Well, the hero of one of my favorite comic strips )http://nukees.com/) Gav, an atheist has a near death experience. (It didn’t change him) Through it, he becomes convinced of the existance of The Egyptian Goddess of Truth, Ma’at. He is convinced that they would make a hot couple. Thing is, I’m convinced too. No, I don’t care in the least about here stongrapher husband. I am a Gav/Ma’at Shipper through and through. That is not a very important point to make, but I just wanted to say, that that particular Egyptian goddess rocks.
Lisa;
Science, patterns and techniques may assist in Art and Parenting but as a musician I can assure you, it’s all about soul. There are indeed those who know intuitively where to put the shadow, or those who put it in a place science says is unacceptable, and become innovators. That only comes from a creative person touching the source of creation.
Like modern religion many scientists don’t agree on the details. Like science, a lot of the great potential of the spiritual quest has been lost by mankinds perversion of the original intent. It is a combination of the two that leads to bigger and better wars.
Glee;
There are many fairly obvious problems and flaws with organized religions.
Many beliefs are tradition akin to superstion with very little rational foundation.
The truth , spiritual and scientific are the same distant reality which we now see only in part. Logic and reason are not the enemies of the spiritual quest. The truth is perfectly logical and reasonable and will eventually sift the supersition out of spiritual reality.
Yes, there are. And no way to tell which is right, since no religion has any evidence it’s more valid than any other.
Indeed.
The ant can look at the Moon in a puddle, but the journey is still beyond him.
Or to put it another way, why do you think your hopeful remarks will come true?
We now go to live coverage of the landing of the first Mars expedition:
“Touchdown in five seconds. Four. Three. Two. One. Touchdown. Houston, the President Quayle has landed.”
(cheers all around)
“And now we’ll seek the answer to the age-old question: why are we here?”
“Because we came here.”
“Excuse me?”
“Sorry Captain, didn’t mean to interrupt.”
“No, Ensign, what did you say?”
“I said ‘because we came here’.”
“What did you mean?”
“You asked why we’re here. And I figured we’re here because we built this rocket ship and launched it and flew through space and landed here. That’s why we’re here.”
(pause)
“Houston. Mission accomplished. We’re coming home.”
Really? Never? Absolutely never? Not once, ever?
That’s a rather strong claim, so I’m curious… Would you care to explain the methodology by which you established this to be so? Can you demonstrate the process by which you arrived at your conclusion?
Yes, it is quite a claim!
The scientific response to it would be to post a single example of a successful religious prediction. Then I naturally withdraw my claim.
The religious-type response (as per evolution) is to challenge the claim indirectly.
(But since you ask, I have read about various religions and discussed them with believers. I know of no such example or claim of one.)
Science has never successfully loved anything. What’s your point?
Maybe that science never claimed to love anything, while religion has claimed to predict/prove things?
No, it isn’t. There’s nothing “scientific” about that approach.
Remember, you claimed that religions has NEVER successfully predicted anything. NEVER, EVER. Not once, in all of history. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, since you’re the one who made this claim.
So again, I ask… What methodology did you use to determine that religion has never, ever successfully predicted anything?
It sounds like your methodology was to say, “I’ll assert that religion has never successfully predicted anything. Can you prove me wrong?” This does not strike me as a thorough (much less “scientific”) attempt at research.
I wish I had time to respond to each point, they’re quite interesting.
I think that religion and science are equally vulnerable to being picked apart. The instances where science “knew” facts that have since been disproven, or where scientists have practiced their methods shoddily for personal or political gain, line up quite well against people who use religion in ignorant, heinous ways. Both schools of thought fail frequently; we’re only human. Those mistakes don’t mean the methodology is inherently flawed.
That’s the thing I see here – so many skeptical Dopers want Religion to pass an empirical test and that’s just not the way to understand it. And the transformational experiences of religion don’t help you boil water, either; they’re different realms. There’s room for both.
Here’s a small example. Look at how much time and energy is spent on predicting the future, on discussing it in detail on the evening news, in magazines, the 'net, etc. Nobody’s got a lock on it. Nobody really knows. Look at any old magazine and it’s full of errors and mistakes about “what’s to come”. Faith is a stronger approach. It doesn’t rely on particulars, but says “Whatever’s to come, I will rise to it.”
So then, your problem is not with whether anything was ever successfully predicted by religion; rather, your problem is with claims that it has — something along the lines of people who claim that science proves things to be true, or that everything is subject to its tests?
Sorry, I’m having a hard time following this question. If I understand it correctly: Yes, I do have a problem with claims that religion predicts things; prediction, as I understand it - determining, with a high degree of accuracy, the outcome of a future event based on mathematical probability and/or empirical data - is the realm of science, not religion, so using non-scientific methods to perform a scientific function doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like asking whether theology has ever measured the amount of entropy in a system.
And, as far as I can tell with my admittedly non-comprehensive reading of religion (mainly Christian), it doesn’t much concern itself with prediction - aside from the Book of Revelation and some sects that have forecasted an imminent apocalypse (many of which have admittedly been relegated to cults, though some relatively mainstream Chrsitian denominations started out that way, too), which, in the latter case, turned out not to come to pass (in those instances where the date for the apocalypse had actually been given, at least).
I think you’ve put it all very well. Religion does concern itself with prediction of a sort, but to equate that with empirical and statistical predictions would be to equivocate.
Wouldn’t it have to be true that using the Bible to explain God is just as fallacious as relying on its explanations of natural phenomena to understand the physical world? Isn’t that only fair? If I’m going to say that the whole Genesis story is merely a dated metaphor, then wouldn’t it have to follow that descriptions of God are metaphors as well, and therefore limited by the time in which they were written? (I think that answers most of your points, glee)
As to religion shrinking, not a chance. Not if you include the personal spiritual quests reflected in popular culture. If the institutions are suffering, so be it, I won’t mourn their passing. But a personal God is something people still seek.
Lissa, I think you make a lot of good points, but parenting is as much an art as a science. Take any question and there are fifteen “experts” with conflicting opinions, some of them based on science. Heck, it was scientists who came up with the notion of raising babies in boxes back in the '50s.
And I don’t think that parenting by emotion is necessarily an overly positive process; in fact, that’s one case where science does help. Science has taught us that parents’ first emotional response to their children is a reflection of their self-esteem and the parenting they received. That knowledge can help people overcome their backgrounds and break abusive cycles. Religion didn’t provide that particular answer.
However as an artist I guarandamntee you that painting is an intuitive process. One doesn’t sit there and analyze while working; an artist synthesizes. And art professors don’t hold the student’s brush for them and describe exactly where the shadow must fall. Yes, in critiques one learns to analyze, but it’s stricly after the fact. Just for the record, here’s what it feels like to draw/paint. It’s nothing at all like those painters on PBS. You soak up the subject matter (I usual store it in my solar plexis and shoulders), put your “self” on hold, and exhale gently while your eyes, skin, ears, nose and hands connect with the medium and subject matter. There’s a strong bounce-back from the paper to the subject to your hands and eyes and skin. Remove all deliberate intentions, all acts of will, all forms of knowledge, and be guided by the subject matter and your experience of it (this is why non-representational art is more difficult to make, since you have to generate the thing of which you’re having the experience). You can actually feel your brain expanding while you work, as long as you don’t focus on it. If you’re lucky, your soul dances a little, too; when I was younger mine used to jitterbug, which made it difficult to work for long periods of time. Now it’s a slow, sustainable waltz, much more productive.
Well, I’m not aware of any science that says where or where not to put shadows. Science can study what melodies people find pleasing, and understand the relation between the frequencies of the scale, but doesn’t try synthesis. On the other hand, it is not just soul. I know nothing about music, but my father in law is a very successful composer, and he has all sorts of books on composition. Even Beethoven studies composition. So composing doesn’t seem to be totally random.
And may determine there is actually no such thing as “spiritual reality.”
Philosophy is a way of studying things for which there is no clear answer - like why. (I agree with Lissa there is no why, but some people can’t accept that, and I think those are the people susceptible to religion.) Religion posits an entity which can give the answer to these questions, and claims truth by reference to that entity. So, ethics studies what we ought to do, morals says what we should do by reference to what God wants us to do.
Religions make various claims including how to behave in this World so as to achieve eternal happiness in the next. Religions claim that there is a God and that He has a purpose for us.
All this is potentially important, although there are two major drawbacks for me:
- religions disagree with each other - how do I know which is the correct one?
- religions provide no proof of any of their claims, including the existence of their God. A successful prediction would be helpful.
My goodness. You seem rather worked up over a claim that is remarkably simple to disprove.
As I said, you can give one example of a successful religious prediction and I will withdraw my claim. Since you haven’t, I assume you agree with me. 
I have in fact spent decades investigating various religions, including the Church of England (with sects such as Congregational and Baptist), Roman Catholicism (including Anglo-Catholics and Opus Dei), Greek Orthodox, Wee Free, Mormon, Christian Scientist, Shakers, Sunni & Shia Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Cargo Cultists, Wiccans, Satanists and Rastafarians.
I have had lengthy discussions with priests, chaplains, vicars, bishops, lay preachers, archbishops, prophets, Sunday School teachers and faith healers.
I have studied the Bible in particular (and won my School prize for religious knowledge).
I have read about the history of claims made by the Christian Church, and seen (on these very boards!) discussions of creationism.
Of course I don’t need to have done any of this to make my claim.
Surely you can distinguish between what I said and something like ‘a large majority of Republicans in one US state think that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq’. here you would be perfectly entitled to ask for information on what I meant by ‘a large majority’, which State I mean and what polling I have referred to.
Again, you miss the point. YOU are the one who claimed that religion has never, EVER successfully predicted anything. So far, I have made no assertions about the validity of your claim. I am merely asking you to substantiate what you said. I am asking you to explain the methodology by which you arrived at your conclusion.
You made the claim. It is up to you to defend it. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, rather than those of your critics or skeptics.
Y’see, if you can demonstrate that you arrived at your claim through some methodical process, that lends it greater credibility. As things stand though, you have yet to give us any reason to accept your (rather grandiose!) claim as being true.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between claims such as:
-
‘a large majority of Republicans in one US state think that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq’
-
‘I can levitate using my mental powers’
-
‘no religion has ever predicted anything successfully’
The first requires me to define my terms, then show where I got my information, since it involves a lot of people who have made no public statement. It is a claim that can only be proved (or disproved) by opinion polling.
The second would require a demonstration of my powers. (It would be sensible to involve the Randi Foundation in this, since they will pay me $1,000,000 as well!). It can only be proved by a demonstration. It can not be disproved.
My final claim can be disproved by a single example. You persist in not providing this. Instead you demand that I demonstrate that I have examined every claim made by every religion and satisfied myself that they are all false.
Strewth - how do you ever get anything done that way?
glee “I have examined 1,000,000 claims made by religions and shown they are all false!”
JThunder “That proves absolutely nothing. There could be another claim…”