|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2002 : 13:24:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Rusty, trusty Computer Org wrote:
quote:
In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs". The goal of scientific inquiry is to turn those beliefs (--codified with such terms as "hypotheses" or "theories"--) into verifiable "scientific truths" (--which are, in fact, all too often, later found to be untrue or not-quite-true ).
To which Tim responded:
I think the problem here lies in the ambiguity of the word 'belief', and the motivation for that belief.
Religion requires nothing more than an attribution and an appeal to authority to explain observed phenomena. Therefore, belief has become faith.
Science requires an observation, and a collection of evidence, followed by logical reasoning in that the conclusions must ollow the premises. Belief now is evidentiary.
Both systems are attempts to explain the mysteries of our universe, and require some type of belief, but the similarity ends there. [some more deleted]
Thank you, Tim. That's what I was trying to say.
Omega: May I give a [fictional] concrete example before even trying to respond to you point-by-point?
One day a Frenchman says to a gathering of collegia: "I have come to the belief that these diseases are caused by invisible little things which live in the air and, in fact, in nearly everything."
"Ho, ho!", says one. "And I believe in a flat Earth, too."
"Idiot! Bumberboof! Superstitious lout!", says another. "The Earth is flat, as every learned person knows. You have been reading the rantings of that silly Italian Galileo. They should have burned him at the stake. But 'Little invisible living things'?? Ho, ho, ho, ho!! That's a good one!"
Now, [b]Omega: Things could have gone one of two ways. The Frenchman could have arranged a scientific demonstration (--as he did do, in fact--) and a science (--microbiology--) could have been born.
Or he could have stalked out, set up a "healing center" and--using a lot of mumbo-jumbo--healed many, many of his fellow FrenchPersons,--perhaps even founding a religion keeping all of his proto-microbiological facts a closely held secret.
One way led to a new science; the other way [could have] led to a very popular and successful religion.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 14:06:07 [Permalink]
|
Like Tokyodreamer said, this is still an equivocation of the definition of the word "belief". You are trying to equate opposites-science & religion -and it just isn't working.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 14:24:46 [Permalink]
|
I don't think that your little tale adequatly descrtibes the difference between Science and Religion. You are describing different ways how an idea that has merrit can be distrebuted and marketed. That sounds more like the difference between Microsoft and Linux to me. The real difference, in my eyes, between Science and Religion is in the validation and verification.
In Your paticular example it starts a lot earlier. Some Greek guy wonders about things like ,where the maggots in dead animals come from, and comes to the theory that they spontanuosly generate after some time. This theory works for now and everything is fine.
About two millenia later people with big lenses in places like Holland start to observe and describe tiny animals. It is genarally assumed that they generate spontauously, too.
A few centuries later Said frenchman took the theorys and discoveries of those that had come before him and came up with an idea. Now the important part happened: he verified his theory by doing experiments.
This is the part that made him a scientist. Someone practicing religion would just have choosen the theory he liked best and gone with it.
From a Lexicon entry on Louis Pasteur:
quote:
On the discipline of rigid and strict experimental tests he commented, "Imagination should give wings to our thoughts but we always need decisive experimental proof, and when the moment comes to draw conclusions and to interpret the gathered observations, imagination must be checked and documented by the factual results of the experiment."
The famous philosopher Ernest Renan said of Pasteur's method of research, "This marvelous experimental method eliminates certain facts, brings forth others, interrogates nature, compels it to reply and stops only when the mind is fully satisfied. The charm of our studies, the enchantment of science, is that, everywhere and always, we can give the justification of our principles and the proof of our discoveries."
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:26:00 [Permalink]
|
Computer Org> What happened to the point by point responses?
Your little tale is supposed to illustrate what? That “some frenchman” thought, without anything to support his “belief” that “little things” cause disease? This is where you're wrong.
Bacteria were discovered in an attempt to explain diseases.
Some frenchman didn't just wake up one morning, tapped his chin and though “Ah, I now believe in the little things.”
So Computer [d]Org, your logic fails.
You also point out another large difference between science and religion. When science learns that it is wrong, it corrects itself. When religion does, it burns the opposition. Science is build on facts, ready to rewrite theories, when something new is learned.
Since bacteria do cause disease, others would eventually have learned it, too. It would not have led to a religion. Your idea, that religion is just secret science is quite funny. Why haven't we found a shred of evidence in support of religion?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 03:30:16 [Permalink]
|
Uh, please excuse my uneducated innocence in the face of what seems to some to be a very simple problem. I am confused about the fact that religion requires belief, and science does not. And, if this ain't the problem, what's all the fuss about?
Furthermore, the notion that religion and science are opposites is far beyond my limited grasp of the world around me.
I have had a habit, throughout my sheltered life, to observe the phenomena around me. I observe simple things. I may observe a teapot on a hot stove. I observe that the heat from the stove transfers it's energy to the metal pot, and then to the water within. Then, I will observe the water turn to steam, and exit from the small hole in the spout lid. As the pressure builds, the steam begins to whistle. Then, I may observe this over and over again, until I come to the belief that the pot will whistle each and every time I place it on the hot stove for a long enough time. Is this unscientific? Does this 'belief' fall under the umbrella of religion?
The 'belief', without the prerequisite of physical evidence, in an omnipotent creator may be a part of the doctrine of a particular religion, but I always thought of this as blind faith, or an unsupported belief. I never thought it to be scientific, but, then again, I never thought it to be the sum total of religion either.
Belief is an evolved trait that better enables us to survive in a dangerous world. Our ancestors would not have lasted very long if they did not believe that a dangerous predator may be lurking just beyond the edge of the forest. Otherwise, they may rush head long into catastrphe, as I seem to be doing at the moment.
Maybe, some could consider this argument an 'equivocation' of the word belief, but, none the less, that is my belief.
Now, I would like to know how religion and science are opposites. I realize that I am not too bright, but I always, er...believed that science and religion shared a common purpose, (to explain the wonders of the world we live in), and that both began with observations of this world. Plus, I know of a couple of religions that do not require belief in the supernatural, and accept scientific method with open and loving arms.
No, I agree in a sense with Computer Org, in that belief is not the sinister agent of religion, but a part of our humananity, and impossible to avoid--Even in science!
At the same time, I will not concede to the creationists that science is a belief system like religions. Science, and belief in it's proofs is founded in the physical world. Religion finds it's answers often, but not always, in the metaphysical world, (if there is such a thing).
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 04:00:25 [Permalink]
|
Part of the confusion, I think, is relying on lexical definitions, which only enumerate common usages of a term without truly attempting to pin it down. Lexical definitions are usually either vague (lacking clarity) or amgiguous (having more than one commonly used meanings). "Belief" is both vague and ambiguous. Analytic philosophy of language has done much to
"improve" or clarify lexical definitions. I'm sure that someone has run the term "belief" through the analytical wringer, but I don't have any such treatment in my personal library. I'm sure that I can dig something up, if any one is interested.
The way I would tend to see it, belief is something accepted on faith, rather than evidence alone. While believers in religious or other ideologies sometimes cite reasons for their beliefs, faith (which, to be sure, can be either blind or somewhat informed) is the glue that holds the belief-system together.
Thus, whenever backed against the wall in a discussion with a non believer, the faithful will play the "you gotta have faith" card. When I counter that actually, I don't, and get along fine without it, they usually respond by equivocating on the meaning of faith, proclaiming that I have faith in science, reason, atheism, etc. etc. We've all been through this, so I won't repeat it all here.
"The amount of noise which anyone can bear stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." --Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 07:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Although this 'box' has many loose 'nails', when Tim wrote:quote:
At the same time, I will not concede to the creationists that science is a belief system like religions.
I think that he hit one of the most important squarely on the head. Yet I would go even farther: While science is always (originally) founded on beliefs, it is absolutely, unequivocally not a belief system.
In truth, when the 'cloth' of current science starts to fray (--whether by measurement or observation--), scientists become interested or even excited. When the same happens in religion, clerics panic.
I think that this is because science doesn't have a belief system,--just a collection of beliefs, most of which have been verified into facts (--facts which are oftentimes accumulated into the factual systems which we call the individual sciences).
Religion, on the other hand, with its inherent belief system, cannot allow new things to enter--not without risking the integrity of the religion. If religion is to change, it must do so very, very slowly--since it cannot simply "cut and paste" a new set of beliefs together (as does science) but must slowly remold its belief system--like an exceptionally stiff, but plastic, clay-figurine.
(Scientists excited by the prospect of change are seldom dangerous; clerics panicked by the same, can (and frequently do) become highly dangerous.)
(I agree with almost everything Tim wrote, BTW.)
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 08:17:24 [Permalink]
|
To continue (--my [NT 4.0]computer was getting flaky--) my last post:quote:
Lars_H wrote in part:
I don't think that your little tale adequatly descrtibes the difference between Science and Religion. You are describing different ways how an idea that has merrit can be distrebuted and marketed. That sounds more like the difference between Microsoft and Linux to me.
Wow! Microslop and Linux! What a great analogy--one I had never thought of!
Unfortunately, Lars, you don't understand, in my opinion, either Microsludge or Linux if you think that the difference between the two is merely cost (--ludicrous vs. free--), distribution (--concede your privacy vs. no-catches download--), or marketing (--WorldClass media ads vs. word-of-mouth from contented users).
Modern Microsoft, according to folklore and a PBS special, was founded on almost nothing: a gussied up OpSys written by a southern Calif. CS professor (--the a:> prompt became a c:> prompt, the folklore goes--) and later bought by Gates&Co. MS-DOS has changed extraordinarily little over the years; were one to use the greatly compacted time-scale of the computer-world, MS-DOS (--lately packaged with a GUI and called "Windows"--) has changed at a rate roughly comparable to that of the Roman Catholic Church over the past 1,500 years. Linux, on the other hand changes daily and has done so ever since it first bacame available as a crude, minimal OpSys.
MicroS**t's OpSys products very closely emulate a religion whereas Linux (--and several other 'flavors' of the basic UNIX OpSys--) fits the role of "science" very nicely--in almost all respects, to include having all of its source code freely available to anyone who wants to read/use/modify it. (Linux modifications are "peer-reviewed", just as are most sciences.) MicroS**t's stuff is, in sharp contrast, held in closer secret than is some U.S. nuclear [missle] technology.
What a thought: Linux as a science; MicroSoft as a religion. 
I agree with your assessments of my wee 'fiction'---but, then, it was just a fiction. I disagree with Omega's contention that were it to have evolved into a religion rather than a science, that the real-science would eventually emerge. You would (--but shouldn't--) be amazed, Omega, what a few 'heritic' burnings will do for stiffling almost anything. That is, in fact, pretty much what happened to early astronomy. 
Again: My contention is merely that religion and science, in their respective earliest avatars, are very much alike--if not identical. It is only later that the two intellectual systems diverge, ever more sharply.
I contend that poll-response 3# may be the true one; that Theoretical Physics' String Theory [et al.] might result in science subsuming religion.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 10:13:44 [Permalink]
|
Personality tests.
May I suggest reading
http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
on that subject.
Good article. Thanks Omega. Along these lines then, would a "Religious" person be happily identified by the same vague criteria as a Skeptic? The main reason I hopped into this thread is that I think that Faith and Logic just appeal to different people, and in different amounts. Which, if true, would indicate that all the logic in the world will not change a religious person, and all the emotion in the world will not change the logical need of a Skeptic. I've also had many debates that cutting edge physics is based heavily on speculation and "faith" in a theory until proven wrong.
In the article you forwarded, it also stated:
once a belief or expectation is found, especially one that resolves uncomfortable uncertainty, it biases the observer to notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary. This self-perpetuating mechanism consolidates the original error and builds up an overconfidence in which the arguments of opponents are seen as too fragmentary to undo the adopted belief.
This finding, can obviously be used against the "easy faith" types. But what about all of the findings that indicate that faith results in mental well-being?
A quick search on google resulted in:
http://www.nhsatoz.org/pls/hfht/docs/FOLDER/HFH_CONTENT/ATOZ/MENTAL+HEALTH+IN+THE+UK.HTM) - "Religion and spiritual belief can also play a part in protecting people from mental health problems. Psychologists from Sheffield Hallam University have found that personal prayer has a positive effect on mental well-being. Findings suggest that the relationship between mental health and religion is linked with how people use prayer as a form of dealing with stress."
(http://www.mhsource.com/pt/p001078.html) - Read the whole article, on how religion does equal a better society in many ways.
There are thousands of studies corelating religion with mental health and wellbeing. Religious people seem to be less prone to mental illness, alcohol abuse, violence, suicide, etc. in "our" current society. I say "our" current society, because people like to make the correlation between a baptist and a Taliban follower, or use historical violence as a reason to dismiss current statistics.
Now, after reading these positive religious studies, how would a Skeptic react initially? I would say that most would react to positive religious findings in the way that is indicated in the study that you forwarded me and try to find a way to dismiss the uncomfortable information. A skeptic, like a religious person would (notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary....)
Mike
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 11:57:36 [Permalink]
|
Tim: the notion that religion and science are opposites is far beyond my limited grasp of the world around me.
Since I'm the one who made that claim, I guess I should reply.
I have had a habit, throughout my sheltered life, to observe the phenomena around me. . . Then, I may observe this over and over again, until I come to the belief that the pot will whistle each and every time I place it on the hot stove for a long enough time. Is this unscientific? Does this 'belief' fall under the umbrella of religion?
You are calling the conclusion you have reached after observation a belief. I suppose you can do that. But not in the same sentence where the definition of the word would mean a fantasy arrived at through pure imagination, with no observation. That is where the equivocation comes about, as the word can have contradictory meanings. It isn't possible to do science with the religious definition of belief.
The 'belief', without the prerequisite of physical evidence, in an omnipotent creator may be a part of the doctrine of a particular religion, but I always thought of this as blind faith, or an unsupported belief. I never thought it to be scientific,
That's the problem. It is being said that both science and religion require belief. This seems to be purposely muddling the meanings of the word in order to equate superstition with science.
I've already mentioned about Jumbo the elephant and I both owning trunks. This is equivocating over the word trunk. I am trying to associate myself with having the same properties as an elephant. In actuality the trunk I have has nothing in common with the trunk an elephant has. So the belief based on observation has nothing to do with belief based on imagination. They are opposites.
but, then again, I never thought it to be the sum total of religion either.
Credulity is the foundation on which religion is built.
Belief is an evolved trait that better enables us to survive in a dangerous world. Our ancestors would not have lasted very long if they did not believe that a dangerous predator may be lurking just beyond the edge of the forest. Otherwise, they may rush head long into catastrphe, as I seem to be doing at the moment.
You're doing just fine. But this evolved belief you mention is only the scientific definition. Based on observations of predators and their activities.
It has nothing to do with the other definition of belief which promotes a fear of things that aren't there and can do you no harm. They are opposites. The first will save you from harm; the second will make you subservient to the shaman (priest, rabbi, pope, minister, witch doctor, etc.) who has fostered this belief.
There is nothing innate about religious beliefs, they aren't something you are born with, nor do you arrive at them through observation of the world. The only way to come to them is by being psychologically manipulated by other people.
Now, I would like to know how religion and science are opposites. I realize that I am not too bright, but I always, er...believed that science and religion shared a common purpose, (to explain the wonders of the world we live in), and that both began with observations of this world. Plus, I know of a couple of religions that do not require belief in the supernatural, and accept scientific method with open and loving arms.
It is not the purpose of religion to explain the world. The purpose of religion is the control of the population by psychological intimidation. Religion makes absolutely no attempt at an actual explanation of the wonders of the world we live in. Rather they present their doctrines and dogmas and superimposed them over the natural world. The purpose is the promotion of these edicts not an explanation of nature.
An explanation of nature is the opposite of what religion wants. An actual explanation takes away any credence from the imaginary scenario used in the psychological control.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 11:58:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are thousands of studies corelating religion with mental health and wellbeing. Religious people seem to be less prone to mental illness, alcohol abuse, violence, suicide, etc. in "our" current society. I say "our" current society, because people like to make the correlation between a baptist and a Taliban follower, or use historical violence as a reason to dismiss current statistics.
Now, after reading these positive religious studies, how would a Skeptic react initially? I would say that most would react to positive religious findings in the way that is indicated in the study that you forwarded me and try to find a way to dismiss the uncomfortable information. A skeptic, like a religious person would (notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary....)
Mike
Why is this information "uncomfortable"? Do you consider studies indicating that religious believers are "happier" than nonbelievers to be evidence that the tenets of some particular religion are factually true?
Or is the argument that a "happiness" supported by the belief that a supernatural being is taking care of us all, whether or not that belief is supported by evidence, is such an absolute good that it's inherently superior to any other way of thinking?
Those seem like awful shaky leaps of logic to me.
I have no trouble with believers being happy in their belief, nor do I see any reason why that should be cause for me to conclude that their belief is true, or somehow superior to my own inability to believe in something without factual support.
In fact, I know someone who is happy in a very similar way.
His name is Boris, and he really does have a bigger being to take care of him- me. He doesn't sow, nor reap, nor worry, yet his food dishes are always filled, his litter box gets cleaned, there's always a warm place for him to sleep and others like himself to play with. In fact, if he were sentient, he could actually support a belief in My Providence empirically.
All he knows of the world outside is what he sees from the safety of a windowsill. Nothing out there frightens him, except sometimes the noises from the freeway off-ramp they're building just outside.
Right now he's lying on my feet, purring away, the very picture of happiness and security.
I am not quite so happy as Boris. I have to go into the outside world, knowing that parts of it are unpleasant and dangerous and that I have no magical protection. I have to take responsibility for living in the world as it actually is and not in a comfortable illusion prefabricated for me by someone else.
Meanwhile, Boris eats, sleeps and plays with his siblings, secure in his faith that I'm gonna provide.
Unlike Boris, I still have my balls.
Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out.
Edited by - ktesibios on 05/20/2002 14:45:42 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 12:51:01 [Permalink]
|
There are thousands of studies corelating religion with mental health and wellbeing. Religious people seem to be less prone to mental illness, alcohol abuse, violence, suicide, etc. in "our" current society.
Oddly enough all the members of AA are religious.
There are no Atheists convicted of capital offences in the US at this time.
On Market Street here in San Francisco all of the homeless who are screamers and are carrying around strange signage are talking about Jesus.
The recent spate of infanticides that have been in the news all involve very religious mothers.
Let's not get into the topic of Roman Catholic priests again.
I say "our" current society, because people like to make the correlation between a baptist and a Taliban follower, or use historical violence as a reason to dismiss current statistics.
I thought Southern Baptists and their Harry Potter burning and the Taliban were blights on our "current" society. But you're right. I doubt that there are many Taliban alcohol abusers and they are very religious.
Now, after reading these positive religious studies, how would a Skeptic react initially?
Skeptically. I didn't read the THOUSANDS of studies that you say there are. Just the one put out by the English public health that said that people who prayed felt better. Makes me delighted that I have an HMO instead of an NHS.
Since religion is the opiate of the people the next time you have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted try a couple of Hail Marys.
I would say that most would react to positive religious findings in the way that is indicated in the study that you forwarded me and try to find a way to dismiss the uncomfortable information. A skeptic, like a religious person would (notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary....)
One of the problems with Skepticism, the one that makes it such an unpopular philosophy is that we don't dismiss information just because it is uncomfortable. Nor do we accept comfortable information like this religion promotion without checking it, simply because it's nice.
If Atheists were more violent, drug using, suicidal mad men as you suggest, if their lives were cut short by illness that still would not be evidence that there was a god. Uncomfortable or not I would still not believe.
However--
The fact that Atheist suicide rates are lower than most Christians are (no heaven to go to after all), the divorce rate is the same as Catholics, degree of education is considerably higher, arrests for violent crime lower than all Christian sects with the exception of Mennonites and that in every other factor Atheists are indistinguishable leads me to the following conclusion.
The worst thing you can possibly be, according to the statistics, for your personal well being, is a not very religious Christian (who lives in England and doesn't have his own doctor).
But the best you can possibly be is an Atheist.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 16:24:18 [Permalink]
|
Hi ktesibios;
I am not quite so happy as Boris. I have to go into the outside world, knowing that parts of it are unpleasant and dangerous and that I have no magical protection. I have to take responsibility for living in the world as it actually is and not in a comfortable illusion prefabricated for me by someone else.
Have you ever had the feeling of being truly supported in this world, like Boris? What would you do differently? How quickly would you rebound from adversity? If your intentions were good, would this feeling of support help you to make a difference?
Although I am not religious myself, I cannot see the "evil" in a good person finding a belief system in which they feel supported. The real problem is, anytime someone gets to feel stronger through a certain belief system, it is only good if their intentions are good (like Martin Luther King perhaps), but can bad if their intentions are not so good (like Osama Bin Ladin perhaps).
Unlike Boris, I still have my balls.
Balls? I'm not sure if I understand this line and how it was used but balls can be a good or bad thing too. If all a large dog does is attack because of it's innate agression towards other breeds, at little testosterone reduction might be just what the doctor ordered.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 21:02:09 [Permalink]
|
Hi Slater:
Oddly enough all the members of AA are religious.
What if they weren't? What if there was nothing for them to hope for? No reason to be a better person? No mystical being that loves them even though everyone else has turned their back? Where would the AA members be then? In a better space, or a worse one?
There are no Atheists convicted of capital offences in the US at this time.
How many became religious after they were sentenced to life? Is this just a case of hope for the hopeless? If so, this statistic doesn't seem applicable. A better statistic might be, what was the religious/athiest ratio of the people when they committed the crimes?
On Market Street here in San Francisco all of the homeless who are screamers and are carrying around strange signage are talking about Jesus.
I'll note the exception, but this is not a rule.
The recent spate of infanticides that have been in the news all involve very religious mothers.
Again, a notable exception, but not a rule. If this happened outside of an isolated pocket of influence, and over the whole spectrum of very religious mothers I might concede a correlation.
I thought Southern Baptists and their Harry Potter burning and the Taliban were blights on our "current" society. But you're right. I doubt that there are many Taliban alcohol abusers and they are very religious.
I have never said that religion was the only system to follow. I am not religious myself. I am just saying that for some people, it is a system that has undeniable merit. For example; I had a friend that died on his motorcycle when doubling his sister (a car turned left across their lane killing them both). I am a parent, and I am not sure if you have children, but my friends parents turned to religion after the horrific loss, so that they could believe that their children were in a better place. Now, who am I to take that away from them? Why would I want to? Although this is an extreme example, there are many, (like AA followers) that need religion, and for whom it serves a solid purpose.
Since religion is the opiate of the people the next time you have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted try a couple of Hail Marys.
I said mental health, not physical. In most studies religion kicks science's butt when it comes to helping people through hard times, or in turning their lives around, by providing support (even if imagined) and a reason to go on.
One of the problems with Skepticism, the one that makes it such an unpopular philosophy is that we don't dismiss information just because it is uncomfortable. Nor do we accept comfortable information like this religion promotion without checking it, simply because it's nice.
Most people would say that life is about feeling good too, not just making sure that we are right all of the time. There is no harm in a belief system that allows joe citizen to feel happier in his day to day. If you think there is harm in a good person with a "nice" belief system, what would you say it is? If I, in Canada think that Hockey is the greatest game in the world, does it really matter that you think Baseball is?
The worst thing you can possibly be, according to the statistics, for your personal well being, is a not very religious Christian (who lives in England and doesn't have his own doctor). But the best you can possibly be is an Atheist.
Maybe the down and out need religion, and the rich and well educated don't. This does not mean that we should take the religion away from the down and out. It probably means we should give the down and out wealth and education, so that their need for religion fades....
As Richard DeVos said "The only thing that stands between a man and what he wants from life is merely the will to try it and the faith to believe that it is possible." Just because the well educated get their faith from statistical analysis does not irradicate the fact that "faith in god", in many cases, does far more good than harm.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 21:38:25 [Permalink]
|
Spamorama what would you say are the advantages of religion compared to drinking?
You say that religion helps people who are in though spots to make life berable. It does so for many. Just like alcohol or drugs do.
Religion does not offer much of a solution. It just offres illusions. It helps you by making you think that the problems are not as big as they real are.
And just think for a moment: How much of the hardships in life that people need religion to deal with are actually caused by religion in the first place.
I am ofcourse supporting that everyone who wants to drink alchol, take drugs or bash their heads against the wall should be allowed to do so. I just don't feel that they are better of for having themselves numbed to reality. Same goes for religion.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
