|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2002 : 13:38:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anyway, as I was saying back on page 2, I don't agree that, like Skepticism/Science, religion trys to fill in gaps in human knowledge. It seems to me that it is Religion's purpose to deny that there are any gaps. It promotes ignorance over knowledge in order to achieve domination over the population.
It's quite ironic that one of their catch phrases is, "The truth shall set you free." But, of course, the TRUTH and the FACTS are not the quite same thing.
Prehaps that could be a catch phrase for "Evangelical Skepticism"
I mostly agree, and this is why I tried to avoid using the word 'religion' in my discussions. Obviously, supernatural thinking and religion are inexorably liked, but supernatural thinking doesn't require deification or worship. In a sense, religion is a subset, or maybe a special case of supernatural thinking.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 13:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Really, I don't see how this follows from your argument, but I would argue that "enemy" can carry a non-conscious component in that the label can be consciously applied as a response to a visceral emotion.
Can you put that in English?
"Enemy" is merely a label. There is no emotion called "enemity." If there is a thing that is a palpable threat to my existence, I react to its presence with certain emotions (certainly not only anger). Calling the thing "enemy" is a short way of saying, "this thing behaves in such a way as to elicit emotions that, taken together, indicate that my safety is in peril."
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 14:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In a sense, religion is a subset, or maybe a special case of supernatural thinking.
Agreed.
Did you read Erich Goode's piece in the current issue of Skeptical Inquirer called Education, Scientific Knowledge, and Belief in the Paranormal?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 14:33:49 [Permalink]
|
I didn't mean to sound insulting by asking you to "put that in English." I need to use the smileys more I guess. I never liked them in email. I'm a high school graduate, and sometimes you guys get way over my head.
I'd suggest that if you think we can explore this (contrary to public opinion, I think I can learn from others) let's continue this thread privately. Otherwise, let's end this part of the thread. Okay?
quote:
Really, I don't see how this follows from your argument, but I would argue that "enemy" can carry a non-conscious component in that the label can be consciously applied as a response to a visceral emotion.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 14:34:17 [Permalink]
|
Mmmm.., let me try it again. The difference in scientific thinking and uh, religous thinking, is how they confront the 'gaps,' IMO. Science trys to find the answers to fill those gaps, while religion tends to accept gaps will always be with us. "There are things unknown to mankind," or some such, "known only to god." Tend to think both are valid, too, and not necessarily exclusive. Can see where a person of a scientific bent, could accept, that all things, will never be known, while still setting about to provide answers for as many gaps as possible. Can't you?
quote:
If there is a thing that is a palpable threat to my existence, I react to its presence with certain emotions (certainly not only anger). Calling the thing "enemy" is a short way of saying, "this thing behaves in such a way as to elicit emotions that, taken together, indicate that my safety is in peril."
This doesn't go far enough, does it? To me, "enemy" is something me would want to harm, or escape, too. A hurricane would seem a threat or peril, to me safety, giving rise to fear, but would not think it an "enemy," its an act of god, SIC!
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 14:54:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
In a sense, religion is a subset, or maybe a special case of supernatural thinking.
Agreed.
Did you read Erich Goode's piece in the current issue of Skeptical Inquirer called Education, Scientific Knowledge, and Belief in the Paranormal?
Yep, and I just reread it. His conclusions make a great deal of sense to me. It seems that conspiracy theorists, HBers, UFO believers, etc. have a compulsion that goes beyond "gap-filling." Your intuition serves you well, young Slater 
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 16:04:43 [Permalink]
|
Science tries to find the answers to fill those gaps, while religion tends to accept gaps will always be with us. "There are things unknown to mankind," or some such, "known only to god."
Yeah, religion does that in some cases. Sort of like Maria Ouspenskaya in the 1930's Universal horror flicks. "Der are tings man vas not meant to know, Dr Frankenstein." While in other cases a gap filling answer is pulled out of thin air, with the sole purpose of supporting the religion (read that as--lies are told).
In either case the end result is the same. Ignorance.
Tend to think both are valid, too, and not necessarily exclusive. Can see where a person of a scientific bent, could accept, that all things, will never be known, while still setting about to provide answers for as many gaps as possible. Can't you?
Hmmm, no, not really. I do accept as a given that we will never know everything (and I'm glad of it. I make a pretty good living at this gig, and you should see the nice tan I just got on Oahu while trying to expand knowledge.) The problem I have with religious claims of knowledge, or the mandatory lack there of, is that they both forbid the acquisition of actual knowledge.
The Islamic world, while Europe was in its dark ages, was steeped in science. Their mathematics was so wonderful that Europe dropped it's own number system to adopt their strange symbolic language.
Then fundamentalism stopped their advance cold.
Same story with the natural sciences in India, China and Japan. Amazing things were happening in those places, but religion put a stop to it.
There is a legend that the Pythagoreans declared the great ancient Greek Scientist/ Engineer Hero (his given name and also the status I hold him in) a heretic after he invented the two cycle steam engine. They forced him to drink poison, destroyed all of his inventions and stopped the industrial revolution from happening for two thousand years.
Only in Europe was there a partial collapse of the religious system. This freed people to start using their brains again. Not that religion hasn't desperately and repeatedly tried to stop the search for knowledge. (I'm sure someone will turn up here shortly to demand once again that we stop believing in the unproven religion of natural selection)
Frankly I do not view religion as a benevolent, if slightly eccentric, entity. I see it is the single most destructive force in the history of human kind. It has enslaved billions, making their lives poor, short and frightened.
Hence I support Evangelical Skepticism--the sole candle in a "dark daemon haunted world" of religious tyranny.
Damn the deities, full speed ahead! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 20:41:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't mean to sound insulting by asking you to "put that in English." I need to use the smileys more I guess. I never liked them in email. I'm a high school graduate, and sometimes you guys get way over my head.
I'd suggest that if you think we can explore this (contrary to public opinion, I think I can learn from others) let's continue this thread privately. Otherwise, let's end this part of the thread. Okay?
quote:
Really, I don't see how this follows from your argument, but I would argue that "enemy" can carry a non-conscious component in that the label can be consciously applied as a response to a visceral emotion.
Please, don't I'm getting alot from this also. Maybe this should be broken out into a separate thread?
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 20:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please, don't I'm getting alot from this also. Maybe this should be broken out into a separate thread?
Okay. I thought we were the only two or three that were interested and I wasn't sure it was going anywhere anyway. I'll continue or move it, unless someone else does first. Thanks.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 22:48:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mmmm.., let me try it again. The difference in scientific thinking and uh, religous thinking, is how they confront the 'gaps,' IMO. Science trys to find the answers to fill those gaps, while religion tends to accept gaps will always be with us. "There are things unknown to mankind," or some such, "known only to god." Tend to think both are valid, too, and not necessarily exclusive.
I tend to think that the religious thinking that skeptics commonly refer to as "god-of-the-gaps" is akin to saying, "there are holes in our knowledge that are unexplainable by epistemology, but there is a force that is not limited by physical law that can perform the actions necessary to fill those holes." This is a subtle but important difference from "accept[ing] gaps will always be with us," at least from a psychological standpoint.
quote:
Can see where a person of a scientific bent, could accept, that all things, will never be known, while still setting about to provide answers for as many gaps as possible. Can't you?
Sure, and I wonder if this might not represent a majority of the science-minded.
quote:
quote:
If there is a thing that is a palpable threat to my existence, I react to its presence with certain emotions (certainly not only anger). Calling the thing "enemy" is a short way of saying, "this thing behaves in such a way as to elicit emotions that, taken together, indicate that my safety is in peril."
This doesn't go far enough, does it? To me, "enemy" is something me would want to harm, or escape, too. A hurricane would seem a threat or peril, to me safety, giving rise to fear, but would not think it an "enemy," its an act of god, SIC!
I agree with this, and your additions also include the metaphorical uses of 'enemy,' such as "terrorism is the enemy of a free state."
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob
Edited by - PhDreamer on 01/12/2002 22:48:36 |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2002 : 01:25:16 [Permalink]
|
Boy, I am impressed by Slater's view of religion as a fundamental evil. While I have always (as long as I can remember) viewed religious mysticism as "dumb" I have not thought it quite such a negative force thwarting human development.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2002 : 03:05:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Boy, I am impressed by Slater's view of religion as a fundamental evil. While I have always (as long as I can remember) viewed religious mysticism as "dumb" I have not thought it quite such a negative force thwarting human development.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
Religion is a means to control society. Look how it is set up. There are a set of rules, for which you can be punished in your earthly existence and/or be punished in your next existence or afterlife. Not only do you suffer while here, you suffer when you're gone. What better control than that?
From there it has attempted to keep itself in control and in so doing has condemned those who would question its dictates. Religion granted the divine right of rule to a class of aristocracy. Where it was convenient to the aristocracy to keep the preists in power to keep the common man in line and collect taxes. It was in the interest of the preists to support the aristocracy, I just haven't quite figured out why yet unless it has to do with administration. Hmm, more to think on.
Adding this. Look at the problems with being an outspoken atheist in many parts of the country. Or at how many atheists towed the line that Islam means peace. Or have bowed to the religionist. Why? Could it possibly be because there are a huge mass of people out there who, though more civilized (?), are willing to do damage to the atheist in the name of god.
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan
Edited by - Trish on 01/13/2002 03:10:10 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2002 : 15:09:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sort of like Maria Ouspenskaya in the 1930's Universal horror flicks. "Der are tings man vas not meant to know, Dr Frankenstein."
Precisely. *L* Think the note of caution was valid as well. In that, there may well prove to be some knowledge, humanity just has not advanced, matured enough to adequately manage, although we crossed that threshold IMO decades ago. And so far, so good,(Nubi raps his head), the 'box' being opened, there is no going back, anyway.
Suppose where we may part company, is that tend to think of religion as benevolent, actually. Concede, however, there is an abundant foundation of evidence for your stated stance. What is religion, anyway? Isn't it an acknowledgement of forces beyond our control and manipulation, that we are subjected? We can at times, see its works, without a hint to its mechanism of operation. Chance, the turn of the wheel, the throw of the dice, fate, some are favored, while others are not? A personifcation of these supernatual powers, and a reverence for, many credit with allowing for the creation of this universe, and the life within it, including our own? A striving to be a 'better' person, than perhaps we really are? A sense of gratitude and obligation, for what we may enjoy? Would suggest all these considerations, more, are bundled into what makes up a person's religion. Benign enough so far?
As is natural, people will seek out others of like minds to share thoughts and mutual suport. Sooner or later, some will begin to organize into groups, the groups, or perhaps orders by now, will shuffle about, align, and then their religion will have become an institution. Behold the Serpent! *L* An organizational ladder is formed, a chain of command, and we have yet another 'power structure,' not of god, but of man. Wrought with all the motives, that moves any other institution, no matter how good the intentions for forming. The desire to survive, to grow, to gain power and influence, and thwart any perceived threats, all institutions will by any means allowed by their times, (Microsoft, Enron). Lead by men subject to all the frailties of any other men, greed, ambition, etc. Let the slaughter begin, "In the name of (god of your choice)!" "For the Crown!" "For the Fatherland!" "For the Empire!" What difference, the herd is culled, usually of the best of us, not by god, but by man.
So what, why should it be any different? Does this negate the concept of a god? Don't think so. Nor do me expect the church, ((?) house of god), made of man, to be immune from the fashion, or trends, of history, neither. We, my friend, live within a relatively enlightened time of humanity's bloody history, as am sure you are well aware. Weren't there dark periods in history, where "the church" became the default depository of civilization? Aren't there periods in history, that would be completely blank, unknown, if not for the church? Isn't it to civilization's advantage, the church promotes charity and builds schools? Just trying to show, it isn't a case of black or white, like any other institution of humanity, the church has been a source for 'good,' as well as misguided by its too human leadership, to do harm (for example today read fundie Islam). Its contribution to advance civilization, is as colored as is humanity's, itself, but tend to see it a shade more to the positive. Call me sentimental.
Where we may still find common ground, is in the complete rejection of fundamentalism of any ilk. Fanatical, literal interpreters, of any doctrine, would deny evolution, advancement, or progress IMO, and therefore, should be considered as an enemy to civilization at large. Here is where your true enemies of science will be found. Just as me argues with you, with no attempt at "conversion" intended, religion should not be considered a threat to science, especially a personal one, so would me argue with the church, neither should the scientific method be considered as a threat to religion. They address different realms of existence. Know they co-exist within me, comfortably enough, and believe, have faith, that they can within society as well. Certainly, there is no real cause to give rise to anger at confronting either position, in spite of what some of me earlier posts might have seemed to suggest. *L* 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2002 : 18:56:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I tend to think that the religious thinking that skeptics commonly refer to as "god-of-the-gaps" is akin to saying, "there are holes in our knowledge that are unexplainable by epistemology, but there is a force that is not limited by physical law that can perform the actions necessary to fill those holes." This is a subtle but important difference from "accept[ing] gaps will always be with us," at least from a psychological standpoint.
Mmmm.., am new to the "god-of-the-gaps" idea, encountered it here at SFN for the first time. It's interesting, and can 'see' that there could well be this element within faiths of today. Don't like it, meself, it is a retreat or a retrenchment. My god exists everywhere, or not at all. But understand and agree with your point, there is indeed a difference. From a psychological standpoint, don't most faiths, if not all, begin from a stance of "acceptance," intrinsically?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can see where a person of a scientific bent, could accept, that all things, will never be known, while still setting about to provide answers for as many gaps as possible. Can't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, and I wonder if this might not represent a majority of the science-minded.
Might at that, huh! *L* Where the hell was me going with that!?! Seemed to make sense at the time, not sure now. Umm, perhaps as a demonstration of accepting one's limitations in the face of an impossible task, and placing one's faith in the value of one's own constribution as still being worthwhile...? Would it have better served, had me used "believer" in place of "person?" Naw, again, it is not exclusive, skeptic, believer, scientist, all, must eventually accept their mortal limitations and will apply faith somewhere within their lives. Oh, that was the point, both methods of confronting the gaps, filling them and accepting them, are valid, and can actually be employed at the same time. Yeah, a bit thin...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 01:49:45 [Permalink]
|
The problem we face as skeptics, I think, is that religion and science, using both in the broadest sense, are increasingly attempting to fill the same gaps and this leads to some head-on collisions. Creationism is the obvious case in point, but there are others. "Faith" in mystical forces is the most common reason paranormalists give for rejecting scientific skepticism about those forces. This has made its way into politics as well, where secular society has come into conflict with religion on such issues as abortion and homosexuality. You'ld never know it from watching prime time TV, but secular society is historically an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and of belief in the primacy of science.
Religion is potentially a more authoritarian force than science. Those of us who reject authority as a test of truth would still have to bow before the authority of a real, live god. It would be the logical thing to do, if that god's existence were proven or if we could somehow be convinced that certain humans speak for him.
Religions can claim any answer, fill any gap, without violating their own internal rules. Many religions don't fill all the gaps, but they could. Science cannot. It cannot claim omniscience, in particular, for obvious reasons.
I am with Slater on this, religion is a malignant force. I know, of course, that people find comfort in it, but they also find comfort in the beauty and complexity and power of nature, and in our ability to comprehend nature and reality and in our status as an integral part of nature and reality. Personally, I find comfort in being part of an unbroken genetic line that goes back for eons, and that will continue into the future.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
