Marijuana.com

JTP

Perhaps not. I was responding to this statement:

"But, can't you see that there's an enormous advantage to believing in things you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc, rather than believing in something intangible."

That looked like you thought it had to be an "either or" situation.

But, yeah, ok. Do I need to point out all the times when the persuit of science took on some very scary characteristics?

Religion has the salem witch trials and host of other events - and science has the Nazi experiments, the Japanese experiments and the US and Russian experiments. As nasty as the Nazis and the Japanese were with their "scientific experimentation" the US radiological tests were kinda creepy.

Let us not try and judge what activities are, or are not a waste of time. Some of the activities you ridicule as a waste of time may contribute to a person's mental health or emotional state. Several clinical tests which have studied the relative success and productivity of people have found that "happy" people are more successful and productive. So who is to say that praying or setting up nativity scenes or whatever isn't of distinct benefit?

You are free to hold whatever beliefs you choose to hold.

Make a personal choice and be happy. Trying to compare personal belief and faith to determine which is "better" is a waste IMO.

 

4mer_smoker

JTP, for the most part, religion has been responsible for the corruption of science. From the distant past, up to the present, the religious concepts with their well meaning but often misguided fervor created a seemingly insurmountable division in the human community. With it's powerful influence on the human mind and psyche there have been countless heinous deeds, destructions and sufferings. Throughout recorded history, religion based conflicts wasted and keep on wasting human lives with ceaseless warfares. Currently, there are 16 ongoing wars and skirmishes waged around the world, averaging 400 deaths per day. With that sort of destructive activity, "Armageddon" is assured, as things such as the Briefcase Atomic Device technologically become possible trough rapid advancements in science, and the latest developments in super powerful, easily dispensable deadly chemical and biological agents. Need I even mention terrorists and the horribly negative impacts of religious fanaticism?

As long as there are people coming up to my doorstep, preaching to me, trying to spread the "Word," perpetuating faithful ignorance and killing others around the world in the name of religion, I will do all I can to rebut their irrational ideals.

JTP

4mer_smoker,

Nonsense, your arrogance is telling. I just pointed out that you are no better than anyone else just because you choose not to believe what somebody else does.

Religion, generally, has proven the strongest institution of civilization in history. Without religion we wouldn't have society - therefore we wouldn't have science.

This in not a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. Religion outdates science by a VERY wide margin. Science requires an organised and stable society in which to develope - something organised religion must be given some credit for.

How can you claim that religion corrupts science? What are you drawing that conclusion from?

Your arguement is getting stale.

There are numerous instances of war and horendous crimes that were perpetrated by men who despised religion.

Perhaps you should study some history to give context to your pedantic assertions.

4mer_smoker

Geeeez, cause in point... cloning...

You cannot honestly say that religion hasn't inhibited, and continues to inhibit science. I'm not saying that science has come before religion. I already stated that religion is an easy explanation for the world. I'm saying that science is beyond religion in the respect that it continues to take in information and is progressive... duh... duh... duh... why is this not making sense to you? Religion is relatively primitive, and it WAS necessary in times that we couldn't gather information about the world and communicate that information as effectively. With great evolutions in technology, why do you refuse to believe that there can be evolution in thought? Soceity cannot advance in rationality and must rely upon ignorant superstitions to survive? History is just that... history. It's something to look back on and learn from, like with any scientific process. We made some mistakes, so let's move on towards advancements. Religion is not advancing! It is stagnant, absurd, and faithfully ignorant.

JTP

4mer_smoker,

It is not that I don't understand your arguement - I just find it simplistic and wrong.

You are assuming that humanity is somehow smarter or more advance now than we were in the past. That we are somehow capable of leaping forward to... what? You said:

"Soceity cannot advance in rationality and must rely upon ignorant superstitions to survive?"

Who is argueing that? Quit making things up. That is not my position, and I never said that. Argue what I said, don't make crap up just so you can sound smart.

You cannot honestly say that religion hasn't inhibited, and continues to inhibit science.

You are right, I can't - and never did say that. When are you going to address what I actually said?

Science needs to be constrained by morality. Religion is just one of many institutions which foster and teach morality. Without moral constraints we would have all kinds of crazy stuff going on. Genetic experimentation is very cool, but I don't need some "mad scientist" someplace working on "the ultimate human" without some constraints on his/her activities.

You also said "why do you refuse to believe that there can be evolution in thought?".

What is "evolution in thought" suppossed to mean?

 

wittgenstotle

JTP said:
"Science needs to be constrained by morality. Religion is just one of many institutions which foster and teach morality. Without moral constraints we would have all kinds of crazy stuff going on."

Okay...just a quick comment, i'll let 4mersmoker rebut the greater part of your recent post.

But, i just want to say part of the problem with this debate is that it is truly unfair (or maybe its better to say unappropriate) to compare science and religion. Science is a method by which we can devise a model of reality, in other words its only interested in collecting assumptions about "what is". Religion on the other hand, not only involves assumptions regarding "what is" it also involves a normative guide to human action, in other words "how should we choreograph ourselves to make the best of what is." Therefore, i agree, science by itself is not a better system than religion. because its missing the whole normative aspect. Yes, JTP, science needs to be constrained by morality. But i would argue that the secular morality of philosophy is the better guiding force than any of the moralities of the organized religions.

__________________
"The limits of my language are the limits of my world. All i know is what i have words for." -Wittgenstein

4mer_smoker

Right well, just as there is evolution of technology, there is evolution of the mind. Even in the last 50 years, our collective IQs have raised nearly 30 points. We DO evolve psychologically as we gain more information to contrast and compare to our own ideas, so that we may better hone our own perceptions of the world. As communications improve via science, we have more perspectives to glean from, which makes us smarter and we advance in mental capacity. WE DO EVOLVE MENTALLY! This has been recorded and it is a fact.

Now, if you read one of my earlier posts, building off on this, why do you refuse to believe it is possible for one to act morally without the assistance of religion? True, religion is an EASIER excuse to care for your fellow man, but it is deep rooted in fear of some unknown entity and, for the most part, it is actually selfish if you think about the consequences of NOT caring for you well man, with the eternal damnation and the whatnot. It is not rational to "love" someone else on the grounds that if you do not, you will be cast into an afterlife of perpetual hellfire.

What I'm saying is that it is scientifically rational to care and love for one's fellow man. However, it is very difficult for people to see this when they are most often forced to do so with threats of force, being it government, religion or otherwise. This causes a sort of cognitive dissonance in the individual that leads some to rebel against the irrational force. That rebellion may have begotten from any number of perceived injustices that for whatever reason may have been missed by the forceful authority. Then a pattern of rebellious behavior is created simply because there was no rationale for an injustice that occurred under the intimidating authority. Now there is a lack of fear and a disposition to commit acts in spite of the authority. This follows along well with psychology...

Anyways, that sort of forceful authority evolved over the years, originally in the form of religion-oriented governments, such as the Egyptians. Religion was a great way to rule the people, since the fear was so deep-rooted in unquestionable convictions. However, we have come a long way since that, and now we're trying to come up with more rational means of government. The fear is dissipating and we are trying to focus more on what we can do here and now to promote the well-being of our societies, instead of how we can avoid the wrath of a forceful authority. We are starting to realize how much we actually can rationalize for ourselves. This is how it should be and this is why religion is unnecessary, because if people would stop glorifying that sort of faithful ignorance with premonitions of an afterlife, less people would be experiencing such profound cognitive dissonance and rebelling out of spite, due to perceived unjustified circumstances.

"Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
"No one knows, so let's f*ck some sh*t up!"

Arise -SWS-

I have to chime in on this because I was thinking about reality and how we interpret it recently. I think that science and religion/philosophy, are two routes to explaining the nature of reality. Both are equally capable of being security blankets- one for people who fear that there is no god, and one for people who fear there is one.

I only skimmed all of the posts in this thread so I don't know if this was mentioned, but physical science is arriving at the same conclusions that religion (specifically eastern religions/philosophies) arrived at thousands of years ago. For instance, physicists are finding that matter is actually energy, which makes EVERYTHING energy, just as age-old philosophies such as the Kybalion state in their texts.

My point is that if we perfected science and perfected religion, the two would be so similar they'd be interchangable. At the end of the day, both are just belief systems, it depends on which one you buy into more.

Arise -SWS-

Check it, using that argument you could say that science has been responsible for the corruption of otherwise beneficial religious expression.

For instance, just around 200 years ago science had "proven" that the White man was biologically superior to every other "race" on the planet. Presented as irrefutable evidence to the masses, Christianity, specifically Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Evangelist sects re-interpreted the Bible according to this scientific "fact". As a result, the enslavement of African Americans became acceptable and even justifiable from a religious standpoint.

That's just one example but suffice it to say, your argument can just as easily be destroyed by your train of thought. It's nothing personal, but science and religion are just different ways of looking at the world. Which is better is of little relevance because following either for lessons to be applied in everyday life bring you to relatively identical conclusions:

Scientifically- As social beings it behooves us to behave in a manner which encourages the propagation of our species.

Religiously- Do unto others as others do unto you, and things will be fine.

4mer_smoker

But don't you see that science wouldn't have been so ubiquitously misinterpreted without the assisted of religion? In the process of science, there is understood that we do not have all the answers, like I've said several times already, so the information is looked upon with skepticism. The example you mention even solidifies my point, because at the time religion was a popular way of governing the ideals of the people, so if they thought that having slaves was okay with their infallible God, then they would have no problem with it. Sure, science makes mistakes, but science learns from them and uses that information to hone its reasoning.

Let me give the example of the crusades. To this day, the Catholic church does not admit it was wrong to send so many people to their death. After they ran out of men to send to get slaughtered by the grace of their God, they rounded up thousands of children, supplied them with arms and sent them forth to battle. Needless to say, even with God on their side, every one of those children were senselessly killed. What I'm saying is that religion is dangerous because it doesn't need a reason. All religion needs is a lazy person who is willing to conform to presupposed standards of living. It doesn't matter if those standards are wrong, because they can always be justified with the claim that "it's part of God's plan."

There is no learning in religion, so don't even mention the hypothetical that if it was perfected along with science, the two would be the same. The fact is, perfection does not exist for us as humans, so there needs to be a better way for us to progress to a relatively better form of survival as a species. We are working towards better ways of communicating and LEARNING from each other, in order to form a more peaceful and agreeable society. Right now, there are a lot of differences and we are doing more to understand each other. With advancement in science coming from transportation and communication, we are able to do so. However, we are being inhibited in the process of acceptance of one another, when irrational institutions such as religion are constantly telling us that the other is wrong (think of terrorism)and facilitating ignorance of one another.