But I also reject the teachings of science which tell us that (according to evolutionary theory) only the strong and fit have a place in society in favor of societal morals that tell us we should treat everyone equally and help out those who are unfit to survive on their own.
Evolution is a description of reality, not a moral code.
It's like saying that science teaches that we should try to fall into the molten center of the earth because that's where gravity would take us.
Also- you are really missing something about the resurrection story. Accepting that Yahweh is a vengeful god who wanted sacrifice, but that he accepts the permanent sacrifice of his son to make up for our sinful nature is a fact completely removed from the story that Noah put all his animals in a boat or that he created the world in a literal seven days.
I agree, you can have the underlying theology of sin and sacrifice without needing a literal 6-day creation or flood.
I was just saying that underlying theology is the whole point of the Resurrection and you can't really separate the two.
You can still accept the resurrection story while looking at the other stories (particularly old testament) as illustrative examples of gods power as well as a history of how Yahweh used to be worshipped, and a deist approach (I. E. he set it in motion, but became unhappy with the creation) still can hold and encompass most (if not all) scientific truths.
This runs into problems. Because the stories also paint a moral picture of Yahweh. Particularly the stories that make up almost of the entirety of the Old Testament between Numbers and the prophets/poets where God repeatedly commands genocide.
If Christians want to claim that Yahweh is a loving and benevolent god, they must confront such stories and explain if they think their God did or did not command genocide, or wipe out all of humanity because he regretted making them in the first place, or send Moses laws that condone rape and slavery and unbelievable intolerance, even for ancient times. If he didn't, that doesn't mean the stories are metaphors or illustrative, it means they are incorrect.
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
In fact, eugenics is the exact outgrowth of this idea, and is morally reprehensible.
I fail to see how "objects fall towards the centre of the earth" cannot be morally interpreted as "we should drop rocks on people".
Edit: Curse you Qingu and your promotion of gravity based morality.
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
I fail to see why what nature does matters for morality outside of establishing what is possible.
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
In fact, eugenics is the exact outgrowth of this idea, and is morally reprehensible.
I don't see how this is a "teaching of science." Do chemistry and physics tell us to shoot people?
I fail to see how saying "Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed" cannot be morally interpreted as "individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
In fact, eugenics is the exact outgrowth of this idea, and is morally reprehensible.
Well, to quote Hume, AN OUGHT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM AN IS.
But I also reject the teachings of science which tell us that (according to evolutionary theory) only the strong and fit have a place in society in favor of societal morals that tell us we should treat everyone equally and help out those who are unfit to survive on their own.
Evolution is a description of reality, not a moral code.
It's like saying that science teaches that we should try to fall into the molten center of the earth because that's where gravity would take us.
Also- you are really missing something about the resurrection story. Accepting that Yahweh is a vengeful god who wanted sacrifice, but that he accepts the permanent sacrifice of his son to make up for our sinful nature is a fact completely removed from the story that Noah put all his animals in a boat or that he created the world in a literal seven days.
I agree, you can have the underlying theology of sin and sacrifice without needing a literal 6-day creation or flood.
I was just saying that underlying theology is the whole point of the Resurrection and you can't really separate the two.
You can still accept the resurrection story while looking at the other stories (particularly old testament) as illustrative examples of gods power as well as a history of how Yahweh used to be worshipped, and a deist approach (I. E. he set it in motion, but became unhappy with the creation) still can hold and encompass most (if not all) scientific truths.
This runs into problems. Because the stories also paint a moral picture of Yahweh. Particularly the stories that make up almost of the entirety of the Old Testament between Numbers and the prophets/poets where God repeatedly commands genocide.
If Christians want to claim that Yahweh is a loving and benevolent god, they must confront such stories and explain if they think their God did or did not command genocide, or wipe out all of humanity because he regretted making them in the first place, or send Moses laws that condone rape and slavery and unbelievable intolerance, even for ancient times. If he didn't, that doesn't mean the stories are metaphors or illustrative, it means they are incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Spoilering to keep intact while I address certain points
But I also reject the teachings of science which tell us that (according to evolutionary theory) only the strong and fit have a place in society in favor of societal morals that tell us we should treat everyone equally and help out those who are unfit to survive on their own.
Evolution is a description of reality, not a moral code.
It's like saying that science teaches that we should try to fall into the molten center of the earth because that's where gravity would take us.
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
You can still accept the resurrection story while looking at the other stories (particularly old testament) as illustrative examples of gods power as well as a history of how Yahweh used to be worshipped, and a deist approach (I. E. he set it in motion, but became unhappy with the creation) still can hold and encompass most (if not all) scientific truths.
This runs into problems. Because the stories also paint a moral picture of Yahweh. Particularly the stories that make up almost of the entirety of the Old Testament between Numbers and the prophets/poets where God repeatedly commands genocide.
If Christians want to claim that Yahweh is a loving and benevolent god, they must confront such stories and explain if they think their God did or did not command genocide, or wipe out all of humanity because he regretted making them in the first place, or send Moses laws that condone rape and slavery and unbelievable intolerance, even for ancient times. If he didn't, that doesn't mean the stories are metaphors or illustrative, it means they are incorrect.
Or they can claim that his love and benevolence is evidenced by the sacrifice of his son for us in spite of the fact that he is a vengeful, wrathful god who thinks we deserve hell. By staying his hand and exercising his wrath on a perfect creation, he has spared us his vengeance because he loved us enough to do this.
it is not perfect but it is NOT dishonest or incorrect.
"Selective natural pressure on alleles that confer specific advantages to a population increase in frequency in that population, and thus alleles that contribute negatively to a population are removed"
"individuals who have alleles that contribute negatively to society should not be allowed to exist in a society because their deleterious alleles will increase in frequency over a given population".
Check the bolded word. One of these sentences is not like the other.
To everyone jumping on the statement I made regarding an outgrowth of morals from a scientific understanding of the world I ask you to see the post I made in response to Qingu.
I will re-state:
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and by accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
Yes, we must always be prepared for people being stupid. That's besides the point.
No it isn't- if Qingu is pressing that the religious viewpoint is to be removed by "science" then he is illustrating what you guys are actually saying.
In fact, the point I was trying to make is exactly the responses you guys made. The fact that scientific truths undercut and disprove religious teachings does not mean that a religion needs to be abandoned because parts of it are incorrect, as science is NOT trying to instill any measure of moral code into anyone.
Something I have been trying to get at from the beginning is that the "us or them" mentality is inherently dangerous as scientific ideas will quickly become as dogmatic as religious stories, and from there become the basis for moral judgments if (or when) "science" beats out religion.
If, as Qingu mentioned, it comes down eventually to Science and Islam (we discussed the inherent strengths that Islam possesses in direct comparison to how well it could "take on" science) people will begin to make moral judgment calls from a scientific worldview, which can lead to problems like eugenics much like a predominantly religious worldview can hinder scientific advancement.
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
But that's just bad science. I mean, I think the posts on here make it pretty clear why.
It's like holding "science" accountable for pseudo-science.
I agree that we should keep this shit on a short leash, though.
I also do think that science can be a springboard for moral judgments—or, more accurately, the truths that science reveals should directly inform our moral judgments. For example, we know through neuroscience that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. A brainless clump of cells in the womb is not conscious.
Now, people used to think that souls were granted to little clumps of cells upon conception, which was used as a main argument against abortion. We know that this is wrong now, so our moral view of abortion should change.
But again, this isn't "science proving abortion is permissible." It's science explaining what the nature of some of the moral elements to the abortion debate really are.
Or they can claim that his love and benevolence is evidenced by the sacrifice of his son for us in spite of the fact that he is a vengeful, wrathful god who thinks we deserve hell. By staying his hand and exercising his wrath on a perfect creation, he has spared us his vengeance because he loved us enough to do this.
it is not perfect but it is NOT dishonest or incorrect.
I will admit that describing Yahweh as the abusive husband archetype who "loves" his wife so much that he drives her to the hospital after breaking her nose is not dishonest or incorrect.
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No it isn't- if Qingu is pressing that the religious viewpoint is to be removed by "science" then he is illustrating what you guys are actually saying.
Well, scientific rationalism.
We already have largely replaced the religious moral viewpoint with a rationalist, post-enlightenment moral viewpoint (in the West).
The moral part of this is informed by science (i.e. reality) but isn't like codified in scientific theories or anything.
In fact, the point I was trying to make is exactly the responses you guys made. The fact that scientific truths undercut and disprove religious teachings does not mean that a religion needs to be abandoned because parts of it are incorrect, as science is NOT trying to instill any measure of moral code into anyone.
You can run down the list of individual morals in a religious text, keep the ones that seem to work, and cross off the ones that don't.
"Treat others as you wish to be treated?" Check.
"Stone nonvirgin brides on the doorsteps of their fathers' houses?" Pass.
"Anyone who steals must be put to death?" Let's replace "put to death" with "fined or imprisoned."
If, as Qingu mentioned, it comes down eventually to Science and Islam (we discussed the inherent strengths that Islam possesses in direct comparison to how well it could "take on" science) people will begin to make moral judgment calls from a scientific worldview, which can lead to problems like eugenics much like a predominantly religious worldview can hinder scientific advancement.
If eugenics re-emerges I don't see what it would have to do with the ideological battle between science and Islam.
I mean, if anything, eugenics will emerge when technology makes it feasible and practical. And I actually don't think it's a simple black-and-white morality tale. On what moral basis are we to disallow parents to modify the genes of their children? A desire to avoid the (not really all that) dystopian world of "Gattacca"?
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
Science doesn't make any claims about what is moral.
edit: it's not that "gravity pulls us toward the center of the earth" is a moral imperative that we just choose to ignore, it's that it isn't a moral imperative at all. When the bible says "thou shalt not steal," it's not describing a reality in which no one every stole anything.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
Science doesn't make any claims about what is moral.
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions! Which is why I made the claim early on that I am uncomfortable with the combative "science or religion" debate!
I KNOW what I said was "incorrect" but it was intended to make people consider the fact that what they are trying to use to destroy a religion is not the correct tool, as it does not in any way make the same sort of claims, and the information it provides should have no bearing on religious belief!
The fact that "Yahweh" didn't LITERALLY create the world in 7 American days does not undermine the Christian religion as a whole, and trying to force religion out because of scientific discoveries, or at the least discredit it as an institution based on new science is EXTREMELY unhelpful to the overall lessening of the religious stranglehold on American (and international) politics.
To everyone jumping on the statement I made regarding an outgrowth of morals from a scientific understanding of the world I ask you to see the post I made in response to Qingu.
I will re-state:
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and by accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
Since science does not concern itself with morality anyone trying to create a moral code based on say, physics, is simply showing he doesn't understand what physics is.
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
I'd say that while it is not emotionally dishonest to do so, it is intellectually dishonest to, if that makes sense.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
I just want to emphasize that there is a difference between
"neurobiology should inform morality"
and
"neurobiology contains a moral code."
Neurobiology informs morality by establishing a playing field of known things about reality. But deciding how we ought to behave around these known things is not part of neurobiology.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
But then how would said religious text be any different than, for example, the Code of Hammurabi? Or the writings of Confuscious, or any other ancient text that is not part of this "religion"?
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
Science doesn't make any claims about what is moral.
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions! Which is why I made the claim early on that I am uncomfortable with the combative "science or religion" debate!
I KNOW what I said was "incorrect" but it was intended to make people consider the fact that what they are trying to use to destroy a religion is not the correct tool, as it does not in any way make the same sort of claims, and the information it provides should have no bearing on religious belief!
The fact that "Yahweh" didn't LITERALLY create the world in 7 American days does not undermine the Christian religion as a whole, and trying to force religion out because of scientific discoveries, or at the least discredit it as an institution based on new science is EXTREMELY unhelpful to the overall lessening of the religious stranglehold on American (and international) politics.
Scientific rationalism is a counterargument fo religion because it's better at describing the world than religion is.
You're saying that "obviously" the world wasn't created in seven days, but that was pretty fucking far from obvious to most people for most of history, along with a bunch of other ideas about the world that were propagated as a result of biblical interpretation.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
To everyone jumping on the statement I made regarding an outgrowth of morals from a scientific understanding of the world I ask you to see the post I made in response to Qingu.
I will re-state:
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and by accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
Since science does not concern itself with morality anyone trying to create a moral code based on say, physics, is simply showing he doesn't understand what physics is.
Which is why I dislike the debate entirely! "Science" as a whole, offers NOTHING that religion does. Religion USED to have two functions- Explain the world and Provide a moral code. My main argument is that yes, science DOES directly counter the FIRST function, but it is NOT the realm of science to contend the second, and thus, "Science" as an institution is not the correct enemy for religion alone. Too often science is used to sweepingly discredit the entire religion, when that is something it cannot do. I am arguing that whatever marginalization science affects on religion have no bearing on the validity of the religion as a whole because the second function is still intact.
A philosophical deconstruction of religion, however, will correctly address the second function.
The best answer to your argument Arch, is to look at the current "debate" around evolution.
Science isn't going after religion; science doesn't really give a fuck what religion says. But, the christian side is up in arms about it, and why?
Because they realize that christianity's moral authority flows from God, and that anything that casts doubt on God's existence or his role in the world casts doubt on their moral authority. So anything that contradicts the bible's account of creation becomes very threatening to christianity.
edit: aside from the fact that a lot of christianity's moral precepts are reinforced in the creation myth (garden of eden et cetera), so casting doubt on that provide an even more direct refutation.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The best answer to your argument Arch, is to look at the current "debate" around evolution.
Science isn't going after religion; science doesn't really give a fuck what religion says. But, the christian side is up in arms about it, and why?
Because they realize that christianity's moral authority flows from God, and that anything that casts doubt on God's existence or his role in the world casts doubt on their moral authority. So anything that contradicts the bible's account of creation becomes very threatening to christianity.
I had just hopped over to the Darwin thread to grab that map of evolution education in the US.
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions! Which is why I made the claim early on that I am uncomfortable with the combative "science or religion" debate!
Because in "rationalism" you look around you and try to discover ideal ways to behave (i.e. morality) from the ground up. You can approach morality like a scientific or mathematical endeavor—starting with a basic axiom (suffering is bad, happiness is good) and going from there, informed by observations and statistical patterns. Morals are revised as new observations come in, or as flaws are discovered in the assumptions of the system.
In "religion," your morals are received, via a code. Which many religious people freely and arbitrarily ignore, but then that's sort of the point of religion.
The first thing is largely how we arrived at the common, secular, rights-based moral code that most Westerners use to some large degree.
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions!
Ahhhhh. You don't understand it, because you've got it backwards.
Science is not a counterargument to religion. Literal Religious Interpretations are thrown up as a counterargument to Science.
Science isn't arguing anything. Science is simply the practice of describing the properties of the universe. It is not the fault of Science if it is discovered that the earth is round instead of flat. Science, at it's core, doesn't care what any particular religion says. Something is either measurable, quantifiable, and testable, or it is not.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
I just want to emphasize that there is a difference between
"neurobiology should inform morality"
and
"neurobiology contains a moral code."
Neurobiology informs morality by establishing a playing field of known things about reality. But deciding how we ought to behave around these known things is not part of neurobiology.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
But then how would said religious text be any different than, for example, the Code of Hammurabi? Or the writings of Confuscious, or any other ancient text that is not part of this "religion"?
You make a good point. This is where the "faith" aspect of a religion comes into play. I am not, again, a practitioner but the argument to be made is that you feel this work allows you the closest spiritual connection with your chosen deity.
Now, I can see how this can be interpreted as dishonest, but the word I would choose would be "selfish", and I have had this debate with a Christian theologian before. I do not have an adequate response to the claim that choosing a particular religion to be true and claiming all others false is anything but a selfish move, which is why I do not "believe" in any religion.
Which is why I dislike the debate entirely! "Science" as a whole, offers NOTHING that religion does. Religion USED to have two functions- Explain the world and Provide a moral code. My main argument is that yes, science DOES directly counter the FIRST function, but it is NOT the realm of science to contend the second, and thus, "Science" as an institution is not the correct enemy for religion alone. Too often science is used to sweepingly discredit the entire religion, when that is something it cannot do. I am arguing that whatever marginalization science affects on religion have no bearing on the validity of the religion as a whole because the second function is still intact.
A philosophical deconstruction of religion, however, will correctly address the second function.
Um. This post seems to flatly contradict itself.
You're saying that science offers nothing that religion does. Then you admit that science has essentially replaced one of the two major functions of religion (to explain things.)
You say that science doesn't discredit religion ... but it marginalizes religion ... but yet that doesn't affect the "validity" of religion. Well, this is rather subjective. I'm sure many people would say that the complete destruction of one of religion's two main purposes has major bearing on the validity of the religion.
And anyway, rationalist-based moral systems have largely eroded the second function. Nobody thinks slavery is okay anymore, for example.
In the scope of the discussion we are having I am and in light of the claims people are making, I think that using that assumption is fair in this debate.
Was I incorrect?
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
Science doesn't make any claims about what is moral.
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions! Which is why I made the claim early on that I am uncomfortable with the combative "science or religion" debate!
I KNOW what I said was "incorrect" but it was intended to make people consider the fact that what they are trying to use to destroy a religion is not the correct tool, as it does not in any way make the same sort of claims, and the information it provides should have no bearing on religious belief!
The fact that "Yahweh" didn't LITERALLY create the world in 7 American days does not undermine the Christian religion as a whole, and trying to force religion out because of scientific discoveries, or at the least discredit it as an institution based on new science is EXTREMELY unhelpful to the overall lessening of the religious stranglehold on American (and international) politics.
Religion: Here's an explanation for various phenomena in our world.
Science: You're wrong.
Religion: Here's some super cool stuff like resurrection, walking on water, and raising the dead.
Science: You're super wrong.
Religion: Here's some morals you should strictly follow.
Social Science: Uh... this looks like it was written with the moral development concepts of a person living 2000 years ago. Please stop hating gays and treating women like property among countless other things.
I don't feel like science is out to specifically destroy religion... it's just that religion is wrong on a whole bunch of stuff and since the Bible is such a holy text it can't be adapted and grow as our knowledge grows like science can. So as science progresses and is able to comprehend, describe, and predict things progressively better, it keeps butting against religion which refuses to budge from the groundwork it laid 2000 years ago.
Posts
Sickle Cell is a perfect example.
It sucks on average, but it functions really well versus Malaria.
More pointedly, being white can give you cancer in some areas, or keep your Vitamin D supply up in others.
It's like saying that science teaches that we should try to fall into the molten center of the earth because that's where gravity would take us.
I agree, you can have the underlying theology of sin and sacrifice without needing a literal 6-day creation or flood.
I was just saying that underlying theology is the whole point of the Resurrection and you can't really separate the two.
This runs into problems. Because the stories also paint a moral picture of Yahweh. Particularly the stories that make up almost of the entirety of the Old Testament between Numbers and the prophets/poets where God repeatedly commands genocide.
If Christians want to claim that Yahweh is a loving and benevolent god, they must confront such stories and explain if they think their God did or did not command genocide, or wipe out all of humanity because he regretted making them in the first place, or send Moses laws that condone rape and slavery and unbelievable intolerance, even for ancient times. If he didn't, that doesn't mean the stories are metaphors or illustrative, it means they are incorrect.
I fail to see how "objects fall towards the centre of the earth" cannot be morally interpreted as "we should drop rocks on people".
Edit: Curse you Qingu and your promotion of gravity based morality.
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, to quote Hume, AN OUGHT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM AN IS.
I was just saying that underlying theology is the whole point of the Resurrection and you can't really separate the two.
This runs into problems. Because the stories also paint a moral picture of Yahweh. Particularly the stories that make up almost of the entirety of the Old Testament between Numbers and the prophets/poets where God repeatedly commands genocide.
If Christians want to claim that Yahweh is a loving and benevolent god, they must confront such stories and explain if they think their God did or did not command genocide, or wipe out all of humanity because he regretted making them in the first place, or send Moses laws that condone rape and slavery and unbelievable intolerance, even for ancient times. If he didn't, that doesn't mean the stories are metaphors or illustrative, it means they are incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Spoilering to keep intact while I address certain points My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
Or they can claim that his love and benevolence is evidenced by the sacrifice of his son for us in spite of the fact that he is a vengeful, wrathful god who thinks we deserve hell. By staying his hand and exercising his wrath on a perfect creation, he has spared us his vengeance because he loved us enough to do this.
it is not perfect but it is NOT dishonest or incorrect.
Check the bolded word. One of these sentences is not like the other.
I will re-state:
My point is if you are setting up a "scientific" versus "religious" dichotomy, where one has to win out, and by accepting that science undercuts the religious view then you need to also be prepared for people to use the "triumphant" scientific viewpoint as a springboard for moral judgments, much like the religion it supplanted.
That said, there are plenty of moral and ethical systems that do not rely on religious authority.
No it isn't- if Qingu is pressing that the religious viewpoint is to be removed by "science" then he is illustrating what you guys are actually saying.
In fact, the point I was trying to make is exactly the responses you guys made. The fact that scientific truths undercut and disprove religious teachings does not mean that a religion needs to be abandoned because parts of it are incorrect, as science is NOT trying to instill any measure of moral code into anyone.
Something I have been trying to get at from the beginning is that the "us or them" mentality is inherently dangerous as scientific ideas will quickly become as dogmatic as religious stories, and from there become the basis for moral judgments if (or when) "science" beats out religion.
If, as Qingu mentioned, it comes down eventually to Science and Islam (we discussed the inherent strengths that Islam possesses in direct comparison to how well it could "take on" science) people will begin to make moral judgment calls from a scientific worldview, which can lead to problems like eugenics much like a predominantly religious worldview can hinder scientific advancement.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's like holding "science" accountable for pseudo-science.
I agree that we should keep this shit on a short leash, though.
I also do think that science can be a springboard for moral judgments—or, more accurately, the truths that science reveals should directly inform our moral judgments. For example, we know through neuroscience that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. A brainless clump of cells in the womb is not conscious.
Now, people used to think that souls were granted to little clumps of cells upon conception, which was used as a main argument against abortion. We know that this is wrong now, so our moral view of abortion should change.
But again, this isn't "science proving abortion is permissible." It's science explaining what the nature of some of the moral elements to the abortion debate really are.
I will admit that describing Yahweh as the abusive husband archetype who "loves" his wife so much that he drives her to the hospital after breaking her nose is not dishonest or incorrect.
It is a rather odd idea of "love," though.
Was I incorrect?
I don't like this statement because many prominent philosophers (Descartes) have used philosophy to help religion out.
(Even in this thread!)
Are you responding to me, here?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy where as religion gets marginalized by science, the resulting "morality vaccuum" will necessarily be filled by cold, unfeeling eugenics.
When in reality there are various nonreligious ways we develop morals that would fill that space.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
We already have largely replaced the religious moral viewpoint with a rationalist, post-enlightenment moral viewpoint (in the West).
The moral part of this is informed by science (i.e. reality) but isn't like codified in scientific theories or anything.
You can run down the list of individual morals in a religious text, keep the ones that seem to work, and cross off the ones that don't.
"Treat others as you wish to be treated?" Check.
"Stone nonvirgin brides on the doorsteps of their fathers' houses?" Pass.
"Anyone who steals must be put to death?" Let's replace "put to death" with "fined or imprisoned."
If eugenics re-emerges I don't see what it would have to do with the ideological battle between science and Islam.
I mean, if anything, eugenics will emerge when technology makes it feasible and practical. And I actually don't think it's a simple black-and-white morality tale. On what moral basis are we to disallow parents to modify the genes of their children? A desire to avoid the (not really all that) dystopian world of "Gattacca"?
I was responding to everyone generally.
In my case, and the reason for my example, is that we DON'T look at science for things like your "gravity and center of the earth" moral code, but instead look at things like the neurobiology of consciousness (as postulated by Qingu). To that end it is not dishonest to reject some "moral" teachings in a religious text if they do not fit within society's (non-religiously derived even!) moral code.
It was stated that because you have to reject some of the morals in a religious text (the bible) that text is inherently unusable and thus anyone who uses it and "cherry picks" is being dishonest. I agree that cherry-picking is not a good idea, but it is not the best basis for completely rejecting a religion as these religions must be interpreted with an eye towards the society they are present in.
Science doesn't make any claims about what is moral.
edit: it's not that "gravity pulls us toward the center of the earth" is a moral imperative that we just choose to ignore, it's that it isn't a moral imperative at all. When the bible says "thou shalt not steal," it's not describing a reality in which no one every stole anything.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Which is my point! Which is why I don't understand why scientific rationalism is always thrown up as a counterargument for religions! Which is why I made the claim early on that I am uncomfortable with the combative "science or religion" debate!
I KNOW what I said was "incorrect" but it was intended to make people consider the fact that what they are trying to use to destroy a religion is not the correct tool, as it does not in any way make the same sort of claims, and the information it provides should have no bearing on religious belief!
The fact that "Yahweh" didn't LITERALLY create the world in 7 American days does not undermine the Christian religion as a whole, and trying to force religion out because of scientific discoveries, or at the least discredit it as an institution based on new science is EXTREMELY unhelpful to the overall lessening of the religious stranglehold on American (and international) politics.
Since science does not concern itself with morality anyone trying to create a moral code based on say, physics, is simply showing he doesn't understand what physics is.
The problem is believing that those stories are ACTUAL EVENTS involving SENTIENT STUFFED ANIMALS.
Scientific rationalism is a counterargument fo religion because it's better at describing the world than religion is.
You're saying that "obviously" the world wasn't created in seven days, but that was pretty fucking far from obvious to most people for most of history, along with a bunch of other ideas about the world that were propagated as a result of biblical interpretation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Which is why I dislike the debate entirely! "Science" as a whole, offers NOTHING that religion does. Religion USED to have two functions- Explain the world and Provide a moral code. My main argument is that yes, science DOES directly counter the FIRST function, but it is NOT the realm of science to contend the second, and thus, "Science" as an institution is not the correct enemy for religion alone. Too often science is used to sweepingly discredit the entire religion, when that is something it cannot do. I am arguing that whatever marginalization science affects on religion have no bearing on the validity of the religion as a whole because the second function is still intact.
A philosophical deconstruction of religion, however, will correctly address the second function.
Science isn't going after religion; science doesn't really give a fuck what religion says. But, the christian side is up in arms about it, and why?
Because they realize that christianity's moral authority flows from God, and that anything that casts doubt on God's existence or his role in the world casts doubt on their moral authority. So anything that contradicts the bible's account of creation becomes very threatening to christianity.
edit: aside from the fact that a lot of christianity's moral precepts are reinforced in the creation myth (garden of eden et cetera), so casting doubt on that provide an even more direct refutation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If you no longer believe in Winnie the Pooh, it is no longer a moral hazard to throw away stuffed animals.
In "religion," your morals are received, via a code. Which many religious people freely and arbitrarily ignore, but then that's sort of the point of religion.
The first thing is largely how we arrived at the common, secular, rights-based moral code that most Westerners use to some large degree.
Ahhhhh. You don't understand it, because you've got it backwards.
Science is not a counterargument to religion. Literal Religious Interpretations are thrown up as a counterargument to Science.
Science isn't arguing anything. Science is simply the practice of describing the properties of the universe. It is not the fault of Science if it is discovered that the earth is round instead of flat. Science, at it's core, doesn't care what any particular religion says. Something is either measurable, quantifiable, and testable, or it is not.
You're saying that science offers nothing that religion does. Then you admit that science has essentially replaced one of the two major functions of religion (to explain things.)
You say that science doesn't discredit religion ... but it marginalizes religion ... but yet that doesn't affect the "validity" of religion. Well, this is rather subjective. I'm sure many people would say that the complete destruction of one of religion's two main purposes has major bearing on the validity of the religion.
And anyway, rationalist-based moral systems have largely eroded the second function. Nobody thinks slavery is okay anymore, for example.
Religion: Here's an explanation for various phenomena in our world.
Science: You're wrong.
Religion: Here's some super cool stuff like resurrection, walking on water, and raising the dead.
Science: You're super wrong.
Religion: Here's some morals you should strictly follow.
Social Science: Uh... this looks like it was written with the moral development concepts of a person living 2000 years ago. Please stop hating gays and treating women like property among countless other things.
I don't feel like science is out to specifically destroy religion... it's just that religion is wrong on a whole bunch of stuff and since the Bible is such a holy text it can't be adapted and grow as our knowledge grows like science can. So as science progresses and is able to comprehend, describe, and predict things progressively better, it keeps butting against religion which refuses to budge from the groundwork it laid 2000 years ago.
Man I wish this was true.
I was just about to comment on that.