Is science incompatible with religion?

[eclipse]

Gonna split this in two.

No matter how much knowledge we gain it is impossible to know that which you do not know; that includes how much you do not know. Therefore it will always be impossible to prove that something does not exist. By extension, it is impossible to know the difference between obtaining all knowledge and reaching your own finite capacity for knowledge. Even if our knowledge becomes complete we cannot know that it is complete. We will always have room to wonder if there are things we simply cannot observe.

There's things I absolutely do not know, things that I know exist, but don't have an answer to, things I can find the answer to, and things I can answer. Here's an example of each, in order:

- I don't know how long humanity will last. Perhaps we'll wipe ourselves out in the near future. Perhaps we'll find a way off of Earth before the sun goes bonkers.

- I know that if I eat certain things, I will end up bedridden for a day. But I don't know what causes this (and I have yet to hear a proper medical explanation for what's wrong with me).

- I can tell you what the current temperature in Haleiwa is, but I'm too lazy to look that up right now.

- Lastly, I know that mixing bleach and ammonia is a terrible idea, because the resulting chemical reaction produces a toxic gas.

I see the existence of God in this context as somewhere between "absolutely don't know" and "know that there's something there, but can't tell you what".

At some point we have to come to terms with that and decide how to filter the possibilities into a model to apply to reality. The scientific approach is to decide that something is valid if and only if its existence has observable features distinct from its non-existence; if it has meaning outside of the hypothetical. Religion is a concept that people create to fill the void of the unknown instead of embracing it. This problem will not go away until people change into rational beings that can embrace uncertainty without despairing. The question of whether god exists may become more remote and esoteric, but the problem is such that if he exists we can stop wondering, but if he does not exist then we will wonder forever. The believer tends to ask the question "Can you prove that God does not exist?" precisely because it is tilted in favor of their belief.

I'm quite content to have some unanswered questions! The minute every question is answered is the minute that things become boring!

If your satisfied with the amount of knowledge you have, and have come to that conclusion, that's fine. I'm certain that I don't know enough to say for certain, and I doubt I'll ever find out enough to satisfy me. The more I learn about random things, the less confident I am in my own knowledge.

There's only one certainty, and that's my death. The world will not stop in its tracks if I die. Time will flow on, whether I'm a part of the stream or not. I don't need to despair the time between now and then. This would be true regardless of whether or not I had any sort of faith.

WHY I believe is a really touchy subject, so I won't give you a straight answer. But please don't assume it is out of fear!

EDIT: (sorry, just saw this)

I'm an agnostic. I don't know if God exists or not. I have no way of proving it and I will not make a judgement on it, beyond saying it is thus far, something you cannot make a scientific claim about. I really wish he does, you know. I don't want to die and have nothing after it, it sounds boring. But for now, I'll go under the belief that an afterlife does not exist, and just enjoy my life in this world, the best I can.

I only think scientifically, because it is pragmatic to do so.

First paragraph: Got it.

Second paragraph: Ever try seeing the world with no limits on? It's. . .interesting. And terrifying.

Edited November 12, 2015 by eclipse

[Autumn]

First paragraph: Got it.

Second paragraph: Ever try seeing the world with no limits on? It's. . .interesting. And terrifying.

I'd rather not. There are many amazing things that can be accomplished if this life is the only one you have. Maybe people will try harder to make this the best world out there, if this is the only one there is. Well, that's why I think what I think, anyway.

(Also I edited on something onto my previous post, it is about that last bit in your spoiler part.)

[eclipse]

I'd rather not. There are many amazing things that can be accomplished if this life is the only one you have. Maybe people will try harder to make this the best world out there, if this is the only one there is. Well, that's why I think what I think, anyway.

(Also I edited on something onto my previous post, it is about that last bit in your spoiler part.)

I agree that there's some people that place WAY too much emphasis on what happens after death. There's also the other extreme, where some people will do things that benefit them in the short-term, but screw over others in the long-term, because "well I'm gonna be dead anyway, sucks to be the future". I think a nice, healthy balance is what's needed - just enough so that there's some long-term thought, but not so much that the short-term is neglected!

Your mindset and edit are awesome.

[Irysa]

I have 3 main points to make on this thread.

1. If we're falling into the "does god exist" line of discussion then you have to define exactly what "God" is.

The concept of an invisible force in the universe that has some kind of power is far removed from a being with established actions and descriptions surrounding that being. Within the context of what Christianity teaches us about their God, the descriptions fall into various paradoxes, usually between two opposite "omni-ism" extremes. An example would be The Problem of Evil, which works pretty well against the Christian God. This is ground that has been repeatedly trodden in various other topics though, so it's pretty tiresome to have to reiterate them again. Undoubtedly someone is going to going to say in a roundabout way that the Bible is not infalliable because human language can't express what God is really like, which opens another can of worms, and so it goes on.

2. I would not usually do this, but given eclipse saw fit to continously post publically about this repeatedly, I think it is fair for people to publically respond. I agree that feplus is consistently somewhat passive-aggressive and has a (debatably) bad habit of failing to acknowledge points that damage his position, but whilst I am not trying to mini-mod I think tone policing him and turning arguments into attacks on his character are as unempathetic as the strawman you drew up. If people geninuely suspect he is not worth the effort of responding or debating with, then they are free to make that decision themselves. Informing him that you feel that the exchange is not being productive because of problems with his attitude then leaving the discussion seems like a reasonable thing to do, but to engage in repeated public shaming whilst talking about empathy and love for others reeks of hypocrisy.

Of course, if this particular subforum's unwritten rules require the elimination of his attitude, then you are well within your rights to attempt to do so. But given past precedent, I'm not convinced that's the established case.

3. On the actual topic of the thread, there does not appear to have been a clear definition of what a religion actually entails. I don't think the concept of spirituality is incompatible with science, but most predominant religions make make absoloute claims about the nature of reality, the meaning of life, how various things came to be/creation myths, and in this regard, fall foul of being compatible due to asserting various claims as absoloute truth without reasoning that isn't circular. This approach of "surrendering oneself" to particular claims as absoloute seems to go against the scientific method. Any religion that doesn't make such claims would appear to be more of a philosophical outlook rather than a religion, but that's a topic that's also worth exploring.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Irysa

[eclipse]

I'll see whether or not I can answer the other two points once I get home from work. In the meantime, do you think that Buddhism is a religion or a philosophical outlook?

2. I would not usually do this, but given eclipse saw fit to continously post publically about this repeatedly, I think it is fair for people to publically respond. I agree that feplus is consistently somewhat passive-aggressive and has a (debatably) bad habit of failing to acknowledge points that damage his position, but whilst I am not trying to mini-mod I think tone policing him and turning arguments into attacks on his character are as unempathetic as the strawman you drew up. If people geninuely suspect he is not worth the effort of responding or debating with, then they are free to make that decision themselves. Informing him that you feel that the exchange is not being productive because of problems with his attitude then leaving the discussion seems like a reasonable thing to do, but to engage in repeated public shaming whilst talking about empathy and love for others reeks of hypocrisy.

Of course, if this particular subforum's unwritten rules require the elimination of his attitude, then you are well within your rights to attempt to do so. But given past precedent, I'm not convinced that's the established case.

You missed the mark on two and a half principles.

1. feplus' attitude is not the shining example of a good Serious Discussion mindset, but that's not what triggered this. What did it is the fact that he says that he's Christian, something that I assume is true. That was an admonishment with his Christian background in mind, because what he's doing is very un-Christian (go ahead and think that I'm being hypocritical, I don't expect most people to fully understand the gravity of the situation). This also isn't the first time I've had problems with how he's handled himself and other members on SF. Something needs to change - he can either run from the problem or work towards changing for the better. I'd prefer the latter, no matter how long it takes to start.

Is it only the feplus show? If you check a bit further back, I think I yelled at dondon earlier in the topic, as well as told Phoenix Wright to tone it down.

2. The entire spirit of the Code of Conduct is "don't be a dick". When I see a lot of frustrated people in a topic, all in response to one person, it's either because all of those people have problems, or because that one person is a problem. Since I've seen the actions of many of those who get frustrated, and they are not the types that form a gang and torment one person for giggles, I've come to the conclusion that it's the one person that's the problem. If there is a problem in a discussion, and it doesn't sort itself out, that's when I need to step in.

2.5. The "how does my post make others feel" applies to you, as well. Or more specifically, "how does my post make someone who doesn't have my mindset feel?" I'm positive that you won't take to this sentiment well, because I think you'll see this as an attack on your character, when it's actually a suggestion on how to improve yourself. Like some of my previous posts, it's something that I hope clicks one day. . .even if that day is ten years in the future.

If anyone else has A Huge Problem with how I've handled the previous situation, they can PM me, and I will gladly go into further detail whenever I have the time/energy.

[Makaze]

Gonna split this in two.

There's things I absolutely do not know, things that I know exist, but don't have an answer to, things I can find the answer to, and things I can answer. Here's an example of each, in order:

- I don't know how long humanity will last. Perhaps we'll wipe ourselves out in the near future. Perhaps we'll find a way off of Earth before the sun goes bonkers.

- I know that if I eat certain things, I will end up bedridden for a day. But I don't know what causes this (and I have yet to hear a proper medical explanation for what's wrong with me).

- I can tell you what the current temperature in Haleiwa is, but I'm too lazy to look that up right now.

- Lastly, I know that mixing bleach and ammonia is a terrible idea, because the resulting chemical reaction produces a toxic gas.

I see the existence of God in this context as somewhere between "absolutely don't know" and "know that there's something there, but can't tell you what".

Can you clarify your position here? I can't tell if you understand my point and are trying to refute it or are sidestepping it unintentionally.

It is possible that humans could be born with senses that are completely different from the ones we have. If no one is ever born with those senses then we cannot get so far as imagining what they would be like, but we know that if they did exist, it is possible that they could reveal new knowledge. After establishing that base case, imagine that we unlock 1,000 new senses and gain all of the knowledge that they give us access to. Does that 1,000 cover all possible senses? We can't know. What about 1,000,000 senses? What about 1,000,000,000?

I'm quite content to have some unanswered questions! The minute every question is answered is the minute that things become boring!

If your satisfied with the amount of knowledge you have, and have come to that conclusion, that's fine. I'm certain that I don't know enough to say for certain, and I doubt I'll ever find out enough to satisfy me. The more I learn about random things, the less confident I am in my own knowledge.

There's only one certainty, and that's my death. The world will not stop in its tracks if I die. Time will flow on, whether I'm a part of the stream or not. I don't need to despair the time between now and then. This would be true regardless of whether or not I had any sort of faith.

WHY I believe is a really touchy subject, so I won't give you a straight answer. But please don't assume it is out of fear!

My peace of mind comes from my ability to improve. Stagnation, even if complete, cannot be known to be complete. Therefore I cannot be at peace with a particular set of knowledge. I can never be truly certain of anything but logical proofs. I can only be at peace with the flow of it.

The ultimate conclusion of what I've been saying is that there can be no such thing as "true knowledge". When you say that you gain knowledge, you are not gaining facts. You have knowledge of what a unicorn is -- but unicorns don't exist. It is not a "fact" of unicorn physiology that they have a horn -- it's a definition. We say something exists when we have knowledge of our definition of the concept and we have knowledge that we experienced something fitting the description. The second one is a fact, but both are knowledge. You have no way of knowing whether to apply one definition or to apply another definition that would have the same results. You don't even know if there are other possible definitions you haven't thought of.

It goes deeper than "there are some things you don't know". You don't know even that the facts you're relying on in your everyday life are true. It is rational to rely on them because the probability of their truth is high, but that probability is never actually one. Making the claim "this table I am touching exists" is practical but inaccurate because it implies the false premise "I can know that the table I am touching exists".

We can get so far as "this is how a table would behave if it existed, therefore it doesn't matter if it doesn't". This is how we come to the conclusion that something exists meaningfully. It may in fact be a mass delusion, but if it acts like a table, it is a table for all intents and purposes. Non-existence is looked at in a similar same way à la "this is how things would act if it did not exist, therefore it doesn't matter if it does". Science can only prove practical existence and practical non-existence, not true knowledge of either. However, a presence can only have limited definitions to describe it while an absence can have infinite definitions. If I told you that there were an unobservable teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars and someone else claimed that there is an unobservable god in the universe, we would both be pointing to the same data set (known presences) to support our widely varying claims -- and so anyone is free to assume that infinite unobservable things exist, which is not meaningful in any way. That is why the burden of proof should always lie with the one who claims a presence but the claim of an absence is assumed true until proven otherwise. It simply doesn't matter unless it makes a practical difference in the data.

There's no polite way to say this: What you're saying doesn't jive with your beliefs. Embracing uncertainty requires letting go of faith in all claims, including empirically evidenced ones. It requires being purely pragmatic. Seeing the inherent uncertainty in an unfalsifiable claim and still having faith it is true is not embracing its uncertainty, it is double-thinking of the form "This is both uncertain and certain at the same time." It is misleading to say that you are holding out for more knowledge if you know that true knowledge cannot be attained by any means.

Edit: TL;DR my entire position - Believing in something despite it being practically untrue is a direct contradiction of scientific principles.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

I'll see whether or not I can answer the other two points once I get home from work. In the meantime, do you think that Buddhism is a religion or a philosophical outlook?

There are rituals and practices in Buddhism that separate it from being purely a philosophy. I think the core tenants of it could be defined as a philosophical outlook, but over the years it's taken on a lot of baggage from other existing religious cultures in the areas it propogated.

I won't respond to the the other points WRT forum attitudes publically but on this particular point I will given the history behind it.

2.5. The "how does my post make others feel" applies to you, as well. Or more specifically, "how does my post make someone who doesn't have my mindset feel?" I'm positive that you won't take to this sentiment well, because I think you'll see this as an attack on your character, when it's actually a suggestion on how to improve yourself. Like some of my previous posts, it's something that I hope clicks one day. . .even if that day is ten years in the future.

I actually have more of a problem with the presupposition that you think I'll percieve it as an attack on my character. Ever since that SMTxFE thread where you out of contexted what I said (which was that taking the stance that people shouldn't care significantly about X non essential pursuit because it is a non essential pursuit whilst on a forum dedicated to discussion of X non essential pursuit is a contextually poor argument and I disagreed with your outlook on the merit of such discussions) I've noticed you have a tendancy to try to frame me in exchanges as someone with a persecution complex, whose worldview is fragile enough to be shattered by harsh remarks. I find this rather puzzling. It's true I definitely get rather heated in many exchanges, but that by itself does not really lend itself to such a hypothesis, especially when I've never tried to tone police anyone else (okay that might be technically untrue since I think I openly said "I wish dondon was slightly less blunt" or something as a third party in a discussion) or pulled an "offensive" card. Again, this is isn't upsetting or bothersome to me, I just geninuely find it bizzare. Nobody else I've ever met or talked to has formulated such an opinion about me, even if they view me in a highly negative light!

Edited November 12, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

I agree. Christianity, and other religions (I also like Buddhism and Taoism a lot for this), teach many moral values that I think would definitely beneficial for them. That's why I think you can be both a scientist and a religious person. It's because it's so practical to do so. If someone can be a good person and think that the religion is beneficial for them to continue doing good? All the power to them! The world isn't so pedantic that you can't do what you want.

i don't agree with this. i used to share this opinion, but there were three observations that induced me to change my position on this:

1. christianity and other religions are responsible for teaching detrimental moral values (they will try to deny this if you ask them, but the facts are clear as day).

2. religion does not have a sole claim to instilling positive moral values. it is not true that moral values are exclusively conveyed through the vehicle of religion.

3. in contemporary times, secular forces, not religious forces, have almost always been the leaders of ethical revolution. religious leaders are, if not outright reactionary, typically following the lead of secular leaders in this area.

i would like to point out that usually the atheist or agnostic, in an attempt to avoid triggering offense, will concede that religion has value in teaching moral values or doing charity or whatever. you should not do this without examining first if that concession is true.

[Rapier]

i don't agree with this. i used to share this opinion, but there were three observations that induced me to change my position on this:

1. christianity and other religions are responsible for teaching detrimental moral values (they will try to deny this if you ask them, but the facts are clear as day).

2. religion does not have a sole claim to instilling positive moral values. it is not true that moral values are exclusively conveyed through the vehicle of religion.

3. in contemporary times, secular forces, not religious forces, have almost always been the leaders of ethical revolution. religious leaders are, if not outright reactionary, typically following the lead of secular leaders in this area.

i would like to point out that usually the atheist or agnostic, in an attempt to avoid triggering offense, will concede that religion has value in teaching moral values or doing charity or whatever. you should not do this without examining first if that concession is true.

Couldn't that be said about any ideology that tries to teach moral values? There's the good and the bad in every ideology that verses on ethics, and painting them in just one light is ignoring their good side (well, with some exceptions, I concede). I don't think values such as charity and consideration/love to your neighbor (using hate groups to refute this isn't valid since those are exceptions) are bad. If anything they are useful for mankind, so religion does provide good moral values in some cases, as he claimed.

Agree with 2, also because I'm tired of listening to people say "without christianity we wouldn't have positive moral values hurr durr". Philosophy and our own ability to reason can do that job, religion isn't really necessary for this.

About 3, I've always found it strange that our western values hold freedom and the individual in high regard, but the middle ages (where christian morality was predominant and uncontested) are far from liberty and individuality. Funny that secularism is doing a better job on promoting these ideals than the so called judaic-christian ethics (claimed to be one of the pillars of western society) that allowed slavery, submission of minority groups and other couple of things.

Right now, humanity's knowledge about science is incomplete. If/when we figure out everything (in some distant future, assuming the sun doesn't blow up before then or something), we'll have an answer as to whether or not God exists in scientific terms.

Uh... that's a strange thought. How can science ever produce an answer about the existance of a being that is metaphysical and not empirical at all? I've only seen philosophy touch this question (I find the logic arguments good even though I am not sure if it applies to a being that is supposed to be all powerful and beyond limits. Probably not, though I can at least be certain that God's nature doesn't contradict itself, if true).

Edited November 13, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Couldn't that be said about any ideology that tries to teach moral values? There's the good and the bad in every ideology that verses on ethics, and painting them in just one light is ignoring their good side (well, with some exceptions, I concede). I don't think values such as charity and consideration/love to your neighbor (using hate groups to refute this isn't valid since those are exceptions) are bad. If anything they are useful for mankind, so religion does provide good moral values in some cases, as he claimed.

you make the faulty assumption that all ideologies are equal parts good and bad, or that all ideologies are equally distributed between good and bad. i mean, fascism has good and bad aspects, but you'll be laughed at if you tried to defend it as a good means to shape morally good people.

an easy way to see this is to take christianity and to cut out all of the bad stuff. you wouldn't be left with a whole lot, but that's one hypothetical ideology that dispels this sort of moral parity illusion.

[Rapier]

you make the faulty assumption that all ideologies are equal parts good and bad, or that all ideologies are equally distributed between good and bad. i mean, fascism has good and bad aspects, but you'll be laughed at if you tried to defend it as a good means to shape morally good people.

an easy way to see this is to take christianity and to cut out all of the bad stuff. you wouldn't be left with a whole lot, but that's one hypothetical ideology that dispels this sort of moral parity illusion.

I knew you'd cite fascism or another extremist ideology, hence why I said there are exceptions. I know ideologies are not equal parts good and bad, my point was that you ignored the good parts of christianity and instead pointed only to the bad parts, when the person you quoted argued that religion teaches some good moral values (so your post does not refute what they said). Well, since we're at it, could you demonstrate why christianity has bad values in more number compared to good values?

[Autumn]

i don't agree with this. i used to share this opinion, but there were three observations that induced me to change my position on this:

1. christianity and other religions are responsible for teaching detrimental moral values (they will try to deny this if you ask them, but the facts are clear as day).

2. religion does not have a sole claim to instilling positive moral values. it is not true that moral values are exclusively conveyed through the vehicle of religion.

3. in contemporary times, secular forces, not religious forces, have almost always been the leaders of ethical revolution. religious leaders are, if not outright reactionary, typically following the lead of secular leaders in this area.

i would like to point out that usually the atheist or agnostic, in an attempt to avoid triggering offense, will concede that religion has value in teaching moral values or doing charity or whatever. you should not do this without examining first if that concession is true.

I say it under the pretense that the person in question is not indoctrinated into some cult. Every single church (and I've been to a lot), every single buddhist charity organisation, every taoist temple I've gone for advice- Has been nothing but good. All the religious friends I have all have a stance like Clipsey's. Sure I do think they can teach detrimental moral values, but I think most of them do not, and a lot of people are able to filter out the nonsense.

2. I don't think it matters. If you need say, a doughnut every time you help someone, then go ahead, eat them all. I can't care less, the results are what matters. I don't think it's necessary, but I think people can do what they want.

3. Again, as long as the religion aims to do good for the world and the results show it- See every religious charity organisation every. I really don't care, the results in the modern west say it's a good thing and that's all I think matters in this discussion.

Sure. But you have to give credit where it is due, and while religion does teach detrimental moral values (sometimes, arguably, to people with no judgement of their own) then you also have to concede it does still help because of the existance and proactivity of the very charities you reference.

Religion isn't inherently bad. It's what people do with it. It'll also never go away no matter what people do about it.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Autumn

[dondon151]

I say it under the pretense that the person in question is not indoctrinated into some cult. Every single church (and I've been to a lot), every single buddhist charity organisation, every taoist temple I've gone for advice- Has been nothing but good. All the religious friends I have all have a stance like Clipsey's. Sure I do think they can teach detrimental moral values, but I think most of them do not, and a lot of people are able to filter out the nonsense.

that's because you didn't probe hard enough. i have a christian friend who is the nicest person imaginable except that she has nasty opinions on homosexuality. you don't figure these things out if you only lob softballs. every religion wants to offer a relatively inoffensive facade in order to attract people to their faith, but at their cores they generally advocate for hard-line stances that are designed to be impervious to critical thinking.

I don't think it matters. If you need say, a doughnut every time you help someone, then go ahead, eat them all. I can't care less, the results are what matters. I don't think it's necessary, but I think people can do what they want.

of course it matters. religions try to claim all the time that without them, we'd have no moral compass. it is important to demonstrate that this is a lie.

Again, as long as the religion aims to do good for the world and the results show it- See every religious charity organisation every. I really don't care, the results in the modern west say it's a good thing and that's all I think matters in this discussion.

hezbollah provides social services to its members. does this make hezbollah good?

religious charities existing is not proof that these charities are optimal. the catholic church makes hundreds of billions of dollars a year and spent roughly 5 billion dollars on charity in 2010 (roughly 3% of its total expenditures in 2010). in contrast, warren buffett alone donated 2.8 billion dollars to charity in 2014, and he's given away roughly 37% of his net worth over his lifetime. when the most affluent institution in the world allots to charity less than one-tenth of its funds when compared to just one guy, it doesn't make that institution look charitable.

religion advocates detrimental moral values by not encouraging its adherents to think critically about the nuances of ethical beliefs. this is the reason why in the face of a changing moral zeitgeist, religious institutions tend to be the most reactionary or the slowest to adapt. relative to more secular, similarly affluent entities, religious institutions give a smaller fraction of their income to charity. with this in mind, i cannot agree that religion is a net force for moral good or that religions institutions donate a net positive amount to charitable causes.

Edited November 13, 2015 by dondon151

[Autumn]

that's because you didn't probe hard enough. i have a christian friend who is the nicest person imaginable except that she has nasty opinions on homosexuality. you don't figure these things out if you only lob softballs. every religion wants to offer a relatively inoffensive facade in order to attract people to their faith, but at their cores they generally advocate for hard-line stances that are designed to be impervious to critical thinking.

So, interrogate your friends? Good job...

But no, they're religious moderates. I do not think you can claim that I didn't probe hard enough. You don't know what questions I've asked. Eclipse here seemed just happy that I'm not brushing religion aside, she's not trying to convert me.

Also, those are sweeping generalizations. Besides even if they do have nasty opinions on whatever, who cares, it's an opinion everyone has them, some find them nasty some don't, you have no right to dictate what is right or wrongthink. As long as they don't do anything based on it, it's fine. They are free to think what they think.

of course it matters. religions try to claim all the time that without them, we'd have no moral compass. it is important to demonstrate that this is a lie.

I'm sure some do. But again, I do not care if it is a lie or not. All that I care about is what they're DOING in the western world. I'm not a hardline anti-theist, it's an unpopular thing to be, and for basically no practical benefit whatsoever. Again, good job demonising people who DO help out in the world with your sweeping generalisations.

hezbollah provides social services to its members. does this make hezbollah good?

Because this is, of course applicable to the modern west. I don't think being an idealogical zealot of any kind, is good, and I have never claimed as such. This includes hardline atheists desperate to demonise the intentions of moderate theists. This was a poor argument and you know it.

religious charities existing is not proof that these charities are optimal. the catholic church makes hundreds of billions of dollars a year and spent roughly 5 billion dollars on charity in 2010 (roughly 3% of its total expenditures in 2010). in contrast, warren buffett alone donated 2.8 billion dollars to charity in 2014, and he's given away roughly 37% of his net worth over his lifetime. when the most affluent institution in the world allots to charity less than one-tenth of its funds when compared to just one guy, it doesn't make that institution look charitable.

Because the catholic church is the only religious charity there is and if the catholic church is corrupt then nothing good can ever be done in the name of religion, I'm sure.

Completely disregarding charity and volunteer organisations like Tzu Chi and the salvation army. Disregard the intentions of every religious person joining these charities and volunteering to do good for the world. Disregard the intentions of the people running these programs to encourage people to volunteer.

religion advocates detrimental moral values by not encouraging its adherents to think critically about the nuances of ethical beliefs.

That's what education is for.

this is the reason why in the face of a changing moral zeitgeist, religious institutions tend to be the most reactionary or the slowest to adapt. relative to more secular, similarly affluent entities, religious institutions give a smaller fraction of their income to charity.

I'm going to have see more evidence for this.

with this in mind, i cannot agree that religion is a net force for moral good or that religions institutions donate a net positive amount to charitable causes.

By citing the catholic church, which does not even advertise itself to be a charity organisation, but a religions institution.

The American government is war mongering and wasteful. I suppose that invalidates the usefulness of a government.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Autumn

[dondon151]

So, interrogate your friends? Good job...

But no, they're religious moderates. I do not think you can claim that I didn't probe hard enough. You don't know what questions I've asked. Eclipse here seemed just happy that I'm not brushing religion aside, she's not trying to convert me.

right, and you don't know what questions i asked. i don't interrogate my friends; i talk with my friends about meaningful subjects.

Also, those are sweeping generalizations. Besides even if they do have nasty opinions on whatever, who cares, it's an opinion everyone has them, some find them nasty some don't, you have no right to dictate what is right or wrongthink. As long as they don't do anything based on it, it's fine. They are free to think what they think.

this whole generalization bullshit has got to go. you cannot sweep a problem under the rug simply with the defense that the problem doesn't apply to literally every person in a group. i get that it's a fashionable defense to resort to when you don't want to make an effort, but come on.

I'm sure some do. But again, I do not care if it is a lie or not. All that I care about is what they're DOING in the western world. I'm not a hardline anti-theist, it's an unpopular thing to be, and for basically no practical benefit whatsoever. Again, good job demonising people who DO help out in the world with your sweeping generalisations.

yeah i suppose that the influence of religion in the modern western world is a good thing

when you consider that religion is probably responsible for setting back the western world for centuries

and that most industrialized western nations are overwhelmingly atheist or at least secular

and that the influence of religion in the modern not-western world is fraught with bad apples

Because the catholic church is the only religious charity there is and if the catholic church is corrupt then nothing good can ever be done in the name of religion, I'm sure.

Completely disregarding charity and volunteer organisations like Tzu Chi and the salvation army. Disregard the intentions of every religious person joining these charities and volunteering to do good for the world. Disregard the intentions of the people running these programs to encourage people to volunteer.

okay look you missed the point

if you're going to be so thick as to claim that i neglected all religious charities by not including the salvation army, then i also neglected the bill and melinda gates foundation, etc.

the point that i was illustrating was that religious organizations control an overwhelming quantity of wealth in the world relative to secular organizations and spend comparatively little of their wealth on charity. i demonstrated this by contrasting the example of the wealthiest religious organization in the world with the example of the wealthiest individual secular contributor in the world.

I'm going to have see more evidence for this.

are you fucking serious

which organization attempted to suppress heliocentrism when it contradicted their doctrine

which organization declared that slavery of lesser races was biblically ordained

which organization fought against granting suffrage to women

which organization allied itself with the nazis (in accordance to their history of antisemitism) and aided in the escape of numerous nazis to south america after world war ii

which organization did, and still does, attempt to deny rights to non-heterosexuals

which organization did, and still does, oppose contraception despite the burden that unwanted pregnancies pose on already impoverished populations

and this is just one relatively innocuous major religion.

Edited November 13, 2015 by dondon151

[Autumn]

right, and you don't know what questions i asked. i don't interrogate my friends; i talk with my friends about meaningful subjects.

You talk to them about meaningful subjects that lead to asking them hard questions until you find something disagreeable about their ideaology. That was what you were telling me to do. This makes you either a hypocrite, or you were indeed interrogating your friends by definition.

this whole generalization bullshit has got to go. you cannot sweep a problem under the rug simply with the defense that the problem doesn't apply to literally every person in a group. i get that it's a fashionable defense to resort to when you don't want to make an effort, but come on.

It has to go? Do you have any evidence that modern religion is so detrimental it is beneficial for you to demonise it ALL? The problems you have listed no longer occur and it's now just "not good enough".

yeah i suppose that the influence of religion in the modern western world is a good thing

when you consider that religion is probably responsible for setting back the western world for centuries

and that most industrialized western nations are overwhelmingly atheist or at least secular

and that the influence of religion in the modern not-western world is fraught with bad apples

Yeah bad history. History that is now history. i.e. No longer applicable. This is like saying the descendants of Nazis are all terrible people on the virtue of it's history. That every european country in the world is horrible because they all had a history of starting wars (except Switzerland). All of which, I'm sure are rational things to say.

okay look you missed the point

if you're going to be so thick as to claim that i neglected all religious charities by not including the salvation army, then i also neglected the bill and melinda gates foundation, etc.

So you admitted to selective and biased sampling of evidence.

the point that i was illustrating was that religious organizations control an overwhelming quantity of wealth in the world relative to secular organizations and spend comparatively little of their wealth on charity. i demonstrated this by contrasting the example of the wealthiest religious organization in the world with the example of the wealthiest individual secular contributor in the world.

Yeah, "not good enough". Like everything else in the world it's not ideal. But you can't demonise religion in it's entirety which is what I'm arguing. Manipulative people trying to get rich will do it one way or another. Cut down all the big religious organisations and all you have is small harmful cults. People who want something to lean against will always find something to lean against. This something is usually not as good as an entire community although inefficient in money, is dedicated to the caring for the needy. Religion is not inherently bad, that is the only thing I am going to disagree with you on. I agree it's "not good enough" but nothing ever is, is it.

which organization attempted to suppress heliocentrism when it contradicted their doctrine

which organization declared that slavery of lesser races was biblically ordained

which organization fought against granting suffrage to women

which organization allied itself with the nazis (in accordance to their history of antisemitism) and aided in the escape of numerous nazis to south america after world war ii

which organization did, and still does, attempt to deny rights to non-heterosexuals

which organization did, and still does, oppose contraception despite the burden that unwanted pregnancies pose on already impoverished populations

Which are all, of course not problems we already fixed in the west. Which are all of course still relevant today in the modern west.

"...the descendants of Nazis are all terrible people on the virtue of it's history. That every european country in the world is horrible because they all had a history of starting wars (except Switzerland)."

"The American government is war mongering and wasteful. I suppose that invalidates the usefulness of a government."

Edited November 13, 2015 by Autumn

[eclipse]

To be fair, Galileo sort of shot himself in the foot, because he managed to piss off a Pope who wasn't hostile to him initially.

It's stupid o'clock, which means that it's bedtime. . .almost.

dondon, I think you've made your stance on religion known and then some. Can you either drag it back to the topic at hand, or continue it via PM?

Everyone else, I'll get to it tomorrow, if I have the time.

[Skynstein]

In the very first post I made I acknowledged that religions wade into empirical territory, and here science can corroborate or reject such claims.

This does not lead to contradiction or conflict. Any discipline can make empirical claims. Some will be true and some will be false. Religion making and promulgating false empirical claims is no less compatible with science than something like sociology making and promulgating false empirical claims.

There are many obvious differences between your post and eclipse's. I will list some of them. You:

* made contributions to the conversation

* did not derail the conversation

* did not question my character

* did not question my religious conviction

I have been respectful and have not ignored points unless I feel they are not relevant or have been addressed already. I have been happy to respond to overlooked points other users feel are indeed relevant.

I am surprised by these reactions. If the consensus here is that eclipse's tiring hostility is not only acceptable but even appropriate, this is not a good place for serious discussion and I can find better ways to spend my time.

Religion makes empirical observation but the causality is completely different from science because of the presence of the supernatural.

For example, if a lightning bolt strikes a tree and causes a forest fire, religion will say that the bolt is a result of God's wrath and the damage caused by the forest fire is empirical evidence of it, but science will say the bolt was caused by an electric discharge at sky level with no third-party will involved and the forest fire was just an unfortunate occurence that resulted from the bolt striking a tree.

[Irysa]

Which are all, of course not problems we already fixed in the west. Which are all of course still relevant today in the modern west.

"...the descendants of Nazis are all terrible people on the virtue of it's history. That every european country in the world is horrible because they all had a history of starting wars (except Switzerland)."

"The American government is war mongering and wasteful. I suppose that invalidates the usefulness of a government."

The difference is that these organisations didn't claim to have insight from God, and Divine Right to spread his (their) word and his (their) message. Indeed, hilariously enough, many wars across the European continent often had one side seeking approval by the Pope himself to condone the war.

Really, if an organisation supposedly backed by the creator of the universe who also loves everyone and knows everything makes such drastic errors in judgement comparable to regular human organisations, then what are they for?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Irysa

[Autumn]

The difference is that these organisations didn't claim to have insight from God, and Divine Right to spread his (their) word and his (their) message. Indeed, hilariously enough, many wars across the European continent often had one side seeking approval by the Pope himself to condone the war.

Really, if an organisation supposedly backed by the creator of the universe who also loves everyone and knows everything makes such drastic errors in judgement comparable to regular human organisations, then what are they for?

Every war ever was started by a government. What are governments for.

[Makaze]

Every war ever was started by a government. What are governments for.

I feel compelled to point out that your mocking point is a reasonable question, not a refutation. What are governments for? Judged by true intent, it can be reasonably argued that the most prominent function of a government is initiating and reciprocating violence to varying degrees. Its professed intents to establish order for the sake of order, to protect freedom for the sake of protecting freedom, to be the arm of the people for the sake of the people, do not match the reality. The professed intentions and philosophy of a religion do not pardon it of the brutal truth of its actions.

In your opinion, at what point do an institution's actions warrant doubting its true purpose? How many lives does it have to take before you question whether it meant it when it said it was there to save lives?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Makaze

[Autumn]

I feel compelled to point out that your mocking point is a reasonable question, not a refutation. What are governments for? Judged by true intent, it can be reasonably argued that the most prominent function of a government is initiating and reciprocating violence to varying degrees. Its professed intents to establish order for the sake of order, to protect freedom for the sake of protecting freedom, to be the arm of the people for the sake of the people, do not match the reality. Likewise, the professed intentions and philosophy of a religion do not pardon it of the brutal truth of its actions.

In your opinion, at what point do an institution's actions warrant doubting its true purpose? How many lives does it have to take before you question whether it meant it when it said it was there to save lives?

I know there is a whole debate on what a government is for. In fact I think a minimalist government is optimal, but that's just my uneducated opinion. I'm not naive enough to think government and religion necessarily benevolent or necessary. (This is also why I am an agnostic and I identify as a libertarian.) If we want to discuss what might be a better way of doing things, sure, but that's not what my point was.

My point about religion, and government was, in this instance, is that if you want to dig into the past, then everything is proven to fail. At this standard they are using, there is no good way of doing things and there is nothing good in this world. After all, every war and every atrocity committed was committed at the hands of humanity. I don't see any of these anti-religion advocates, advocating for the genocide or incarceration of all of humanity. I just think they're very poor arguing points. I don't say that they're wrong- I just think their arguments are bad and my opinion on the issue is different from theirs.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Autumn

[Makaze]

I know there is a whole debate on what a government is for. In fact I think a minimalist government is optimal, but that's just my uneducated opinion. I'm not naive enough to think government and religion necessarily benevolent or necessary. (This is also why I am an agnostic and I identify as a libertarian.) If we want to discuss what might be a better way of doing things, sure, but that's not what my point was.

My point about religion, and government was, in this instance, is that if you want to dig into the past, then everything is proven to fail. At this standard they are using, there is no good way of doing things and there is nothing good in this world. After all, every war and every atrocity committed was committed at the hands of humanity. I don't see any of these anti-religion advocates, advocating for the genocide or incarceration of all of humanity. I just think they're very poor arguing points. I don't say that they're wrong- I just think their arguments are bad and my opinion on the issue is different from theirs.

Do not speak of the atrocities in the past tense. We can see what happens when religious groups gain power in many places in the world today. Could we reasonably expect the religious of the West to seek peace before violence if the West were a theocracy? The answer is undeniably no. While governments have innate violent tendencies, it is undeniable that religious governments are even more violent and, far more importantly, irrational than secular ones. So, why can you speak of the atrocities of religion as "the past"? Because religious groups do not have power where you happen to live. Because their evil is mitigated by the influence of secular forces; call it the lesser of two evils.

[Autumn]

Do not speak of the atrocities in the past tense. We can see what happens when religious groups gain power in many places in the world today. Could we reasonably expect the religious of the West to seek peace before violence if the West were a theocracy? The answer is undeniably no. While governments have innate violent tendencies, it is undeniable that religious governments are even more violent and, far more importantly, irrational than secular ones. So, why can you speak of the atrocities of religion as "the past"? Because religious groups do not have power where you happen to live. Because their evil is mitigated by the influence of secular forces; call it the lesser of two evils.

Yeah ok, I shouldn't have said it in past tense. I don't agree that governments are less violent than religious ones. Religion is only powerful when it entrenches itself in government. Is that a government or the religion doing the damage here?

Also the original point still stands.

[Makaze]

Yeah ok, I shouldn't have said it in past tense. I don't agree that governments are less violent than religious ones. Religion is only powerful when it entrenches itself in government. Is that a government or the religion doing the damage here?

Also the original point still stands.

If government without religion is statistically less violent than government with religion... It stands to reason that religious dogma is more violent than secular dogma. I'm not sure what you disagree with. The stats, the conclusion, or what.

The original point doesn't stand.

When you say that religion isn't inherently bad, I'm not sure what kind of nature you're referring to. Actually, it doesn't matter. If you mean the promotion of good will in some areas, that promotion would have to be in contrast to something. Since secularism promotes good will in some areas for the same reasons as religion, you'd be saying "Religion's good point is that it does something that all ideological institutions do". Imagine selling yourself to a company with the line, "My selling point is that I work as hard as everyone else." Pretty meaningless in context. If you mean the professed intentions of the religion, then the religion has to live up to those intentions in a meaningful way for them to be worth something, and they simply don't. If you mean the professed intentions of religion in general, then it scales. The same problems that apply to professed intentions of specific religions must apply to religion in general. If most religions do not fit the feel-good, philosophy-based "theme" of the dictionary definition, then the thing we can call "religion" as the dictionary knows it does not exist in a meaningful way. At the least, sticking to it means that most of the things we call religions should not be called religions at all; after all, they do not fit the description. You can't defend religions that actually exist by holding up some lofty purely hypothetical religion as a symbol of what religion inherently is. On top of not really meaning anything, it's like appealing to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to defend the people you just said were not real Scotsmen.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Makaze