Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

Now the last statement is a testable claim. Care to give me an example to support it?

This thread and millions like it.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I always feel like something fundamental is being missed in this merry go round conversation.

I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is more important to examine, and more critical. For most, it appears the two concepts are interchangeable, or merely a matter of "degree". Religion = spirituality with "more rules, more specific claims, and an organization behind it". In a certain practical sense, this may be sort of true.

But really, religion is not inherently spirituality; religion is of course, just an organization. We call these organizations religious ones, because they are thematically predicated on that which we now categorize as "the supernatural".

Point is, it's what we call "spirituality" that serves a basic human need, which is why it's still important to a great many. Ironically, Sam Harris has admitted that "spirituality" touches on some concepts that may be useful to the human mind, though he can't bring himself to use the term without qualifying how much he hates it.

It's that kind of antagonistic mindset among people waving the rationalism battle standard that is helping derail progress in this area. If we take many of the concepts of spirituality aside and fully detach them from religion, what we find is that human beings need a way to interpret the world that is compatible with subjectivity, metaphor, emotion, and sensations that are difficult to quantify - the qualia of existence.

The problem is that religion has co-opted spirituality and/or the human drive to understand and explore "spirituality" and the subjective nature of human experience. People have been conditioned to believe that they need religion and the baggage that goes along with it, to experience the spirituality that the human mind, in an ironically pragmatic sense, requires.

Spirituality is at its best and most useful when it deals with constructing a framework for things that we need a way to treat as true for us, personally, in order to make sense of how we feel about life and reality. It's a sorting mechanism, and a way to treat life as art.

Unfortunately, its good name, so to speak, has been dragged through the mud, and a lot of people have convinced themselves that the only way to save humanity is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What people who turn themselves into atheist crusaders fail to understand is that a lot of people will never buy into the product being pushed because it doesn't serve certain basic needs that religion "provides a crutch for".

Funny enough, some folks here may not realize that Sam Harris has gotten into rationality and ethics, and science and morality, making what is actually a pretty good argument that there's a rational and even scientific way to deal with morality. (The brutally short version: determining what causes demonstrable harm to human life is something that can be observed, thus we can come to some basic objective standards about what is a wrong action to take against another human being.)

That's actually a good start, and it says something about the unexamined voids in "atheist" thinking that a number of noted scientists including Richard Dawkins basically reacted to Harris' argument with "... holy shit, how could have never thought of it!"

Yet before that, they'd been going about advocating people give up most of what they've been using to cope with such questions, wholesale? I recall an interview where Dawkins is asked "by why should we abandon religion completely when it also does good?" to which Dawkins literally shrugs and suggests we haven't tried science yet, so why not? Yet he later claims he never thought of how to deal with morality using science? Speaks of disingenuous agendas on the part of more strident atheist pop stars, if nothing else.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Sorry, I don't buy the argument that "you're not a scientist unless you try to abandon every belief you cannot justify scientifically." You're a scientist if and only if the scientific community says you are. That usually means you must have published articles in refereed scientific journals (and your results couldn't have been discredited afterwards). Philosophical debates about the meaning of "Science" are absolutely useless. Philosophers of science don't determine what science is and what it isn't; reputable scientists do. And now that the semantic problem is diffused, we can start to discuss more substantive matters, like: What sort of methods do scientists usually use to learn about more about the world? Or of more relevance to this thread, what methods do they never use? They never posit that God exists, read the Bible to find out what His preferences and plans might be, and then try to deduce the laws of physics from this knowledge. So in that sense, there is "no place for religious faith in science." On the other hand, if you were to carry out a statistical study, you'd definitely find that the probability of being religious given that you're a scientist is not zero (although it's much smaller than the probability of being religious given that you're a living human being). So there is definitely a place for religious scientists in the scientific community. The only interesting questions left to discuss (that are relevant to this thread) are if scientists are still less likely to be religious if you control for parental income, education etc., and if this result turns out to be robust to several controls, why scientists are less religious than the general population. Self-selection is one explanation (being religious makes you less likely to want to study science); another is that studying science makes you less likely to remain religious. Both explanations are plausible a priori, but which effect is stronger? Also, what would the implications be if it were established that, controlling for all observable characteristics, scientists are less likely to be religious than non-scientists? Should we discourage religion in order to promote science? Or we should promote science directly? Which policy measure would be more effective?

 

[PflargBlarg]

Yet religious fanatic is fair game amirite?

Extremists exist on both sides of the equation and as much as you might wish it not to be, militant is often a most appropriate label.

By the way, whenever I see someone talk about fairytales or superstition when discussing religion they go into my own personal "fucking moron" pile

No it's not at all an appropriate label seeing as how militant literally means that you are willing to use violence to achieve whatever your goal may be. Religious fanatic is indeed fair game because fanaticism is defined as uncritical zeal, generally in regards to religious people. And in fact if there was an atheist who didn't apply any reason to their non-belief and was as zealous as what would be considered a religious fanatic, I would have no trouble calling them an atheist fanatic.

My point is, a religious person who kills or is willing to fly a plane into a building for their belief is probably a religious fanatic and is by definition a militant <insert religion here>. A guy who gets a bit riled up and argues with people about belief in god is not even close to being militant and it's such an obvious attempt to discredit him because y'know, he's one of those dastardly militant atheists!

 

[Chaplain]

This video QA answers many of the questions in the OP:

Christianity and the Tooth Fairy: A UCLA law professor questions an Oxford mathematician on the claims of Jesus
John Lennox, Daniel Lowenstein
University of California, Los Angeles
6 April 2011

Children believe in the tooth fairy until their reasoning capabilities mature and they recognize this belief is neither grounded nor relevant. Does belief in Jesus Christ require a suspension of logic? Can Christianity be proven to be true? UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein interviews Oxford mathematician John Lennox with honest questions about Christianity and the grounds for faith. This will be followed by audience Q&A.

Video link: http://vimeo.com/22142192

 

[Cartman86]

I always feel like something fundamental is being missed in this merry go round conversation.

I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is more important to examine, and more critical. For most, it appears the two concepts are interchangeable, or merely a matter of "degree". Religion = spirituality with "more rules, more specific claims, and an organization behind it". In a certain practical sense, this may be sort of true.

But really, religion is not inherently spirituality; religion is of course, just an organization. We call these organizations religious ones, because they are thematically predicated on that which we now categorize as "the supernatural".

Point is, it's what we call "spirituality" that serves a basic human need, which is why it's still important to a great many. Ironically, Sam Harris has admitted that "spirituality" touches on some concepts that may be useful to the human mind, though he can't bring himself to use the term without qualifying how much he hates it.

It's that kind of antagonistic mindset among people waving the rationalism battle standard that is helping derail progress in this area. If we take many of the concepts of spirituality aside and fully detach them from religion, what we find is that human beings need a way to interpret the world that is compatible with subjectivity, metaphor, emotion, and sensations that are difficult to quantify - the qualia of existence.

The problem is that religion has co-opted spirituality and/or the human drive to understand and explore "spirituality" and the subjective nature of human experience. People have been conditioned to believe that they need religion and the baggage that goes along with it, to experience the spirituality that the human mind, in an ironically pragmatic sense, requires.

Spirituality is at its best and most useful when it deals with constructing a framework for things that we need a way to treat as true for us, personally, in order to make sense of how we feel about life and reality. It's a sorting mechanism, and a way to treat life as art.

Unfortunately, its good name, so to speak, has been dragged through the mud, and a lot of people have convinced themselves that the only way to save humanity is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What people who turn themselves into atheist crusaders fail to understand is that a lot of people will never buy into the product being pushed because it doesn't serve certain basic needs that religion "provides a crutch for".

Funny enough, some folks here may not realize that Sam Harris has gotten into rationality and ethics, and science and morality, making what is actually a pretty good argument that there's a rational and even scientific way to deal with morality. (The brutally short version: determining what causes demonstrable harm to human life is something that can be observed, thus we can come to some basic objective standards about what is a wrong action to take against another human being.)

That's actually a good start, and it says something about the unexamined voids in "atheist" thinking that a number of noted scientists including Richard Dawkins basically reacted to Harris' argument with "... holy shit, how could have never thought of it!"

Yet before that, they'd been going about advocating people give up most of what they've been using to cope with such questions, wholesale? I recall an interview where Dawkins is asked "by why should we abandon religion completely when it also does good?" to which Dawkins literally shrugs and suggests we haven't tried science yet, so why not? Yet he later claims he never thought of how to deal with morality using science? Speaks of disingenuous agendas on the part of more strident atheist pop stars, if nothing else.

Come on now! Dawkins (and pretty much every other public atheist out there) point has always been that religion is unnecessary. Atheists and secularists obviously have a moral code. Why add something unproven like God to the equation when it's possible to be moral without it? He may not have all the answers to figuring out the best possible secular moral system, but I guarantee you everyone can figure one out without a God telling them what to do. People have been managing for thousands of years with moral systems very similar to the secular variety you find today. Harris is trying to offer us another tool (science) to refine this morality. Combating the naturalistic fallacy is a bold thing to do. I don't blame Dawkins for not going at it head on.

Harris I imagine doesn't like spirituality because it doesn't mean anything. If you define it to mean the sense of awe when thinking about the universe then fine, but the word as it is used by people today can mean so many things.

When someone says "i'm not religious but i'm spiritual" please give me an example of what they might mean.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

They are two fundamentally different things.

Religion = Why?

Science = How?

assuming you're talking about the major religions, they don't ask why. They state emphatically things are a certain way. God created the universe in 6 days for example isn't a statement of why. It's a statement of absolutes.

 

[dinazimmerman]

When someone says "i'm not religious but i'm spiritual" please give me an example of what they might mean.

They usually mean "I don't have any controversial religious beliefs or engage in any controversial religious practices; I just believe in some "higher power," the possibility of an afterlife, and some form of karma."

 

[Cartman86]

Sorry, I don't buy the argument that "you're not a scientist unless you try to abandon every belief you cannot justify scientifically." You're a scientist if and only if the scientific community says you are. That usually means you must have published articles in refereed scientific journals (and your results couldn't have been discredited afterwards). Philosophical debates about the meaning of "Science" are absolutely useless. Philosophers of science don't determine what science is and what it isn't; reputable scientists do. And now that the semantic problem is diffused, we can start to discuss more substantive matters, like: What sort of methods do scientists usually use to learn about more about the world? Or of more relevance to this thread, what methods do they never use? They never posit that God exists, read the Bible to find out what His preferences and plans might be, and then try to deduce the laws of physics from this knowledge. So in that sense, there is "no place for religious faith in science." On the other hand, if you were to carry out a statistical study, you'd definitely find that the probability of being religious given that you're a scientist is not zero (although it's much smaller than the probability of being religious given that you're a living human being). So there is definitely a place for religious scientists in the scientific community. The only interesting questions left to discuss (that are relevant to this thread) are if scientists are still less likely to be religious if you control for parental income, education etc., and if this result turns out to be robust to several controls, why scientists are less religious than the general population. Self-selection is one explanation (being religious makes you less likely to want to study science); another is that studying science makes you less likely to remain religious. Both explanations are plausible a priori, but which effect is stronger? Also, what would the implications be if it were established that, controlling for all observable characteristics, scientists are less likely to be religious than non-scientists? Should we discourage religion in order to promote science? Or we should promote science directly? Which policy measure would be more effective?

I don't know if anyone is saying you can't be a scientist if you are religious (or believe in ghosts or whatever). The argument is if they are consistent. Does it make sense for someone to hold such beliefs? If questioned It's obviously possible that scientists can and do hold beliefs that aren't scientific. Just look at a brilliant guy like Sir Isaac Newton. He believed in alchemy and when he couldn't figure out everything about gravity he left the unanswered to the realm of God. Francis Collins is another example. If said God belief doesn't get in the way of the expansion of knowledge then fine. I have some doubts how likely this is though. Especially if you are going to base some scientific questions (cloning, stem-cells etc.) on your unsubstantiated religious ideas. If you keep them separate then fine. However if you want people to keep their religious ideas out of the science they work on then I would argue you just admitted they aren't compatible.

 

[Stinkles]

Point is, it's what we call "spirituality" that serves a basic human need, which is why it's still important to a great many. Ironically, Sam Harris has admitted that "spirituality" touches on some concepts that may be useful to the human mind, though he can't bring himself to use the term without qualifying how much he hates it.

I think that basic need, universally, is curiosity. And science answers it in spades. Which is the more satisfying answer to a question: What is that light in the blackness of the sky?

"It's a hole in the curtain of night put there by an angry Middle Eastern man in the sky."

or

"It's a fuckin' Quasar man. It's literally a hundred billion light years away and it's blasting out so much magnetized radiation that it's burned a hole through four galaxies and we can see it from here with the naked eye. At the center of it is a black hole that has fundamentally distorted spacetime and the very nature of reality."

 

[Samoora]

Interesting take on it by Francis Bacon in the New Organon, he say it is human being's divine right to explore the sciences, understand the natural world and understand the creator's works in order to rule nature.

oyea

 

[Cartman86]

They usually mean "I don't have any controversial religious beliefs or engage in any controversial religious practices; I just believe in some "higher power," the possibility of an afterlife, and some form of karma."

If that's the case they need to demonstrate such things exist. If they can't then it's just wishful thinking. No different then any other claim. I believe in Ghosts! Aliens abducted me last night! No advancement is made toward the truth of such claims if they have simple abandoned the dogma found in organized religions. Certainly holding a likely benign belief as karma exists is preferable to "God wants me to blow myself up", but in the end your still believing in something without evidence.

They are two fundamentally different things.

Religion = Why?

Science = How?

assuming you're talking about the major religions, they don't ask why. They state emphatically things are a certain way. God created the universe in 6 days for example isn't a statement of why. It's a statement of absolutes.

I don't think you even need to do that.

They are both attempting to answer questions about what IS true. He are just playing around with words.

You give me any why question and it can be turned right into a how and vice versa.

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because the blue light spectrum from the sun is scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

How is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because the blue light spectrum from the sun is scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

Interesting take on it by Francis Bacon in the New Organon, he say it is human being's divine right to explore the sciences, understand the natural world and understand the creator's works in order to rule nature.

oyea

yeah that seemed to be a common opinion of people of that age.

 

[Raist]

assuming you're talking about the major religions, they don't ask why. They state emphatically things are a certain way. God created the universe in 6 days for example isn't a statement of why. It's a statement of absolutes.

Well, their origin is pretty much man trying to find an explanation behind things. But then it was pretty much set in stone, at least for each one of them.
It's quite similar to how some people nowadays observe something intriguing and would come up with a modern answer: it's aliens!

 

[Despera]

You give me any why question and it can be turned right into a how and vice versa.

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because the blue light spectrum from the sun is scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

2 can play that game...

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because God chose the blue light spectrum from the sun to be scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

You see how easy it is to counter your logic?

 

[Raist]

2 can play that game...

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because God chose the blue light spectrum from the sun to be scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

You see how easy it is to counter your logic?

Yeah, science sure uses a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenons.

 

[Despera]

Yeah, science sure uses a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenons.

I'm just saying that believing in God doesn't mean you automatically neglect the scientific explanation of things.

 

[Cartman86]

2 can play that game...

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because God chose the blue light spectrum from the sun to be scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

You see how easy it is to counter your logic?

You missed my point entirely. I wasn't saying that being religious automatically made you dismiss all scientific explanations. I was responding to someone saying religion answers the why and science the how. I could have chosen ANYTHING from any religion. If I had chosen liberal Christianity (or any that accepts a scientific answer) then I would have said exactly what you did. My point still remains. They are both answering the same question.

 

[Dude Abides]

You make it sound like a numbers game. Atheists can be criminals just as the 'religious lot'.

Yes, but nobody to my knowledge has been driven to violent behavior intended to advance the cause of atheism. This is not true of religion. Anyway, this thread is about religion and science, not religion and violence, so I won't derail any further.

 

[Despera]

You missed my point entirely. I wasn't saying that being religious automatically made you dismiss all scientific explanations. I was responding to someone saying religion answers the why and science the how. I could have chosen ANYTHING from any religion. If I had chosen liberal Christianity (or any that accepts a scientific answer) then I would have said exactly what you did. My point still remains. They are both answering the same question.

I think I understand what you meant now... and I agree.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

.

 

[Atrus]

The vast majority of religious commentary is regarding what is and what is not moral. Additionally, most other claims are not in the realm of empiricism, as they are not testable.

How would you dispute the claim that murder is immoral using empiricism?

Now this is just confirming what I have repeated over and over again:

Anytime religion makes a claim on an event that happens in the world or makes a claim of what reality is like, it enters into conflict with empiricism.

The Book of Mormon makes historical claims that Jews emigrated to the Americas around 600BC, Ancient Greek beliefs held Mt. Olympus to be the location where the Gods resided, in Hindusim there's a belief that some animal or another supports the world.

Any religion that makes a claim where God acted, such as destroying a city or causing Earthquakes, is ultimately an empirical claim and this applies to all religions that believe in God or Gods.

In every so called 'Holy' text Gods are shown being active in the world affairs, causing this disaster or that miracle, yet as we can see over time, reason and empirical tradition has reduced that to nothing. This is a prime example of how empiricism collaterally affects religion and over time, continually sending the unsophisticated conceptions of God created by simple primitives into ever smaller gaps.

 

[Atrus]

I'm just saying that believing in God doesn't mean you automatically neglect the scientific explanation of things.

No, but it does taint them with arbitrary meaning and needless nonsense. As your sentence points out, adding God into it adds no additional value to the statement.

 

[Ashes]

Yes, but nobody to my knowledge has been driven to violent behavior intended to advance the cause of atheism. This is not true of religion. Anyway, this thread is about religion and science, not religion and violence, so I won't derail any further.

Look it's simple. To me when I hear it, I don't automatically think a soldier in war, I don't know why you would. I think of Dawkins when I hear the term militant athiest, when he called for a war on religion. Now are you gonna say he called for a literal war? why would you think that?

People like Dawkins use the less than one percent of extremists and ask us to redefine the rest of the 99 percent. If it were purely an intellectual point, one would point to war books, and come out with schools of thought here and there, but no, the religious colour is the outfit to blame. Always. Stuff like that, it's not intellectual, its evangelical. He dishes out plenty to the religious figures, I'm sure he can take some himself. Militant atheist is a pejorative term, I'll give you that.

 

[Atrus]

Look it's simple. To me when I hear it, I don't automatically think a soldier in war, I don't know why you would. I think of Dawkins when I hear the term militant athiest, when he called for a war on religion. Now are you gonna say he called for a literal war? why would you think that?

People like Dawkins use the less than one percent of extremists and ask us to redefine the rest of the 99 percent. If it were purely an intellectual point, one would point to war books, and come out with schools of thought here and there, but no, the religious colour is the outfit to blame. Always. Stuff like that, it's not intellectual, its evangelical. He dishes out plenty to the religious figures, I'm sure he can take some himself. Militant atheist is a pejorative term, I'll give you that.

Dawkins isn't referencing the extremists, though they too are included. He's referencing the skewed and intellectually dishonest thinking ALL religious belief brings about, and taken into context that Dawkins likes being a scientist and an educator, that sort of thinking is an anathema to him.

In particular, concepts fiat acceptance of unfounded ideas are impediments to teaching and ideas like Original Sin run counter to the positive effects he believes enlightenment brings, doubly so since it's origin involves a belief in a creation myth his field invalidates.

To him the religious folk are chained in Plato's cave and that chain has borne a cost to humanity.

 

[Ashes]

Dawkins isn't referencing the extremists, though they too are included. He's referencing the skewed and intellectually dishonest thinking ALL religious belief brings about, and taken into context that Dawkins likes being a scientist and an educator, that sort of thinking is an anathema to him.

In particular, concepts fiat acceptance of unfounded ideas are impediments to teaching and ideas like Original Sin run counter to the positive effects he believes enlightenment brings, doubly so since it's origin involves a belief in a creation myth his field invalidates.

To him the religious folk are chained in Plato's cave and that chain has borne a cost to humanity.

Regardless, people like Dawkins use the 1 percent of extremists to redefine the rest of the populace. He is an exceptional scientist and I recommend his scientific books, but when he moves out of his area of expertise and into religion and society, it's just awkward polemics, with no sense of balance, where rhetoric is the order of the day.

 

[Aristion]

2 can play that game...

Why is the sky blue?

RELIGION: Because God made it that way.

SCIENCE: Because God chose the blue light spectrum from the sun to be scattered at a greater frequency then the rest.

You see how easy it is to counter your logic?

Why is there a sky that is blue?

RELIGION: Because God decreed it to be so.

SCIENCE: [Cannot answer since scientists are not in the business of discussing why there is
something rather than nothing.]

 

[Ashes]

More to the point it is a patronizing version of a scientist who has a religious faith.

 

[chaostrophy]

Right now there are certainly questions that science can't answer, so I think it's completely fine for scientists to have religious faith. However, as science has advanced throughout history, it has answered more and more questions, and vastly narrowed the range of questions that it makes sense to rely on faith to answer. And barring catastrophe that trend will continue into the future, eventually reaching the point where faith has no place in the minds of rational people. I wonder how comfortable religious scientists are with working to build that future?

 

[Stinkles]

Regardless, people like Dawkins use the 1 percent of extremists to redefine the rest of the populace. He is an exceptional scientist and I recommend his scientific books, but when he moves out of his area of expertise and into religion and society, it's just awkward polemics, with no sense of balance, where rhetoric is the order of the day.

Dawkins also deals with the other 99%. Just because they're not extremists doesn't mean they're not wrong. And just (in Dawkins' view) because they don't build carbombs doesn't mean they're not harming society, or by weak support causing harm to continue. Catholics aren't, by an large, extremist, but there are gigantic issues caused by and still supported by the religion entire.

 

[Ashes]

Dawkins also deals with the other 99%. Just because they're not extremists doesn't mean they're not wrong. And just (in Dawkins' view) because they don't build carbombs doesn't mean they're not harming society, or by weak support causing harm to continue. Catholics aren't, by an large, extremist, but there are gigantic issues caused by and still supported by the religion entire.

So do you have any criticism of Dawkins arguments?

 

[Dabookerman]

So do you have any criticism of Dawkins arguments?

Dawkins isn't harsh enough. He needs to learn a thing or two from Hitchens <3

 

[Oblivion]

Not if this article is anything to go by.

 

[NullPointer]

Dawkins isn't harsh enough. He needs to learn a thing or two from Hitchens <3

They both criticize organized religion and dogmatic acceptance more than the actual conception of God, and that's where their arguments break down. They argue that God is irrelevant in scientific pursuit, and I think their stance is more pragmatic than anything else: They fear the dimming of scientific inquiry that can lead from a perspective that "We don't know how it works, therefore God did it", and on that I'd completely agree.

But I'd also say that Science being treated as an absolute is extremely dangerous in its own right. Its one thing to proclaim the explanatory power of empirical evidence and experimentation - its another thing entirely to turn around and say that is all there is.

Quantum fluctuations as a random cause of the Big Bang? Uncertainty and randomness being an objective quality of nature (ala Heisenberg)? Consciousness as illusion? Yeah, I'm not really buying it. And with those kinds of "answers", as preliminary as they may be, you're not going to see religion disappearing any time soon.

Religion will just do what it always does - adapt to the changing human condition, slow as that process may be.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

How has this thread gotten this far? You can mix the two if you are a person of faith, but the truth is that they are polar opposites of eachother.

Faith=!science

 

[OttomanScribe]

You're welcome to produce an example of a religion that involves a systematic process of inquiry dependent on empirical evidence, one that is self-correcting and doesn't make unjustified demands of its followers like sexual or dietary prohibitions, nor require that they accept major assumptions about the structure and origin of the universe and humanity's place in it, nor that they take for granted ideas with rather heavy implications (reincarnation, the effectiveness of prayer, the existence of the soul) simply because they're told to do so by a book or authority figure. One that doesn't seduce people with promises it almost certainly can't deliver, like reunions with departed loved ones or eternal life. One that doesn't discourage thinking that undermines its core tenets. One that doesn't claim a monopoly on truth or salvation or morality. One that doesn't postulate an ultimate punishment of some sort for those who defy its rules. One that doesn't assume its own veracity from the very outset.

Why would I need to show 'an systematic process of enquiry dependant on empirical evidence'? No one here is claiming that religions are founded upon the scientific method, what I am discussing (and what this debate seems to have begun to revolve around, regardless of the intent of the OP) is whether or not religious people can practice science without being tainted by their religion.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I could prove that all religions are false. That would automatically invalidate the place of religion within science, which is seeking the truth. And anyone who is both a critical thinker and religious, therefore, is a critical thinker in spite of being religious. One cannot be a critical thinker in an arena of thought that is so blatantly false. I think that's the correct angle that atheist and agnostic non-believers should take. If you want me to make an argument about whether religion promotes critical thinking in spite whether or not it is true, then I would say that it's an absurd question, because its truthfulness is absolutely vital to the answer we conceive of. If it is true, then how can one not say that it pervades every area of our lives? But if it isn't true, then what good is it?

This, however is a hypothetical that is exceedingly unlikely. How does one disprove things that are not the realm of science? The foundation of your argument is based upon a false assumption: that you could prove all religions are false.

I've already explained the "general rule". Those falsehoods are just examples of things people will say as a result of that "general rule". But it also reveals something more disturbing about religion. If these supposedly godly individuals can get something so wrong, and condemn others for it, then what does that say about that religion?

Again you fall back to the same case, again. For a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim, you pointing out fallacies in Christian literalism has no consequences whatsoever. Religion is not a monolith and not all religions are the same. Picking the one that makes the most scientific claims and attacking it does nothing at all but strawman.

I'm not sure what this means. I'm saying that if religion really did have a place within science, then religion should be doing much of the work of science. Who the hell is in communication with the almighty and yet needs something as unsophisticated as empiricism through faulty senses to discover the truth about the world?

That is like saying 'who is communicating with the almighty yet needs to plow the fields to provide for themselves', it does not follow. The scientific method is a tool restricted to making observations about specific parts of reality, it is not the be all and end all of all thought.

I'm simply going by what the title of the thread says. In that context it's irrelevant how much of religion does or does not deal with morality. The question is about the relationship of science and religion. And that question has profound implications.

In general this thread has become about whether or not it is possible for scientists to be religious without taint. If I have been mistaken in the core of your arguments, then I need to apologise and point out my mistake, as it would seem I have been addressing the wrong part of what you are saying. Is this the case? That you are arguing that religion should not be part of the scientific method? If that is true then I do not disagree in the sense that religion is not and never can be part of the scientific method. Science is a systematised method of enquiry into observable natural phenomena, in this sense it is self contained.

One can say that the role that religion can play in relation to science is the same as any moral code. Why does one not get all Tuskegee with it? Because it is bad science? No, because it is un-ethical. That is the place that religion, like any other code, plays in science.

How many wars have been fought over intra-atheist doctrinal disputes?

How many atheists have blown people up in the name of atheism?

"Religious fanatic" describes people who have existed and continue to exist. "Militant atheist" does not.

Tell me, what are Christopher Hitchen's views on the War on Iraq? Would you say that there was no 'wipe out opposing ideologies' in his quotes on the matter?

 

[Tarazet]

How has this thread gotten this far? You can mix the two if you are a person of faith, but the truth is that they are polar opposites of eachother.

Faith=!science

Not really. Science hasn't even scratched the surface yet. There are so many questions that we can't definitively answer in any way - science has been remarkable for observing what we are able to directly observe, but it still can't tell us something as basic as what happens to us after we die. You can bet your bottom dollar on some things in science, but when it comes to the bottom line, it's a leap of faith just like religion is.

 

[jaxword]

Tell me, what are Christopher Hitchen's views on the War on Iraq? Would you say that there was no 'wipe out opposing ideologies' in his quotes on the matter?

Hitchens is an official member of a religious organization?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

the unknown doesn't beget religion.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Hitchens is an official member of a religious organization?

No, but he is one person who is called a 'militant atheist'.

 

[jaxword]

No, but he is one person who is called a 'militant atheist'.

Could be, but since he represents no one (but himself) and is not affiliated with any organization, it would be dishonest to use him as a representative of a group. Doing so would be a blatant strawman.

 

[NullPointer]

If you want to get technical, Hitchens is an anti theist.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Could be, but since he represents no one (but himself) and is not affiliated with any organization, it would be dishonest to use him as a representative of a group. Doing so would be a blatant strawman.

Indeed it would, however that is not what I am doing, and implying otherwise is to umm.. make a blatant strawman.

The context of my comment is on the objection to the term 'Militant Atheist'. I think this is arguably an apt term for one who has publicly viewed war as a legitimate means to destroy those of an opposing ideology. While this coincides with legitimate concerns regarding the welfare of people, it is accompanied with such rhetoric.

 

[Dude Abides]

Indeed it would, however that is not what I am doing, and implying otherwise is to umm.. make a blatant strawman.

The context of my comment is on the objection to the term 'Militant Atheist'. I think this is arguably an apt term for one who has publicly viewed war as a legitimate means to destroy those of an opposing ideology. While this coincides with legitimate concerns regarding the welfare of people, it is accompanied with such rhetoric.

Militant is an apt term to describe those who advocate violence as a means to advance their ideology. Since, at least as far as I'm aware, Hitchens has never advocated violence to advance atheism, the term "militant atheist" is inapt as applied to him.

 

[jaxword]

Indeed it would, however that is not what I am doing, and implying otherwise is to umm.. make a blatant strawman.

The context of my comment is on the objection to the term 'Militant Atheist'. I think this is arguably an apt term for one who has publicly viewed war as a legitimate means to destroy those of an opposing ideology. While this coincides with legitimate concerns regarding the welfare of people, it is accompanied with such rhetoric.

No. The term is not apt, because for it to be an "opposing" ideology, there needs to be an actual ideology. There is no ideology associated with atheism, other than a lack of God. Atheists can be horrible monsters or generous heroes. They can be bad or good, cruel or selfish, kind and generous and none of that would have anything to do with atheism, because atheism HAS no codes, rules, or moral guidelines. Atheism doesn't exist in a religious context.

Calling it an "opposing" ideology is an attempt to polarize the issue, which is why I stand by what I said about it being a strawman.

 

[OttomanScribe]

No. The term is not apt, because for it to be an "opposing" ideology, there needs to be an actual ideology. There is no ideology associated with atheism, other than a lack of God. Atheists can be horrible monsters or generous heroes. They can be bad or good, cruel or selfish, kind and generous and none of that would have anything to do with atheism, because atheism HAS no codes, rules, or moral guidelines. Atheism doesn't exist in a religious context.

Calling it an "opposing" ideology is an attempt to polarize the issue, which is why I stand by what I said about it being a strawman.

So let me get this straight, being an atheist does not have anything to do with being against theist claims? You say there is no ideology associated with atheism other than a lack of God, in the purest of terms I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is that one thing, the lack of God.

This will mean that while an atheist wont automatically be a humanist or a secularist or a liberal or whatever, they will still oppose a belief in God, which is what we are talking about here.

 

[jaxword]

So let me get this straight, being an atheist does not have anything to do with being against theist claims? You say there is no ideology associated with atheism other than a lack of God, in the purest of terms I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is that one thing, the lack of God.

This will mean that while an atheist wont automatically be a humanist or a secularist or a liberal or whatever, they will still oppose a belief in God, which is what we are talking about here.

Hitchens advocated going and murdering every person who believes in God?

 

[davepoobond]

sure, why not. maybe one idea or two would be right.

 

[Derwind]

Oddly enough I remember Hitchens in an dialouge session with Dawkins, Dennet and another fellow atheist. Out of all 3 who felt they would rather see a day without religion, he was the only one to oppose that idea.

Weird...

Hitchens may be aggressive, abrasive and rude, quite frankly a pompous asshole at time but he doesn't even begin to fill the title "militant" bestowed upon him.

Being snarky, opinionated and openly critical of another's views is how some people express themselves.

Calling them a "militant" individual is quite dishonest. I mean, how is he at all combative?

He's against the capital punishment for pete's sakes.

 

[jaxword]

So let me get this straight, being an atheist does not have anything to do with being against theist claims?

Yes, there are religious atheists as well. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but some examples include Shinto and some parts of Hinduism. Very spiritual and share the same "theist" claims about prayer affecting reality and invisible forces working on life, but do not necessarily have a specific individual God.

The fact that you can have atheist and non-atheist Hindu demonstrates its immense diversity of thought and therefore cannot be honestly used as a rigid label for any stance. Atheism is so broad a term it is useless in honest debate.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not really sure what is being argued anymore in this thread, and I am actually a bit curious. Ottomon, do you think that religion should be taken into consideration when conducting scientific experimentation? Should it be considered in the scientific process at all? And if so, which one?