[rubbing temples]
What was the name of that book that discussed how religion came about when tribal law (punishment = banishment) ruled small clans, and the banished congregated to larger villages and the elders of the village constucted laws to deal with people who anonymously settled and the laws and customs became the religion itself?
[/rubbing temples]
Well, I for one am glad that we’ve had objective, rational atheist scientists like Troffim Lysenko to make sure that ignorant, backward Catholic clergymen like Gregor Mendel couldn’t impede the progress of knowledge.
Because we all know that atheists NEVER have their own agendas, and are concenred only with facts.
Do you really believe that to be so?
The Communists suppressed or at least strongly discouraged religion in the Soviet Union for seven decades, and in Eastern Europe for almost five, without killing it off. No, I don’t think we will ever be able to kill off religion. It has too much value to too many people. Pity.
If you had said “I’m confident rational skepticism is the best approach to life for me” I would have been right there with you.
But you didn’t.
And that’s the whole problem.
My biggest gripe with humans is that we tend to be so damned concerned about making sure that everyone else is living their lives “correctly.” An amount of concern and charitable kindness for one’s fellow is certainly laudable. But I really think people step over the line when they start making assertions about how other people are supposed to live. It’s very egotistical and not very respectful. And it happens to be a big reason why so many people get so pissed off at religions in the first place. So I would suggest that you be careful not to mimic the very thing you decry.
There’s a fine line between discussing morality and attempting to enforce it. Were we a little better at controlling ourselves from crossing over that line, I think that we’d find a lot of the problems that we face in this world would simply go away.
There is a growing body of evidence from brain research that there are physical causes for experiences commonly described as religious (the sense of one-ness with the universe, visions, near-death experiences, etc.) and that at least some of these phenomena may have had evolutionary advantages.
Two books I’m reading on this subject are “Why God Won’t Go Away” by Newberg, D’Aquili, and Rause, and “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer. I’m sure some Googling would turn up other examples.
If true, this suggests that religion might be a permanent feature of the human condition. We’re so used to accepting what the brain tells us about the world around us that even when it is malfunctioning (as in the case of near-death experiences, for instance), we’re more likely to believe that we actually did fly through a dark tunnel toward a beautiful light, while feeling the presence of a “greater power,” than to accept a prosaic physical explanation. Especially when there is a huge cultural mechanism supporting the religious “explanation.”
I know that when I’ve tactfully suggested to intelligent and spiritual/religious friends that the experiences they’ve had of “higher realities” (experiences that had established or strengthened their religious attitudes) might be nothing more than brain chemistry, they have always rejected the possibility outright. Them: “It was the most profoundly real experience of my life!” Me: “Yes, because it’s your brain that tells you what’s real.” No soap.
Occam’s razor just doesn’t cut it with a large part of the population, and may never.
The very nature of faith is that it is not grounded in, shall we say, biological experiences. And, as I understand it, most people’s foundation for belief in a religion starts with faith, not with Occam’s Razor.
The razor is a very good tool for trying to explain the ways of the physical world. But it won’t cut it in theoogical debates.
Emotions (and other things such as recognition and appreciation of beauty) are also nothing more than brain chemistry; because of this, my response to this argument is always, “. . . and?”
There was no “movement.” Galileo was tried because he made a peresonal attack on a tetchy pope who let his personality interfere with his job. (Certainly, a bad thing, but not limited to religious rulers.)
However, in the discussion of science vs religion, it must be noted that astronomers continued to conduct the same searches of the heavens that had preceded Galileo and that as they discovered more information that supported Galileo’s theses, without Galileo’s errors, they were allowed to publish their findings.
There were churchmen who were horrified by Galileo’s assertions and opposed them, but they did not stop the other people (usually members of the church, themselves), who continued to conduct the science of discovery.
Condeming faith because of superstition is like condemning science because of alchemy.
I asked a mod to lock this thread yesterday as it looked to be derailing spectacularly (my own fault), however, some interesting stuff has resulted. Thanks.
(And I’m not that much of an asshole. Really.)
We agree that knowing that brain chemistry is responsible (or at least involved) doesn’t change one’s emotional reaction to a beautiful painting. Everyone agrees that emotions are purely subjective, and most people agree that judgments on Beauty are, too.
But people who believe in God usually claim that God’s existence is not in the same category as such subjective experiences. They rarely say, “God exists, in my opinion.” They claim it to be a matter of fact, and as such open themselves up to requests from non-believers for evidence. And of course, no such evidence can be presented.
As someone said, you can’t use rationality to argue a man out of a position he didn’t arrive at through rationality.
Would you care to outline the distinction between faith and superstition? It has long been my observation that for most people of faith, superstition is what *everyone else *believes.
Yeah, I know, and you make a good point. Of course, scientists endure quite a bit of sniping from their peers as well. Just ask the guy who conceived tectonic plates, or the guy who conceived 11-dimension brane theory.
But enduring sniping is what it’s all about. Skeptical inquiry is performed by human beings, an so it’s frought with error and emotion. People certainly can get philisophically attached to a line of reasoning in such a way that it pretty much turns into faith in the guise of science. It happens all the time.
Fortunately, there’s always a mechanism for change. Inaccurate or otherwise erroneous hypotheses and theories can and are constantly overturned and improved on. Feelings get hurt, egos get bruised, careers can even be threatened; it comes with the territory of any human endeavor, so far as I can tell. Nobody ever claimed, I hope, that science is perfect. Given what I’ve learned and experienced, however, it’s not a bad way to learn about the world, given the alternatives. The fact that any idea can be overturned by a more successful one makes this so. Such upheavals are not without controversey, but nothing is off-limits to debate. That’s very important. Nobody has the luxury to believe anything; or if they think they do, they sometimes go through the unpleasant experience of having their faith demolished.
Skeptical inquiry may hurt some individual feelings here and there, but on the whole, it’s a marvelous method for keeping human beings honest, if you ask me.
No, but, given the evidence, I’m fairly confident humanity, as a whole, would be better off without faith-based spirituality, in the long run.
Alchemy was superstition, so far as I’ve understood it. Comparing it to chemistry is like comparing astrology to astronomy; and somehow blaming astronomers for astrologers would be pretty silly. I’m not sure superstition can be so easily distanced from what most folks are more comfortable calling “religion”.
By the same token, people of faith also question, doubt, and test their beliefs. The rah-rah hooray-for-our-side element of the equation — whether in science, religion, politics, or what have you — is nothing more than human nature, and has nothing to do with the discipline itself. In the end, science and revelation are both simply epistemologies. It is an error of logic to apply the rules of one to the other. While science is concerned about truth versus fiction with regard to empirical fact, revelation is concerned about truth versus fiction with regard to morality. Just because you cannot determine by scientific test whether a moral principle is right or wrong does not invalidate faith any more than the inability to test whether an emprical hypothesis is true by prayer invalidates science. One is not superior to the other; they are merely different.
[BlazingSaddles]Gosh, Mr. Liberal, you use your mouth purtier than a twenty-dollar whore. [/BlazingSaddles] 
I frankly agree. Webster’s second definition of superstition is: “An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion.” Jesus called out the religious leaders of His time for their superstitions. I’m sure you’ve read the famous passages from Matthew 23.
Oh, some things I’ll do for a mere ten. 