We got scared

[HunterICX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ela3ChTzFcA

I like the message it delivers, it makes you think.

HunterICX

[Ducimus]

The religiously devout amongst us will probably disagree in all possible terms.

[Oberon]

Indeed, I can foresee this thread going all different kinds of bad places, which is a shame because that is a very well put together video.

[Dowly]

Extremely powerful video, Hunter. :up:

Too bad there are those who will never change their view even little bit.
Humanity, IMHO, will always be divided because of religion.

Indeed, I can foresee this thread going all different kinds of bad places, which is a shame because that is a very well put together video.

IMHO, it's good to have these discussions every once in awhile, it's just that no side are prepare to give in and it
turns to name calling.

[Betonov]

We were born through ingenuity and violence...


Kind of sums it up. An intro statement into a description of a human

[antikristuseke]

Name calling? On subsim? Surely not you ferret faced finnish bastid!:O:

[Takeda Shingen]

At the same time the study of science, what the creator of this video refers to as 'enlightenment' has only resulted in more death and misery. Man went to the moon because he had to get there before his enemy. Man developed supersonic flight in order to attack his enemies at greater speed. Man developed clocks, navigation and methods of travel in order to edge his enemies out of the resource market. Nearly every technology or new science that we have to our credit has it's roots in the exploitation and desire of outright death to our enemies. I have no issue with the role that religion has played in mankind's misery, but to lay human nature at the foot of religion is a dishonest argument at best and smacks of an atheist with an axe to grind.

Pius XII didn't push for the development of the atomic bomb. It was Albert Einstein, who the video's author placed at the center of his collage of the enlightened, who pleaded with the US government to proceed with it's creation.

[CCIP]

At the same time the study of science, what the creator of this video refers to as 'enlightenment' has only resulted in more death and misery. Man went to the moon because he had to get there before his enemy. Man developed supersonic flight in order to attack his enemies at greater speed. Man developed clocks, navigation and methods of travel in order to edge his enemies out of the resource market. Nearly every technology or new science that we have to our credit has it's roots in the exploitation and desire of outright death to our enemies. I have no issue with the role that religion has played in mankind's misery, but to lay human nature at the foot of religion is a dishonest argument at best and smacks of an aethist with an axe to grind.

Pius XII didn't push for the development of the atomic bomb. It was Albert Einstein, who the video's author placed at the center of his collage of the enlightened, who pleaded with the US government to proceed with it's creation.

Indeed, and let's not forget that our path to enlightenment has not been free, and in many cases the economic prosperity and scientific progress came to us by means of colonialism, exploitation of labour and environmental destruction. Modern science has often been an accessory in those things, and not a passive one either. It has, in some cases, made injustices easier by putting them into reliably scientific categories and black boxes.

One of the biggest faults of modern civilization is that many have taken enlightenment for granted, forgetting both its price and its occasional bouts of cold cynicism. And in many ways, it has become for many just as much of a religion as any before it.

[antikristuseke]

http://i41.tinypic.com/1fhefb.jpg

[Sammi79]

Takeda,

Einstein was misled into believing that scientists who worked for the Nazis were using his formula to build a bomb. At that time they were already on the first rung of the ladder, having recorded fissions in uranium. Einstein never contributed anything more to the project than his formula, which was inevitable anyway. The project went on under Max Groves and Robert Oppenheimer and they eventually found a way to achieve the supercritical chain reaction required.

When the tide turned against the Nazis and it became apparent they no longer had the means nor will to complete their bomb (and weren't even working on it anyway) Max Groves realised that the $2 Billion spent on the project would all be for nothing. He would be ruined. Days later Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Max Groves saw in that moment a way to save his career and reputation with the US military, and convinced Oppenheimer to rally the scientists who were by now thinking, we don't need it anymore. A petition was created, signed by roughly half the scientists involved in the project, begging the US government to invite Japanese observers to the initial test. Groves and Oppenheimer convinced the president not to.

It is a sad history, and I make no speculation. But I will say, A.Einstein was absolutely opposed to the detonation of the weapon using a peopled city as its target. He cannot be assigned blame for that attrocity, and neither can science. Military authority and Government are the only things deserving of that blame.

Regards,
Sam.

edit: Loved the video by the way, thanks for sharing.

[Dowly]

@AKE, you got Steam account? Don't use MSN anymore, so.

If you got one, PM me with the details and I'll add you. :up:

[CCIP]

I don't think Takeda meant to outright attack Einstein, but it's good to keep in mind that like most of us, he is a complicated personality. You can't look at his legacy with rose-tinted glasses and not connect his achievements to the bomb. That's one of the prices we've paid for progress.

And I also think the video is excellent, but I would rather people take the 2nd half of it with a grain of salt. It is a good example of looking at progress through those very rose-tinted glasses, whereas the truth is a lot more complex and impossible to separate from injustice and opaque motivations. People are strange creatures, and simplifying our drives down to fear and curiosity is really not enough to get at the nature of things.

[Sailor Steve]

What I noticed was all the movies he ripped without credit.

[Sammi79]

CCIP,

I agree. Greed should be in there also, then it would be complete.

Regards , Sam.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda,

Einstein was misled into believing that scientists who worked for the Nazis were using his formula to build a bomb. At that time they were already on the first rung of the ladder, having recorded fissions in uranium. Einstein never contributed anything more to the project than his formula, which was inevitable anyway. The project went on under Max Groves and Robert Oppenheimer and they eventually found a way to achieve the supercritical chain reaction required.

So, when it comes down to it, Einstein also got scared. More or less in line with my remarks, yes?

[Platapus]

But fear is such a powerful tool to control people. Does anyone really think those in power would give up such an effective tool?

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w :yeah:

[Oberon]

Right...now that I'm not getting ready to head out the door to work I can actually give a slightly longer viewpoint on this.

You were warned :O:

I am a man of science, I believe that humanity descended from apes which in turn spawned from a primeval swamp, which in turn was formed by a random meteor impact on a planet which was already teeming with bacterial life from other random meteor impacts.
I believe that we are as much a part of the universe as everything around us, the plants, the animals, the sky, the earth, it is all connected.
I believe that we are little different to the animals that surround us, when it all boils down to it, we act in similar ways, we fight over territory, we have strong mating instincts (some stronger than others :O:), we seek the best we can in a mate and we all seek to protect our young so that our species can continue. We may put a fancy society around it, but there are so many similarities that it's hard for me to deny it.

I am a man of belief, I believe that there is a spiritual side to mankind which is formed more of energy than it is of any big man in a beard. I believe that this Big Bang was caused by the Big Crunch of a previous universe...but what started the first universe?

Does this make me scared? Sometimes, yes, I am scared...I look out of the window and I see wars that are not caused by religion, religion is just a thin icing on top of a cake composed of standard human emotion. Greed, is a strong component of our daily lives, bigger is better, everyone wants a pay rise, everyone wants that oil field, everyone wants a successful market, even at the expense of someone elses market, someone elses job, someone elses life. Religions put humanities flaws down to an evil entity, some call him Satan, some Lucifer, some Velnias, but it is in essence a simple display of what is in every single one of us. There's a quote from Star Trek Deep Space Nine that I always come back to when I think of humanity, and it is just so true, and it's from a very powerful episode, 'The Siege of AR-558':

Quark: "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."

That Satan, that evil is just a simple part of the complex machine of emotions which make up a human being. Do other animals have that same machine? Some cat owners would certainly attest to the darker side of feline emotions, however since we still have trouble bridging the gap between our form of language and theirs it is something that we can only guess at.

Science has inflicted some terrible pain upon our animal brethren, and it still does in laboratories around the world. Somewhere up in orbit, or more likely in small microns scattered across the planet is a dog which was sacrificed for science...she had no say in the matter, and she died a lonely, horrible death, for science. So Science isn't quite the magical cure for all the evils of mankind, if anything it gives us more evil ways to kill each other and to make each others lives a misery. Yesterday it was the rack, today it's water-boarding, tomorrow perhaps it will be false memories implanted directly into the brain.
Religion and science are the ying and yang of mankind. Where did morality come from? Our societies grew up from the Medieval era of god-fearing citizens (although some haven't quite grown up yet...) which instilled in them a strict code of right and wrong which was punished harshly, and as we emerged from under the umbrella of that fear, what has happened? The London riots, fueled by nothing more than greed and a disregard for the morality of the event. If those youths knew that they would be punished by having their hands removed, would they have still done it? Not that I'm advocating such treatment, but merely highlighting the fact that science needs religion to curb its excesses as much as religion needs science to keep it from growing beyond its place in society. Right now, and throughout history, neither have managed to keep that perfect balance, and we have swung from one extreme to the other.

Are all scientists automatically atheists? An interesting question to ponder. Does religion have a place in science? I think it does, and science has a place in religion. Just because the Bible is just a book it does not mean that the underlying principles of the things that Jesus supposedly taught are null and void. Even the bible states that Politics and Religion do not mix, it is humanity which has merged the two into a horrible mess.

We are a flawed species, nothing is perfect, and religion and indeed science, are just two parts of this flawed gem that is humanity.

Maybe one day there will be a conscious change in society towards a more peaceful coexistence...but it will take a collosal event to have something like that happen on a global scale. Until then we just have to make the best of what we can, but at the end of the day, we have to try to live in peace with each other on this ball of dirt and water the best we can in order to face the challenges that await us in this century...and boy do we have some doozies. :damn:

[TLAM Strike]

We sort of had this discussion when talking about Frankenstein, the Romantic movement, science and the noble savage in class today.

My comment was basically the Romantics got it wrong, that without science we would be just beating each other over the heads with sticks. Science gave us bigger and better sticks; the good side? Occasionally someone uses that bigger and better stick to make a lever that moves the world.

[Sammi79]

Takeda,

First let me assure you of my personal respect for you, as a balanced and reasonable moderator here, I mean no offense.

Yes I think Einstein was scared. After all he was human, with all the weakness that entails. Someone who was not scared under those circumstances would be a fool at the very least, or somehow above said weakness, no?

The problem I have with your first post is this; the study of science has only led to more death and misery (your words) Now please correct me if I have mistaken your meaning, but this seems to me to be taking the effect, and linking causality to the tool, rather than the one who wields it. To analogize with the 2001 scene, it is like blaming the bone being grasped by the ape, for the murder that is done later with it. To elaborate, the ape has an agenda, to compete for resource, to survive. This is what quickly leads him to the realization that the bone tool can aid him in his endeavor. I assert that Einstein had no comparable agenda in 1905 (I think?) when he first penned his famous equation, and realized the incredible amount of energy that is locked away in all matter. He cannot be held responsible for the inferior agendas of others who took one of his greatest works and created an abhorrent weapon, and nor can his curiosity and studies that brought him to his discovery. The climate of fear that compelled him to lend his work to the military was certainly not of his making after all, he was acutely aware of the vast energies that might now threaten the allies. I firmly disagree with your notion that all science is rooted in conflict, we are not measuring the speed of neutrinos with the aim to build a weapon, and we are not searching for a force carrying gravity particle to enable us take resource from our enemies. We are uncovering reality layer by layer, because we are curious.

I do not intend to preach to you about the benefits of science, of which you are doubtless aware as you read this reply on your screen, though in your statement you use the word 'only' which I assume is simply a slightly careless use of words, as you later state 'I have no issue with the role that religion has played in mankind's misery' now I am sure this is not quite your meaning, but I do sir. Very much so and on a personal level. But my intent is not to preach to you of the harm that has been done, is still being done in the name of 'religion' either, I am happy to disagree. I lay none of this at your feet, like I said, honestly, you have my respect. As you say, it is wrong to place all humanities faults on religion, but you are equally wrong to place them on the study of science.

Regards, Sam.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda,

First let me assure you of my personal respect for you, as a balanced and reasonable moderator here, I mean no offense.

Yes I think Einstein was scared. After all he was human, with all the weakness that entails. Someone who was not scared under those circumstances would be a fool at the very least, or somehow above said weakness, no?

The problem I have with your first post is this; the study of science has only led to more death and misery (your words) Now please correct me if I have mistaken your meaning, but this seems to me to be taking the effect, and linking causality to the tool, rather than the one who wields it. To analogize with the 2001 scene, it is like blaming the bone being grasped by the ape, for the murder that is done later with it. To elaborate, the ape has an agenda, to compete for resource, to survive. This is what quickly leads him to the realization that the bone tool can aid him in his endeavor. I assert that Einstein had no comparable agenda in 1905 (I think?) when he first penned his famous equation, and realized the incredible amount of energy that is locked away in all matter. He cannot be held responsible for the inferior agendas of others who took one of his greatest works and created an abhorrent weapon, and nor can his curiosity and studies that brought him to his discovery. The climate of fear that compelled him to lend his work to the military was certainly not of his making after all, he was acutely aware of the vast energies that might now threaten the allies. I firmly disagree with your notion that all science is rooted in conflict, we are not measuring the speed of neutrinos with the aim to build a weapon, and we are not searching for a force carrying gravity particle to enable us take resource from our enemies. We are uncovering reality layer by layer, because we are curious.

I do not intend to preach to you about the benefits of science, of which you are doubtless aware as you read this reply on your screen, though in your statement you use the word 'only' which I assume is simply a slightly careless use of words, as you later state 'I have no issue with the role that religion has played in mankind's misery' now I am sure this is not quite your meaning, but I do sir. Very much so and on a personal level. But my intent is not to preach to you of the harm that has been done, is still being done in the name of 'religion' either, I am happy to disagree. I lay none of this at your feet, like I said, honestly, you have my respect. As you say, it is wrong to place all humanities faults on religion, but you are equally wrong to place them on the study of science.

Regards, Sam.

First, please don't be put off by the moderator avatar. We're just having a conversation here.

I agree that my statement was sweeping. However, was this any less so than was done in by the author of the video? I simply substituted 'science' for 'religion'.

What we are really talking about is the purity of both natural law and spirituality and contrasting them with man's constructs of science and religion. Take, for example, metallurgy. The creation of alloys itself is not evil, and the application of these natural laws has no doubt benefitted manking. However, it should be noted that nearly all of these developments came as a result of powerful men seeking to create better weapoons. As such, science becomes a front for the lust for power; the human drive for supremacy at the expense of the other. It is an attempt to save face by doing something in the 'name of science' rather than doing something to enforce or preserve one's own power.

Man behaves identically in matters of religion. While the principles in sprituality, and even in religious theology are not evil, man uses his religion as a mask for his drive for supremacy. The Crusades were hailed as a great religious cause, but the true reason was blatently political. The authorities of the Church were looking to expand their powers and needed a more stable Europe in order to do so. However, convincing a continent of bloodthirsty rulers and despotic local warlords to put their swords down was an impossibility. The Muslims may have very well been on the other side of the world by 11th Century standards, but they were an enemy against which this rogue's gallery could unite against. And so, it is far more convenient to claim the matter as religious than telling people the real reason. Like science it becomes the foil for the powerful and as in science, religion becomes a victim of the real problem--humanity and it's nature.

[TLAM Strike]

However, it should be noted that nearly all of these developments came as a result of powerful men seeking to create better weapoons. Hermann Oberth wanted the rocket to be used for space exploration, not for war.

The Wright Brothers expected their invention to allow nations to observe each other with impunity making war imposable.

Simon Lake wanted to use his invention for exploring the sea floor and tap its resources.

Joseph Glidden's invention was for cattle ranchers, not concentration camps and trenches.

Fritz Haber originally intended his chemical process to be used to make fertilizer and insecticide.

Benjamin Holt's invention was for agricultural tractors not tanks.

:hmmm:

[Oberon]

He did say nearly... :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

Hermann Oberth wanted the rocket to be used for space exploration, not for war.

The Wright Brothers expected their invention to allow nations to observe each other with impunity making war imposable.

Simon Lake wanted to use his invention for exploring the sea floor and tap its resources.

Joseph Glidden's invention was for cattle ranchers, not concentration camps and trenches.

Fritz Haber originally intended his chemical process to be used to make fertilizer and insecticide.

Benjamin Holt's invention was for agricultural tractors not tanks.

:hmmm:

And yet, each of those inventions have been weaponized and used to create untold volumes of misery. Each of these has been used in the exploitation of others. It is identical to the 'weaponization' of religion. In that sense both science and religion become tools for the powerful. And once again it comes down to the fact that the problem is humanity itself. After all Jesus, intended that his words be used as a vehicle for peace.

[antikristuseke]

Hermann Oberth wanted the rocket to be used for space exploration, not for war.

The Wright Brothers expected their invention to allow nations to observe each other with impunity making war imposable.

Simon Lake wanted to use his invention for exploring the sea floor and tap its resources.

Joseph Glidden's invention was for cattle ranchers, not concentration camps and trenches.

Fritz Haber originally intended his chemical process to be used to make fertilizer and insecticide.

Benjamin Holt's invention was for agricultural tractors not tanks.

:hmmm:

Te road to hell is paved with good intentions ;)

[MH]

The good old times
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/primitive_man.jpg


So its all about greed domination?
No curiosity or ways to understand universe or better and more convenient life.
You really like to depress yourselfs.
Not saying that greed and war is not the factor that sometimes speeds up the process for good and the bad.

I should say that no advancement in modern physics have nothing to do with war or greed (maybe some fame)therefore Einstein well deserves his place in history of enlightened.
The A bomb is a by product but never was the objective.

[Sammi79]

Takeda,

I did not express my respect because you are a moderator, it is merely a thin gauge of your character, I have been around for a while (before my join date) and followed many threads, and to me you seem reasonable and have fairly balanced views. If I thought otherwise, I would be just as quick to say so, moderator or no. (though I do think that to be a moderator here @SubSim says only good things about ones character :up:) Your agreement with the general sweep of your first statement reinforces my opinion on this. I just wanted to assure you I am not attacking you or your beliefs in any way. This world takes all sorts, and it would be mighty boring otherwise.

It seemed to me that you felt the author of the video was attacking religion or religious beliefs, and you responded with a reproach. I assert he was not, he lays all the fault with fear, like the title, which I agree is yet another generalizing over-simplification. My interpretation of his message is different, however. What the author is saying is that religion has its root in fear of the unknown. That the forces governing life and death and unexplainable natural phenomena seemed to the newly evolved mind to have a will of their own, and power beyond understanding. Science or the study of natural reality, has its root in curiosity, and the overcoming of fear.

The reason that in the modern age, they appear to be in conflict is this; science takes piece by piece the unknown and uncovers the reality of it. In doing so it eliminates the fear of the unknown, by making it known. As more and more reality is uncovered by scientific study, the scriptures and doctrines are being forced to evolve (though they resist strongly and have not done so nearly enough IMHO) to exclude the findings of science. Many Christians accept that the creation myth in genesis is false in view of our newly acquired knowledge of evolution, for example. The intent of science has never been to compete with religion, it just so happens the side effect of sceptical analysis is - the incremental discreditation of religions that fail or refuse to evolve alongside it.

At the very least, science can be used to fight against its own abuse. What do the scriptures say about global warming, for instance? Anyway for me it is irrelevant, in that it is painfully clear that greed is our nemesis, and is also as Oberon points out is as fundamental to our nature as are fear and curiosity. But fear doesn't help, and science is helping to fix that.

Regards, Sam

[u crank]

A question.

I have a feeling from reading above posts that there is an optimistic view that science will give us the answers to our problems and lead us into a bright future. We can only hope this is true. Sadly though, as listed above, are some of sciences' good intentions gone wrong. I do not blame science and agree that man's dark side is certainly to blame for these misadventures. That being said neither man nor science is able to correct them. We still have atomic and chemical weapons and we still burn fossil fuel. Man is still as cruel and murderous as his history reveals. Given the state of our world, increasing population, dwindling resources, corporate greed, and fundamentalist rhetoric from all sides, we should pause and consider. Will the next great scientific achievement be another one of these 'mistakes'? Will it be used as intended or corrupted? Will that mistake be as irreversible as the others?

I think it would be foolish to say it can not happen. I'm very hopeful that it will not. My question is, can any one assure me it won't?

[TLAM Strike]

Will the next great scientific achievement be another one of these 'mistakes'? Will it be used as intended or corrupted? Will that mistake be as irreversible as the others?

I think it would be foolish to say it can not happen. I'm very hopeful that it will not. My question is, can any one assure me it won't?

The way I see it is that sooner or later this cold and uncaring universe will wipe out this planet and all its inhabitants. It could be a comet hitting the Earth, a passing rogue black hole, large scale tectonic instability; who knows (but guaranteed Earth destruction in 7.5 billion years).

Science is the only thing that can save us (or at least some of us) from such a catastrophe.

So you can sit here and wait for the end or roll the dice and try to find a way out of it.

[CCIP]

Science is the only thing that can save us (or at least some of us) from such a catastrophe.

So you can sit here and wait for the end or roll the dice and try to find a way out of it.

Or is it us that can save science?

It's a sort of backwards chicken-or-egg problem - in the end, it may well be that all that's left of us is the science and technology, and the whole purpose of human civilization might turn out to be building a bunch of really good robots to survive after us in the universe (or worse, pull a Skynet on us). But I guess that's the same old problem of mortality - just on a bigger scale. You can sit around and be depressed about how human you are and how you can't help but be weak, greedy and mortal, or you can just get off your butt do something with the life you still got left in you, imperfections, mistakes and stupidity be damned :up: Same for civilization as a whole.

[Oberon]

Science can save us, yes, and it can destroy us just as easily as that comet. All it takes is one boundary pushed just a little too far and it'll swing back so fast and kick us in the backside so hard that we'll wish for a comet. We've been lucky so far, but after the singularity, perhaps one day we will have to move aside to make way for the better race that we create, the machine race. Perhaps we won't even make it that far, perhaps one day a scientist will create a nanite designed to consume its surroundings and reproduce, and for whatever reason it fails to shut itself off. Within a month or two the planet is grey and we are history.

Science is great, I love science and I look forward to a future with the technology that today we can only dream of, but we have got to be so careful that we don't sacrifice what makes us human in the pursuit of science.

[Onkel Neal]

@ 6:18 pfft! Big deal, on the planet I came from, we have 8 senses and can see through time, Earthlings still have a long way to go.

[TLAM Strike]

@ 6:18 pfft! Big deal, on the planet I came from, we have 8 senses and can see through time, Earthlings still have a long way to go.
In what star system might this planet be?

Why? Oh no reason... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlSIhyPb1k)

:O:

[Dowly]

In what star system might this planet be?

Why? Oh no reason... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlSIhyPb1k)

:O:


Hah, just watched that episode last night. :DL

Think this is my 4th time watching the whole series over, gotta say it's probably
the best Stargate series. :yep: (not that there is any competition except for SG-1 :O:)

[Oberon]

Jacob: Come on, Sam. It can't be any harder than blowing up a sun.
Sam: You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
[Alien control panel lights up.]
Sam: Next step, parting the Red Sea!

[Takeda Shingen]

In what star system might this planet be?

Why? Oh no reason... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlSIhyPb1k)

:O:


Anyone else notice the irony of that video in a thread about the hope and promise of science?

[u crank]

Anyone else notice the irony of that video in a thread about the hope and promise of science?

Yea.

Other options have been suggested.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxx3az2FW41qdf6a3o1_500.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

Anyone else notice the irony of that video in a thread about the hope and promise of science?

Just remember; there is only one spot at the top of the food chain, and technology implies belligerence.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3900/internetmemestheresnowa.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Just remember; there is only one spot at the top of the food chain, and technology implies belligerence.

Very contrary to the video, which presents science as the harbinger of peace. Your vision of science sounds a whole lot like the author's vision of religion. Could it be that, in the end, they're not so different after all?

[TLAM Strike]

Very contrary to the video, which presents science as the harbinger of peace. Your vision of science sounds a whole lot like the author's vision of religion. Could it be that, in the end, they're not so different after all?
Never said it had anything to do with science.

Science gives you the tools to keep you alive in a cold uncaring universe. A society's willingness to use them keeps it alive.

Religion? Well I guess you could try and pray away the barbarians at the city walls.

[Takeda Shingen]

Never said it had anything to do with science.

Science gives you the tools to keep you alive in a cold uncaring universe. A society's willingness to use them keeps it alive.

Religion? Well I guess you could try and pray away the barbarians at the city walls.

Your disdain for matters of faith aside, I think you are missing the point. The video postulates that people have acted in religious matters out of fear, and that this has led mankind down a destructive path. What you are illustrating is the desire to turn to science out of that same fear, leading mankind along exactly the same path, which has been the case throughout recorded history. And so we come, again, to my central premise. This is not a problem with religion. This is not a problem with science. Religion and science are both constructs of humanity, which makes them convenient foils. The problem, rather, is with humanity itself.

We can fly among the stars with impunity, carrying whatever miraculous new inventions that have come through our study of science. The problem is that we will be taking ourselves along as well.

[Buddahaid]

Of course we bring ourselves along or what is the point in doing it, and I do see your central premise. The problem I have is religion says this is the model of the universe, it is divinely perfect and shall remain so forever. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected or destroyed. Science says this is the model of the universe, it is not perfect and it will change as we learn more. Anyone who disagrees may be wrong and their evidence should be tested.

Both schools of thought don't welcome change as that is human nature, but the one school doesn't condemn people to death for speaking of change.

[Takeda Shingen]

Of course we bring ourselves along or what is the point in doing it, and I do see your central premise. The problem I have is religion says this is the model of the universe, it is divinely perfect and shall remain so forever. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected or destroyed. Science says this is the model of the universe, it is not perfect and it will change as we learn more. Anyone who disagrees may be wrong and their evidence should be tested.

Both schools of thought don't welcome change as that is human nature, but the one school doesn't condemn people to death for speaking of change.

Religion does not condemn people to death. People condemn people to death and for, as I have illustrated earlier, reasons pertaining to the human lust for power. Religion is the scapegoat. The scriptural mention of a geocentric universe was oblique at best. Copenicus wasn't persecuted because his view was religious. He was persecuted because his view threatened the political power of the Catholic Church. The matters of religion were as simple convenience.

[Sammi79]

I just watched the video again and noticed early on, that he said @1:05 'We told tales about another life; the cornerstone of our civilization' This is a reference to religious beliefs and is granted the cornerstone importance. Without which, our civilization would not have evolved (possibly I'm not sure I agree). I do agree though that in times past, religious ideas have been a catalyst for our development as a species, and the development of our minds, even the development of science itself. Takeda & CCIP both made comments suggesting science and religion are the same or similar, and I assert they are not. Having similarities does not make them the same, besides the fact that the similarities are very few, and the antagonistic qualities are many.

What would happen today if we (as a civilization) abandoned scientific thinking, and all that it has given us? It is surely hard to imagine how different life would be.

What would happen today if as above, we abandoned religious thinking and all that has given us? Would the world be much different?

Opinions welcomed...

Regards, Sam.

P.S. I would like to avoid assigning abstract better/worse values to either condition :)

[Buddahaid]

Religion does not condemn people to death. People condemn people to death and for, as I have illustrated earlier, reasons pertaining to the human lust for power. Religion is the scapegoat. The scriptural mention of a geocentric universe was oblique at best. Copenicus wasn't persecuted because his view was religious. He was persecuted because his view threatened the political power of the Catholic Church. The matters of religion were as simple convenience.

Point taken, however I disagree that Religion is the scapegoat for human shortcomings. I see it as a human construct, a tool for which to consolidate power over and control other humans, and strives always to declare how right it is and censor dissenting thought, threaten eternal damnation and so on. Science provides an alternate path to that end, but science, though born out of human thought as well, seeks always to prove it is right by trying to prove it is wrong.

[u crank]

What would happen today if we (as a civilization) abandoned scientific thinking, and all that it has given us? It is surely hard to imagine how different life would be.

What would happen today if as above, we abandoned religious thinking and all that has given us? Would the world be much different?

Opinions welcomed...

Regards, Sam.

I think a modern civilization that lacks either one would eventually descend into chaos. History bears witness to this. Extremist views and abuse of power have led both sides to this antagonistic stance. A far better path would be to understand the opposing philosophy completely. In the past religion has been a hindrance to scientific progress and there are still some very backward notions out there. By the same token atheistic/scientific thought has been very dismissive of religious belief, and some suggest society would be better off without it.
The modern western democracies we have today are a result of these two philosophies even though they have been in disagreement. Knowledge has great value. I don't have to believe something to understand it. This is how you keep the extremists from ruling the day.

[Randomizer]

I think that the sooner we dump all religion, the better off humanity will be. Religion requires dogmatic belief and dogma is the enemy of rational thought and facilitator of extremism.

Morality, ethics, humanism and charity require a sense of community, not the worship of magical beings. Spirituality comes from within every person and not from works of fiction passed off as holy books by irrational fanatics.

[Buddahaid]

No denying we live in a blend which uses religiously derived moral signposts. The Ten Commandments are nothing if not sensible rules to preserve the peace within communities. So would man be better off without Religion? I don't think we can help ourselves but have it in some form or other. I'm not a God fearing man because I refuse to worship a system of fear and feel it's all greater than the pretty box we've built up so far. We seem meant to scratch our way out and look around.

[TLAM Strike]

Consider this: Who do you want to lead us?

(say to have Executive powers incl. command of nuclear weapons, and power to wage war)

Requirements to be POTUS: Native of USA, 14 years in residence and 35+ years old. Elected by minority of population.

Requirements to be Pope: Technically none; must be Catholic upon assuming office. Selected by a group of Cardinals of the church.

Requirements for PhD (US): about 7 years of study, a 400+ page dissertation that "contributes to human knowledge"; that then must be examined by experts and defended by the candidate to the experts satisfaction.

[Takeda Shingen]

Consider this: Who do you want to lead us?

(say to have Executive powers incl. command of nuclear weapons, and power to wage war)

Requirements to be POTUS: Native of USA, 14 years in residence and 35+ years old. Elected by minority of population.

Requirements to be Pope: Technically none; must be Catholic upon assuming office. Selected by a group of Cardinals of the church.

Requirements for PhD (US): about 7 years of study, a 400+ page dissertation that "contributes to human knowledge"; that then must be examined by experts and defended by the candidate to the experts satisfaction.

Who is calling for a theocracy? All I am saying is that religion was unfairly blamed as the root of humanity's problems. Once again, it isn't the root of the problem. Humanity is the root of humanity's problem.

In regard to Sammi's question of a world without religion, it becomes a personal matter. With religion you have man and god, who drives man to transcend his nature. Without religion you only have man with his cruelity, selfishness and murderous nature; a nature that he celebrates. We need to look no further than this forum. Look at the discussion of a possible war with Iran. Man takes tremendous pride in his machines, particularly his killing machines. And it is not only you all, I do it too. It is all that man is, and it is all that man seperated from god can be. For me, that is far too bleak a world to live in. In my eyes it is a comfort to know that, in the end, there is light in the darkness and hope in the world to come.

Science offers me many things; things that I enjoy and are an intergal part to my daily life. Science is of value to me and value to man, but it does not offer me that.

[Randomizer]

With religion you have man and god, who drives man to transcend his nature. Without religion you only have man with his cruelity, selfishness and murderous nature; a nature that he celebrates.
Nonsensical Hyperbole, pure and unadulterated.

Religion = cruelty: the Inquisition being only one of many examples.

Religion = selfishness: the treatment of the masses in the majority of Catholic countries where Church owned wealth benefited the Church without regards for the principles of Christian charity espoused by that same church.

Religion = murderous nature: witness the slaughter of Christian Armenians by Islamic Turks, Orthodox pograms against the Jews, and Catholic slaughter of Mezo-Americans.

Religion does not allow men to transcend anything, it engenders fear and superstition that aids in producing atrocities and mayham. It retards civilization and we need to outgrow it, totally, completely and unequivocally.

Of course the faithful will spin the record in an attempt to show that these cases and all the others were man exercising god-given free will but it's really hard to see how that helps the victims, who presumably were shot, burnt, impaled, beheaded and starved because god wanted them to be. Or does free will only apply to perpetrators of violence and abuse?

[Buddahaid]

I do not believe man is base without religion, there are just base men.

[u crank]

Not to belabour a point here but there has to be a clear distinction between what God wants and what man does. It's easy to blame religion for the crimes listed but you could also blame greed, politics, racial hatred, and ignorance.
And rightly so none of this helps the victims, but to think that these crimes happened because God wanted them to is a clear misunderstanding of both God and human nature. People with religious beliefs do commit crimes. People with no religious convictions or knowledge of God also do these things and both groups have been doing so since day one. Sadly, that's what we do.

[Oberon]

Nonsensical Hyperbole, pure and unadulterated.

Religion = cruelty: the Inquisition being only one of many examples.

Religion = selfishness: the treatment of the masses in the majority of Catholic countries where Church owned wealth benefited the Church without regards for the principles of Christian charity espoused by that same church.

Religion = murderous nature: witness the slaughter of Christian Armenians by Islamic Turks, Orthodox pograms against the Jews, and Catholic slaughter of Mezo-Americans.

Religion does not allow men to transcend anything, it engenders fear and superstition that aids in producing atrocities and mayham. It retards civilization and we need to outgrow it, totally, completely and unequivocally.

Of course the faithful will spin the record in an attempt to show that these cases and all the others were man exercising god-given free will but it's really hard to see how that helps the victims, who presumably were shot, burnt, impaled, beheaded and starved because god wanted them to be. Or does free will only apply to perpetrators of violence and abuse?

Did Religion drive Joseph Mengele?
We know how the human body reacts to freezing because of his experiments at Dachau and Auschwitz which cost the lives of approximately one hundred people.
Did Religion drive Unit 731?
Their research on the effects of biological warfare earned many of them pardons and stays of execution after the war from the United States. The number of people killed by their experiments is estimated at around five hundred thousand.

Does the all embrace of science mean that human experimentation is permissible? If so, then what are the criteria? Prisoners? That's a start, but why stop there?

Science is not evil, Religion is not evil, mankind can be very evil.
At the reverse end of the spectrum we have many instances where Science has lead to fantastic advances in humanity which have benefited many without suffering to some...but certainly medically speaking, most of our advances are done on the suffering of humans and animals alike.
Likewise we have instances where religion has inspired people to make great sacrifices for the benefit of others.

Religion and Science have little to do with the evils in the world, we're quite capable of making them without their help. :yep:

[Randomizer]

Theists like to believe that one cannot be a moral or ethical person without having religion as a compass.

That is demonstrably wrong and cataloging a list of atrocity done in the absence of religion in comparison to atrocity done in the name of religion is nonsense. My examples were in response to the implication that without religion man is automatically cruel, a contention as ridiculous as it is false.

Religion is essentially the notion that an imaginary friend accounts for all that is good in the world but who gets a free pass on being accountable for anything that is bad. How rational is that?

[tater]

Well said, randomizer.

Theism is incredibly arrogant, actually. I am agnostic on deism, as it is an unknowable question. On theism, though, you have to believe that god has told your special group what he thinks. You, and your group alone, knows his mind. The whole universe was made for YOU.

It's funny, too. Bronze-age religious texts are "holy," but if some guy in a compound writes his holy manifesto tomorrow, it's a "cult." None of the holy books in the major religions have any proof they are what they say they are. The Bible (old and new test) are massively inconsistent internally. Thomas Paine shreds it using naught but the words within itself (Age of Reason).

[Oberon]

Theists like to believe that one cannot be a moral or ethical person without having religion as a compass.

That is demonstrably wrong and cataloging a list of atrocity done in the absence of religion in comparison to atrocity done in the name of religion is nonsense. My examples were in response to the implication that without religion man is automatically cruel, a contention as ridiculous as it is false.

Religion is essentially the notion that an imaginary friend accounts for all that is good in the world but who gets a free pass on being accountable for anything that is bad. How rational is that?

That I can agree with you on, that at the end of the day it's down to humanity to decide, not scientists or priests.

What I'd like to ponder though is how the moral code of humanity has been built over the years? When did we first decide that smacking someone over the head outside of war was wrong? Does the Bible exist as our first written moral code or was there one in place before then?

[Randomizer]

What I'd like to ponder though is how the moral code of humanity has been built over the years? When did we first decide that smacking someone over the head outside of war was wrong?
Some sort of values are a requirement for human beings to live together and by extension in all probability always have been.

Start with the neolithic family, killing ones own children is a bad idea when it is expected that those same children will keep you alive in your dotage.

Expand to a family group, a tribe and the same rules, expanded by common sense and the requirement for the group to survive and civility and cooperation becomes more important.

Society expands into groups of families and now you have to learn to get along with somebody who is not family but may have skills or commodities that benefit your family. Killing them might hurt those closest to you and so rules are needed to regulate the social interaction within the community setting.

No god is necessary, merely self-interest.

Am not stating categorically that this is how societal norms begin but it is a possible scenario and one that fits the evidence as I understand it.

Gods were needed to explain the unknowable as it was perceived at the time, I would imagine that the linking of gods to good behavior probably grew out of some cause and effect coincidences that demanded explanation in the face of fear and superstition but that's just a guess.

[tater]

Murder was FAR more common in early human history than now. An insanely high homicide rate per year is now on the order of 0.03% per year.

For an average life span of ~35 years (spitball estimate for average human lifespan since we became Homo sapiens. It's probably high, lol.) that's around a 1% chance to death by homicide. Studies of paleolithic cultures that were extant into the 20th century showed that their lifetime death rate to homicide was 20-30%.

[Oberon]

Some sort of values are a requirement for human beings to live together and by extension in all probability always have been.

Start with the neolithic family, killing ones own children is a bad idea when it is expected that those same children will keep you alive in your dotage.

Expand to a family group, a tribe and the same rules, expanded by common sense and the requirement for the group to survive and civility and cooperation becomes more important.

Society expands into groups of families and now you have to learn to get along with somebody who is not family but may have skills or commodities that benefit your family. Killing them might hurt those closest to you and so rules are needed to regulate the social interaction within the community setting.

No god is necessary, merely self-interest.

Am not stating categorically that this is how societal norms begin but it is a possible scenario and one that fits the evidence as I understand it.

Gods were needed to explain the unknowable as it was perceived at the time, I would imagine that the linking of gods to good behavior probably grew out of some cause and effect coincidences that demanded explanation in the face of fear and superstition but that's just a guess.

That makes perfectly good sense and I'd go with that. :yep:
How about spirituality though, where does that fit in? :hmmm: I'm not talking about organised religion but peoples individual beliefs.

[Randomizer]

Murder was FAR more common in early human history than now. An insanely high homicide rate per year is now on the order of 0.03% per year.

For an average life span of ~35 years (spitball estimate for average human lifespan since we became Homo sapiens. It's probably high, lol.) that's around a 1% chance to death by homicide. Studies of paleolithic cultures that were extant into the 20th century showed that their lifetime death rate to homicide was 20-30%.
True but then banishment, blood feuds and weregild's became the cost of murder as neolithic hunter-gatherers created early static societies and the first agriculture based communities. Placing a social cost on murder facilitated the order and stability that farming needed to thrive. God need not apply; community self-interest demanded that anti-social action was met with some sort of community sponsored sanction.

[tater]

That makes perfectly good sense and I'd go with that. :yep:
How about spirituality though, where does that fit in? :hmmm: I'm not talking about organised religion but peoples individual beliefs.

By spirituality do you mean beliefs about something without proof, or even contrary to proof? Or do you merely mean completely human experiences that they might self-sescribe as transcendent? The latter is possible without resorting to magic as an explanation.

[tater]

True but then banishment, blood feuds and weregild's became the cost of murder as neolithic hunter-gatherers created early static societies and the first agriculture based communities. Placing a social cost on murder facilitated the order and stability that farming needed to thrive. God need not apply; community self-interest demanded that anti-social action was met with some sort of community sponsored sanction.

Except vs the guys next door in the next society. Those guys you whack over the head, and take their stuff. This was the case with the studied groups. This was mostly murder between tribal units, not among a single tribe.

I'm certainly not attributing the modern decrease in violence to religion (as I said, I'm at best an atheist, maybe even an anti-theist). Why? Because even these tribes had religion. It was invented very early. Their religion was exactly as true as any other religion. Yes, the lion-god needs to be fed occasionally with the blood of man to make him happy. Why not? That's no more dumb than any other irrational belief. Prove the stone-age religion false... :)

[Randomizer]

I suspect we're discussing a distinction without a difference. That said, I am not convinced that early religion or lack thereof was a cause for extra-community conflict, the neolithic equivalent of war.

As I understand it (most of what I have learned on the subject is incidental and I claim zero expertise), neolithic religious artifacts fall into two significant social areas, birth, typified by worship of female fertility figures and death where some sort of ritual was conducted with the remains of the deceased.

Later gods would be required to explain the sun, moon, seasons, tides and essentially everything else. I expect that formal religion grew out of all these beliefs coalescing and somebody who was not involved in the food gathering process interpreting and taking spiritual control of the community. Perhaps elders or infirm, incapable of participating in the hunt became the first priests.

The prototype city-states and early "empires" in Mesopotamia were the home of Zoroastrianism, the first known monotheistic religion but most accounts indicate that it was not imposed on those communities that were incorporated into the Empire either by force or diplomacy. I think this indicates that expansionist fundamentalism and conversion by the sword would come much later and become a feature of Christianity and Islam. Until Constantine, the Romans were remarkably tolerant towards other people's religions and those apocryphal christian martyrs were, in Roman eyes, more what we would consider terrorists today.

After Rome collapsed, religion in the form of evangelical Christianity and later Islam expanded with zero tolerance for non-believers.

[Ducimus]

I have not been following this thread, so if theres some ongoing debate, (im sure there is), i havent read it. However the video linked in the original post made me go digging around on youtube, and I found this 40 minute speech/presentation. I found it a fascinating presentation. Given the original post, i thought it relevant to this thread somehow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo&feature=related

[Randomizer]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is brilliant in my opinion.

[Sailor Steve]

Does the Bible exist as our first written moral code or was there one in place before then?
Written moral codes predate the Bible by more than a thousand years.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R3ABYXM8G9MUEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

[tater]

Heck, much of the content of the bible was simply recycled from earlier stories.

It's funny that anyone takes any of it seriously to me. They actually think a kind god (that really cares and loves them!) let 100% of humanity before the date of revelation spend eternity in fiery torment... and most of the rest of the world do so as well, because he created them away from that particular revelation, and also created them in a world where they worship the wrong god(s).

Boggles the mind.

[Takeda Shingen]

Nonsensical Hyperbole, pure and unadulterated.

It isn't. You're just too angry to hear anything other than your own words. As I get older, I find that I have less and less time for people like that.

[Oberon]

Written moral codes predate the Bible by more than a thousand years.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R3ABYXM8G9MUEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Ah, Thank you Steve, I'd seen the Code of Hammurabi mentioned in Civilization before but never really looked it up.

[Randomizer]

It isn't. You're just too angry to hear anything other than your own words. As I get older, I find that I have less and less time for people like that.
Actually I am not angry at all, when it comes to god and religion I am almost but not quite indifferent.

Religion is irrational; the belief in magical beings, unsubstantiated miracles and the everyday application of ancient texts to 21st Century life should make any thinking person reject it entirely.

Sadly, that's probably not going to happen so there's no requirement for anger. I test my atheism every day against the observable in my world, can you say the same about your faith?

Besides, hyperbole is defined as "an obvious and intentional exaggeration" which is exactly what your phrase couched in absolute terms:
With religion you have man and god, who drives man to transcend his nature. Without religion you only have man with his cruelity, selfishness and murderous nature; a nature that he celebrates.
was intended to be.

The attack on me as opposed to a critique of what I wrote is the typical response of a believer on the defensive. I had expected better.

[Takeda Shingen]

Ah, Thank you Steve, I'd seen the Code of Hammurabi mentioned in Civilization before but never really looked it up.

Also, please remember that I have never claimed religion to be the sole authority on matters of morality. In fact, I think that I have gone out of my way in this thread to indicate that my faith is a matter of personal preference. In no way have I attempted to advocate it to any member of this forum. My only argument here, and it is one that has yet to recieve a satisfactory counter-argument, is that it is humanity, not religion, science, philosophy, politics, et al, that is the problem.

[Takeda Shingen]

The attack on me as opposed to a critique of what I wrote is the typical response of a believer on the defensive. I had expected better.

And yet, you begin with this.

Nonsensical Hyperbole, pure and unadulterated.

A sweeping, summary, and overtly hostile dismissal of an individual's statement leaves no room for discussion. There was no point in attempting to engage you. If you feel attacked, it is only because you threw the first punch. Look elsewhere for sympathy. You wll get none from me. Moving on.

[CCIP]

I find it ironic that the person most dogmatic in this thread so far is dead-set on an unshakeable belief in the observability of atheism, and the all-encompassing reliability science :O:

[Randomizer]

One can discuss hyperbolic statements, doing so is generally fun since they back the speaker into a corner but there is no discussion where there is dogma and religion is all about the dogmatic.

Am disappointed that you cannot tell the difference between critiquing the argument and attacking the arguer. Had honestly expected something better. Go ahead and slam the door on the way out if it makes you feel good about yourself.

@CCIP
I assume that's aimed at me but if you would like to point out where I have been dogmatic, I would appreciate specifics rather than generalizations.

It is not dogma to demand proof and I make no claims at having all the answers.

[Takeda Shingen]

I find it ironic that the person most dogmatic in this thread so far is dead-set on an unshakeable belief in the observability of atheism, and the all-encompassing reliability science :O:

I found that amusing as well. Unfortunately, he has become almost a personification of what he decries about religion. The sad part is that he has a legitimate point, but his hostility makes establishing common ground difficult at best. Unfortunately, we see this style of argument far too often on these forums, but it usually is contained within the political threads. Still, this has the reputation of being a hot-headed topic as well.

Kudos to the rest of the membership for keeping the past five pages above board and clean in what could have been a very ugly thread. As moderators, we frequently deal in problems. It can give us a skewed view of the general temperment of the forum. This thread has, for the most part, reaffirmed my faith in the members of this board and for that I thank you all. You gave me a pick-me-up when I needed it. :up:

[tater]

Religion is a human invention, so it shares all the flaws of humanity at large.

The trouble is that it gives those problems infinite authority.

[Takeda Shingen]

Religion is a human invention, so it shares all the flaws of humanity at large.

The trouble is that it gives those problems infinite authority.

It absolutely does, but so do each of man's constructs. Politics, for example, gives a select few control over the many. It is no wonder then, that some of man's earliest political structures were religiously-oriented. The village shaman was often one of the leaders of the community. The Roman Catholic Church was the largest political player in feudal-age Europe. Religion has been in evolution, as has the rest of man's social structures.

[tater]

The burden of proof for theism is on the part of the theist. An incredible beliefs require pretty incredible proof.

Deism at least is free of this. Arguments that claim to prove religion by pointing at "the miracle of creation" do not prove their theism, or even attempt to. To do this, you have to prove that you know the mind of god. It's entirely possible to be agnostic on deism (I am), and an atheist (since no theist religions have proved their veracity).

[Takeda Shingen]

The burden of proof for theism is on the part of the theist. An incredible beliefs require pretty incredible proof.

Deism at least is free of this. Arguments that claim to prove religion by pointing at "the miracle of creation" do not prove their theism, or even attempt to. To do this, you have to prove that you know the mind of god. It's entirely possible to be agnostic on deism (I am), and an atheist (since no theist religions have proved their veracity).

Again, I am not attempting to prove theism to anyone on this forum. It is also not what this thread was about. We were asked by Sammi what we thought a world without religion would be. I gave my personal view and my personal rationale. It was not an attempt to convince, but a glimpse into my personal belief. It is okay if you disagree with it, but I am not making it a point of contention, nor do I attempt to persuade anyone of it's value. Honetly, I did not think it would get much of a reaction.

[CCIP]

It absolutely does, but so do each of man's constructs. Politics, for example, gives a select few control over the many. It is no wonder then, that some of man's earliest political structures were religiously-oriented.

And let's not forget the contributions to science, philosophy and education made by religion. In terms of Christianity for example, someone who thinks that religious thought is all dogma has obviously never read St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Schleiermacher and countless others.

In fact the notion of science and religion being in opposition is very much a false construct, and has nothing to do with the nature of things. Dogma is the enemy of reason, not religion, spirituality or even scriptural study. Just that some people have trouble seeing past surface appearances and don't want to engage with the symbolic side of life, which is as rich and complicated - regardless of the religious tradition that might originate it. This goes for people of both extremes by the way.

[tater]

Religion has been in evolution, as has the rest of man's social structures.

Well the evolution stopped rather a long time ago. Make up a religion tomorrow. You will be called a cult leader. The 3 major monotheisms already have claim to all the knowledge of the universe, and they wrote that down unerringly a long time ago.

Someone like myself who studied physics 25 years ago is hopelessly out of date in physics, yet a biblical (or koranic) expert from 250 (or far longer) years ago knows no less than a biblical expert now. What has evolved in judaism and christianity is that the people who claim membership to the religions ignore huge swaths of it. How many people who want the 10 Commandments treated with respect in a courtroom know that the punishment for violating most of them is death? In the case of islam, the trouble is that it is currently evolving in the wrong direction---towards being more true to the book, rather than dumping all the insane parts. Regardless, though, the insane parts are still there, even in the other 2 that precede islam. Ignoring them makes for better people and societies, but the religions themselves are no better.

Religion is by definition irrational. Science is known in common sense as "trial and error." Every human uses the scientific method almost every day. If they treated religion with the same critical eye they use to so much as cross a busy street, they'd have dumped it long ago.

For the "spiritual" take from a non-religious POV, Sam Harris is pretty interesting, actually.

[Takeda Shingen]

And let's not forget the contributions to science, philosophy and education made by religion. In terms of Christianity for example, someone who thinks that religious thought is all dogma has obviously never read St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Schleiermacher and countless others.

In fact the notion of science and religion being in opposition is very much a false construct, and has nothing to do with the nature of things. Dogma is the enemy of reason, not religion, spirituality or even scriptural study. Just that some people have trouble seeing past surface appearances and don't want to engage with the symbolic side of life, which is as rich and complicated - regardless of the religious tradition that might originate it. This goes for people of both extremes by the way.

Very true. And, as much as it pains me to concede it, we would not have modern academics without the Roman Catholic Church. I am a tremendous detractor of Catholicism, but they kept the torch of knowledge lit during the dark times that followed the fall of Rome.

[tater]

I wasn't really arguing with you, per se, just going off on a tangent. My bad.

I find it an interesting discussion to have, and the internets is sort of the best place... it can tend to blow up at dinner parties :)

[Takeda Shingen]

I find it an interesting discussion to have, and the internets is sort of the best place... it can tend to blow up at dinner parties :)

:haha: Isn't that the truth! And I was not offended. Just wanted to clarify my stance.

[CCIP]

I am a tremendous detractor of Catholicism, but they kept the torch of knowledge lit during the dark times that followed the fall of Rome.

...as did Muslim and Jewish scholars, by the way. If it weren't for them, we would not have access to many of the Greek and Roman texts that later helped bring about the rebirth of classical science, philosophy and education in the Renaissance later on.

[u crank]

In fact the notion of science and religion being in opposition is very much a false construct, and has nothing to do with the nature of things. Dogma is the enemy of reason, not religion, spirituality or even scriptural study. Just that some people have trouble seeing past surface appearances and don't want to engage with the symbolic side of life, which is as rich and complicated - regardless of the religious tradition that might originate it. This goes for people of both extremes by the way.

Excellent observation. I couldn't agree more. I see no personal conflict between science and faith.

[kiwi_2005]

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8

Do not be afraid of those (man) who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (spirit). Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body.
Matthew 10:28

Read the book of Ecclesiastes you pagans then you wont be scared anymore...:smug: :O: Plus its one of my favorite books in the bible different from all the others & tells it like it is.

Anyways I'm off to play my pagan RPG's. :haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8

Do not be afraid of those (man) who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (spirit). Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body.
Matthew 10:28

Read the book of Ecclesiastes you pagans then you wont be scared anymore...:smug: :O: Plus its one of my favorite books in the bible different from all the others & tells it like it is.

Anyways I'm off to play my pagan RPG's. :haha:

Fus Roh Dah, baby. Fus Roh Dah.

[TLAM Strike]

Do not be afraid of those (man) who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (spirit). Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body.
Matthew 10:28

Sooo.... a Time Lord? They seem to have had that capability (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/De-mat_Gun)...

The Bible is starting to make sense...

[Platapus]

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Way to go nappie! :yeah:

[Sammi79]

Hi everybody,

Thanks for your answers to my questions. It is true that discussions on these matters can become bogged down in angry mudslinging, and it is nice to see that has not happened here. Not surprising though, that's exactly why I love this place! :D I was having a similar discussion on a documentary site, that has deteriorated several times, but during an argument with someone who claimed they believed that dark traveled faster than light :o I had an interesting thought -

One of my favorite books is 'A Wizard of Earthsea' by Ursula K. Le Guin it is a childrens story and in it is a short poem :-

Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life,
Bright the hawk's flight upon the empty sky.

Now this to me is a simple yet beautiful description of the antagonistic duality of existent things, one is the absence of the other yet without one the other cannot exist. Since I was arguing that dark was not a thing itself but only the absence of a thing, and a candle casts a shadow... my thought is this; all existent things are knowable by two means - either their presence or their absence, or both. (Damn that's three... :damn:) but it leads me to a question regarding God/afterlife/supernature/souls/miracles/(insert magical proposition of your choice here). Surely if any of these things existed, we would know, for certain, by either their presence or their absence, or both, no?

I like Takeda's 'personal' sort of religious thinking it seems more rational than other sorts, closer to Oberon's spirituality, and my philosophy etc. I think (if it is to survive our own evolution) religion needs to evolve into something more like philosophy, but that's me, whatcha gonna do. I am strictly agnostic, but atheist works for me when defined simply as 'not a theist' and I have a very simple explanation for morality. (good) Morality is a blanket term for altruistic empathic reactions. I think all empathic reactions develop as a natural side effect of a small conceptual leap that occurs for most when they are infant. Namely 'placing yourself in an others position' - the principle behind 'do unto others etc.' To make this leap, requires one to accept the knowledge that the other is an another entity similar to oneself. Once this is done, it enables one to 'feel' how the other would feel regarding ones own words/actions toward them, though this is only a projection and can be misleading, none the less it is the best gauge we have. Now as the mind develops and acquires knowledge, this simple principle can be applied to more than just other humans, animals are not so different that the imagination will not allow it for instance. Approaching the adult level of mind development the principle can become abstracted, and applied to inanimate objects, groups of objects, even complex systems, though this is harder. If one were able to apply this simple idea to every existent thing, one would become absolutely conscientious, and I doubt any human being has ever achieved this, possibly Buddha and likely Mr Christ was well on his way. Exceptions like extreme autism prevent sufferers from understanding that they are even an entity in the first place, and psychopaths are somehow disconnected to empathic feelings altogether. I'm not sure how this evolved but I would humbly suggest it coincided with the development of the larger social group.

@Ducimus - Thanks for the linked video I quite often have this 'well actually the human eye is a bit naff really' argument. I haven't had time to watch it yet but I will give it a blast tomorrow. I like the watch in the desert argument the best, the fact that if you assert the watch must have had a designer due to it being clearly more complex and different from its surroundings, you are actually asserting that - the desert was not designed. :DL

Regards, Sam.