Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[bushidomartialarts]

cryo, that's a hilarious story.

but still, with creationism vs. evolution

evolution is supported by physical evidence, observable phenomena and experiment.

creationism is supported by a poem. for that matter, a poem that's been translated/interpreted four or five times depending on your version. further, it's a poem that's been politically compromised for at least a thousand years.

personally, i figure in a hundred years they'll find most of our scientific 'truths' quaint. but 'the bible tells me so' is not sufficient evidence to support a theory.

 

[Ray]

And his group was religious and he thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. So as an example I'd say this goes against religion being used as the basis for morality...

No, this is a counter-example to your claim that humans create morality to be able to live in a group. Your claim is that all groups live together and create morality. Therefore, the manson family, as a counter example suffices to demonstrate that you are incorrect.

(example: If I have a fine mathematical/scientific model (say, the pythagorum theorum) and find a single right-triangle that does not conform to this then: that one single counter example proves the model is incorrect).

 

[Jade Tigress]

No... you are wrong... when I wont think its silly is when scientists can take an empty vaccum, make it explode, use what is formed in the explosion to make life out of nothing THEN turn it into a billion or so complex lifeforms.

Right.

If you took a watch completely apart and put it in a shoebox and shook that shoebox perhaps for billions of years, perhaps forever, what are the odds all the pieces would eventually fall into perfect place and the watch keep perfect time?

Or how about this...

Look at everything that surrounds you, your home, your lawn, your car, your body. The natural order of things is to fall into disorder without maintainence. You must maintain your home, if you don't it will eventually fall into disarray. You must maintain your car to keep it running. You must cut your lawn or it will be overcome with growth and weeds. How much time do we spend every weekend taking care of our properties? If you don't take care of your body you will most likely suffer an early death. We have street sweepers and house cleaners. Forest rangers and enviromentalists.

Basically, if we don't maintain what we have it becomes disordered. So, if the natural order of things is disorder, how does something as complex as our world, our universe, fall into order?

 

[Jade Tigress]

evolution is supported by physical evidence, observable phenomena and experiment.

Well, that's not exactly true. There is micro evolution and macro evolution. There is no physical evidence of macro evolution.

 

[Andrew Green]

No, this is a counter-example to your claim that humans create morality to be able to live in a group. Your claim is that all groups live together and create morality. Therefore, the manson family, as a counter example suffices to demonstrate that you are incorrect.

There was a sense of morallity within that group, just not one we agree with. But without it there would have been no group.

It also fits just fine into evolutionary like theory. Random mutations, the beneficial ones survive, the non-beneficial ones don't. Belonging to a smaller group, like the family, that is not able to exist peacefully with the larger group is not a beneficial deviation, and it didn't survive.

It just happens that the basis of the family's sense of morallity was based on / justified by religion.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

there is significantly more evidence supporting macro evolution than creationism.

but you're right, the evidence of macro evolution is supportive, not conclusive. evolution is just the best theory folks have come up with so far to interpret the evidence.

but again, Genesis was a poem. literature, however compelling, is neither supportive nor conclusive evidence of a theory. see also don quixote.

faith is wonderful. my faith supports me daily and pushes me to be a better person and to improve my world. my faith does not push me to dig my heels in and deny the opinions of professionals.

 

[Jade Tigress]

faith is wonderful. my faith supports me daily and pushes me to be a better person and to improve my world. my faith does not push me to dig my heels in and deny the opinions of professionals.

Good point. And since there are professionals on both sides of the coin we come down to the basic question of Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

Do you think we should change the word criticise to examine? Criticism seems to imply that we have already made our minds up that something is bad while examining beliefs is something a reasonable questioning person would do? It may be semantics but criticism has a tendancy to put peoples backs up immediately.

I agree with this. I think we have the right to examine belief's and form our own opinion based on our findings. How we feel personally about a religion should not give us the right to criticize how another person feels about the same religion. We can and should be able to exchange ideas and debate ideas but going into "critical mode" because we disagree is pointless. People don't convert to anothers opinion because they were criticized. If someone converts at all it is after investigating and forming a new opinion based upon gathered information.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Hey, Jade, thanks for getting us back on track.

Religious beliefs should by no means be immune from criticism, nor any kind of belief.

If your beliefs can't stand under criticism, it's time to re-examine your beliefs.

If your belief is strong, well reasoned and empowering, then criticism won't bother you.

 

[Ray]

There was a sense of morallity within that group, just not one we agree with. But without it there would have been no group.

It also fits just fine into evolutionary like theory. Random mutations, the beneficial ones survive, the non-beneficial ones don't. Belonging to a smaller group, like the family, that is not able to exist peacefully with the larger group is not a beneficial deviation, and it didn't survive.

It just happens that the basis of the family's sense of morallity was based on / justified by religion.

Contriving all things to fit into your particular referential frame rather than thinking beyond what we assume (or are taught) to be true must also be a trait that evolution brought about. And using your reasoning: some work and some don't.

 

[jetboatdeath]

bushidomartialarts;681271]there is significantly more evidence supporting macro evolution than creationism.

supportive[/I], not conclusive. evolution is just the best theory folks have come up with so far to interpret the evidence.

See that is the problem with science. We are supposed to take best guesses as truth?
Maybe that’s been my problem I have been wasting to much time waiting for facts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Taking what we already have and making a protein chain? please.

It's a tad more complex then that and this book is only the tip of abiogenesis iceberg. I predict that in my lifetime scientists will create a living organism from inorganic material.

 

[Makalakumu]

Right.

If you took a watch completely apart and put it in a shoebox and shook that shoebox perhaps for billions of years, perhaps forever, what are the odds all the pieces would eventually fall into perfect place and the watch keep perfect time?

The key to understanding this is that early cells were not like cells that we know. They were far more simple and they performed far fewer functions. From there, they evolved into what we see today.

Basically, if we don't maintain what we have it becomes disordered. So, if the natural order of things is disorder, how does something as complex as our world, our universe, fall into order?

Who says that life is ordered? The Earth is not a closed system and there are feedback loops that use energy in this universe that are far more complex that we even understand. These highly ordered patterns bleed over into earth systems.

The end result of all this is that life uses energy and disperses it even further. Life is a vehicle for entropy.



All of this research is going to challenge a lot of religious beliefs held by alot of people. Is this knowledge itself criticism of their beliefs?

 

[Andrew Green]

See that is the problem with science. We are supposed to take best guesses as truth?
Maybe that’s been my problem I have been wasting to much time waiting for facts.

No, that is its strength. It does not define things as "absolute" as religion does. Of course it is only each persons "best guess" as too which religion is correct.

Science makes observations, creates theories to explain those observations, and tests predictions based on those theories.

A "theory" is a guess that has stood up to critisizm, had others try to prove it wrong, and made verifiable predictions about what would happen in certain situations.

Religion is based on ancient traditions with no "hard evidence"

 

[Jade Tigress]

If your beliefs can't stand under criticism, it's time to re-examine your beliefs.

If your belief is strong, well reasoned and empowering, then criticism won't bother you.

These are excellent points, I think we're getting caught up on semantics.

 

[Jade Tigress]

Who says that life is ordered?

It's a fact. Anything if not maintained falls into disorder. Do you think we have to maintain such simple things as our lawns and homes yet something as complex as our universe needs nothing to bring it to order?

Is this knowledge itself criticism of their beliefs?

No, I don't think so. Not anymore than acknowledging the opposite would be critical of those beliefs. Again, it's semantics. An examination of evidence does not equate criticism of a belief.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

These are excellent points, I think we're getting caught up on semantics.

isnt religion all about semantics?
(2. study of symbols: the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent

3. study of logic: the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic)

 

[Jade Tigress]

isnt religion all about semantics?
(2. study of symbols: the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent

3. study of logic: the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic)

se·man·tics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form

I was referring to the words criticize and examine. We are again getting off-topic.

 

[shesulsa]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

The topic is religious beliefs, not the study of symbols or the fallacy of logic. Keep to topic or take the sidebars to another thread.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Assistant Administrator

 

[MBuzzy]

One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken. Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten. Look at all of the scientific truths that have been believed as fact, disproved and completely dismissed. Science has a way of evolved based on criticism and testing.

But when you criticise or examine a religion, it is much less likely to change to adapt. It is all based on the assmuption that the words in the bible are all truth. How much has religion evolved, adapted and changed in the past 50 years? Or 100 years....or 1000 years for that matter?

The point here is that it is MUCH easier to change someone's mind about science. Beliefs and ideas....not so simple. So when we do criticise religion, science, whatever....the most important thing is not whether we have the right to make the criticism, but if the person whose beliefs are being criticised has an open mind enough to listen and understand what is being said. I find that when you do criticise, the fault is more often in the receiving person jumping to the defensive and not listening to a word that is said. Of course, that depends a GREAT DEAL on how the criticism is given in the first place, there is constructive and destructive.....one can get results, the other just makes enemies.

 

[Kacey]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Constructive criticism can be use to compare and contrast, to find similarities and differences, and I have no problem with constructive criticism being applied to religion. Only by learning how similar other religions are to one's own can one learn to coexist peacefully. Constructive criticism, and its relative discussion (as opposed to diatribe) as key to understanding those whose beliefs differ from your own on any issue - religion often being a very misunderstood and emotionally charged issue that many people have difficulty discussing rationally - but I have no problem with constructive criticism of the nature I have described.

Destructive criticism, however, is based on telling another person why, in your opinion, their choices/actions/beliefs/etc. are wrong. I dislike destructive criticism in any setting, and find it to be even less acceptable in such emotionally laden topics as religion. Like mothers who see their child as always being the cutest, smartest, generally best child on the planet, or artists who see their own art as the best, most innovative, most appealing example of the genre, many people see their own religion as the best one of the many available. Given that religion is based largely on faith, the belief in unproveable tenets, destructive criticism is pointless; it often devolves into a meaningless argument based on "I'm right because my religion says..." sent back and forth between participants in an increasingly heated fashion. In addition, many people base a great deal of their self-concept on their beliefs, and deriding those beliefs derides the person as well. I see no purpose in such negative methods.