For all the ex-religious.

[lord_raken]

That is called philosophy, my dear raken.

Philosophy and religion are pretty closely related. They deal with the same issues of ethics and purpose, and often come to similar conclusions. In fact, part of the reason why Christianity became so powerful is that through Paul the doctrines of Christianity were expressed though Hellenistic rhetoric and logic.

How is religion even qualified to do such a thing.

What a fucking idiot you must be if you think anybody needs God or religion to explain a concept like love. In fact, love can be explained by science. We've had a pretty good understanding of hormones and the social framework for mate selection.

You always sound SOOOOO reasonable when you start insulting people. Lighten up, you're making yourself look bad.

I think you should reread my post.

@Tyguy: I think you don't understand just how pervasive religion is. Many mental hospitals are run by religious organizations, and believing in a god is not a mental illness.

 

[Eejit]

Science uncovers the mechanics of our universe in all its complexity. Religion explores the 'why' of our existence and seeks answers science cannot provide

Religion doesn't explore 'why' or 'seek answers', it invents answers based on superstition and make-believe.

 

[Sparta]

And how would you know that? By your own argument we cannot know one way or the other.

The premise of God is that he/she/it transcends the laws of our natural world. Therefore it follows that if God exists, then none of our methods of observation or science (which are entirely dependent on the laws of our natural world) are capable of observing God much less make sense of God.

So you say there is no empirical proof. I'll agree with you there, but, because of the very idea of God, the inability of empirical science to confirm or deny the existence of God is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

I totally agree with you about proving/disproving whether or not God exists because of the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" doohickey. But my problem with the whole "God's transcendent" argument is that the whole premise of "God is transcendent"is something that's been created and defined by Man through philosophy and theology.

Where as with science we can use empirical evidence to prove or disprove ideas or theories.

What bugs me is that you're willing believe what people have simply thought up about a theoretical supreme being. An idea that's possible for people to attempt to use as an impenetrable means of denying any and all empirical evidence, forever. It's the last defending paradox of the existence of a higher being. And this idea will allow others to believe in something made up (God's transcendence) instead of any tangible scientific evidence that proves otherwise, if there ever is any defining evidence.

But if you're referring to how I know that the definition of God being transcendent is a made up theory, there are hundreds of books and websites out there that could point towards the right direction in regards to theology, and where the notion of "God is transcendent" first originated from. I can't point out where specifically because I'm not a biblical or religious scholar but I can guarantee to you that the notion was thought up by Man and was not knowledge passed down from on high.

 

[RidleyRockets]

You don't seem to have grasped the difference between the scientific and religious paradigms.

You cannot apply scientific empiricism to what is, and always has been, a metaphysical ideology that exists as a construct of philosophical reasoning.

Of course you can't investigate something you conveniently define as being undetectable.

Science uncovers the mechanics of our universe in all its complexity. Religion explores the 'why' of our existence and seeks answers science cannot provide.

Religion doesn't explain anything. Saying "it's magic" is a none answer.

Science cannot explain love. It can explain the reactions and activity in out brain associated with love but it can't explain beauty of love. Religion explains the beauty of love and why we are here. Science can't answer that.

Again, saying we are here because it is the will of a magic man isn't an answer.

Are you claiming that love is supernatural and something that is a result of things other than the chemistry of our brains?

This is all just drivel.

 

[Stigmata]

Science uncovers the mechanics of our universe in all its complexity. Religion explores the 'why' of our existence and seeks answers science cannot provide. Science cannot explain love. It can explain the reactions and activity in out brain associated with love but it can't explain beauty of love. Religion explains the beauty of love and why we are here. Science can't answer that.

Religion doesn't explain shit, pardon my French. It's a bunch of stories that have only a tangential, metaphorical relevance to life, society, and morality. Science can at least make educated guesses as to the function and mechanics of love; we know it's largely controlled by hormones and various patterns of thought. Religion's "answer" to the question of love is "Love is beauty, because life is beautiful, because God made it! Yay!" It's a nothing response. It contains no information, no perspectives, and if anything, only serves to raise further questions.

 

[Mogi67]

Science can at least make educated guesses as to the function and mechanics of love; we know it's largely controlled by hormones and various patterns of thought. Religion's "answer" to the question of love is "Love is beauty, because life is beautiful, because God made it! Yay!" It's a nothing response. It contains no information, no perspectives, and if anything, only serves to raise further questions.

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

 

[The Monkey]

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

Ever heard of philosophy? I believe that it, not religion or biology, should be used to reflect and gain insight about love.

 

[CptStern]

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

you'd rather it was explained away with some mystic mumbo jumbo that has no basis in reality? that's somehow "enlightening"?

 

[Stigmata]

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

I know, it would be great to have some actual insight into consciousness.

 

[Mogi67]

Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.

 

[Tyguy]

Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.

What problems? If all scientific questions are answered we'd have our answer as to how life started. (Which we have narrowed down substantially and have evidence supporting it)

This is the problem with people like Mogi. They want quaint subjective proverbs to describe the world around them.

 

[Eejit]

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

You're right, fairy tales are far more meaningful.

 

[Viperidae]

You're right, fairy tales are far more meaningful.

Are you denying that stories are useful?

 

[Stigmata]

Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.

That is a false problem. "All possible scientific questions"? You're one of the journalists in the early 20th century who was informed of the invention of the airplane, and said, "Well that's it, we're done, there's nothing left to invent!" In fifty years, we will be asking questions we can't even conceive of right now, just like how nobody was asking, "How do the colour charges of quarks dictate particle interaction?" in 1960.

Give it time, don't just attribute unexplainable phenomena to magic and call it a day.

 

[CptStern]

Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.

yes people who have found god are devoid of life's little problems.

the path top enlightenment is obviously through religion

 

[RidleyRockets]

The reduction of all human relation to biological mechanisms via neuroscience - sounds enlightening.

Care to challenge it?

 

[Eejit]

Are you denying that stories are useful?

Holy putting words in my mouth, Batman.

Fairy tales are less useful than scientific knowledge.

 

[Sheepo]

Haha. Understanding life and the universe through scientific means will make life devoid of meaning. Ha hahaha.

 

[Viperidae]

So once the utopia is established...?

Science is specifically amoral. That is a problem.

Also, confusing science with technology... gg.

 

[Eejit]

What the biggins are you talking about? Where did in my post or the ones I was responding to did anyone mention a utopia or technology?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Hey guys, let's all pretend there are no mechanics behind any of our feelings or needs and just pretend it's magic and has some kind of deeper philosophical meaning!

That will make life so much better!

 

[Eejit]

No but don't you see that's exactly what Skynet wants! :dozey:

 

[Viperidae]

Sorry, taking too many steps ahead.

The argument I keep seeing thrown around is thus: science brings us better technology. To what end? Improving our lives! Yeah! We're headed to a utopia.

The common example is agriculture: without modern science, we wouldn't be able to sustain our food supply. Alright.

Except: technology for agriculture existed before institutionalised science. Technology in general can exist fine without science (unless you call trial and error a science).

So once we hit a science-driven utopia, where we understand the universe, the origin of life, the universe and everything, then what? Go back to playing flash games on our cell phones. But wait, we still haven't solved the problem of politics. And material ownership. And nations, and all that jazz. To presume that momentous advances in understanding and technology somehow alleviates all human moral problems is stupid.

 

[Sheepo]

Hmm, I thought this thread was about religion.

 

[Viperidae]

It seems to me to be more of a bashing of an old power structure by those that promote a new one.

 

[Eejit]

Sounds like you're off on a tangent from the rest of us there Viper, I don't believe any of us were heading in that direction.

 

[Viperidae]

"this is a banana"

vs

"you're all a bunch of deluded crazies"

I'd take the frothing at the mouth atheist any day

That's great, and now you can tell me how that makes you any less of a loon.

How is religion even qualified to do such a thing.

What a fucking idiot you must be if you think anybody needs God or religion to explain a concept like love.

Religion doesn't explain shit, pardon my French. It's a bunch of stories that have only a tangential, metaphorical relevance to life, society, and morality. Science can at least make educated guesses as to the function and mechanics of love; we know it's largely controlled by hormones and various patterns of thought. Religion's "answer" to the question of love is "Love is beauty, because life is beautiful, because God made it! Yay!" It's a nothing response. It contains no information, no perspectives, and if anything, only serves to raise further questions.

you'd rather it was explained away with some mystic mumbo jumbo that has no basis in reality? that's somehow "enlightening"?

The bashing, where is it?

It of course goes without challenge or justification, because in our modern view, science's necessity is treated a priori and assumed without historical context.

Experiment: Science is bullshit; a power structure created as a byproduct of the industrial revolution to wrest wealth and control out of aristocracies into the hands of the self-righteous educated elitists and entrepreneurs.

Let's see what kind of response that generates, hmm? Remember, I'm not bashing!

 

[Mogi67]

Sounds like you're off on a tangent from the rest of us there Viper, I don't believe any of us were heading in that direction.

Not so. Viper is quite on track. Science is irrelevant to the resolution of philosophical problems. Neuroscience can potentially explain the mechanics of all mental states, but there are still questions to be had.

btw viper, are you a Foucault fan?

 

[Viperidae]

Never read him tbh.

 

[Polaris]

Experiment: Science is bullshit; a power structure created as a byproduct of the industrial revolution to wrest wealth and control out of aristocracies into the hands of the self-righteous educated elitists and entrepreneurs.

Let's see what kind of response that generates, hmm? Remember, I'm not bashing!

Yes, that's exactly why the Royal Society was founded ... seriously, do you know anything about history of science?

 

[Viperidae]

Fell right into that one, mate.

 

[Sheepo]

So the application of the products of science = science? Science is evil!

Also, they're not bashing, they're stating their arguments in less than friendly ways.

 

[Solaris]

Fell right into that one, mate.

Luck, either **** off or stop making these silly one line replies and saying meaningless nonsense.

I remember when we used to have theists on here who would actually put forward their nonsense ideas in an intelligible manner, then, over the years they were grinded down and converted to atheism through countless threads.

Now we're just left with you, a person vague and saying so little, I really don't understand what your position is.

Fell right into what? Who did? Mate with who?

 

[Tyguy]

Except: technology for agriculture existed before institutionalised science.

How would you define institutionalized science?

Technology in general can exist fine without science (unless you call trial and error a science).

I read this about 15 times until I decided I didn't want my head to explode. You're essentially saying the science which allowed said technology to exist is irrelevant. That's like me taking an elevator up 30 stories and thinking to myself "that was pointless..."

So once we hit a science-driven utopia, where we understand the universe, the origin of life, the universe and everything, then what?

If we can get to the point where every question can be answered then I'm sure we can figure out how to occupy our pointless, science driven existence.

But wait, we still haven't solved the problem of politics.

IMO the same concepts of logic and reason are used in both politics AND faith...the two compliment themselves. In fact, we have laws that separate the two because of this!

And material ownership.

You can't have my baseball card collection...I keep it with my pogs and slammers.

To presume that momentous advances in understanding and technology somehow alleviates all human moral problems is stupid.

None of us are making that claim. But you can't suggest that morality has supernatural roots because science.com hasn't come up with an agreed upon definition of love.

 

[lord_raken]

Very good point Viper.

Science won't solve our moral dilemmas or tell how how best to treat our fellow man. Historically, morality and ethics have solidly been the territory of philosophy and religion. Not that religion and philosophy have always been right, mind you.

 

[Sheepo]

And you'd like to continue that, I suppose?

 

[Tyguy]

Science won't solve our moral dilemmas or tell how how best to treat our fellow man.

Neither will religion seeing as people murder one another every single day because of it. But let's ignore that and pretend that morality isn't some dynamic, invented concept because it's convenient.

 

[Stigmata]

Science is bullshit; a power structure created as a byproduct of the industrial revolution to wrest wealth and control out of aristocracies into the hands of the self-righteous educated elitists and entrepreneurs.

Science is not a power structure, it is a philosophy of investigation and synthesis.

 

[Viperidae]

L[oo]k, either **** off or stop making these silly one line replies and saying meaningless nonsense.

Fell right into what? Who did? Mate with who?

I quote several people making simplistic, derogatory statements about religious followers, the philosophy of religion, and the usefulness of said philosophy, which go completely unchecked or challenged.

I then make an equally fallacious, over simplified, sarcastic statement demonstrating a lack of understanding about science's history, and put a disclaimer of 'experiment' on it, to see whether someone would have a kneejerk reaction to it.

And they did.

How would you define institutionalized science?

Any time science isn't used in context of human profit or power.

I read this about 15 times until I decided I didn't want my head to explode. You're essentially saying the science which allowed said technology to exist is irrelevant. That's like me taking an elevator up 30 stories and thinking to myself "that was pointless..."

No, I'm saying that within reasonable limits, technology can exist without science. I never said technology doesn't give technology a huge leg up.

The plow existed before the tractor. The horse existed before the car. Many proponents of science pretend that it is technology. You know, the kind that post pictures of cell phones in these kinds of threads and say LOOK HOW SCIENCE HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES. To which I reply: fire. Horses. Boats. Changed our species quite a bit, didn't they. Didn't need much science.

If we can get to the point where every question can be answered then I'm sure we can figure out how to occupy our pointless, science driven existence.

So, figure out how life existed before we figure out a way to solve poverty. I think you're lacking a steersman on your ship to wishful thinking.

IMO the same concepts of logic and reason are used in both politics AND faith...the two compliment themselves. In fact, we have laws that separate the two because of this!

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

You can't have my baseball card collection...I keep it with my pogs and slammers.

Whoa there nelly, way to completely sidestep one of the biggest issues in human social interaction! No, possession isn't at all a huge problem. That's why communism, capitalism, nationalism, wars, territory, money, poverty, and class all that have to do with... not who gets to claim ownership over things?

None of us are making that claim. But you can't suggest that morality has supernatural roots because science.com hasn't come up with an agreed upon definition of love.

>assuming I think it has supernatural roots

**** me, I'm quote warring.

 

[Sheepo]

I didn't find any of your quoted 'simplistic, derogatory statements about religious followers, the philosophy of religion, and the usefulness of said philosophy' to be fallacious or untrue. A little bit rude, yes.