Religion filled several basic societal needs. Among them was the provision of “folk science” (which true science now does a much better job of) and the provision of the basis for rules and laws. Secular value systems can and do provide that basis as well.
“Faith” is such a loaded word, but sure. Secular value systems include basic postulates based not on evidence but as “self-evident” truths. You know, that all men are created equal, that the individual should be free to pratice the religion of their choice, etc. These are held as truths not because they have had predictive value, or because they have held up to attempts at falsification. They are true by definition. Even if we change the postulates with time. Right is right even if you end up the worse for doing it, and wrong is wrong even if you gain by doing it. And we can be true to these ethics even without fear of divine retribution and even if we believe that society will not punish us either.
I do not believe that this is overly narrow; I think it is precise. It is a mistake to hold values to evidentiary standards. Whether decided upon by consensus, or evolved according to evolutionary psycholgy principles, or morphed by successful memes, values are accepted as truth even in spite of the evidence.
Where is the contradiction?
And I do think this brings us back to my op! It is when either side forgets what is open to evidenciary review and what is not, that science and secular value systems and religious systems needlessly conflict.
I agree with you DSeid, and would go further to say that the needless conflict between secular and religious systems is a large part of the problem in educating people. That’s not to say that there aren’t some genuine disagreements between the two systems, of course.
I believe you’re right when you say that both secular and religious value systems are based on statements or axioms that need to be taken on faith. They can’t be proved, per se, but my preference for a secular structure is that it can be adapted in the face of new evidence. If we were to find that one of these was wrong, based on socialogical and scientific observations, modifying the value system is possible. A religious set of beliefs based on the true word of God can’t be changed if it seems necessary.
Fromage, what kind of sociologic or scientific observation would be evidence that something you felt is right is now wrong?
For example, if Hitler had won WW2, would that be evidence that his POV was “right”?
I prefer secular systems because they allow for multiple religious and areleigious systems to co-exist within some agreed upon frameworks that do not require acceptence of each others other statements of faith.
Well, I, for one, have a real problem with this line of reasoning. It’s patently obvious that all men are not created equal, and the framers knew it. However, it can be agreed by reasonable people that for a democratic society to work they should be afforded some basic rights as if they were. Until they commit a crime, of course, in which case those rights are stripped, or display signs of complete mental incompetance, or what have you, in which case those rights are never given. A strict reading of “all men are created equal” leads to some asinine results if taken overly literally. Granted, we’ve had some major problems when people (such as some of the framers) decide things like “all white men are created equal” and enslave everybody else, and there are hence times when one almost wishes literalism won out. But as we’ve seen, torturous as the journey was, consensus and experience has tought us that all human races are, to a vast degree, the same, a concept that had to evolve in our supposedly just Judeo-Christian society, where concepts like slavery were’nt necessarily seen as a bad thing by scriptural literalists and free-thinkers alike.
It’s hard to come up with an example, but I’ll give it a go… I would imagine we’d all agree that embezzling money from charities is morally wrong. However, if a sufficient amount of objective study demonstrated that in fact, charities that suffer such thefts get so much more from donations in sympathy that they actually end up better off, the moral code could be modified. Alright, then the effect would probably drop off as the sympathy donations plummet, but you get the idea.
One could show that having an affair actually strengthens your marriage 99% of the time, and therefore doesn’t need to be condemned so much. I doubt this is true, but you see what I mean.
Hitler’s point of view is a rather large set of morals to compare, but briefly, no, it wouldn’t make his point of view correct. An unbiased study comparing life before his empire and during it, and using some objective measuring points, could show that things are actually better or worse under his moral code. Difficult to actually do, but possible.
My support for a secular base of morals comes not from the fact that I think that they should be changed all the time, and that we would need to modify them every week to keep pace with developments and discoveries - it comes from the fact that it can be modified. It may never be necessary, but it is possible to change the structure. It isn’t fixed.
There is no way of knowing that there is a one true word of God,all words credited to God came from man, so it is taking the word of a human no matter how you look at it. Religion is a belief system and people believe different things (even some in the same religions) that is their right to do so, but there is no proof that “a” God said anything. That is a matter of faith.
Fromage, so if “good” consistently resulted from doing something that was considered immoral by your extant value system you would change your values? And the “good” is “good” because of overall gain to all or just to you and why which one?
I think that we agree that the conclusions we reach about specific ethical situations using our value system may change with additional information and experience, but I’ll differ in saying that that is very different than being evidence based or altering the value system itself, and I’d say the decision of what counts as a “good” result or a “bad” result is axiomatic in toto. Moreso, religions can and do morph some conclusions with time and experience as well, even if their postulates are revelatory. Even Catholocism keeps much not ex cathedra.
Monavis, you are an individual sitting within a science world view and using that way of percieving reality to consider the view of the religious. Put on a further objective hat and consider that our scientific perspective is still just a way of attempting to percieve some absolute reality that is behind the curtain of our perceptions. We like it because it is very good at making predictions and that allows all kinds of good stuff, like medicine and computers. But if you place yourself within a religious epistemology the standard of proof is different: within that belief system truth is defined rather than tested and proofed.
The odd thing is that when it comes down to our basic core values those of us who are exclusively secularists are hard for the religious to understand. They “know” why they think certain things are right and wrong, God told em so and for some they have a fear of everlasting consequences. Those with secularist systems just believe because, well, that’s what’s right, its obvious isn’t it? mumble mumble
This is the point where I have to chicken out and say “I have no idea how one would measure ‘good’”. I have to leave that to the better minds than I. And, to be honest, I’m happy to accept that “good” is axiomatic. I certainly can’t design an experiment to find it!
It still leaves religion just on the basis of faith, We do know for certain that humans decided what God was supposed to have said. I find it strange that for thousands of years God was supposed to talk directly with Moses etc. then he would punish his chosen people when they were bad, and the early Christians give examples of God striking a couple dead because they held back their money.In modern times he stays in the back, hidden,and punishes his children if they find it difficult to believe in his existence. At least that is the belief of many(of course the punishment comes after death).
I have no objections if people want to believe God spoke to them.or worked some miracle in their behalf as long as they do not try to make everyone else live their way of thinking. I also do not have a problem with anyone disagreeing with mine.
Only to the extent that we klnow for certain that humans decided what results the experiment was supposed to have returned. Everything we didn’t experience oursleves is hearsay and decided by humans. Religion, science, archeology, history, geography; they don’t differ in that respect.
So if religion is faith because it’s based on hearsay then so is science.
But to return to the OP, I don’t believe Science is screwing up the battle for America (or anyones) minds. I think modern consumerism and politics is screwing it up.
People nowadays are used to getting what they want (combined DVD player and coffee maker for $99.99!), and being told what they want to hear, whether it is by the purveyors of the latest diet (lose weight by eating a barbecued bison a day!) or their elected representatives (lower taxes and better services for all!).
I feel that being free to pick and choose amongst an endless array of goods, services and beliefs being hawked on the basis of their superficial attractiveness has weakened understanding of a key fact that science is founded on - that sometimes the universe is different to how you thought it was or the way you’d like it to be.
Unfortunately you can’t pick and choose your brand of reality, but I think people try because let’s face it, which is a nicer ‘product’?
[ul]
[li]Og created everything for you to enjoy. Og loves you completely. You can live forever in paradise if you follow a few simple rules. All of those icky [random group] are an offence to Og and it’s OK to despise them. You might not be having such a great time now, but it’s all the fault of unbelievers and Og will sort it out.[/li][li]The universe is totally indifferent to your existence. You exist because of millions of years of semi-randomness has eventually caused some apes to lose their hair and gain self-awareness. Nothing indicates you will have more than one life, and you have already used a lot of it up. You have to put up with all those nasty people, otherwise they won’t put up with you. Sometimes shit just happens, it’s happened to you, and there will be no violins of any size.[/li][/ul]
I know which one I’d sell if I was on commission :dubious:
Science loses out because it is superficially unattractive unless you actually need to DO something. In the abstract people may decry science in favour of religion, but things change dramatically once they have to achieve something. While many people pray for their car to start, their fever to subside or their enemies to blow up, they generally will also turn to science (or at least it’s products) to expedite the process.
Even Al-Quaeda believe that Allah’s will is made manifest more readily via tri-cyclic acetone peroxide than miracles, and if science can at least partially win **them **over, there’s still hope for the bible belt.
:smack:
Oh hurrah. Well done me for demonstrating my intelligence and the care with which I craft my arguments. Preview is clearly only a fair-weather friend.
It leaves all value systems axiomatically based. Truth be told, those of us who consider ourselves secularists have values that originated from religious maxims, even if they themselves originated from successful memes and evolutionary pressures before that. Sacrificing children to the powers of the universe was a moral and ethical act for many societies until the story of Abraham and Issac established that such was not needed or desired any more. Now that is internalized as a universal truth for society whether you believe in a religion that includes that story or not. We may no longer accept the religious story as the justification, but we accept the conclusion itself axiomatically: killing your young is wrong. I certainly agree with your bottom-line. Believe what you want so long as do not impose it upon me. A pluralistic society can exist only if the lingua franca of values is secular, not any particular religion’s.
Slaphead,
Certainly a good science story is not a soundbite nor the quick fix answer. It is an acquired taste never acquired by many. Mystic fixes and conspiricies and other simplistic falsehoods are much more attractive to our fast food fashions. So the question is: how to package the product? A July 22 Letter to the Editor in Science suggests keeping it simple and using some humor:
Well, I think a first year engineer would not understand a human body since master engineers don’t. What makes you think any man could design something as complex as a human body and expect it to work. A friend ask his doctor if he believed in creation or evolution. The doctor replied that up until the time he became a doctor he believed in evolution, but when he began to examine the human eye and its complexities he knew it had to be created by intelligence.
“I grow tired of the arrogance of skeptics, who don’t study the material, yet believe they are knowledgable on all aspects of it. So I guess it is mainly what you want to believe.”
Ya’know leakatt, I am a doctor and know hundreds, nay thousands of 'em. Not a single one is a proponant of so-called ID, all recognize that evolution is as established of a theory as is gravity and the earth going round the sun. But believe your stories as you will.
Why did the intelligent designer make our mouths so crowded of teeth? And what’s up with the appendix which only serves to get infected? Why did the ID leave us with a coccyx that only gets broken during childbirth and serves no function whatsoever?
There are lots of lousy design features in the human body and some crazy complex jerry-rigging going on. Either this was an intelligent designer on drugs or evolution has got it right.
Science makes testable predictions and so doing guides the pursuit of further knowledge. It may not always get it exactly right, but it leads to additional learning. For figuring out how the material world works it is the only way to go.
Well, I don’t know thousands of doctors, but those I do know believe in God. My family physicial is Catholic, when I went to church many years ago there were plenty of doctors in attendance. Yes, I know the difference in types of doctors, I graduted from the third grade.
If you would have created a better man than God, tell Him about it instead of me. What man needs is not a better body, but a better understanding of himself. So we can live in peace and harmony together on the same planet.
Your comment is totally out of place. Dseid has made no comment denying God and has noted, earlier, that he is, at minimum, a theist. Beyond that, the Catholic church has accepted the science of evolution for over 90 years so your odd claim has no relevance to this discussion.
So after claiming that you were going to wander off and stop interrupting this thread, here you are again, demonstrating that your word is false while interrupting this thread with nonsequiters and false insinuations.
