The lunacy of organized religion

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CycloWizard, the problem with modern religions is exactly what you have stated above. The fact that some religions "require interactions with others to ensure incorrect notions or actions are avoided", is precisely how people become indoctrinated and brainwashed in many cases. It stifles freedom of thought and forces people to follow the status quo in order to be a part of the religion.

I couldn't disagree more. Indeed, most ethicists tend to believe that any practice requires this interaction to obtain right behavior. In the presence of others, it becomes more difficult to steer things astray and much easier to do what is right. Brad Kallenberg has written quite a bit on this if you'd care to read up on the subject. Fundamentalist religions, which believe in a literal interpretation of their particular book, are those typically opposed to such interaction. Instead, they tout the book as the full truth, and that discussion and interaction can only lead you astray. This is more along the lines of your indoctrination and brainwashing, IMO. Discussion is the key to developing thought.

Your trying to have things both ways, and modern religions just don't work this way and I think even you can admit to this. I agree that seeking those who are more enlightened than we are for guidance IS a good thing, but at some point it is up to each and every human being to make their own choices as to what path of spirituality they want to take. Also, guidance can come from any human being and it does not have to come solely from your priest/bishop/etc. That is the problem with many religions, they claim to be the only source of truth and fool their followers into believing this. This is why I am heavily against those that baptize their childrens early on and indoctrinate them into their religions without giving their children the chance to form their own views and spirituality.

No. You simply fail to see that there are organized religions today that are this way. You take the worst examples and attempt to paint the rest in the same color. Some of my greatest spiritual insights have come from those outside my own faith, often from completely uneducated men who speak from the heart. However, there is also a place for the learned opinion of priests and bishops. This was exactly my point above when I touted the benefits of interaction and discussion.

And for the record, the Bible/Quran/etc. ARE mythological books. If you are trying to look at either of these texts as some sort of historical or sceintific truth then you aren't using them as they were intended. They are purposeful only to provide the readers with guidance and morals and should not be taken literally. I realize that many take offense to the word myth, as if it discredits the Bible, Quran, or any other religious text. I don't think it does at all. These books are myths in the sense that none of these stories can be proven to be accurate in any way, shape, or form. For example, the idea that Jesus is the son of God IS a myth as far as I'm concerned.

Can you prove this? No, I don't believe that they are 100% historically accurate, but that doesn't mean that their contents are untrue. Indeed, many of the events that occur within the books have been well documented historically, even if there is some question as to whether or not it occurred in the exact manner as described in the religious text. However, as I mentioned previously, it is not in the details that the essence of the religion is found, but in the core ideas discussed. I do not believe that the Bible should be translated literally. However, its message is very powerful and I take it for what it's worth. I would also point out that your use of the word 'myth' is a bit out of place here, as it is typically used to describe something that did not happen, rather than something that is only unclear whether or not it has happened.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
what does complexity have to do with a diety? You don't believe that complexity can come into being on its own?

Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord. However, that's not all that I said. I said the mixture of complexity and order that we observe in nature is a compelling argument.

This shens is possibly the worst arguement for the non-evoloution crowd. Tell ya what Cyclo - take a warm mug of hot water, dissolve some sugar into it...and place a string handing down into the center of it. WOW! Orderly, symmetrical CRYSTALS will start growing onto the string!!! Perfectly formed, for a solid previously in random, Brownian motion in the water. ORDER - from disorder. And no intervention from you, or god, or anything else...(in fact, forming a supersaturated solution, in which crystals do not form, is actually much harder...)

There are a host of other examples. You can form perfect amino acids just by placing the requisite chemicals together under the right conditions - no enzymes needed (usually you will need heat, as it is an endothermic reaction). THEY JUST FORM SPONTANEOUSLY...and this is replicable in any chem lab, no miracle required.

We have found large amounts of amino acids embedded WITHIN meteroites that have plunged to earth - not contamination, but inside the darned things. The building blocks of life - from space! Do you think that god place amino acids in random asteroids?

The weird thing about complex biochemistry is that it DOES have a tendancy to self-organize. Self-replication is another matter - lots of people are still wondering about things like which came first, DNA or RNA, given that one can't replicate without the other, and the other has no reason for being without the first. But that's only really a problem if (and the Creationists and ID crowd love to do this!) you insist that these mechanisms had to spring forth fully formed, and had no precursors that worked less effectively or differently. Since evolution posits the existance of lesser-performing, evolutionary precursors, this isn't really an issue...just hard to prove, one way or another.

At any rate, saying that things are complex and organized, and that nature doesn't self-organize, is just a load of hoey...

Future Shock

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
what does complexity have to do with a diety? You don't believe that complexity can come into being on its own?

Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord. However, that's not all that I said. I said the mixture of complexity and order that we observe in nature is a compelling argument.

i'm not sure that things are tending stoward order, and i'm also not sure how you can apply a theory like thermodynamics to something macro like, well the world. If it reaaly did work that way, you would see planets crumbling into dust and such.

I have heard (and believe) the the Market is one of the most impossibly complex things in the world, did god create the market?

Simply because something is complex doesn't imply divine creation. However, it does imply creation by something other than random chance, as all observations teach us that things tend towards disorder without guidance. Humans created the market.

strange, most of the things i observe so the opposite. As with physics, the rules that govern the small don't really work for the large.

The fact that you can twist the facts to support you prior beliefs really isn't that strong an arguement for someone that isn't you.

How do you know what my prior beliefs were? How am I twisting anything to support them? My beliefs are a result of my observations, not the other way around.

lol. Just keep telling yourself that and it might come true. If there wasn't a previous concept of a diety, you would never have come to such a conclusion.

so how did the diety come into being?

I don't know.

so it looks like your theory is impossible, since you don't fully understand it :roll:

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Personally, I think it absurd that any of the miracles described in the Bible would contradict the physical/chemical laws of nature.

What kind of miracle would it be if it did not?

Miracles don't exist. They are just events that you can't explain, so you don't try. (by you i don't mean you in specific.)

 

[maluckey]

Religion can be difficult for analytical minds and heavy thinkers. They try and analyze the deity, where ther is no possible hope of doing so.

If a deity exists that indeed is the creator, it would be so alien in thought process and intent to ourselves that it would be impossible to understand.

Having a simple attitude and accepting this deity as benign, and wanting that it's creations survive, is the easy approach. Imagine if you will that our early forefathers thought that the Great Deity was out to get them? Religion as we know it would be different indeed.

Some religions do not believe in an afterlife, so do, some believe that their deity is active, others believe it's dormant. The great unifier is that they ALL believe that man is NOT the top of the rung so to speak. In some ways it's comforting, but to me has always been a bit disconcerting.

 

[piasabird]

Without religion, what is the reason for life?

It is just a random chemical reaction or what?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without religion, what is the reason for life?

It is just a random chemical reaction or what?

The reason for life is to live. I don't see what the problem is with knowing and understanding that you're not significant in this world, and that one day you will cease to exist. You are going to die, and no longer be here

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
What if there isn't something greater than us? Imagine if once we die we cease to exist, no spirit or anything moving on, we just die and thats it. That idea isn't very pleasing to anyone. Would it be weak to make up stories and explanations of our existance that try and make it seem like we are somehow special, that we have some magic man in the sky that created us and will ensure our existance after death?

You could rephrase your post as "Assuming there is no god," which means any such stories would be inherently false. However, that assumption is questionable at best IMO, and hardly an axim on which to base the answer to your question. I don't make up stories regarding how things came about, just recognize that I can't explain how they came about. After all, why does the exact manner in which these things came about matter? Fundamentalists might argue that it does, but I disagree.

I'm just pointing out that since all were dealing with are assumptions here, it's not exactly fitting to label the assumption different than yours "weak".

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without religion, what is the reason for life?

It is just a random chemical reaction or what?

Yes - stop thinking you're so special...we're not.

FS

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Miracles don't exist. They are just events that you can't explain, so you don't try. (by you i don't mean you in specific.)

Miracles exist, but to write them off as being unexplainable is not congruent to formative thought. All Christians attempt to explain and rationalize the miracle of Christ's resurrection. Drawing from a modern example, I'm sure most people here have heard the archetypal story about a boy being miraculously cured of cancer. The doctors are baffled and story goes that the Church spent the night praying... The standard Christian will believe that God acted out defying natural law and healed him. However, I would argue that the cure resulted from an as yet unidentified mechanism conforming to scientific law but occuring in this boy's time of need. From another point of view, Moses and the Israelites aren't the only ones to have crossed the Red Sea. Napolean used the same route and is said to have just escaped with his life. The mechanism is simple, there exists a ridge running the length of the Red Sea and with the right amount of wind... dry land will form. The miracle is that it occured when the Israelites needed it most.
I don't understand the need for "divine intervention" as the explanation for everything unexplained. It's in conflict with Genesis 1: 31 "God saw all that he had mad, and it was very good." If this is the case, why does he have to run around intervening in everyone's lives, giving some healing from cancer, others money to pay the bills... this logic is twisted in so many ways.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
I'm amazed by this thread - it's been remarkably civil.

What I am not amazed by is the lack of human understanding that is evidenced by so many forum members, possibly because so many of us have such strong left-brain skills as we are predominantly techies. So let me expound...

IMHO, Religion exists because people:

1) Want to believe that they don't die
2) Want to BELONG - usually to a group, and usually to a group that enables them to feel slightly superiour to their bretheren
3) Want to CONTROL - take any random group of humans, and there is always a small but vocal minority that feel they MUST be in control of others.

The first two are reasons why people seek out religion - it satisfies some basic human social needs. There is, IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with either of those two reasons to join an organized religion, especially if you are honest to yourself as to your reasons for wanting to join, and realize that you are setting yourself up to gaming yourself. But if it makes you feel better, then I have nothing against it...

It's the LAST reason, #3, that is highly interesting. There will always be people that want to be politicians, managers, CEOs - leaders. Some of them do this because they know that those in control live the best (usually), others just have a deep seated need for power and control in their psyche. Whenever someone needs to be in control, they need to form a hierarchy - either in business, politics or, you guessed it: religion.

Hierarchies in business can only offer you interesting work and/or compensation. Hierarchies in politics can only offer their followers a better life - on this earth. But religious leaders, mindful of points 1 & 2, can offer their followers both immortality, and a profound sense of belonging and even superiority - "OURS is the only true religion - all others will burn and rot for eternity!" Sound familiar?

The problem with this is of course that leaders of heirarchies are ALWAYS trying to expand their hierarchy. And a heirarchy that isn't growing is usually in the process of failing. So religious leaders are trying to expand their flocks - evangelizing, missionary work, etc. Nowadays it's advertising, 24x7 satellite religious shows, you name it. But the message is always the same - "I have items #1 and #2, for real, unlike that guy down the street in the black smock."

As someone has pointed out, a "true religion" can't be seen adjusting it's folklore to be in accordance with modern understanding - otherwise it couldn't be "true". So this folklore becomes out of step with modern understanding. These hierarchy leaders are, in many cases, powerful and wealthy - so quick, let's try to subjugate modern understanding! We can pay to set up Intelligent Design institutes. We can pay for the support of school board elections for members who may help us change the curriculum. Ad infinitum...

And of course, what happens when these religions have saturated the human race? Why then, they MUST come into conflict, so that the leaders of each can expand their position. They will try to outbreed each other, they will fight for territorial control - and they will even convince politicans to take that fight to the political level if they can, and fight a political war over a religious agenda.

And that's where we are -except now the modern understandings are coming up faster and faster, and the churches are fighting dirtier and dirtier to delay or prevent a mass-understanding that their "true religion" folklore is just that - folklore. And the organized religions are coming increasingly into conflict to try to amass as much territory under themselves as possible, except we WILL soon have religious militias with nuclear or biological weapons.

I believe that the future of the human race will be fought out over the next two centuries, and these two issues will be at the heart of all that happens...

Future Shock

Nonsense... I don't know where you can draw the conclusion that modern societies are somehow "smarter" than previous ones. There's some evidense that using your brain throughout your life is beneficial... however, any appearance of a society being smarter than another comes more from circumstance than anything else. I think the biggest evidence against this line of thinking is that we seem to be no better off in our ability to create meaningful lasting relationships with each other. Advances in psychology/psychiatry/science should have shown us how to live wonderful lives in union with our neighbors and spouses. Sadly evidense to the contrary turns up everyday.

I'll try to address more of this later... however, I've got a dinner to go eat.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So if we can all agree that religion is a purely manmade creation, then doesn't that alone discredit any religion from claiming absolute truth?

Cyclo I think you got my words confused a bit. When I speak about the Bible and the Quran as being myths, I am being very specific. I am strictly referring to the things like Jesus walking on water, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. We know none of those things happened, and if they did it was not for the reasons that are stated in the Bible.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without religion, what is the reason for life?

It is just a random chemical reaction or what?

Yes - stop thinking you're so special...we're not.

FS

QFT

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: Future Shock
I'm amazed by this thread - it's been remarkably civil.

What I am not amazed by is the lack of human understanding that is evidenced by so many forum members, possibly because so many of us have such strong left-brain skills as we are predominantly techies. So let me expound...

IMHO, Religion exists because people:

1) Want to believe that they don't die
2) Want to BELONG - usually to a group, and usually to a group that enables them to feel slightly superiour to their bretheren
3) Want to CONTROL - take any random group of humans, and there is always a small but vocal minority that feel they MUST be in control of others.

{text del}

As someone has pointed out, a "true religion" can't be seen adjusting it's folklore to be in accordance with modern understanding - otherwise it couldn't be "true". So this folklore becomes out of step with modern understanding. These hierarchy leaders are, in many cases, powerful and wealthy - so quick, let's try to subjugate modern understanding! We can pay to set up Intelligent Design institutes. We can pay for the support of school board elections for members who may help us change the curriculum. Ad infinitum...

And of course, what happens when these religions have saturated the human race? Why then, they MUST come into conflict, so that the leaders of each can expand their position. They will try to outbreed each other, they will fight for territorial control - and they will even convince politicans to take that fight to the political level if they can, and fight a political war over a religious agenda.

And that's where we are -except now the modern understandings are coming up faster and faster, and the churches are fighting dirtier and dirtier to delay or prevent a mass-understanding that their "true religion" folklore is just that - folklore. And the organized religions are coming increasingly into conflict to try to amass as much territory under themselves as possible, except we WILL soon have religious militias with nuclear or biological weapons.

I believe that the future of the human race will be fought out over the next two centuries, and these two issues will be at the heart of all that happens...

Future Shock

Nonsense... I don't know where you can draw the conclusion that modern societies are somehow "smarter" than previous ones. There's some evidense that using your brain throughout your life is beneficial... however, any appearance of a society being smarter than another comes more from circumstance than anything else. I think the biggest evidence against this line of thinking is that we seem to be no better off in our ability to create meaningful lasting relationships with each other. Advances in psychology/psychiatry/science should have shown us how to live wonderful lives in union with our neighbors and spouses. Sadly evidense to the contrary turns up everyday.

I'll try to address more of this later... however, I've got a dinner to go eat.

Where did I say that we are smarter? That we have a higher degree of scientific understanding - obviously yes. That we have a higher literacy rate - undeniable. These two things I lump into "modern understanding". Taken together, they may mean that we as a species are collectively getting a greater understanding of the world around us - certainly we as a race know a lot more than we did. But I would never assert that we have a better brain structure or are "smarter".

I have NO idea why you would think that advances science can make man better men, or to be better to each other. Science has never claimed to do that (at least I put it on you to show me otherwise). We have made strides in treating mental illness, and in helping people come to terms with the mental problems that a stressful modern life (or biology) can beset them with.

The only thing that makes men better men is teaching children live the Golden Rule...and we don't need religion for that, just good old fashioned parenting...

Future Shock

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: Future Shock
I'm amazed by this thread - it's been remarkably civil.

What I am not amazed by is the lack of human understanding that is evidenced by so many forum members, possibly because so many of us have such strong left-brain skills as we are predominantly techies. So let me expound...

IMHO, Religion exists because people:

1) Want to believe that they don't die
2) Want to BELONG - usually to a group, and usually to a group that enables them to feel slightly superiour to their bretheren
3) Want to CONTROL - take any random group of humans, and there is always a small but vocal minority that feel they MUST be in control of others.

{text del}

As someone has pointed out, a "true religion" can't be seen adjusting it's folklore to be in accordance with modern understanding - otherwise it couldn't be "true". So this folklore becomes out of step with modern understanding. These hierarchy leaders are, in many cases, powerful and wealthy - so quick, let's try to subjugate modern understanding! We can pay to set up Intelligent Design institutes. We can pay for the support of school board elections for members who may help us change the curriculum. Ad infinitum...

And of course, what happens when these religions have saturated the human race? Why then, they MUST come into conflict, so that the leaders of each can expand their position. They will try to outbreed each other, they will fight for territorial control - and they will even convince politicans to take that fight to the political level if they can, and fight a political war over a religious agenda.

And that's where we are -except now the modern understandings are coming up faster and faster, and the churches are fighting dirtier and dirtier to delay or prevent a mass-understanding that their "true religion" folklore is just that - folklore. And the organized religions are coming increasingly into conflict to try to amass as much territory under themselves as possible, except we WILL soon have religious militias with nuclear or biological weapons.

I believe that the future of the human race will be fought out over the next two centuries, and these two issues will be at the heart of all that happens...

Future Shock

Nonsense... I don't know where you can draw the conclusion that modern societies are somehow "smarter" than previous ones. There's some evidense that using your brain throughout your life is beneficial... however, any appearance of a society being smarter than another comes more from circumstance than anything else. I think the biggest evidence against this line of thinking is that we seem to be no better off in our ability to create meaningful lasting relationships with each other. Advances in psychology/psychiatry/science should have shown us how to live wonderful lives in union with our neighbors and spouses. Sadly evidense to the contrary turns up everyday.

I'll try to address more of this later... however, I've got a dinner to go eat.

Where did I say that we are smarter? That we have a higher degree of scientific understanding - obviously yes. That we have a higher literacy rate - undeniable. These two things I lump into "modern understanding". Taken together, they may mean that we as a species are collectively getting a greater understanding of the world around us - certainly we as a race know a lot more than we did. But I would never assert that we have a better brain structure or are "smarter".

I have NO idea why you would think that advances science can make man better men, or to be better to each other. Science has never claimed to do that (at least I put it on you to show me otherwise). We have made strides in treating mental illness, and in helping people come to terms with the mental problems that a stressful modern life (or biology) can beset them with.

The only thing that makes men better men is teaching children live the Golden Rule...and we don't need religion for that, just good old fashioned parenting...

Future Shock

Ten Commandments + Golden Rule is all the moral guidance you'll ever need.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I pose this question to those of you who are religious and say there is "science" in the Koran/Bible/Torah...


I am 100% sure I could write a book about "hyperdrive" space travel... and assuming that such travel ever becomes possible... there will be several sentences that seem to fit VERY well with how it actually works.

All I would have to do is write in generalities, such as "Then the hyperdrive changes how space and the ship interact, and the ship begins to accelerate."

What I am saying is this... the people who wrote those holy books wrote in generalities.. and so of course some of what they wrote will turn out "right."

Do any of you consider that when you read these books?

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
I pose this question to those of you who are religious and say there is "science" in the Koran/Bible/Torah...


I am 100% sure I could write a book about "hyperdrive" space travel... and assuming that such travel ever becomes possible... there will be several sentences that seem to fit VERY well with how it actually works.

All I would have to do is write in generalities, such as "Then the hyperdrive changes how space and the ship interact, and the ship begins to accelerate."

What I am saying is this... the people who wrote those holy books wrote in generalities.. and so of course some of what they wrote will turn out "right."

Do any of you consider that when you read these books?

I couldn't agree more. It's stretching it pretty far when people try and claim their modern interpretations of their holy book agree with modern scientific views.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
So if we can all agree that religion is a purely manmade creation, then doesn't that alone discredit any religion from claiming absolute truth?

Cyclo I think you got my words confused a bit. When I speak about the Bible and the Quran as being myths, I am being very specific. I am strictly referring to the things like Jesus walking on water, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. We know none of those things happened, and if they did it was not for the reasons that are stated in the Bible.

Of all the miracles this one impresses me the most knowing what it takes to feed a company of US Army soldiers in the field consisting of fewer people. They either had warehouses with fish, bread, and logistical support or someone is telling a very big fish story.


Matthew 14


14And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

15And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.

16But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

17And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.

18He said, Bring them hither to me.

19And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

20And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Ten Commandments + Golden Rule is all the moral guidance you'll ever need.

I believe the Ten Commandments are REDUNDANT if you have the Golden Rule - for every Commandment is merely a specific example of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Except that thing about having no other gods before a certain one...but see my other post for the whys and wheres of that...

FS

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: LordSegan
I pose this question to those of you who are religious and say there is "science" in the Koran/Bible/Torah...


I am 100% sure I could write a book about "hyperdrive" space travel... and assuming that such travel ever becomes possible... there will be several sentences that seem to fit VERY well with how it actually works.

All I would have to do is write in generalities, such as "Then the hyperdrive changes how space and the ship interact, and the ship begins to accelerate."

What I am saying is this... the people who wrote those holy books wrote in generalities.. and so of course some of what they wrote will turn out "right."

Do any of you consider that when you read these books?

I couldn't agree more. It's stretching it pretty far when people try and claim their modern interpretations of their holy book agree with modern scientific views.

I agree with you that it is rather erroneous to grasp at phrases and statements contained within such a text and claim these as proofs of scientific knowledge. These books, the Quran or Bible, were written to an audience possessing limited scientific knowledge at best. Their worldview can't be compared to ours. Therefore to treat these texts as a textbook for science would be ludicrous. However, as texts wherein one can find truth and guidance for moral living they are very good. With this in mind, any scientific discovery will work within this framework and will only upset those who believe in a "literal" interpretation.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Nonsense... I don't know where you can draw the conclusion that modern societies are somehow "smarter" than previous ones. There's some evidense that using your brain throughout your life is beneficial... however, any appearance of a society being smarter than another comes more from circumstance than anything else. I think the biggest evidence against this line of thinking is that we seem to be no better off in our ability to create meaningful lasting relationships with each other. Advances in psychology/psychiatry/science should have shown us how to live wonderful lives in union with our neighbors and spouses. Sadly evidense to the contrary turns up everyday.

I'll try to address more of this later... however, I've got a dinner to go eat.

Where did I say that we are smarter? That we have a higher degree of scientific understanding - obviously yes. That we have a higher literacy rate - undeniable. These two things I lump into "modern understanding". Taken together, they may mean that we as a species are collectively getting a greater understanding of the world around us - certainly we as a race know a lot more than we did. But I would never assert that we have a better brain structure or are "smarter".

I have NO idea why you would think that advances science can make man better men, or to be better to each other. Science has never claimed to do that (at least I put it on you to show me otherwise). We have made strides in treating mental illness, and in helping people come to terms with the mental problems that a stressful modern life (or biology) can beset them with.

The only thing that makes men better men is teaching children live the Golden Rule...and we don't need religion for that, just good old fashioned parenting...

Future Shock

I put quotations around smarter to denote my use of the term was in reference to your treatment of modern understanding. However, I'd be cautious in saying that as a society we are gaining a greater understanding of the world. Surely science is advancing, but what proportion of the population actually understands the complexities of this? In my first post in this thread I gave a link to a recent article in Cell (a scientific publication with one of the highest impact factors in the field). Here it is again. If you read it you'll realize that what I'm talking about is science as a method of inquiry. This inquisitive nature is what I argue will "make men better men." Seeing as how I'm citing one of the better journals in science, I hope this is proof enough to at least give merit to my claim. You refer to the golden rule, where do you suppose that idea came from? Or for that matter "old fashioned parenting?" I'm not even going as far as you, as old fashioned parenting was typically administered with a cane. And although it can be argued to be beneficial in some instances, I think a lot of evidense has revealed better ways of approaching and dealing with children. But we've digressed...
The problem I had with your post was your diagnosis lacked real substance and instead was filled with ad hominem analogies and over generalizations. These sorts of arguments are used by both sides of the debate which reveals one thing. The majority of people don't think through an issue but spout off whatever dogmatic view they've heard recently in support of their favored position. In the end neither is better or worse than the other.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Maybe it has been a gradual awakening or revelation that has occured throughout the years, but lately I just can't help but notice how incredibly stupid people get about religion. I'm also realizing how modern religion simply does not hold up to my own standards anymore, and my view of most mainstream religions is that they are nothing more than mythology. I feel incredibly sorry for the tens of millions of people who are hoodwinked and indoctrinated into these religions which are based upon thousand year old texts who accuracy can never be determined.

I wonder how and why religion has been left largely unevolved. It seems to me that religion would have to adapt to the culture and times in order to stay relevant in people's lives. However, it seems like it is doing precisely the opposite. People cling to these mythological beliefs, while thumbing their noses at proven scientific data that has been the fruitless efforts of thousands of scientists.

What the hell is the point of even having an organized religion anymore? If your faith is your personal relationship between yourself and whatever you believe to be God(s), then why do you need other people telling you what to believe?

I'm just at odds here trying to figure out why so many people put so much importance in these thousand year old myths, over things like proven scientific data. I'm not trying to flame or attack any religion, I'm just trying to understand. The more I hear these arguments about things like the attack on Christmas, the more I feel like our country is headed in the completely wrong direction.

Somehow I doubt your post is a sincere cry for understanding, I suspect your opinions are already pretty solid. But since you put so much faith in science I challenge you to read over this site with an open mind and darwin is not proven science it is only taught as such.
http://www.discovery.org/

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

I put quotations around smarter to denote my use of the term was in reference to your treatment of modern understanding. However, I'd be cautious in saying that as a society we are gaining a greater understanding of the world. Surely science is advancing, but what proportion of the population actually understands the complexities of this? In my first post in this thread I gave a link to a recent article in Cell (a scientific publication with one of the highest impact factors in the field). Here it is again. If you read it you'll realize that what I'm talking about is science as a method of inquiry. This inquisitive nature is what I argue will "make men better men." Seeing as how I'm citing one of the better journals in science, I hope this is proof enough to at least give merit to my claim. You refer to the golden rule, where do you suppose that idea came from? Or for that matter "old fashioned parenting?" I'm not even going as far as you, as old fashioned parenting was typically administered with a cane. And although it can be argued to be beneficial in some instances, I think a lot of evidense has revealed better ways of approaching and dealing with children. But we've digressed...
The problem I had with your post was your diagnosis lacked real substance and instead was filled with ad hominem analogies and over generalizations. These sorts of arguments are used by both sides of the debate which reveals one thing. The majority of people don't think through an issue but spout off whatever dogmatic view they've heard recently in support of their favored position. In the end neither is better or worse than the other.

Just a personal observation - I think that you are perhaps a bright scientist, or perhaps in medicine (or some MD/Phd combo). As such, I'm sure that you have a greater understanding of science than the great majority of humans, and there is a part of you that thinks - "why don't they ALL just get this?" BTW - this may not even by liminal, just a vague feeling you have that makes you wonder about the mass of humanity.

I am currently living in England, and I've spend a great deal of time wandering around primitive archeological digs, both Roman and prior. There are many features about these examples of technology that make me aware that these people (from roughly the time of Christ, some before) had a great deal of understanding of basic science and engineering. Roman forts, built in 200 AD show remarkable understanding of engineering principles - and this was not in Rome, but in front-line frontier fortresses. And Stonehedge? Woah...

But then you must look deeper. Many Romans still thought that thunder was caused by supernatural forces, as was supposed for disease and plagues. The Druids had even more superstitious beliefs. The use of "omens" to predict the future, and even decide if it was right to go into battle, were commonplace. Sacrifices to the gods, nature, etc. were not rare - but a matter of course.

THANKFULLY, WE KNOW BETTER NOW. Simply, we have had some revalations in our science that have made us understand nature more, and we know that these things are foolish. You don't need a Phd to know that thunder isn't created by the gods fighting...even someone with a basic education will know that it is caused by lightning, and most will know that lightning is an electrical discharge from the clouds. Remember, we didn't really understand this until some bloody idiot decided to stand in a thunderstorm with a kite, a key, and a Lyden jar - and that was only 2 centuries ago. So after several millenia of thinking that the gods had something to do with it, 2 centuries ago we figured out the truth, and now everyone in a civilized country knows it. I think that's pretty good progress, if you look at it in a long-term view.

"Connections" by James Burke is, for a popular science book and series, still the best evidence of how far and how fast mankinds' understanding of the world around him has progressed. How anyone can simply not read/watch it and realize just how much we have learned, and how it has filtered down into society, baffles me. You seem to believe (again your scientific bias) that it has to filter down to everyone to be real or useful. IMHO, only a portion of it has to be know to the details, for most of it basic concepts will suffice. How many people can use a browser today, versus actually writing even a "Hello World" program? But yet computers still change our lives, and the knowledge of science that exists is still life-changing (and religion challenging) for mankind today.

Future Shock

AFWIW - I consider "old fashioned" parenting any parenting that sets forth rules of behavior to children, either verbally, by removing privelges, or even corporal when necessary. Roughly anything pre-1970s "feel good" parenting, when we decided that a child's ego was worth more than their behavior and character.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
The problem I had with your post was your diagnosis lacked real substance and instead was filled with ad hominem analogies and over generalizations. These sorts of arguments are used by both sides of the debate which reveals one thing. The majority of people don't think through an issue but spout off whatever dogmatic view they've heard recently in support of their favored position. In the end neither is better or worse than the other.

Then please point out to me the post(s) in this thread that have more insightful analylsis or verifiable facts.

And, in case you missed it. I used IMHO REAPETEDLY throughout my post, from the start of the very first section on what I was proposing. IN...MY...HUMBLE...OPINION.

If someone wants to pay me to write a fully researched and footnoted article, I would be more than happy to do so. As this is just a side-effect of my insomnia, you get opinion pieces. But I AM happy to debate and back up those opinions in follow-on posts should the debate arise.

Future Shock

NB - the article from Cell that you linked was interesting...however, the author clearly did not consider where he would aquire the high-school facilty with sufficient training to actually pursue his vision of teaching non-survey type classes. He also ignored the likely budget impacts of said approach as well, as these upskilled teachers would probably make claim to premium salaries. Again, IMHO, survey classes are taught because you can do so with semi-skilled high-school teachers, which is unfortunately the reality for the majority of American high-schools.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Whaspe
The problem I had with your post was your diagnosis lacked real substance and instead was filled with ad hominem analogies and over generalizations. These sorts of arguments are used by both sides of the debate which reveals one thing. The majority of people don't think through an issue but spout off whatever dogmatic view they've heard recently in support of their favored position. In the end neither is better or worse than the other.

Then please point out to me the post(s) in this thread that have more insightful analylsis or verifiable facts.

And, in case you missed it. I used IMHO REAPETEDLY throughout my post, from the start of the very first section on what I was proposing. IN...MY...HUMBLE...OPINION.

If someone wants to pay me to write a fully researched and footnoted article, I would be more than happy to do so. As this is just a side-effect of my insomnia, you get opinion pieces. But I AM happy to debate and back up those opinions in follow-on posts should the debate arise.

Future Shock

NB - the article from Cell that you linked was interesting...however, the author clearly did not consider where he would aquire the high-school facilty with sufficient training to actually pursue his vision of teaching non-survey type classes. He also ignored the likely budget impacts of said approach as well, as these upskilled teachers would probably make claim to premium salaries. Again, IMHO, survey classes are taught because you can do so with semi-skilled high-school teachers, which is unfortunately the reality for the majority of American high-schools.

I'm not trying to lambaste you personally, so sorry for any perceived connotations thus. What you point out, is what I had a problem with from the beginning. It's not that this isn't a worthwhile discussion, but that nobody has thus far put forward a worthwhile point.
In response to your critique of Bruce Alberts article, I think he is looking at colleges and universities to provide the impetus for change. Appropriately so, for high schools take their cues from the expectations and requirement laid out in these types of courses. I don't think this would affect budgetary measures too much. If you look at the consequences as he has labelled them, it is worth the effort all budgetary considerations aside.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I tend to agree with Diderot on this one

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"