0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would it be raising you to explain the difference between a scientific forum and a religious one?
Science is most certainly the search for truth. Religion, however, requires faith by its very nature. To prove or disprove the existence of God would make faith irrelevant.
Quote from: fishytails on 15/05/2009 22:31:56Science is most certainly the search for truth. Religion, however, requires faith by its very nature. To prove or disprove the existence of God would make faith irrelevant. Not necessarily for the opposite of faith is fear, and there are many faithful that hold that.Want some maths?0 + 0 = 0
You don't need to be a genius to be ethical.Very true - but ethics are not arrived at independently; we need to be taught some values and rules and we don't figure out what to do 'for the best' from scratch every time.
As far as reward goes, perhaps just getting to survive is not gratifying enough for social organisms to be altruistic?I don't think you mean "getting to survive" - in the short term, personal survival in a sticky spot may require total lack of altruism. You mean survival of the species, I think.
Religion may be a manifestation of altuism, but it's not the source.Again, I agree. Religions are Social structures, like Governments. My view is that humans can't exist in large groups without both.You say that your morality is based on the Christian ethic. Where did the Christian ethic come from? It's a product of evolution. Agreed. There are too many different religions to conclude otherwise. If religion has evolved, as you say, then we must take care before 'amputating' it. Who can predict the knock-ons?
Also, I'm sure you don't think rape and slavery and genocide is OK, nor that humans [are supposed to] have dominion over nature. So you're clearly cherrypicking which parts of the Christian ethic to base your morality on, just as most moderate people do (few of whom are highly intelligent). I wonder what criteria they could possibly be using to pick and choose?Humans are complex and we do "cherrypick" and bend the rules. I guess my selection was based on examples of certain role models. Despite what antireligionists says, if you look at established religious texts there is very little to encourage what 'we' would call wrong behaviour. So called fundamentalists pick up a religion and interpret it in their own interests and use it as an excuse for the antisocial behaviours you quote. Is that the fault of 'the religion'? Don't you think that they would be just as objectionable without the religious connection?On a topical note, would you say that we should do away with government because MPs have been dipping their snouts in the trough?
There are manifestations of all of the human altuistic traits in non-religious behaviours. Morality is hardwired, and reinforced by society. Religion does not have a monopoly.I wish someone could show me a list of these examples. I don't need to quote the examples of Moslem, Christian, Hindu (etc.) groups who are extremely well socially adjusted and who do practice what they preach. They may not have a 'monopoly' but the non religious groups seem to be well hidden. I am not referring to what goes on in family and tribal groups. That, as I said in an earlier post, is explicable in terms of innate family self-interest.If you want to do away with Religion, then you must replace it with something which is 'better'. Are you confident that you can?
But this is my problem. Once we become aware of the way we regulate ourselves and recognise that religion (and whatever else you care to replace it with) is merely a ruse, gives everyone an excuse to behave just as they please. What are ethics and 'rights', when viewed that way?
Don_1You seem to be suggesting that Religions are a construct which helps us behave properly (i.e. advantageously for the future of H. Sapiens). They are a vehicle for morality and ethics. That's what I've been trying to say.
I do actually believe that there are a significant number of people who would, but for the innate fear of some mystical consequences, behave very antisocially. That is not a lapse in intelligence, on my part, it is based on observation and reading. Let people off the hook and they get up to all sorts of unsuitable behaviour. Any alternative 'ism' will only work if it makes people believe that there is a Jimminy Cricket on their shoulder, checking up on them, even when they think they're on their own. That's a major feature of a religion.
I agree that most religious organisations have been riddled with corruption and self interest but, when you are quite happy to talk of improving a government, why do you not subscribe to the same treatment for the bad in religious organisations? You seem a bit too 'angry' about religions to give them fair consideration.(remember you are talking to someone who does not actually subscribe to a religion so I am trying to see both sides of the coin)
I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone lives their life at the intellectual level of people who contribute to Science Fora and the like.
What I have read of Educational Developmental Theory would suggest that the vast majority of people tend to stick at the Concrete Operational Stage and seldom stray into Formal Operational processes. Religious beliefs developed before the 'intellectual' approach to life came along. They are very low level, sub-conscious, and very simple, basically.It worries me that to get rid of religion is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Have you any examples, yet, of where it has happened successfully?
So called fundamentalists pick up a religion and interpret it in their own interests and use it as an excuse for the antisocial behaviours you quote. Is that the fault of 'the religion'? Don't you think that they would be just as objectionable without the religious connection?
Ought we to close it?
Both sides of the debate are "right" from their own point of view. That's why it's not science.