Religion: Why do you care?

[Royd 0]

"Al Gore said it , I believe, that settles it. "

Quote

Easy to crticise a percieved superstition when its not your own, right ?

However Al Gore sometimes provdies evidence for his case, bible bashers dont.

Are you saying that there is no truth found in the Bible?

And the Earth was without form, and void.

Let's start there.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Are you saying that there is no truth found in the Bible?

That would be an overreaching statement, but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The question I am asking is; why do YOU care what others believe? Isn't that their business, just as your own personal beliefs are your own?

I think I've gotten to a point where I really don't care what others believe, other than it being interesting to hear what they believe. I know that none of us have a provable answer, so who am I to tell others that my beliefs are "right" and theirs are "wrong"? We're all just guessing really, based on our individual life experiences.

Now I do care about other people's actions, if those actions somehow cause harm to me. Which may mean that I indirectly care about their beliefs, since beliefs affect what people choose to do. But I feel pretty lucky in that I've been able to lead a reasonably happy and comfortable life so far without others' actions affecting me too much.

[billvon 2,913]

>You seem to think that it is possible to be both a creationist and a
>big bang cosmologist because they are different areas of study.

No, you can't be a literal creationist and a cosmologist. However, you can believe in christianity, go to church, support your favorite sect etc and be a cosmologist. Heck, you can believe in Sesame Street once you have kids, and talk to them about the shows they watch. Doesn't mean you think there's actually a grouchy green guy living in a garbage can.

>Non-overlapping magisteria is a flawed concept.

I know it bothers some people, but it is only as flawed as you decide to make it. The appreciation of poetry is not contradicted by the latest supercollider experimental results, even if the poetry concerns a mythological event. They simply have nothing in common with each other.

Or to take a more common example:

Ever go to a fantasy movie, and afterwards heard people say things like "that was so fake! A wizard can't just cause something to levitate off the ground like that. And everyone knows a broom doesn't have enough surface area to fly. That movie SUCKED." That person is having a problem understanding NOMA.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I am always FASCINATED by the way any faith based discussion in SC always seems to end up:

Aetheists: You're all sheep if you believe in God with no proof.
Non-Aethesists: That's why it's called faith.

I am ALL for intellectual discourse for its own merit, but it always seems to go WAY beyond that. The question I am asking is; why do YOU care what others believe? Isn't that their business, just as your own personal beliefs are your own?

Just curious. Discuss. Smile

This is a very good question.

The reason I 'care' so much what others believe, is that it effects me and the rest of the world on an alarming scale.

Call me a hippie but I believe the most important thing in life is to preserve the amazing bits and pieces that remain of this amazing planet that fortunately for us, still happens to be habitable.

The teachings of 'most' religions (especially Christianity) are geared up around the existence of human beings. They seem to dismiss the importance of preserving the ecology and find it far more important to not drink alcohol etc on certain days or to pray every night because god will reverse all their wrongdoings if they have Faith.

It seems to be more of a social structure and hierarchy than a way to appreciate what we have.

I come from one of the last untouched corners of the globe and i know what that part of the world should look like. If you are from the united states, what did you neighborhood look like 300 years ago? Europeans 1000 years ago?

Fortunately modern man has only had his hands on that part of the world for less than 200 years and discovered the importance of conservation before it was 'all' used for commercial gain.

Usually missionaries are some of the first to arrive when a new country is colonised. That was when all the forests were burned to make farms and a new economy. The missionaries had their heads in their bibles and forgot to mention that these creatures and plants that are being destroyed while developing these countries play a role in the well being of the environment as a whole.

Why,

They didn't know themselves, yet they had the audacity to preach the meaning of life.

I get really pissed off when people are so focused on the fairy tale they call a religion and forget about the importance of life itself.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I am always FASCINATED by the way any faith based discussion in SC always seems to end up:

Not too many more comments rolling in now?

Maybe i'm onto something?

Has anyone ever sued the church for conspiracy?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Royd 0]

Quote

Not too many more comments rolling in now?

Maybe i'm onto something?

It's Sunday. Most Christians are getting ready for church.

[rhys 0]

Quote

It's Sunday. Most Christians are getting ready for church.

oh yeah, maybe they can ask their priests what he thinks of all this?

I doubt it. Churches are for listening not discussion.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[JackC 0]

Quote

No, you can't be a literal creationist and a cosmologist. However, you can believe in christianity, go to church, support your favorite sect etc and be a cosmologist.

Fundamentally you can't believe the Bible's creation theory and simultaneously believe in big bang cosmology. Either you are an intelectually dishonest cosmologist or you are a hypocritical Christian. If you throw out literal readings of some parts of the Bible because they cannot be reconciled with empirical data, you're going to have to do some serious explaining if you want to keep other absurdities.

Quote

Heck, you can believe in Sesame Street once you have kids, and talk to them about the shows they watch. Doesn't mean you think there's actually a grouchy green guy living in a garbage can.

What do you mean "believe" in Sesame Street? This makes no sense.

Quote

>Non-overlapping magisteria is a flawed concept.
I know it bothers some people, but it is only as flawed as you decide to make it.

What?!!!?? OK you're going to have to explain to me on which planet does a logical flaw depend on how flawed you decide to make it. A logical flaw exists independent of whether you personally care to ignore it or not.

Quote

The appreciation of poetry is not contradicted by the latest supercollider experimental results, even if the poetry concerns a mythological event. They simply have nothing in common with each other.

If the Bible were just poetry for entertainment, you might have a point. Is the Bible merely entertainment to be taken no more seriously than "The Raven"? Does "I wandered Lonely as a Cloud" claim to be the divine truth? Do people campaign to get "Jabberwocky" taught in schools as an alternative to evolution?

Quote

Ever go to a fantasy movie, and afterwards heard people say things like "that was so fake! A wizard can't just cause something to levitate off the ground like that. And everyone knows a broom doesn't have enough surface area to fly. That movie SUCKED." That person is having a problem understanding NOMA.

Are you suggesting that anyone who cannot differentiate religious doctrine from reality does not understand NOMA?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those who insist there is no God are relying on almost as much faith as those who insist there is.

Not necessarly. Square circles cannot exist by definition. Married bachelors cannot exist by definition. Onimax entities are similarly illogical.

You'll have to flesh that out a bit if you want it reasonably discussed.

Blues,
Dave

The concept is simple, an omnimax god (omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient) is a logical absurdity and like square circles cannot exist by definition. The possible existence of lesser gods is not affected.

[billvon 2,913]

>Fundamentally you can't believe the Bible's creation theory and
>simultaneously believe in big bang cosmology.

I believe the stories in the Bible as much as I believe the US history books I read as a kid, where the US settlers were peace-loving pilgrims and the indians were bloodthirsty killers who we had to "protect" ourselves against.

In other words, there's a thread of truth to it, but it's lost a lot in the translation for its target audience.

>Either you are an intelectually dishonest cosmologist or you are a
>hypocritical Christian.

Call me whatever you like. I think the person doing the namecalling says a lot more about himself than the person who is being ridiculed, personally.

> Is the Bible merely entertainment to be taken no more seriously than
> "The Raven"?

Should children ignore all their schoolbooks because they are not quite true?

>Do people campaign to get "Jabberwocky" taught in schools as an
>alternative to evolution?

I'm sure there are people that would. But again, that's missing the point. The problem is not that creationism is being taught at all. Heck, I'm all for teaching creationism. You could do a section on religion and present the various creation stories and do a compare and contrast.

I am against teaching creationism as a replacement to evolution. They are not the same thing.

>Are you suggesting that anyone who cannot differentiate
>religious doctrine from reality does not understand NOMA?

No. I am suggesting that people who think that religious tradition is the same as scientific reality do not understand NOMA.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Call me whatever you like. I think the person doing the namecalling says a lot more about himself than the person who is being ridiculed, personally.

Ooops. My appologies that came out wrong, it wasn't directed at you personally, just that in general I cannot see how someone can believe two conflicting theories simultaneously without compromising something along the way. NOMA is the mechanism by which that compromise takes place.

Quote

I believe the stories in the Bible as much as I believe the US history books I read as a kid, where the US settlers were peace-loving pilgrims and the indians were bloodthirsty killers who we had to "protect" ourselves against.

Or as much as you believe the film "Saving Private Ryan"? It seems fair to recognise that there is some truth in the history books because we have physical evidence to back up the stories. That is not the case with god though, so what justification for belief?

[billvon 2,913]

>just that in general I cannot see how someone can believe two
>conflicting theories simultaneously without compromising something along the way.

I think the difference is that you think the two have to be reconciled; I think the two theories are talking about completely different things, using completely different methodologies and standards.

Take the Noah's Ark story. I think it's silly to try to calculate the volume that would be required to take every living land animal on the Ark. It almost certainly didn't happen as written (or to be more accurate the story was not preserved well through the hundreds of generations it was passed through.) It is just as silly to therefore proclaim "nothing remotely like that ever happened!" Indeed, we now have evidence that something like that DID happen, albeit on a much smaller scale.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I think the difference is that you think the two have to be reconciled; I think the two theories are talking about completely different things, using completely different methodologies and standards.

Not really, the two quite obviously can't be reconciled. You get round that by conveniently ignoring the overlaps or denying they even exist, I realise they do overlap and therefore both cannot be correct simultaneously.

EDIT: no scratch that, I can't even figure out what you believe.

Quote

Take the Noah's Ark story. I think it's silly to try to calculate the volume that would be required to take every living land animal on the Ark. It almost certainly didn't happen as written (or to be more accurate the story was not preserved well through the hundreds of generations it was passed through.) It is just as silly to therefore proclaim "nothing remotely like that ever happened!" Indeed, we now have evidence that something like that DID happen, albeit on a much smaller scale.

If God didn't actually stike vengence on planet earth and order the saving of two of everything on a big boat then what the hell is the Ark story about?***

[JackC 0]

Quote

>Are you suggesting that anyone who cannot differentiate
>religious doctrine from reality does not understand NOMA?

No. I am suggesting that people who think that religious tradition is the same as scientific reality do not understand NOMA.

Can you explain what you mean by that please? I always thought that "scientific reality" and just plain old "reality" were the same thing, science was just an investigative tool. So I would see your suggestion as an assertion that religious tradition is not the same as reality, ie religion is not related to that which is real. Is that what you meant?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I believe the stories in the Bible as much as I believe the US history books I read as a kid, where the US settlers were peace-loving pilgrims and the indians were bloodthirsty killers who we had to "protect" ourselves against.

Wow, your school must have had vastly different history books than mine had. I recall the US settlers being portrayed as "not so nice" in our history books. But then we weren't forced to read the bible at my school either, so perhaps I went to a school that had a different agenda. (I can only imagine how much I would have hated school if I had to go to a Catholic school!)

[billvon 2,913]

>Not really, the two quite obviously can't be reconciled.

Can you reconcile Shakespeare and the weak force? Can you reconcile thanksgiving and climate change? How about Britney Spears and the 11-year solar cycle? If not, which one is correct?

>If God didn't actually stike vengence on planet earth and order the saving
>of two of everything on a big boat then what the hell is the Ark story about?

A flood that happened on a much smaller scale. To the perception of the people involved the story is probably fairly accurate. He built a boat, saved his family and a bunch of animals, floated for weeks, prayed a lot, ran aground eventually and rebuilt his farm in a new location. (The new shoreline was now dozens of miles away on the side of a mountain.) From his farm a town evolved, with a lot of descendants of the original people on the raft.

Literalists will fight that interpretation because it deviates from the literal text. Anti-christians will dispute it simply because it's in the bible. But I think most reasonable christians realize there's a thread of truth in there, with a lot of gold plating put on it by generations of being passed down by word of mouth.

[billvon 2,913]

>Wow, your school must have had vastly different history books than
>mine had. I recall the US settlers being portrayed as "not so nice" in our
>history books.

I grew up in a fairly conservative town, and the books reflected that. I was pretty suprised at the differences when I read "a people's history of the US" by Howard Zinn.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I grew up in a fairly conservative town, and the books reflected that. I was pretty suprised at the differences when I read "a people's history of the US" by Howard Zinn.

I guess that doesn't surprise me, seeing as there are schools today that choose to teach creationism and not teach about evolution. I suppose not all schools are concerned with teaching facts.

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

Can you reconcile Shakespeare and the weak force? Can you reconcile thanksgiving and climate change? How about Britney Spears and the 11-year solar cycle? If not, which one is correct?

Shakespeare and Britney Spears have never purported to tell me how the world works, religions do.

You think that NOMA works fine because you think that religion is just ethics and moral philosophy. If that was the case then NOMA would work. But the thing is, most religons are not just ethics, they are fundamentally, at their core, also explanations of how the universe was created and how parts of it work. They are meant to be taken lierally.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,913]

>Shakespeare and Britney Spears have never purported to tell me how the world works . . .

. . . and religion doesn't try to tell you how hydrogen fusion works. And particle physics doesn't tell you how to live your life.

>They are meant to be taken lierally.

Then you and I will always disagree. I do not take the "science" in religion any more seriously than I take the "morality" lessons in the lifecycle of the ichneumon wasp, or the mating habits of the Harris hawk, or the physics of nuclear reactors.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Fundamentally you can't believe the Bible's creation theory and simultaneously believe in big bang cosmology. Either you are an intelectually dishonest cosmologist or you are a hypocritical Christian. If you throw out literal readings of some parts of the Bible because they cannot be reconciled with empirical data, you're going to have to do some serious explaining if you want to keep other absurdities.

You seem to have a pretty rigid standard.

Does it bother you that physicists haven't quite figured out the universe and had to invent massive amounts of dark matter to make the theory whole?

You can hardly expect stories from the BC era to be whole and complete. The Bible is a collection of different writers - discord is inevitable. This notion is must all be true or it's all crap is just as silly as the unquestionable word of god doctrine applied to the English translation of the book.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Take the Noah's Ark story. I think it's silly to try to calculate the volume that would be required to take every living land animal on the Ark. It almost certainly didn't happen as written (or to be more accurate the story was not preserved well through the hundreds of generations it was passed through.)

That's what I could accept the Bible for - as an inaccurate historical book, which mixed something fictional and something which really happened. However this also means that even though the Bible originally was inspired by God, it would have been changed. Therefore noone could say that doing something would "save" you, because nobody could prove that original meaning didn't change. At the end, it might be as well that only gay people will be saved, and it was written in the original Bible.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JackC 0]

Quote

Does it bother you that physicists haven't quite figured out the universe and had to invent massive amounts of dark matter to make the theory whole?

Yes, that's why I have a PhD is quantum field theory. And there is a very good reason for postulating the existence of dark matter, it wasn't just a wild assed guess.

Quote

You can hardly expect stories from the BC era to be whole and complete. The Bible is a collection of different writers - discord is inevitable. This notion is must all be true or it's all crap is just as silly as the unquestionable word of god doctrine applied to the English translation of the book.

If the Bible is simply the musings of some neolithic tribesmen then I agree, some incoherence is fully expected. If on the other hand, the Bible is the result of divine inspiration, I would expect it to stand up to quite a bit of scrutiny and be essentially correct in the areas that can be tested. After all, the central claim of the Bible (god exists) is the biggest claim possible and therefore requires a proportionate amount of evidence before I'll believe it. Dark matter also requires plenty of evidence before I'll believe it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the Bible is simply the musings of some neolithic tribesmen then I agree, some incoherence is fully expected. If on the other hand, the Bible is the result of divine inspiration, I would expect it to stand up to quite a bit of scrutiny and be essentially correct in the areas that can be tested. After all, the central claim of the Bible (god exists) is the biggest claim possible and therefore requires a proportionate amount of evidence before I'll believe it. Dark matter also requires plenty of evidence before I'll believe it.

The Guttenberg press didn't come about for over 1500 years after the Bible. OTOH, even with our better technology now, I wonder how coherent our documents would be if viewed in the year 4000. History could easy repeat itself, with some terrible decline in civilization (Medievil, Dark Ages) brought on by war of disease, with a new nexus for the next great era of enlightenment. With the relatively fragile nature of paper books, which ones would survive to form the next religions? A Brief History of Time, An Inconvenient Truth, a Harry Potter book?

I'm an atheist, but I think that trying to use the scientific method on the bible is missing the point, somehow.