "why" questions was aimed at the lack in science of explanations of Aristotlean "final causes". At its base, every question in science ultimately leads to a "why" question which science can't answer.

I agree with your points about inductive reasoning, but I do not think it justifies atheism. But I am aware that there are different brands of atheism, and your conception of that label may differ from mine.

I also agree with you that many moral doctrines can exist in a secular setting. (But remember I am 100% secular humanist, according to the all-knowing belief-o-meter!)

In summary, I think we probably understand each other pretty well, and in most respects would put up a united front to the satisfaction of (Q) if required (but see my comments below). I must say it is good to find people who have thought in depth about the issues we're talking about here.


<b>Scilosopher</b>

I agree with you that to claim to have the whole story is presumptuous, and naive, whether you are an atheist or a religious person.

I'm not sure about your point regarding majority concensus in science. Sometimes the majority can be wrong. But science is self-correcting and the truth eventually tends to bubble to the surface. It is important for scientists (and the general public) to always keep in mind that science is a human enterprise, and is therefore subject to some of the human foibles which permeate every field in which people interact with one another.


<b>(Q)</b>

In my opinion the discussion of science and religion does not have to be an "us against them" thing. I have no wish to "battle" religious groups and do not consider them to be "the other side". The only gripe I have is with fundamentalists who want to claim that their religion is science. I also have moral issues with those who subvert religion for political purposes, but that's another story. I can see no reason why reasonable people cannot discuss religion in a reasonable way, and in fact I think this thread is good evidence that such a thing is possible (note the lack of input by certain parties into this thread, which has made all the difference).

Arguing against religion is somewhat fruitless. A wise man once said that <b>you cannot argue somebody out of a belief which they have not been argued into</b>, and that is particularly applicable in the case of religion.
 
JR,
If it isn't by some form of consensus how does the non-scientific community tell what the scientists think are the best current theories?

I agree that individuals can recognize something that the rest are looking at wrong, but until a sizeable fraction of scientists believe it I wouldn't say that it has become an accepted scientific theory.

With time the correct view will generally bear out due to the accumulation of evidence, but there is certainly a requirement for some level of acceptance within the community. It might not have to be a majority, but I did say a majority of experts on the topic. How one decides who is expert is another matter.

If you haven't read Thomas Kuhn's "the structure and funtion of scientific revolutions" I recommend it. Very interesting reading.
 
Originally posted by scilosopher
Coexistence and understanding is what I have been trying to argue for. As well as transfer of intelligent realization. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a religious context.

Kmguru, your definition of religion would end any chance of the American concept of separation of church and state ... but I certainly see what you're saying.
Click to expand...

If one can step away from both subjects (Science and Religion) and look at it objectively, one can come to the same conclusion as I have. BTW, the moral majority have been trying very hard to legislate morality for as long as I can remember. If you think about it, the morality is again a code of conduct or rules to live by. The religious priests and heirarchy has been here long before the government. So they would like to control the people. It is basically two different governments trying to co-exist. Look at most Islamic countries. There, the religious people do take over and be the government.

Think about it. The democracy is a modern concept of governance for the people, by the people and of the people (at least that is the way it is potrayed). On the other hand, religious structure is the dictatorship by a small group of people (the mullahs, the priests, the vatican etc) of one division of one faith. And you want to combine church and state? Are you nuts? In Christianity there are more than 600 subgroups that may not share power, in Islam, there are several... shites, sunis and so on...

What I tried to say in my other post is that Religion is a kind of government in a primitive society. Because they have been there for thousands of years, that group knows all the tricks in the book to control the populace. They blame science for giving them democracy and the reduction of their power in governance.

It is time, one looks at it in different light. The veil must be removed to see what the situation really is. Democracy and Science is really incompatible with the power group in the religion. But we can live in harmony just as the medical proffesion is living with the pseudoscience group called Psychologists.
 
Last edited:
Kmguru,
I wasn't suggesting ending the separation of church and state. I was saying by your definition, the state becomes defined as a religion.

Even in democracy you have people imposing their beliefs on others. Like that you can't smoke marijuana (like you mentioned in a reply to my life inside a computer post). The difference is everyone is supposed to get a say. If everyone has a different religion with a little power group, there is still a reduction in the people in control. This happens anyway due to the very concept of representation. It can happen through political parties. We don't vote directly on most issues (though this is changing in some state governments like California). I can't imagine any government working without some reduction in the parties involved in debate.
 
Scilosopher:

I think, we have no disagreements here. For the benefit of the readers, all I am trying to do is to bring a different point of view. Yes, I am equating Religion with Government. One is very old, the other one is very new. They both function the same - rules to live by, punishment for those who break them. Mercy or Compassion is not something that is in either ones forte.

We should be comparing Religion to Government. Science undermines both.
 
James R

In my opinion the discussion of science and religion does not have to be an "us against them" thing. I have no wish to "battle" religious groups and do not consider them to be "the other side".

With all due respect I think you may be kidding yourself. It certainly is an "us against them" thing. Reality against fantasy. Rational against the irrational. Logic against the illogical. The list goes on.

Does not religion in various ways affect your life? I think it does. Probably in more ways then you know. What about the people you know or work with? Have you ever been in a situation where someone that you thought you knew suddenly appeared very different to you after they revealed they had religious convictions? Your attitude towards them changes. You question their decisions because you're not sure if they are allowing their convictions to control their decision making process. Their brainpans have been clouded with delusion. You now find there are fewer interests that you share. You can't even trust yourself to make sure you say all the right things so as not to offend them. That person has now become one of "them."

Sure, they may be one of the nicest people you've ever met, or not. That's irrelevant. It is simply a change in your outlook towards them.

I'm certainly not going to hide the fact that I've been in that situation more than once. Would that label me a bigot?
 
Scilosopher

Help me understand. From my point of view, I cannot imagine how anyone can believe in religion. I just don't fathom the concept. It is totally beyond my comprehension. You seem to have a grasp on both religion and science and are somehow able to combine the two to form a way of life. What is it from religion that you find so compelling?

I'm simply baffled. :confused:
 
Q,
That's a tough one, I'm not sure if I can put my views that simply. I certainly don't practice any organized religion and think they can be dangerous when the individual isn't allowed to have their own interpretation of doctrine. But I'll try to do it simply and if some part doesn't make sense let me know.

My definition of "god": the order that underlies the universe and most significantly the order manifest in the sum of the parts that exists in none of them. Complex systems can seem to have behaviour, like weather which probably leads to the personification of the concept of god in the first place. It was an analogy that helped people think about the world. This order could very well be conscious on top of our indivual consciousness some way. This is just a possibility not something I'm positive of.

I don't seperate natural and supernatural. You have what ever is real and if they interact AT ALL then they are in some way subject to a integratable set of laws of nature. We can explore these through science, but our ability to get complete information is severely limited. Therefore there are phenomena that occur which we don't understand. In some instances they seem inexplicable through science, but I believe there must be a mechanistic underpinning.

Order. The main point of religion is understanding our place in the world and providing a frame of reference for a relevant code of morals. This is where I think science is most useful to the concept of religion. Evolution is an amazingly sensitive measure of the ordering principles of nature and I think the most useful for directly understanding how order propagates through physical, chemical, and biological systems. Biology is not separate from chemistry or physics as fundamentally all sciences interact and are therefore are intimately linked. It is only our study of nature that has lead to fragmentation in technique, emphasis, and our understanding of how they integrate. I don't believe in randomness as I can't imagine a random mechanism (though I accept the possibility that it is just because my brain has no random mechanisms directly accessible to it, so I can't use one to imagine it). I think any moral code is informed by this order, especially direct understanding of what humans are and our limitations and tendencies.

Is this a religion? I have no idea. There is a god of some sort, more abstract than most - but a lot of religions talk of god being beyond our conception and having created the world. Mine god is compatible with that, in fact a personification of god is maybe more confusing if we can't understand god, because people seem at least more comprehensible than something that abstract. It fits with the god is everywhere and everything. God is all powerful and you can't oppose his will because it is the very laws of the universe. It provides a very flexible way of defining morals that can grow with our understanding (a major problem in many religions).

It is compatible with science though current science has no means to understand god. God exists based on the very definition. You can argue whether it is relevant to define god that way or whether this is a religion, but it makes sense to me. Worship of god becomes relevant because it only makes sense in seeking to understand or bring your life in harmony with the nature of the universe. This should do you good on earth and if it will lead to some immortal form of the order you embody great (and it kind of makes sense that it would more so than someone who fights nature as the energy you put into life won't die out as quickly trying to do work to change the world from its natural course).

Hope that makes sense and it ts the basic nutshell of my perspective ...

(If I'm not responsive after 10 it's becuase the university internet connection is going down for servicing through sometime tomorrow)
 
(Q),

<i>It certainly is an "us against them" thing. Reality against fantasy. Rational against the irrational. Logic against the illogical. The list goes on.</i>

I commented on that before. I cannot be sure that religious belief is a fantasy. I do not believe it is necessarily irrational or illogical.

<i>Have you ever been in a situation where someone that you thought you knew suddenly appeared very different to you after they revealed they had religious convictions? Your attitude towards them changes. ... Would that label me a bigot?</i>

Perhaps. It would depend on whether you discriminate against them simply because of their religious beliefs. Surely a person should be judged on much more than whether they are religious or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top