[gwnn]

hotShot, on Dec 18 2007, 12:19 AM, said:

gwnn, on Dec 17 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

Christianity is NOT a scientific theory to explain cold fusion and the formation of electromagnetic waves.... It's general guidelines as to how to talk to God and how to relate to Him, after accepting His existence a priori. Many non-Christians and (what's infinitely more serious!!!!), many Christians don't understand this distinction.

The ancient Greek had a god Helios, who drove a chariot across the sky each day.

This is a typical example of religion filling in for the lack of scientific knowledge.

so? many people try to prove unprovable or close to unprovable maths theorems with high school maths without being religiously fanatical, it's just human nature, try to assume the role of "the All Explainer", whereas Christianity postulates the exact opposite --- we cannot explain everything, we're too small, the world is too big, et cetera.

[blackshoe]

Walt Whitman said:

I am large, I contain multitudes

[Codo]

mikeh, on Dec 18 2007, 06:22 AM, said:

But it seems (to me, anyway) clear that religion retains its grip on many for a variety of reasons... and I concede both that I may be wrong (certainly, I expect my list to be incomplete) in many cases... but here are some:

1) Early indoctrination. Many people, once indoctrinated at a young age, are going to be stuck with their beliefs. Not all, else we'd never have new religions nor any atheists.

2) I heard a prominent psychologist (whose name escapes me now) state that, in the US population (which was his topic, I am not saying he meant that this was unique to the US population), there are many who need a paternal authority structure in their lives. They need to be told what to do, and what to think. These people may not even be aware of this. Religion obviously has great appeal to those with this kind of personality. He was speaking, in fact, of the success of the Bush campaign based on the War against Terror, in the last election. But it struck me, listening to him, that this paternalistic authority need fits well with organized religion.

3) fear of death: in particular, a fear that if atheists are right, death is the end... 'we' cease to exist, and this is abhorrent to almost everyone. I find it abhorrent as well, at least on one level, and so recognize the power of any mode of thinking that allows us to deny it

4) fear of insignificance: this is both in terms of our 'role' as a species and our importance as individuals. I think it was Freud who observed that major shifts in understanding of the universe were usually resisted because they tend to diminish our view of the significance of humans.

5) desire for 'purpose'.. associated with the other factors, we tend to think it terms of 'reasons for being': we all know people who comfort themselves by saying 'everything happens for a reason'...

Religion answers all of these needs and only asks that we refuse to think critically.

Mike,

besides that you are an atheist and so must be obviously wrong, I really enjoy all your statements.

I had taken other timetables for the development of science, but I agree with the overall picture. If I remember it correct, the wisdom of the world needed five hundred years to double till 1850. Just 100 years more for the next doubling till 1950, 20 years thill 1970 and it may double in any single year in 2050. This is an unbelievable accelaration.

And I absolutely agree with your 5 reasons to believe. Maybe there are some more. We talked about:
6. When we are wrong, we just wasted some month of our life, but when you are wrong, you may be grilled in hell for an eternity.
And there is:
7: In case of trouble it is very nice to believe that your life won´t end here and that you will be in heaven after your death. This works if you have just a few more month to life, because of a disease, illness or age. Or if your state is in war or occupied by another state. Or when you are part of a depressed minority.This aspect of comfort is measurable. If a state has bad times, the churches are full of people. If everything is nice and easy, less people believe.

And I must contradict your sentence that you must refuse to think critical. Of course all big societies tend to search for non-critical members. They are simply much easier to lead. This is true for states, parties, big companies, churches and football clubs.
However, there are at least some churches who wish critical and mind open members. (F.E. the lutherian christs here in my country.) I agree that this is the minority, but it is possible.

[barmar]

gwnn, on Dec 17 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

Christianity is NOT a scientific theory to explain cold fusion and the formation of electromagnetic waves.... It's general guidelines as to how to talk to God and how to relate to Him, after accepting His existence a priori. Many non-Christians and (what's infinitely more serious!!!!), many Christians don't understand this distinction.

The problem is that religion IS often used in debates about homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, etc. This is usually justified as these being moral issues, not just science, but religion has even interfered with basic sciences like astronomy, as when the church force Galileo to recant on the Copernican view of the solar system.

When religious groups bring their private beliefs out into the public sector like this, it's no longer "how to talk to God and how to relate to Him." They're imposing their beliefs on others. So even in the case of moral issues, religion really has no place. Morals are cultural imperatives, and culture evolves. Atheists understand right and wrong just as well as religious people, we're not barbarians, heathens, or anarchists. In fact, there have been many attrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, but how many violent acts have been committed by atheist groups (good luck trying to recruit suicide bombers without promising them a reward in the afterlife).

BTW, to the person whose said that I'm no longer Jewish, I guess that's right. As is apparent from my comments here, I'm an atheist. But I still consider myself Jewish -- not in the religious sense, but in the cultural sense. I was raised Jewish, and feel a connection with the community. I still participate in some of the rituals -- I fast on Yom Kippur, eat matzoh during Passover, etc. However, I've overcome some of the indoctrination that was imparted in Hebrew School: I don't believe that the Torah is an accurate history text, and I no longer think that everything Israel has a god-given mandate that justifies everything they've done in their conflicts with Arabs and Palestine (however, I think that after 60 years of occupation of Israel, and 40 years in the territories won the Six Day War, they have "squatters rights" and are the presumed rightful occupants of these regions).

[helene_t]

mycroft, on Dec 18 2007, 01:23 AM, said:

Lack of scientific knowledge != lack of knowledge

I don't think anyone would dispute that. But scientific knowledge is relevant to certain problems. The construction of phylogenitic trees, for example.

Quote

Unfortunately, the "religion of science" (in my opinion, what exists when a person rejects at least one of the three non-equations above) also seems to be being taught.  That is unfortunate.

I must have missed that. OK, there are some low-end popular science media who preach that science will solve all our problems. But the "religion of science" is an oximoron.

One can imitate scientific jargon to promote religion in an environment in which association with "science" gives status (Marxism, Scientology and ID are examples of that).

[Codo]

barmar, on Dec 18 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

The problem is that religion IS often used in debates about homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, etc. This is usually justified as these being moral issues, not just science, but religion has even interfered with basic sciences like astronomy, as when the church force Galileo to recant on the Copernican view of the solar system.

Religion is often abused in these debates.
And sometimes it is used. F.E. You need ethics to decide at which point life starts.
What is the latest month/day for an abortion? Are stem cells already life?
This is about moral and ethics, not about science.
Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

In a country with atheist background, you should use atheists ethics. This is nothing special.

Quote

When religious groups bring their private beliefs out into the public sector like this, it's no longer "how to talk to God and how to relate to Him."  They're imposing their beliefs on others.  So even in the case of moral issues, religion really has no place.  Morals are cultural imperatives, and culture evolves.  Atheists understand right and wrong just as well as religious people, we're not barbarians, heathens, or anarchists.  In fact, there have been many attrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, but how many violent acts have been committed by atheist groups (good luck trying to recruit suicide bombers without promising them a reward in the afterlife).

Ok, so religions try to educate others about their moral believes. They are allowed to do so. Some believers are too aggressive or too narrowminded, so that we don´t want to be educated from them. But this does not take away the right to convince others from our own believes.
In this threat there had just been one person who blamed another for not sharing his beliefs. And that was you, not one of the believers. So please don´t tell me about the good and ethic atheists compared to the ugly religion believers. There are good and bad atheists and good and bad believers. What´s new?

The worst and most bloody tyranns in the newer history had been Hitler and Stalin. There is a dispute about how much believe there had been in Hitler, but I am convinced that he had no catholic background even if he was member of the church till 45. But Stalin was an Atheist, so cruelty is not part of religion, it is part of mankind.

[barmar]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

And sometimes it is used. F.E. You need ethics to decide at which point life starts.
What is the latest month/day for an abortion? Are stem cells already life?
This is about moral and ethics, not about science.

Yes, you need ethics; why do you think that means you need religion?

I don't see how anything in the Bible can answer the biological question of when life begins. The authors of the Bible didn't even understand HOW life begins -- they thought that God gives a magical "breath of life". Stem cells weren't even a concept until a few decades ago, how can you look to religious answers about this? Religious leaders are just making up answers by extrapolating from a text that was totally unprepared for modern scientific capabilities. Scientists, on the other hand, can tell you whether a stem cell could possibly grow into a viable fetus (it's my understanding that they're virtually always harvested from fetuses that were already aborted or extra cell cultures from in vitro fertilization, which all would have been tossed out as "trash" -- they only became a cause for debate when we realized they could be used rather than being thrown away).

Using religion in questions like these is like a nutritionist basing his recommendations on the Kosher dietary principles. It's remotely possible that these guidelines had a health benefit when they were originally devised, but they're obsolete now. Sensible people will go by the food pyramid (or whatever has since replaced it), not instructions written before we knew anything about vitamins.

As someone pointed out, our ignorant ancestors WERE quite successful in their time. They developed agriculture and animal breeding. We're a clever species, very good at discovering things by trial and error, and we have language that allows us to pass on what we've learned and build on it. But for the most part they didn't understand what they were doing, they just repeated what workrf. They made up explanations based on their common sense notions, and these were almost all totally wrong. E.g. they couldn't feel the earth moving, but they could see the sun, moon, and stars changing places, so they assumed the earth was still and everything revolved around it. Some things may have just been wishful thinking: praying for rain allows you to think you can do something about the arbitrary behavior of weather (i.e. it was their answer to "everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it").

[jdonn]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[helene_t]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

Who has the mandate to interpret Christian ethics? GW? Jesse Jackson? The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement?

If, say, a politician calls himself a "Christian" I suppose it sounds good in the ears of many who consider themselves Christians because they associate the word "Christian" with their own way of being Christian. This makes it a dangerous way of presenting an (ethical or otherwise) viewpoint. Better just to state in concrete terms which political measures one is for and against. Pro-abortionist and anti-abortionist should suffice. No reason to link either of them to religion.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Dec 18 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

Who has the mandate to interpret Christian ethics? GW? Jesse Jackson? The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement?

If, say, a politician calls himself a "Christian" I suppose it sounds good in the ears of many who consider themselves Christians because they associate the word "Christian" with their own way of being Christian. This makes it a dangerous way of presenting an (ethical or otherwise) viewpoint. Better just to state in concrete terms which political measures one is for and against. Pro-abortionist and anti-abortionist should suffice. No reason to link either of them to religion.

Some use the label "Christian" (or muslim or..) as a label without being it. AS far as I can judge (and my knowledge is very limited) I think that President Bush is a kind of Pharisee. He tells us how to act and he tells us how christian he is. But I cannot see this in his doing.
F.E. One of the mainlines of christian ethics is: If your enemy hit you on your left side, let him hit your right side too. Another is: Don´t do unto others what you don´t want them to do to you.
With all respect, I don´t see him more as a christ then Barmar as a jew: They both took from their believes what fits them best and forget about the rest.
The difference is that Barmar does not claim to be a jew anymore and realiszed where he agrees with his former religion and where he does not. GWB is missing this realization and still labels himself as a christ..

For the interpretation of ethics: We all are able to interpret the ethics. And we all should do. There is noone to tell me what is right or wrong (I am not catholic...).
And most of us BBFlers are influenced by christian ethic anyway. We grew up in the christian world, so even if we are atheists, muslims, whatever, it had been very hard to escape the influence.

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

With all respect, I don´t see him more as a christ then Barmar as a jew: They both took from their believes what fits them best and forget about the rest.

The difference is that Barmar does not claim to be a jew anymore

I think that you might want to be careful on this one:

Its very unclear to me the extent to which Judaism is a religion versus a cultural identity. (I suspect that the same expression is used by different people in different ways)

Regardless, I know a fair number of people who self identify as secular jews. They aren't religious, but would be quite offended if anyone claimed that they weren't jews.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Dec 18 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Echoing Josh's comments...

Statement like these are viewed with a great deal of skepticism (or even hostility) amongst some Americans.

I suspect that this type of sentiment is far from univeral in Europe.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

For the interpretation of ethics: We all are able to interpret the ethics. And we all should do. There is noone to tell me what is right or wrong (I am not catholic...).
And most of us BBFlers are influenced by christian ethic anyway. We grew up in the christian world, so even if we are atheists, muslims, whatever, it had been very hard to escape the influence.

Does that mean that Secular Christians like me are as entitled to our view on Christian ethics as are believers? FWIW I don't identify myself as a Christian but that may be a semantics thing.

I have my views on some ethical issues. Some of those views may be influenced by the fact that two or three (my best estimate) of my grandparents were Christian. I don't want to get that aspect into any ethical discussion I might contribute to since I don't know much about Christiany's contribution to my own ethical viewpoints, and the subject doesn't interest me either.

Of course if you use Christianity (the bible, contemporary Christian philosophers, your own Christian network, etc), whether directly or indirectly, to form opinions about ethics, that's fine. Just like some refer to Gaia, some refer to secular moralists etc.

[Codo]

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 18 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Echoing Josh's comments...

Statement like these are viewed with a great deal of skepticism (or even hostility) amongst some Americans.

I suspect that this type of sentiment is far from univeral in Europe.

I am surprised.

1. May you tell me in your words what I told? Maybe I was not correct in what I wrote, because I doubt that what I meant could lead to hostility.

2. What are christian ethics? From my point of view it is something like the Don´t do until others .., the ten requirements and that you should marry just one partner, not more at the same time. Surely there is more in it, but these are more or less the bottom lines.

Would you say that the western world is not more or less build on these basics? I would be quite surprised.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Dec 18 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

Does that mean that Secular Christians like me are as entitled to our view on Christian ethics as are believers? FWIW I don't identify myself as a Christian but that may be a semantics thing.

In our church you are welcomed. We invited the Dalia Lama to our biggest event once. We try to cooperate with all other big churches, catholics, muslims, buddihsts, name it.
Of course we believe that "our" way is the right way. But we respect other ways too. Seems to be quite a surprising concept for most who had their discussions with other churches.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

2. What are christian ethics? From my point of view it is something like the Don´t do until others .., the ten requirements and that you should marry just one partner, not more at the same time. Surely there is more in it, but these are more or less the bottom lines.

Would you say that the western world is not more or less build on these basics? I would be quite surprised.

You don't seem to be understanding the difference between

"Treat others as you would like to be treated."

and

"Treat others as you would like to be treated because it is a part of Christian ethics."

As for the shock at your statement, the entire point is religion should have nothing to do with those decisions. As above, it is ok to say

"Killing stem cells should be illegal because I believe that is equivalent to killing a person."

if that's what you believe. But IMO it's ridiculous to say

"Killing stem cells should be illegal because I believe it violates Christian ethics."

BTW, in your post right before this you say

Quote

Of course we believe that "our" way is the right way. But we respect other ways too.

Which totally contradicts your belief that public policy decisions and political decisions should be based upon the ethics of 'your way'.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

I am surprised.

1. May you tell me in your words what I told? Maybe I was not correct in what I wrote, because I doubt that what I meant could lead to hostility.

2. What are christian ethics? From my point of view it is something like the Don´t do until others ..,

Would you say that the western world is not more or less build on these basics? I would be quite surprised.

Roland, your remark may have been misunderstood be me and by others. What I find confusing is that you seem to mix up on one side what the ethical basis of Western culture actually is, and on the other side what it ought to be.

Also, you seem to impose on fellow Christians your own views on what true Christianity is. I would suppose GW is as Christian as you are, "Christian" simply being defined by self-identification. Now it is possible that GW knows about as much about theology as he knows about geography but then again, I suppose stupid people are entitled to their self-identification.

[mycroft]

Codo, on Dec 18 2007, 04:27 AM, said:

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a christian background, so it is quite obviuosly right to base these descissions mainly on christian ethics.

I think that it's the "obviously right" bit that's the issue.

If you had written

Quote

Now, the majority in the US and in Western Europe have a Christian background, so it is not surprising that desicisions based on societal ethics mainly match Christian ethics.

You probably wouldn't have got the shock. It wouldn't surprise me if this is more language than belief.

barmar said:

When religious groups bring their private beliefs out into the public sector like this, it's no longer "how to talk to God and how to relate to Him."  They're imposing their beliefs on others.

But when you bring out your private beliefs into the private sector like this, you're just using reason, right? Or is it "speaking truth"?

Yes, there are proselytizing Christians who are aggressive and do attempt to "impose their beliefs". And there are the millions like me who go through life trying to be the best person I can be, and "oh, by the way, I'm a Christian, and that's one of the reasons I do what I do". If I'm "imposing my beliefs" by my works and discussions, then someone has a low opinion of their own ability to handle a challenge - probably lower than their actual ability.

Michael.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Dec 17 2007, 09:22 PM, said:

3) fear of death: in particular, a fear that if atheists are right, death is the end... 'we' cease to exist, and this is abhorrent to almost everyone. I find it abhorrent as well, at least on one level, and so recognize the power of any mode of thinking that allows us to deny it

My fear is that if they are right I am not even existing right now. And nothing is.

[han]

mikeh, on Dec 17 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

It surely is not currently possible to state, with assurance, that 'science can never explain everything'

I already got lost in the first sentence of your rant. Before I get to the rest, could you explain why it is surely not possible? Does the work of Godel have any impact on this question?