Voyager But if the imperative to adopt a certain set of morals were not in place for thousands of years working tirelessly through behaviorally train a population to inculcate those morals would that not be a font of morals? Would it be mere coincidence that the moderns who incidentally haven’t really stopped being ultra-violent. Do you think that moral inculcation along with allegiance to a nation-state separate and distinct from tribal affiliations had nothing to do with that forging of a commonly held social goal regarding a particular set of morals?
Like what, pray tell? Show me a “one” that isn’t a “one item”, please. And no, the various character representations of the concept like “one”, “1”, “I”, or “uno” don’t count, for the same reason “tree” is not a tree.
And math can be applied to reality if and only if you find limited places where the reality appoximately matches the math. In some cases it’s tougher than others; as was noted in another (dead) thread, there is no such thing as a 3-4-5 triangle in the real world, anywhere.
The difference is that any system of moral philosophy – if it is philosophical in nature – is purportedly based on reason, not revealed authority.
This sounds like a semantics game to me, and I’m not playing.
That’s probably for the best. Semiotics can be a difficult subject.
It’s no semantics game - “one” is, indeed and fundamentally, a purely abstract concept invented by humans, based on (appropriately enough) an abstraction of the observable fact that lots of objects have a distinct (and dare we say, singular?) existance separate from other objects. This is not an issue of semantics but instead fundamental to the understanding of what math is, as opposed to just what it does.
But if you’re not interested, no problem. This is not exactly necessary information for your survival.
You’re not disagreeing with me. 
I’m saying that when religion makes a testable claim, it’s out of bounds (whether or not the claim is true). That’s the conflict, and reconciliation consists of science and religion staying within their respective bounds.
My point was that if religion is not involved with a god handing down moral rules, then it become equivalent to moral philosophy and thus its rules can be criticized using reason.
Say a religion claims that God spoke to Joe the Prophet in Chicago Jan. 1 2002 and said that all of humanity should quack like a duck three times every Friday. If you believe in God, and believe that God spoke to Joe, you might feel compelled to do it, or else God will tar and feather you or something. However, if you use science as a stand in for an investigation showing that Joe was in Vegas that day, you are free to give this rule all the credit it deserves.
I hope this admittedly absurd example makes my point clear.
To continue, our committed Joe-ite might say that sure Joe was in Vegas, but you can’t prove that God with his magical powers whisked him away to Chicago to talk to him, and then returned him. So we can’t prove that the religious claim is false, but that’s the way to bet.
But to get anyone to pay attention to the claims of the religion they have to make testable claims. It’s not out of bounds at all - if there were a God, he’d no doubt do something we can check on, the way he supposedly did in the Bible all the time. Even Jesus did his magic tricks, and a Hebrew investigator (“Citizen Jesus”) at the time could have interviewed the eyewitnesses. The current insistence on the difference is only an excuse for an embarrassing lack of evidence.
This is a one way street. Science has no need to reconcile with religion at all. Religion however, as science has discovered more and more, found themselves on the outside. They attempt to warp their beliefs into something that is more palatable . Some in religion actually say they have no trouble with evolution, mainly because they would appear silly to toss off a huge body of evidence. But the majority just blindly believe what they have been taught. They have to twist their logic into knots to do it. It is not very becoming .
Of course, it helps if one can use the important-sounding jargon of science in one’s religion, thus new-age pseudo-cults that talk about molecules and crystal vibrations and quantum fluctuations and all variety of bushwah painful to the ears of anyone who took and passed a physics course in their lifetime.
Just because you’re tired of reading it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Many many other cites available.
So, it might not be the way you interpret The Book, but certainly not what the book itself says nor what is being preached to the majority of the [del]naive[/del] faithful.
That may be what it would take for you to pay attention to religious claims, but it is not a necessity for any religion that emphasizes faith.
Again, you are projecting your own requirements. Once there is evidence, faith is unnecessary. While not all religions are based on faith, it is major component of the religion of most Christians.
Lack of evidence is only embarrassing if you require evidence for your beliefs. That is, how much you value evidence (and science) is a subjective determination.
Most scientists are smart enough to stay in-bounds and avoid making untestable claims. You do however, see an occasional slip when testable claims like “there is no evidence for God” are changed into untestable claims like “there is no God”.
I’m not sure what you think you’re giving a cite for. That quote is specifically admonishing those who simply parrot the words and do evil. Instead, it says, we must do good and not simply say the magic words. That is, we’re required to inquire (the opposite of mindless repetition) and take positive actions.
Not entirely…
Scientists do have to reconcile with morals and ethics. Of which it can be argued that religion is a human abstraction of, based on experiences and observation.
Well, that just means he should have added “should”. You should only pay attention to claims with evidence. And the reason it isn’t a requirement for religions based on faith is because they are fantasies and lies.
No, it’s not. Don’t believe me? Convince yourself you can walk on water and try to walk across a lake. No amount of faith will keep you from getting soaked. Being objectively correct is not subjective by definition.
Anyone who doesn’t require evidence for their beliefs is a fool, period. And if they aren’t embarrassed about it, that’s just another character flaw.
That’s called using the same standards for God as we do for everything else. Somehow I doubt you’d make the same criticism to “there’s no such thing as goblins” or “Sauron is a fictional character”.
Hardly. Morality neither requires religion nor benefits from it. On the contrary; religion undercuts morality due to its focus on faith. A good moral code rejects or ignores the fantasies of religion, in order to focus on the real consequences of real actions in the real world. In other words; people worried about the welfare of imaginary souls and the opinion of an imaginary god tend to be unconcerned about the welfare of actual people.
Nor does morality require religion in any way.
I did not claim that morality requires religion. I proposed that religion could be considered an human abstraction of morality. Absolute morality specifically, deriving a interpreted divine source.
The morality that steers scientists, obviously are not always from theological moralism. But sometimes it is. Gonzomax claimed that the science/religion reconciliation was always one way street. I disagreed.
I’d say if religion is really about seeking the truth, {the truth will set us free} which many of them claim then scientific truth and religious truth have to meet at some point as our understanding grows. Although religion makes claims about factual events which can be proven or disproven a lot of it comes down to the “truth” about the nature of man and our connection to each other and what that means about the best way to coexist. Those are things science can’t test just.
In that case science becomes a tool we use to sort out the myths of religion from the truth and to move us forward if we really seek the truth rather than just pay lip service to it. I like what the Bahai have to say about it.
So, a reconciliation of science and religion , in the limited way it’s possible, is a pursuit of truth and advancement of mankind. IMHO
Okay then, show me the evidence for the above claim.
Nice switcheroo there. I said the value of evidence (and science) is subjective. You’ve given an example about the value of a specific non-scientific belief. I don’t think anyone here has trouble distinguishing the two. And in any case, no one is claiming that all statements (scientific or not) are equally valuable. Picking one example doesn’t show anything.
Are you sure those are scientific statements? Or even testable? Terms like “fool” and “character flaw” sure look problematic, are there non-subjective definitions of those?
The standard is whether or not a statement is testable. I certainly apply it to any statement I evaluate.
More of your own subjective opinions. You’d do a lot better arguing against subjective belief systems if you didn’t simply assert your own subjective belief system.
Perhaps I was overestimating the intelligence of the average believer. If a preacher says that we must shun gays, and the adherent asks why, is “faith” an adequate answer? If the preacher points to some supposedly inspired book, is it wrong to ask for evidence that the book came from a deity? Especially if it gives all sorts of wrong information?
I’ll agree that there are a lot of boobs out there who will never think to ask - which is true of non-religious things also.
But the faith it is based on seems not to be just in addition to evidence, but actively opposed to evidence. God in the Bible provided plenty of evidence. Couldn’t the resurrection be considered evidence? If they found Jesus’ body in the tomb, do you think they’d be right in keeping on believing by faith alone?
If someone tells you a pill will do all sorts of wonderful things, do you believe on faith or do you look for clinical studies? Why should such an important thing as the meaning of life require any less? Really, in your normal life isn’t the fact that someone tells you to trust him while not providing any evidence (the kind that should be available) the sign of a con man? Why is religion any different?
Like who? Even Dawkins said that it is very likely that there is no God, using standard scientific weasel words. I think most scientists have gotten absolute statements beaten out of them in grad school - I know I did.
Maybe sociologists and psychologists do. And you do when doing some experiments. But they don’t have much to do with physics - only with the application of the results, which is something totally different.
I agree with you that morals and ethics came first, implanted in most of us by evolution. Religion is a good way of keeping the outliers in check.