Religious tolerance

[heretic888]

Yeah prolly... But I still think you can believe in the being without the dog and pony show...

I mean, you can believe in Aliens without drinking the koolaid and packing your shoes with quarters right?

Hehe.

Uhhh.... right.

Anyway, my point is you would never believe in "the being" in the first place if it wasn't for the "dog and pony show". It was that "show" which filled your mind with the idea of "the being" to begin with.

I think the people that "still believe" are never those who have not undergone religious indoctrination of some kind, but have been introduced to religion at some point but, for whatever reasons, no longer identify with the institution behind it.

That, by the way, includes myself.

Laterz.

 

[DeLamar.J]

I think I need to comment here.

Okay, I'm gonna come right out and say this: science is the only way to "truth". . .

Now, that probably raised a few eyebrows, no doubt, so allow me to qualify my above statement. By "science", I don't actually mean positivism or any of the "hard" sciences in particular or materialism or some such nonsense. By "science", I mean the scientific method, which is a very broad principle of data accumulation and validation. It consists of three general strands:

1) Methodology or practice.

2) Data or information.

3) Communal confirmation or rejection.

If you don't fulfill these three strands, then not only is what you're doing not "science" but it's not even reliable information. If you don't have a methodology for "testing" your truth-claim and it isn't privy to communal/peer review, then we are in the realm of unfalsifiable dogmatic assertions. It may be true, of course, but nobody has any way of knowing so it might as well not be true, for all intents and purposes.

By the way, the world's religions have been using science for millenia. You might want to read up on some of the contemplative practices in the various faiths. They got the whole shebang --- methodology, data, peer review, cumulative improvement of understanding, and so on.

Science isn't just something you do in "the lab". It's a fundamental principle of discovering truth for the human mind. In fact, Piagetian research seems to indicate that humans are wired for "science".

Laterz.

I agree.

 

[qizmoduis]

Uhhh.... right.

Anyway, my point is you would never believe in "the being" in the first place if it wasn't for the "dog and pony show". It was that "show" which filled your mind with the idea of "the being" to begin with.

I think the people that "still believe" are never those who have not undergone religious indoctrination of some kind, but have been introduced to religion at some point but, for whatever reasons, no longer identify with the institution behind it.

That, by the way, includes myself.

Laterz.

It all starts with Santa Claus. It ends there too, for that matter. The difference is in the trappings (and the pomposity).

 

[Jenna]

I think I need to comment here.

Okay, I'm gonna come right out and say this: science is the only way to "truth". . .

Yes I think your NEED to comment gives you away H8 double 8

I read what you posted and yes your logic and argument is beyond reproof but one of the vagaries of science in its attempts to rebutt the truths of religion as I would see it arises from the actual similarity of science to the religion it despises... and I think despise is not too strong a term but where you are claiming absolute proof and yes FAITH in scientific principles I might say that these "proofs" are dependent upon metrics and laws "tested" and formulated yes but by mere MEN who err as humans in much the same way as you might need to argue that the bible is written not by God but by mere men and thus subject to contradiction

Can I possibly even argue that F does not really equal M*A which was Newton I think? Yes actually I CAN even appreciating that I might look a fool to do such a thing in the eyes of the blinded majority who BELIEVE unerringly in science as their only god. F=MA?? Pffft. I can argue that HUMAN scientific effort has given us arbitrary definitions of what is a force what is mass what constitutes gravity and where the nitty gritty of gravitational attractions are still an ongoing proof these things are subject to interpretation just as is the bible and you can argue over absolutes and beat folk over the head and attempt to indoctrinate them with the inescapable "truths" of scientific labours just exactly as they would have done to the heretics of old who claimed the earth was actually round in the face of overwhelming "evidence" and "proof" to say it was flat as a pancake but I will say I do not believe there are absolutes and science is flawed when chasing down religion under the flag of self-righteousness and yes plain scientific piety

And I know you will take this as objectively and IMpersonally as do all folk with science bias which is good because I use "you" third person as suggesting a representative of the science community I am not interested in slinging mud..... though I do not mind a food fight especially with chocolate muffins, ha! But I imagine mister heretic you have stopped reading at hearing such triviality which is your prerogative naturally though I cannot help but wonder if you believe it is possible to expand your mind in ONE direction and by ONE vehicle only.. I mean you are a very interesting character if for nothing else other than how dogmatically faithful you are in your BELIEFS and if I had any appreciation of irony I might be drawing attention to it but since I do not......

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[heretic888]

Yes I think your NEED to comment gives you away H8 double 8

While I know this comment was tongue-in-cheek, let's please try to avoid psychoanalyzing each other via a discussion board. There was enough of that nonsense over on the "Is the Bible 100% truth?" thread.

I read what you posted and yes your logic and argument is beyond reproof but one of the vagaries of science in its attempts to rebutt the truths of religion as I would see it arises from the actual similarity of science to the religion it despises...

Jenna, you're collapsing science and scientism. The former is a methodological process of discovering truth, the latter is a philosophical ideology (which has its roots in 18th century materialism).

As such, science proper does not "despise" religion. Science is a methodological means of testing truth-claims. If your truth-claims lack methodological grounding, then science will rebuke them, regardless of whether they're "religious" in content or not. In fact, since science is an impersonal experimental process, it really doesn't care about the nature of your claims one way or the other.

Also, as I said before, religion makes use of science quite nicely on its own. This imaginary dichotomy of the two that you are erecting is just that --- imaginary.

and I think despise is not too strong a term but where you are claiming absolute proof and yes FAITH in scientific principles I might say that these "proofs" are dependent upon metrics and laws "tested" and formulated yes but by mere MEN who err as humans in much the same way as you might need to argue that the bible is written not by God but by mere men and thus subject to contradiction

No offense, but this is a rather silly argument.

Science is openly self-correcting and privy to communal peer review. The notion that the claims of a given scientist are just taken on "faith" is ludicrous, as no theory is given weight among scientific communities unless it has been methodologically replicated. In fact, there is typically quite a lot of debate and discussion in science. Things are not just taken on "faith".

Simply saying that because humans designed them that they're intrinsically flawed and inaccurate makes about as much sense as to say that because a black person designed a social science experiment that it is intrinsically biased against non-blacks. In both cases, you are ignoring the actual arguments and methods while merely attacking the character of the persons in question. This is a non-argument.

I can argue that HUMAN scientific effort has given us arbitrary definitions of what is a force what is mass what constitutes gravity and where the nitty gritty of gravitational attractions are still an ongoing proof these things are subject to interpretation just as is the bible and you can argue over absolutes and beat folk over the head and attempt to indoctrinate them with the inescapable "truths" of scientific labours just exactly as they would have done to the heretics of old who claimed the earth was actually round in the face of overwhelming "evidence" and "proof" to say it was flat as a pancake but I will say I do not believe there are absolutes and science is flawed when chasing down religion under the flag of self-righteousness and yes plain scientific piety

With all due respect, Jenna, you clearly don't have any clue what you're talking about. For the umpteenth time, science does not deal in absolutes. Its truths are propositional and self-correcting.

And I know you will take this as objectively and IMpersonally as do all folk with science bias which is good because I use "you" third person as suggesting a representative of the science community I am not interested in slinging mud..... though I do not mind a food fight especially with chocolate muffins, ha!

Are you suggesting that you want this discussion to devolve into a name-calling contest??

But I imagine mister heretic you have stopped reading at hearing such triviality which is your prerogative naturally though I cannot help but wonder if you believe it is possible to expand your mind in ONE direction and by ONE vehicle only.. I mean you are a very interesting character if for nothing else other than how dogmatically faithful you are in your BELIEFS and if I had any appreciation of irony I might be drawing attention to it but since I do not......

Okay, Jenna, it's fairly obvious you didn't actually read the post I made where I explained what "science" is and is not (as represented by your numerous Straw Man arguments), so allow me to reiterate. . .

Science is not just done in the laboratory!!!

As I said before, science is a methodological process that involves communal peer review. Biology is a science, history is a science, psychology is a science, logic is a science, and (yes) meditation/contemplation is a science. They all involve this process.

This isn't some special ideology that only secular types have, nor is it the secret knowledge of the academic elite. This is the fundamental, essential way of discovering and validating truth in the world. Any truth-claims that fall outside this process are in the category of the absurd.

The "truths" you are defending are dogmatic assertions. They cannot be falsified (that is, disproven) and, as such, are outside the purview of logic and science. Because we have no way of testing or validating them, they remain nothing more than "because I said so!" arguments. This is nonsensical.

Of course, all of this is really beside the point because, as I said before, the "religion" you are defending is actually a pale, anemic caricature of religion. Religion makes use of science in its theological arguments (i.e., logic), its historical research (i.e., archeology), its charity work (i.e., medicine), and its spiritual exploration (i.e., contemplation). What you are portraying is the anti-intellectual idiocy that gets passed off for "religion" so often in the United States.

Read up on some religious scholars and writers, Jenna. They take it for granted that subjects like theology or contemplation are sciences. There is no dichotomy between the science and religion.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Which, honestly, should scare the bejeezus out of any self-respecting scientist. . .

Ain't that the truth

 

[Jenna]

No offense, but this is a rather silly argument.

With all due respect, Jenna, you clearly don't have any clue what you're talking about. For the umpteenth time, science does not deal in absolutes. Its truths are propositional and self-correcting.

Are you suggesting that you want this discussion to devolve into a name-calling contest??

Okay, Jenna, it's fairly obvious you didn't actually read the post I made where I explained what "science" is and is not (as represented by your numerous Straw Man arguments), so allow me to reiterate. . .

Read up on some religious scholars and writers, Jenna. They take it for granted that subjects like theology or contemplation are sciences. There is no dichotomy between the science and religion.

Laterz.

Wow! ya know H8 double 8... précised down as I have done for you this here is a spectacular post you put together which manages to be simultaneously thoughtful and enlightening and so very well done indeed

Well... I do not know what came over me here it must have been all this nasty noisy music I got blastin here at this unholy hour of the morning but well the words I mean they all just bled off my fingers and formed into some awful rude pontificating arrogant and pompous rebuttal rich in conceit and cleverly sheathed contempt but wow! I am happy to say I wiped it because to post such a thing would surely be to reveal not only my hyperbolised ego but my undoubted pretentiousness and plain dearth of any grace or social savoire faire or obvious tact but this is ok no harm done and thank Christ I did not post it after all because what a monkey people would think I was if I had of, ha!

Well I gotta go turn my music down a little before the neighbours complain or actually ha! I will admit that there is maybe a part of me that is blindly self-centred enough to think there is a chance these damned neighbours are round there ENJOYING a little of my mind-expanding 3am NIN or... maybe the truth is I AM a little deluded but perhaps if I TURN IT UP play it LOUDER they will begin to appreciate it somewhat more I mean it is pretty damn cool music and who could disagree... ahh h3ll: neighbours... nothing but trouble I tell ya.. I am packing to go start a new existence on a mountaintop

Be good now,
Jenna

 

[DeLamar.J]

Watch this video about the 10 commandments!


<embed allowScriptAccess="never" style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" align="middle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DwAAAAG7ggqAHSiJjpW0D3w4aYTXoUjebaSbB5EpBiEGkUfI3ydxuPgJV6tLsIfOuqd3Gz0wlLcca64kn2cpiN6pmKk8pX0ssrPD3skr0jcqePRpSWyk2jg11q6hxkZ1h0jDtvBincg1h9gfptJ6W5gDMRq4URaxW7rizumysrX1oJ_JoAskCUKmffIbX6Ag2lhmy42_p9wiSo3KlPa9a4urR-EEKvyGR-kF5Z44KRN4fO7FIdhW-rLfq7t2m9EVasPenhazA9tHMUSXvm6ykUEAaQyM%26sigh%3DxLCXXS1HbFuXmyn6aLISaOur6Ts%26begin%3D0%26len%3D399366%26docid%3D5519239193881956619&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer%3Fapp%3Dvss%26contentid%3Db770999aca89f91c%26second%3D5%26itag%3Dw320%26urlcreated%3D1147466752%26sigh%3D8safOECNtKy8JcNb237qWYOEJ-E&playerId=5519239193881956619" allowScriptAccess="never" quality="best" bgcolor="..ffffff" scale="noScale" wmode="window" salign="TL" FlashVars="playerMode=embedded"> </embed>

 

[DeLamar.J]

ttt

 

[heretic888]

Wow! ya know H8 double 8... précised down as I have done for you this here is a spectacular post you put together which manages to be simultaneously thoughtful and enlightening and so very well done indeed

My apologies for the tone of my previous post. I admit it was somewhat overtly critical and snappish.

Of course, all of my arguments still remain. Science and religion are not what most people on this thread are making them out to be.

Laterz.

 

[hongkongfooey]

As of late, science has been validating religion...

But that aside, we should be careful not to make science our religion...

I work with a guy who said this same thing. He also claims that dinosaurs never exisited, and the bones being discovered were planted by the devil to try and sway true believers. Thinks that space exploration is a bunch of crap, because the earth is only a few thousand years old. He believes that there was no other species of man before sapians.

These things can be proved. They are supported by science. We have bones and artifacts. What do Christians have besides faith?

 

[Xue Sheng]

We have bones and artifacts. What do Christians have besides faith?

bones and artifacts

 

[DeLamar.J]

No replys on my ten commandment post? Did no one listen to it?