Religion
Related: About this forumKick if you agree with this assessment about the connection between religion and science.
“Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts, religion deals with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from singing into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzingly obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”
from Martin Luther King, Jr.
Was going to post this in GD to see if it would get locked, which would confirm a suspicion of mine, but decided not to. Since some seem not to be aware what I'm talking about - this post in GD should clear it up. Still it's a good quote so why not share it.
Bryant
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I wouldn't pay much attention to him.
msongs
(67,420 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)in Fairy Tales.
Religion is just a fictional way to explain reality when facts are either too difficult, scary or boring for some people to accept. Religion requires the suspension of facts proof. It is the opposite of science. However, it is useless to discuss it with someone who "believes".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and a pretty ugly one to boot.
Could you be more judgmental?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Faith is the opposite of proof. Isn't that the point? It is just a fact. Arguing with someone who has "faith" is useless because all of the scientific proof in the world will not shake their faith in their unsubstantiated beliefs.
That is what religion is all about, faith, and, as far as I know, they seem proud of it. I'm sorry if you think that is ugly. I am not judging. Just stating the facts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Never has and never well. So if that's the test you set up for gauging it's worth, you are certainly going to reach the conclusions that you have.
But, again, that's just your opinion.
There is a long history of scientific thought having changed what people believe, but one would not expect it to change their faith or general belief in god.
Why? Because no one has ever presented any scientific evidence that their god does not exist.
When you use words like mythology and unsubstantiated only speaks to your own biases. Nothing else.
You are indeed judging. You have no scientific evidence to back up what you believe to be true about believers or belief.
It's just your opinion, not fact.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)So religion has the same value as any other myth.
However, religions - at least all the main religions - are patriarchal, misogynistic, racist endeavors, which means that any "moral" message they provide is by definition based upon an immoral position.
BTW - I'm one of those people for whom scientific evidence changed their having a belief in god, any god. Who needs god and the false promise of some eternal Disneyland...besides maybe children? So don't go about claiming that learning about science doesn't change people's religious beliefs. In my case, science in a sense freed me from the shackles of religious belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)for a whole other group of people, it is not myth base at all.
If you cherry pick the patriarchal, misogynistic and racist parts of the bible, you are sure to miss the other messages, many of which are completely different. Is there a difference in cherry picking the bad messages to make a point or cherry picking the good message to make a point?
You are one of those people who came to place where you do not believe in or need god. That's cool. But why do you need to denigrate or belittle those that have come to a different place?
I have never said that learning about science doesn't change people's religious beliefs. In your case, it clearly has. And for others it has reinforced their religious beliefs.
It's a wonderful world we live in where everyone sees and experiences things differently. Well, it's wonderful as long as we don't impose the way we see it as the "right" or "only" way.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Despite your ridiculous claims to the contrary. Some people "see" homosexuality as an abomination, and sincerely "believe" that same-sex marriage should be illegal. According to you, they're every bit as "right" as those who think that homosexuality is not "abnormal", "deviant" or any of the other hateful words applied to it, and who think that same-sex couples should have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.
That's a pretty disgusting worldview you have, cbayer. Are you really so hidebound to your agenda that you just la-de-da your way around such odious views, because you refuse to simply admit that something things are right, and some are wrong? Why in the world would someone who claims to be a progressive not think we should "impose" equality on our society?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)I am saying that seeing things through the prism of religion is the wrong way. Luckily, there are many ways of thinking in this world that don't involve religion or religion-like blindness to use as a life guide.
Yes, many people believe the stories of talking snakes and donkeys, of thousands of people coming back from the dead an wandering the streets of Jerusalem as zombies, etc, etc. Many people also believe in Santa Claus, and in animals having the ability to speak - that's the stuff of children's books, which in many senses, the Bible is (at least if one concentrates on the "Jesus loves you" aspect of the Bible, which seems to be the extent of familiarity many people have with what is actually written in that damnable book).
Religious belief amounts to nothing more than pure conceit in its purest form. There are no other examples of human endeavor that continue to exist and hold sway when proved to be mythical. But it's worse with religion, because the disproof often serves to make the conceit even stronger among the true believers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you, by default, saying that the way you do it is "right".
Of course there are many ways of thinking and most people, believers or not, use multiple mechanisms.
This need to denigrate and dismiss others because they use religion as one of the way of thinking says much more about the sender than the receiver, imo.
But you've got the rhetoric down and I suspect the depth of your quicksand makes any discussion about this with you pretty futile.
The guy in your avatar was a religious man, by the way. Would you apply all the perjorative ugliness in your post to him?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Is it wrong to believe Anubis exists, or Zeus? No. I defend your right to believe in such gods. Because Americans are entitled to their beliefs.
But belief in Anubis et al are based in religion. Without a religious basis, no one would believe in gods. Should we allow that Anubis and Zeus possibly do exist? If so, do we base our real-world decisions and perspectives on a belief that they may exist? Or, do we simply say that religion is wrong to encourage such beliefs?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You say "without a religious basis, no one would believe in gods". My way of looking at this is 180 degrees different - without belief in god(s) there would be no religion.
Should individuals base their real world decisions and perspectives on a belief in god(s)? As long as those don't infringe on the rights of others, I don't see why not.
Should governments do the same? I would object to that.
So, based on my perspective, the statement about religion encouraging beliefs doesn't make sense.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)people are wrong. George Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Bill Clinton was wrong to sign the DOMA. If we go by what they said and believed, they did so because of their religious beliefs. Yet they were both WRONG.
So if you're quite done trying to shame and bully someone into silence with your abusive language rather than address what they're saying, perhaps we can acknowledge that yes, it is indeed possible to say that someone else is wrong.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)it is useless to argue science with a person who's point of view is based in faith (or mythology, or fairy tales or mumbo jumbo) or whatever you want to call it. If someone believes god made the world 6000 years ago then your scientific facts are USELESS. Why bother? If they agree with you they have lost their faith.
It's nice that you are so worried about the religious being judged. Most of them despise and belittle each others belief. They have been slaughtering each other over it since the dawn of recorded history. Poll you average Christian on Muslims. Ask your Catholic neighbor what he thinks of the "primitive" beliefs of various nature based religions or folks who practice Wicca.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Are you talking about creationists? Would you be ok with "arguing science" with a religious scientist?
So, you position is that anyone who embraces science can not also embrace religion? That's total hogwash.
Why the need to belittle people's religious beliefs? What purpose does it serve for you personally?
If you poll your average DU christian on Muslims or ask your catholic DU'ers about nature based religions, what kinds of answers do you suppose you would get?
The problem I have with you position is that you have taken a subset of religious people and applied what you think about them to all religious people. Since you likely have much more in common with religious DUers than you have differences, why would you want to insult or offend them?
What purpose does that serve?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I grew up surrounded...immersed ....brainwashed by the religies and their cult
So ...so happy I escaped to the beauty of reality and science
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)as simple as that. 
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)In other words, if you don't agree, don't participate in this thread? Nice. Perhaps you should have posted it in the Interfaith group then.
rug
(82,333 posts)Rebut it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Several religions tell us not to use it.
Fuck that noise. I don't need one scrap of supernatural bullshit to correctly interpret the world around me.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Science, or certain disciplines of science offer us morality sources as well.
Religion may claim to offer some, but all I have examined are highly dubious at that, and certainly have no monopoly on the subject.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I agree that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, but science??
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And there are different disciplines for each branch thereof, from Chemistry to Economics.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Social sciences are an entirely different kettle of fish, and religion is often included in that group as well.
So you might want to be careful about where you draw the line with "science".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)But as I pointed out, social sciences often include religion and philosophy.
Neither really have a scientific basis, but both can be studied from a scientific perspective.
So you can't use one to bolster your argument, while completely dismissing the other.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A source of morality. Not a means of observing an external source of morality.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)include a deity.
Both provide sources of morality.
But neither does it scientifically (i.e. using controlled trials, for example). It's generally conjecture and hypothesis.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't need "many", just a couple.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)It does not fall under any definition of philosophy. While one can develop some philosophical theories around the issue of obedience, this study did not look at those at all.
Now if you looked at the religion of the subjects or in some way "measured" their philosophy (don't really know how you might do that), you could add that in as a variable.
But they didn't do that.
rug
(82,333 posts)One of many.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Pretending that morality and religion together, and reason and science together are non-overlapping magesteria?
I found that quote highly obnoxious.
rug
(82,333 posts)It comes from Strength to Love, a series of sermons he began in 1962.
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_strength_to_love_1963/
Rather than seeing the words as excluding, he is bleeding the issue of the false conflict between religious fundamentalists on the one hand, who see modernism, technology and science as the amoral work of the devil, and advocates of science as the measure, on the other hand, who see religion as the irrational, bigoted social brake on human progress.
To the contrary, I see his words as quite inclusive.
I expect he would be the first to object to the dichotomy you see.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Thank you for the source.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I didn't realize it was a whole book.
A plain reading of that excerpt in the OP seems to be the absolute opposite of what you are saying, OR, drags science/progress away from a position it well can occupy. But I will withhold judgment until I find the whole sermon, to read in context.
Yes, it could be 'inclusive' if I was willing to allow him to define my worldview, and tell me what science does NOT address, which, again, plain reading of that excerpt, I do not agree with.
But I'll find it. Possible the OP did the paragraph a disservice by altering the context.
Edit:
Ok, found it on Google Books. I agree with what you describe as his intent, but I think the context/content of the quote accurately represents his position, and I think it is wildly invalid. He is attempting to box 'science' (inclusive of reason and the rest) into territory well short of what it can occupy. Science can interpret as well. (Or rather, Reason can.) Science/reason can also bring about wisdom, as we test, and try, and look, and test again, real wisdom does develop.
So, it is not appropriate to assume science does not provide things, like wisdom. He also has done no work in this chapter to show that religion brings wisdom to the table either. That utterly depends upon religion actually being revealed truth. And that's just not a thing it can claim. You can hold up the dogma of two sects of a single religion and find delta enough to know that one or both do not actually represent revealed truth on various given issues.
If we don't know which is true, and they make core truth claims, and there is daylight between the two rival claims... What then? Which is wisdom? Are either wisdom?
So yes, I still find that claim wholly obnoxious. But it is not directed at me, or my camp, it seems. It appears to be directed at the faithful, and it seems to be a sales pitch. Which is sort of a friendly thing to attempt, but I deplore my worldview being sold on false pretense.
Truly sad that he was killed, for a vast array of reasons, the least of which is; I should like to have perhaps had the opportunity to talk to him about it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Most people, religious and non-religious don't think we should use it.
I don't see your point at all.
Who said you need "supernatural bullshit to correctly interpret the world around you?".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Things like... nuclear winter, extinction, to say nothing of pointing out the horrors of genocide, etc.
"We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our God to a stick! Don’t fuck with the human race!"
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And nobody needs science to understand that we could blow ourselves into extinction.
I had to research your quote. It apparently originated on a rather bizarre site where they were discussing "How to make humans physically strong and powerful compared with aliens".
And you think religion is weird?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A time when we almost expanded the use of WMD's in places like Korea. People like Freeman Dyson used logic, and math, and cool level headed rationality to put a stop to that shit. He didn't use religion. There was no 'love your neighbor as yourself' that stayed our hands in Vietnam even.
I can make a case against genocide on maintaining genetic diversity alone, as it helps keep our race alive.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you don't think that religious organizations and leaders like MLK were critical elements in the anti-war movement, I think you must not have been alive during that time.
You can make an argument against genocide on maintaining genetic diversity, but the real case to be made is based entirely on morality.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)halting plans that were in progress to deploy such weapons.
History is quite clear on this matter. I'm not talking about the anti-war movement in general, I'm talking about one specific species-threatening element of warmaking, and the internal opposition to it, within the military and civilian leadership.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)military chain of command that had influence?
Well, we could start with Freeman Dyson.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It boiled down to; Our targets are dense, theirs are disperse.
Meaning, if we opened the warfighting fronts to include chemical weapons (which we were planning and preparing to do), we would give them carte blanch to do so as well, and OUR targets lended themselves to such attacks, and their targets did not.
It was a highly effective objection, with no rational defense. He raised no religious objection.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)so I'm not sure you could draw any conclusions about what his objections were predicated on, only what he primarily talked about.
MLK was critical in the anti-war movement and based his objections pretty purely on the morality which he felt he derived from his religion.
So what? Both guys were on the right side. Both had important roles.
Why dismiss either?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Dyson is still alive. I sent him a Christmas card this year.
I didn't dismiss MLK on those grounds. I dismissed the idea that science/reason cannot bring people to the same conclusion the anti-war/faith based folks arrived at.
War is inherently repugnant to reason, from the ground up. Just look at it. The destruction of lives, property, economic productivity. The destroyed art and science and accumulated knowledge. The resources thrown away... There is no upside to war for the mind of reason either.
You and I have talked enough by this point, you probably see that I have zero religious belief in me. Never have. Not a drop. Yet, on my own, drawing on various philosophical and scientific sources, developed a worldview in which I recognize war as the terrible waste it is. How, if MLK's statements in that paragraph are true? It's not like my parents ingrained a anti-war position in my, during my upbringing. My parents were fairly pro-war, actually. They were quite happy with the destruction of Iraq. I won't even repeat some of my father's dehumanizing jokes about the Iraqi people. Abhorrent.
I don't need faith to arrive at that conclusion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)no problem with that at all. It's your animosity towards religion and the religious that I object to.
I strongly believe that one does not need religion to be good, moral, anti-war, etc., etc. I have no reason to doubt that you are all those things and got there completely without religion.
I'd be more curious about why you are so anti-religion. If there are those who are similar to you in the goodness, morality and anti-war stances and they feel that they did get there at least in part through their religion, so what?
Because there are two different paths, does that mean one is superior to the other?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It drove a wedge. It sounds all lovey and friendly, but it's actually a wedge. It defined two camps and riveted issues as the exclusive property of either.
That's super offensive to me.
I don't object that religion cannot inform or define morals for some people. But I do insist on objectively evaluating their claimed truth/morals.
That always leads to a fight, and I've been fighting for so long... And I've been watching fights between others for so long...
phil89
(1,043 posts)promotes genocide. Parts of the Bible celebrate it as a gift from god.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)He felt he was doing something very much in the name of science.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hitler believed in eugenics and purification of the race. He based this on "science". I'm at a loss to see how that is vile.
Are you under the impression that all science is good and has only been used for good?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)His actions are justified by science, we should just take his word for it, on faith I suppose, as there certainly is no evidence for the claim, and then proceed to taint all of science because "hitler".
I think Poe's law applies here, the sub clause where an argument has been made that objectively cannot be distinguished from parody.
Congratulations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm not trying to taint all science and that's an incredible leap on your part.
I brought it up as an example of how science can be used to do things that are bad, even evil. Do you disagree with that? How about the Tuskegee experiments? Nuclear bombs? Eugenics in general?
Science is just science. It is not imbued with some kind of goodness that protects it from being used for bad things.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your claim was "hitler".
That is a repulsive argument.
phil89:
I don't think science promotes genocide. Parts of the Bible celebrate it as a gift from god.
To which you responded, arguing that science does promote genocide, because "hitler".
cbayer:
I think Hitler would have disagreed with you. He felt he was doing something very much in the name of science.
Is it your claim that science promotes genocide?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The person I was responding to was saying that science did not promote genocide and that some religion did.
I countered that.
See, that's called discussion or debate.
Why the need to find some way to catch me in having said something wrong? It seems almost obsessive.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your response was to put forward that hitler is an example of science promoting genocide. Are you quite sure that you do not see anything wrong at all with that argument?
Seriously?
Nothing at all?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's based on using genetics to breed more perfect species.
It's the same thing used benignly for other purposes, that modifying plants and animals to make better products.
But done with people.
Hitler used this theory to drive his genocide.
I am quite sure. Seriously. Nothing at all.
You still haven't answered my question about your apparent need for me to be wrong, instead of just not in agreement.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And uses that to justify doing something that has nothing at all to do with science, that is an example of "science promoting" this thing?
Really?
On that basis it is clear that religion promotes psychotic mass murder. After all there are psychotic mass murderers who claimed religious motivations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that's an example of science being used for ill.
You really want to get into a debate over the single word "promote"?
I said this in response to a statement that religion promotes genocide. So using your "logic", that statement is also untrue.
If sometime takes a phrase or concept from some religious idea and uses it to justify something that has nothing at all to do with religion, then religion doesn't promote that thing.
Is that all better now?
What in the world is your deal?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That is shameless. Don't you ever embarrass yourself?
Your original claim was that science promoted genocide, and your evidence was "hitler". You have now attempted to reframe that, dropping "promotes" and replacing it with "science was used" .
Jesus Christ on a crutch.
However, I'll play, just to see how long you are willing to string out what is simply the most stunningly vile and stupid argument I've ever seen in here.
Is it now your claim that the nazis conducted a valid scientific inquiry into human genetics and reached an empirically valid conclusion that exterminating Jews and others was a rational course of action?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Right now I am wearing depends.
Oh, the shame, the shame.
AND I get the WS prize for the most stunningly vile and stupid argument you have ever seen on DU?
I am both shamed and honored, all at the same time.
I bow to your superior intellect.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)"degenerate" populations from an "Aryan" Europe.
There have been some ugly application of eugenics in the United States, too, for example in forced sterilizations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Science is always good.
Science provides the only valid way of looking at the world.
People who support these two viewpoints are good.
People who question these two viewpoints are vile.
Easy, no?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)physical reality. Science doesn't promote anything other than rational thinking and evidence based reasoning. Unlike, for example religion, which explicitly promotes all sorts of social policies, science doesn't deal with how things ought to be, merely with how things are.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a system used by some to investigate and understand the world and themselves.
Science doesn't deal with how things ought to be? That is completely out there. Why do you think people investigate some things if not to find answers that will improve things or change the way we do things.
Take medical experimentation. Do you really think the only reason people pursue this is to see how things are and not how they ought to be?
In your black and white take on the world, science is good and religion is bad. That's dogma.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)How did science promote the misapplication of eugenics in the us?
The two of you need to establish that somehow "science", the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world through observation and experimentation, promotes either hitlerian genocide or the misapplication of eugenic data.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Yes or no will do.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Please elaborate.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Do you or do you not recognize genetics as a branch of science?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That was not a question that needed an answer. Now your turn, did genetics establish the scientific basis for the extermination of jews?
Here I'll help: no of course it didn't. There was no scientific basis for the nazi genocide.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Have a good time!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do you have a point? Genetics is a discovery, and like all scientific discoveries, simply a tool, which can be used for good or evil, constructively or destructively. The fact of the discovery does not dictate or predetermine its use. A hammer can build shelter or shatter a skull. Radiation can heal or kill.
Science is not capable of, and does not presume to teach people how to use its discoveries wisely and well. Religion does claim to be a source of morality and wisdom (in some cases, the only source), so if you want to point a finger, point it at religion for massive failure in that regard.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I assumed that people would be aware of this thread in GD, a very specifically religious thread that was allowed to stand while other threads were locked. It is obviously a reference to that thread, but I should have linked to it so that people would know what I was referring to.
Presumably you find that thread equally offensive?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The butthurt, how it must sting.
Let me put it this way: I think that's a stupid way to start a title for a thread no matter what the topic.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Do you think that posts attacking religion have a place in GD? Or do you agree with me that that post should have been locked as off topic?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Was that post an "attack" on religion? You obviously think so. Yet other religious believers do not, so it's not a universal reaction to think you're being "attacked."
Second, I do agree that GD was not the place for that thread. But the amount of whining and screeching over a post that didn't get locked quickly enough is just pathetic. I've seen threads on all sorts of off-topic subjects play out in GD. Whatever. If it bothers you, hide it. If you think it's an attack, alert on it. And on DU3, deal with whatever happens. You take your chances with a jury. You take your chances with hosts. Life goes on.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't understand - I could understand a non-religious believer feeling that way. Not all believers are religious, of course. But if you say that religion, which I take to mean organized religion, encourages people to be satisfied with not understanding the world, how is that not an attack on religion?
As for my pathetic behavior I suppose I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a post praising Pope Francis.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Only you and your reactions to things are truly representative of all believers, evidently.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)quote as an attack on religion. I mean it's clear Dawkins wasn't praising religion when he said it, was he?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Either it's praise, or an attack?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You can make a wide variety of statements about religion. But the cartoon shows a brain being chained down by religion, coupled with the quote from Richard Dawkins about how religion makes one satisfied not to understand the world.
You are saying that you can see believers reading that and seeing that image and taking it as a commentary rather than an attack; I am saying I have a hard time understanding that.
One way you might go about refuting me is to point me to a religious person (one who practices a religion, rather than a generalized believer), and say "See this person doesn't feel like it's an attack."
Bryant
You get all worked up when you're trying to "read between the lines" of what an atheist is saying, feeling quite perturbed that oh no, despite their protests, you KNOW what they really mean, yet when someone turns around and does that to you guess what... you don't like it either. Isn't that just weird?
I question the point of refuting your claim, since you've already made it clear you won't accept certain religious believers I might present to you who aren't offended by that Dawkins quote. You've poisoned the well and now demand I drink from it. No thanks, the bitterness and anger you have toward atheists who dare express their opinions on religion once again tells me you have no interest in real discussion or dialog. I've seen religious believers right here on DU express how they aren't offended by anything Dawkins or any of the dreaded, hated, just-as-bad-as-the-fundies-who-murder "new atheists." I guess they are more secure in their faith than what you consider to be an actual true religious believer.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Stay classy.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)If someone disagrees with you and points it out does not constitute a personal attack. You on the other hand did make a blatant personal attack on Trotsky.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It assumes that religion is the source of morality and that materialism and nihilism are attributes of science when not moderated by religious moral influence.
Personally, I think religion has had an enormous role in human evolution. At least 70,000 years ago humans were creating idols and worshiping them in rituals. It help tie humans together as social animals.
http://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2006/python-english.html
That does not mean that without religion we would be amoral monsters.
I chose to answer even though you seemed to ask only for people who agree. Sorry if I am out of place.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)or Osama bin Laden.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Both these human activities are open to misuse by humans.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)However in any science vs. religion comparison, there is one aspect that is often neglected:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html
...
Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.
It therefore has no reality check.
And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality.
NancyDL
(140 posts)All religion is NOT ultimately dependent on belief in "invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities...." (etc.) nor is it "...uniquely armored against criticism, questioning and self-correction..."
That's just more Dawkinsian generalization. In truth, much of what we define as "Science" relies as much on belief as that which we define as "Religion", and both have evolved and are still evolving from our thirst to understand ourselves and the world.
Religion and Science are broad, overlapping categories that cannot reasonably be defined as opposite.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)cite a single example to back up your many dubious claims?
And why does science rely as much on "belief" as religion? Religion takes everything on faith...science takes nothing on faith. Science's understanding of the world actually HAS evolved and improved...not so for religion. It produces no understanding..it simply declares its own truths.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am also very interested in the way religion and science relate to each other. While I don't see them as opposite, I see them as very different.
I look forward to your participation here and hope you stick around.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm not sure that is what he meant, but implying that morality springs only from religion is not something I can agree with.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)who don't.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Amazing isn't it?
Bryant
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Bottom line, not only are they compatible but they are even complementary.
Glad you posted it here.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)This suggests that moral sensibilities only come from religion, which is false.
I also disagree that "religion gives man wisdom which is control." Religion gives people power, and that's control. Some wisdom comes from science, but aside from some fables and folklore, there's little wisdom in religion.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)such as the one in your OP and the Richard Dawkins comment in the thread in GD you referenced is all about context. I am sure there was much more said before and after the quotes you have posted. Context is important to those who think critically, not so much for those who can't or don't want to think critically.
I have some issues with the quote from MLK you posted. Religious values are always up to interpretation. In science there is interpretation of the data but if the interpretation is incorrect there are self-correcting mechanisms in the system to eventually get it right. There are no self-correcting procedures in religion when it comes to their dogma. This might be a surprise to you but you don't need religion to have values or morals. I would also venture to say that our morals are somewhat hardwired via our DNA. Humans are social animals and in that context we would not survive as a species if we did not try to get along with each other at the family, clan, geographic or higher level. There is a fundamental need to get along to survive.
Science does not delve into morals, it looks at the universe and all of its components and tries to explain how things work. Religion tries to explain the universe and all its trappings without needing to know fully how things work. If they don't know or understand the mechanisms all they have to say is god made it so. Sort of god of the gaps explanation. When you read the Christian bible, Book of Mormon, Quran or any other holy book there are fundamental errors in them trying to explain things. In this context if they get it so wrong in a holy book on some things I don't have to give it credence to any of it. I think this is also what Richard Dawkins is saying and in this context I would have to agree with him.
I have a lot of respect for what MKL did for civil rights in this country but some of his religious views I can do without. I also have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins but I don't agree with everything he says. For those who don't like Richard Dawkins they take him out of context so they can portray him as negatively as possible.
If you want to cherry pick go right ahead but that is intellectually dishonest.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)So in what context can you safely quote another person?
Or is it always intellectually dishonest to quote someone unless you quote their entire life's work?
Bryant
rexcat
(3,622 posts)but it helps to keep things in context, otherwise you could be accused of intellectual dishonesty. It seems you missed my point or are just ignoring it, either way it could be possible that you have some sort of agenda with your two OPs, this thread and the one quoting Dawkins. Without further information I would say that you do have an agenda concerning religion and atheists, positive for religion and negative for atheists.
Jim
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't like seeing my beliefs mocked.
Bryant
rexcat
(3,622 posts)but I find some religious people don't do well when their religious views are challenged. You did not express your religious beliefs in this thread so no one could have mocked your religious beliefs. What is concern for me is your motivation to stir the pot in GD with the Dawkins comment and here with this thread.
It is my belief that GD is the wrong forum for religious discussions, atheist or religious in nature. It usually does not go well in GD because religion and atheism can be contentious issues to a whole lot of people. This group is the appropriate place for such discussion. Just beware that that when you post here there is always the chance that you will be challenged. Don't assume that the person challenging you is mocking you. That is usually not the case. If they are mocking you that is what the alert button is for.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)A jury is highly unlikely to hide a post that is mocking.
But just beware that when you mock someone's religions beliefs in this group, there is always the chance that you will be challenged. Don't assume that they are anti-atheists because they are challenging you.
That is usually not the case.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)where I have mocked someone's "religions beliefs" or their religious beliefs. I have been known to mock some people but for other reasons. 
The use of anti-atheists plays as good as anti-theists to me. Much ado about nothing.
edited to add smiley face.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not clear on what you are saying here. Do you deny that there are those who are anti-atheist or anti-theist? Or do you acknowledge that they exist but don't think it's really a big deal?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)who does not like the term anti-theist or for that matter anti-atheist. Just like when people use the word hate. They are words, when used, that stop any meaningful dialogue.
The other reason for the post, I was somewhat mocking your use of "religions beliefs" when I think you meant "religious beliefs." I think that was a typo on your part and I was being a snarky but it looks like it didn't work. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)all religion is bad and should be eliminated? It's a term Dawkins has used and has used it to describe himself. Is there some other term for this group that would be better? FWIW, I think it's a very small subset of atheists IRL and here at DU.
I saw the snark in response to my typo. I felt it was best ignored.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)I don't like religion but if someone wants to believe in something that can't be verified that is their business. Religion and superstition are synonymous with me and I usually keep this opinion to myself and I won't apologize for it. I don't go out of my way to express my opinions concerning religion. About the most I will say face-to-face with someone is "I might disagree with you on that point" or something similar. If someone gets in my face just because I am an atheist I have no qualms about getting back in their face. I take a tit-for-tat stance for the most part.
I don't think Dawkins is as bad as people think. You are entitled to your opinion but I like him. On occasion he does says things that could have been said better or should not have been said because the repercussions (IMO) aren't worth the trouble but we all make misjudgments or flat out mistakes. He is entitled to make controversial statements. Hopefully the controversial statements cause people to pause and reflect on what he has said but for the most it is easier to make a knee jerk reactions, especially the religious apologists. I don't agree with him 100% but overall I agree with many of his stances. If someone thinks I am a bad person because I agree with him most of the time BFD. I also think people who don't like him tend to take him out of context or don't care to understand where he is coming from or going with a comment. It is always easy for some to dismiss him as a white male intellectual elitist. There is lots of gray and nuance to go around in the world but it is easier to see things in black and white. I find many people too lazy to want to examine their own beliefs because it takes no effort.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)definition of anti-theism.
Does the term get under your skin because you think that it is too widely applied to atheists in general, including people like you? Or are there other reasons?
I think Dawkins played a very important role in promoting atheism, letting people know it was all right to be an atheist and giving non-believers information that made sense to them and helped them feel less odd or marginalized.
But he tried to make his sociological hypothesis into science, which I disagree with. And he is overtly hostile towards religion and religionists, which I also disagree with. I also think he's an elitist and a sexist, but that's a whole different topic.
He's made a career and I would guess a small fortune doing what he has done, but I think he creates more harm than help at this time. If studies show that one of the biggest issues atheists have to face is that people find them untrustworthy, he does little to help with this.
When he proclaims what most believe believe to be an illness, a poison and something that needs to be eliminated, it is unlikely that this is going to lead to higher levels of trust.
In short, I think he needs to make way for the younger group of atheist activists, many of whom have an entirely different approach and value mutual understanding and tolerance.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)(As you did) is NOT being overtly hostile towards religion?
I mean, seriously, cbayer, you're overtly hostile towards religion ALL THE TIME on this board. You criticize what religion does, what it says and what it teaches. Could you possibly be more hypocritical?
Do you think there should be laws preventing your beliefs from being mocked?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Dawkins was quoting a former editor of New Scientist magazine who gave that response when the editor was asked, "What is your philosophy at New Scientist?". (Dawkins hasn't identified him by name, but there's speculation that he's referring to Jeremy Webb.)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)are into taking things totally out of context. It is cheap, easy and takes no imagination. If some would have to actually come up with an intellectual reason as to why they dislike Dawkins their heads would explode because most don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are saying that people who dislike or criticize Dawkins don't have the intellectual capacity to say why.
How is that any different than saying that anyone who likes Dawkins doesn't have the intellectual capacity to think for themselves?
Mind you, I'm not saying that. I'm just asking how it would be any different?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)You are taking what I said way out of context. It appears that you are saying that I think "all" people who criticize Dawkins don't have the intellectual capacity with the "all" being implied. You make my point that "nuance" escapes some people.
For those who can articulate their dislike for Dawkins' stances in a rational, not emotional way, I have no problems with it. I can disagree with them but it just comes to a matter of opinion. There are SOME people who can't or wont be rational when it comes to Dawkins.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While I have misinterpreted it and while you think that "nuance" escapes me, the problem may additionally lie in the way you expressed it.
I'm not familiar with people who aren't rational when it comes to Dawkins, but I don't doubt they exist. OTOH, if he offends people on a very personal and visceral level, which I think he does intentionally at times, I'm not sure how one could expect not to have emotional responses to that.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)you have it right when you said that Dr. Dawkins does say things intentionally and in that context it is to stir things up, occasionally he has those foot in mouth moments.
I didn't qualify it? I did write the word "some" before the word "people" and my second post did clarify to you what was meant and/or said. If someone can't understand the entire "context" of what I am saying in the MULTIPLE posts here and it puts them off, then KMA to them. For clarity the "KMA" comment is NOT directed towards you.
So let me make myself clear to those who are reading this and my previous posts in this thread:
1. I like Richard Dawkins, I also like Sam Harris, PZ Meyer, etc.;
2. I agree with them MOST of the time but not all of the time;
3. There are no leaders amongst atheists but more like voices within this diverse group of people;
3. Religion is based on superstition, if someone doesn't like this statement they have every right to defend their position but good luck with a rational and not emotional explanation;
4. There might be some genetic components to religious and non-religious beliefs but it could be entirely based on a meme (I lean more towards the "meme" scenario);
5. I have problems with fundamentalist of all strips, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.;
6. It is my opinion that mainstream religions enable the fundamentalists, especially when those in the mainstream religions don't speak up against the fundamentalists;
7. Religious extremist are dangerous;
8. Any religion that can be "interpreted" to inspire the killing of those who do not believe the same way is a problem therefore most if not all religions, IMO, are a problem;
9. Most Christians in this country, IMO, are worshippers of Jesus, not followers of Jesus (SOME people will miss the nuance of this statement);
10. Going to war is fucked up, especially when there is no direct threat;
11. Going to war over religious beliefs is really fucked up;
12. War should always be a absolute last choice after everything else fails and I mean everything.
I could go on but I hope those interested get the point. Anyone has an issue with what I have listed here by all means I am willing to discuss as long as it is reasonable and not based on emotion or a gut feeling. If someone is responding to me on an emotional or gut level don't bother because I am not interested in their bullshit.
If anyone finds the above paragraph or this post offensive, good, but don't waist my time with their drivel. Keep it civil and to the point.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)hostile or overtly offensive. In fact, I agree with a great many of them, but I don't agree with all. The point I probably most disagree with is equating religion with superstition. I think it's much more complex than that and find conflation of the two very dismissive (as well as the presumption that anyone that disagrees is unlikely to be rational).
I would suggest that if someone finds things in your post offensive that you not dismiss their objections as "drivel" and tell them to keep it to the point. Perhaps there are things that are offensive and you would benefit from knowing that.
I used the term "gypped" very flippantly until someone on DU explained to me why this was offensive. I had no idea and haven't used it since. Many disagree with me, but I do place value on not needlessly offending others and tend to think that the offended have the right of way when it comes to these matters.
I appreciate the civil tone of our conversation and hope we have come to a new meeting place.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)if they take an emotional stance because nothing good comes out of an emotional response. All I am asking for is a rational response to my posts. If someone wants to set the tone with emotion or a gut response I really don't want the conversation with them. That is all I was saying. I usually don't use the word "drivel" and I will your comment under consideration, and again context is everything.
We will have to agree to disagree on the religion being superstition thing. I have seen you make the same comment to others and I will still disagree with you on that. Religion is complicated but when I distill it down to it essence I find it to be based on superstition. Of course there is negative connotation with the word and that is where it gets sticky. Religion is based on the supernatural hence a descriptor like superstition is appropriate in this context. I do not believe in the supernatural. It goes against my very being.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think much good can come from an emotional response. Who are you, Dr. Spock, lol?
Not only can an individual learn something about what they are hearing and experiencing by allowing their responses to be emotional, the person they are responding to can as well.
If my husband blandly says, "When you do or say x, it causes y", I am more likely to just let it ride. If he emphatically says, "When you do or say x, it causes y and that makes me really angry to the point where I don't hear anything else you say"…. well, that's an important message.
And who is to define rational? If you see things differently, does that make the other's POV irrational?
You find religion to be based on superstition. That doesn't make it so. It only makes it so for you. If you continue to conflate the two, your POV may be dismissed as just based on your own emotions. I would venture a guess that the topic does elicit an emotional response from you that is not always entirely rational.
But I could be wrong about that.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)are based on opinion. It is the opinion of some that the Christian bible is correct and factual. It is my opinion that it does not hold up to its claims and is not factual in its entirety. Neither opinion can be proved or disproved. See my signature line for a better explanation on my opinion of religion.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but when it fails utterly to provide them, it turns around and points the finger at science for all sorts of bad things.
Argument from authority still sucks…sorry. Flinging MLK around does not make your argument unassailable.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)at atheists!
MLK was an interesting person but I must say the MLK quote used in the OP can be sliced and diced as I and others here have done. I don't think much of MLKs religious views but overall he did good for the civil rights movement.
NancyDL
(140 posts)... and relegates the rest of humanity to supporting cast status has the potential to harm.
Think of the damage done by American Exceptionalism or unbridled capitalism or militant socialism, as examples.
Currently the economic policies of the Far Right are doing way more damage than the related, but not identical, policies of the Christian Right.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The far right has become inextricably liked with religion, hasn't it?
pinto
(106,886 posts)“In a real sense all life is inter-related. All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be...
This is the inter-related structure of reality.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)As much as I like Dr. MLK, I have to disagree here. What he speaking about are more like how religion should be in an ideal world.
The reality is that Science and religion often do butt heads. According to Norse mythology, the world was made by a goat licking a chunk of ice. No matter how you slice it, that is in direct opposition to science.
Further you do not need religion for values. The quote ignores that religion has had multiple purposes throughout the millinea and depending on the exact religion may or may not make claims that are wrong. The world is older than 6,000 years, No man has ever lived for over 900 years, there was no world wide flood, no man held the earth on their shoulder, there is no tartarus, river styx, or Valhalla, etc.
Nor do I see them as complimentary. Not having religion does not impair science in anyway, and so long as a religion does not make faulty claims religion can exist without science entirely.
I also see nothing wrong materialism or nihilism (especially existential nihilism). I do not agree with moral nihilism but I can see a case being made for it.
Is it possible to have a religion that does not contradict science? Certainly. I can no way that Deism or Pantheism contradict science. I can't remember a single things from the Tao Te Ching that went against science. But the quote just not hold up.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)
okasha
(11,573 posts)are the narrow minded individuals who attempt to impose the methodology of one upon the other. In that respect, Dawkins and the creationists are brothers under the skin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that Dawkins has evidence, reason and the truth on his side, while the creationists have only lies, myths and delusions. It's obvious from your posts which side you're on intellectually, but don't try to feed the rest of us your ridiculous false equivalency.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Using it is just imposing the methodology of science, you know. How's life under that same skin, okasha?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The difference between Dawkins the scientist and Dawkins the social commentator is often ignored. He is, in fact a scientist, but his views on religion have absolutely no basis in science. They are theory and conjecture. But sycophants can't seem to tell the difference.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's insulting how you pretend you've above the fray when you pull shit like that.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It seems that one sycophant can't tell the difference between a tool and a methodology.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)
It wouldn't be relevant to discussions elsewhere, but it would save a lot of time if it appeared every time I posted in this group, because the attitude it points out is sure to appear.
Can we have Muriel's Law of the Religion Group: "As a thread continues, the chances of some poster saying that atheists and fundamentalists are just the same approaches one"?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is a certain irony in that shirt, as the issue of who feels most superior is really debatable.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)'Religion prevents science (or anything else) from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism'.
Rather than religion conferring morality, people generally USE their religious beliefs to advance their existing moral (or immoral) values. Thus, Martin Luther King used religion to advance social justice. Pat Robertson uses religion to advance social injustice, and to make himself rich in the process.
Scientific findings as such are morally neutral, and the ways in which they are used can depend on the values of those who apply them. Scientific findings can be used to cure diseases or to create an atomic bomb; to relieve pain or to devise more effective methods of torture; to benefit or damage the environment. But these values, good or bad, do not depend on religion, though they may become intertwined with religion.
okasha
(11,573 posts)his "existing moral. . .values?" How about Robertson? Where did his come from?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the fight against the evil of slavery? Not Jesus, that's for certain. He pretty much yawned at slavery. And the Ten Commandments are notably silent on the issue as well.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Try again. I asked a specific question.
Why do you always respond with disingenuous, passive aggressive one-liners? Your constant feigned non-comprehension is neither becoming nor convincing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Concerned for the soul.
Do you dislike me?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why not slavery, one of the greatest evils that humans have ever perpetrated?
My questioned wasn't even posed to you, so if you're going to inject yourself into this sub-thread, you might at least pretend to try to answer it. Otherwise, why are you here?
okasha
(11,573 posts)the words of Isaiah:
THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, 19TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD
Note that there are three phrases here which are applicable to freeing slaves and others. He will "proclaim release to the captives," "set free those who are oppressed" and "proclaim the favorable year of the Lord," ie., the Jubilee year in which slaves were set free.
So, while he may not have said "Slavery is bad," he did say, in effect, "As Messiah, I intend to set slaves and other prisoners free."
The Romans became somewhat upset with him.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And we should also say that just because the gospels do not have him saying anything against slavery that does not mean he never addressed it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)having sex with Mary Magdalene doesn't mean he never did it, right? Just because the Gospels don't have him getting drunk off his ass and puking in the Temple doesn't mean he never did, right?
By your logic, we can infer just about anything concerning the life of Jesus, right? Or is it just the shit that YOU need to believe?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)when all I did was point out how silly your argument was?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I said "shit" on an internet chat board! Call the profanity police! Lock me up!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to see me booted off of this board forever.
Here's where you play innocent...don't disappoint me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts) skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And that's just the latest in your long history of smears, insults and name-calling, cbayer.
For you to be upbraiding anyone here for their "kind and friendly" behavior is sickening, not to mention deeply hypocritical.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that were metaphorical. What justification do you have for assuming that he was talking literally and specifically about the slavery that was all around him? And even if he was, why did he not simply set those slaves free, as he promised and as he was easily capable of doing?
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)But since these are incompatible, there must be other factors involved as well. In the case of Pat Robertson, some of the influence probably came from his right-wing politician father, a Dixiecrat and ardent opponent of civil rights measures in general and school desegregation in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom_Willis_Robertson
okasha
(11,573 posts)MLK was the son of a Baptist minister and grew up in a deeply religious home in the segregated South. The strongest Biblical influences on him appear to have been the Gospels and the book of Exodus. His last speech clearly reflects the imagery of liberation, of Moses and the Israelites on the verge of crossing the river Jordan into the Promised Land.
Pat Robertson was the son of an ultra-conservative politician whose views on civil rights were diametrically opposed to MLK's. Pat Robertson himself became a politician using his status as a fundamentalist minister to build a political base. I think the statement that "some of the influence probably" came from the elder Robertson understates the facts by quite a bit.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What MLK proposes here is essentially Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", long before Gould coined the term. It was a bad argument then, and it is a bad argument now. These magisteria routinely overlap, because religion isn't relegated to discussions of morality. It makes claims to the existence of supernatural beings, miracles, and the power of prayer to affect the material world. These claims fall squarely under the purview of science, and scientists should challenge them.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Religion gives man wisdom?
How so exactly? What mechanism is present in religion that generates this wisdom in people? I've seen plenty of people who are religious credit their religion with any bit of wisdom they happen to manage to acquire, but it's never exactly clear just how it came from their religion.
And I've never seen the religious demonstrate any capability to produce any greater level of wisdom than the non religious either.
Same goes for values.
Science on the other hand does have a long and solid track record of producing knowledge by the truckload, and it is quite clear the manner in which it does so.
okasha
(11,573 posts)the same thing? If not, why are you equating them?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Why do you think he isn't?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)It talks about religion and wisdom, saying they've never seen how religion is supposed to produce wisdom, and how they don't think religious people are any wiser than non-religious.
And then it talks about knowledge and science. Just to help the inattentive reader out, they say "on the other hand".
So, to sum up:
Religion and wisdom; then science and knowledge. Separate paragraphs, with an extra phrase, and even extra spacing, to keep the concepts apart. No verbs like 'is' or 'equals' to give any suggestion at all that the poster equates them.
okasha
(11,573 posts)where does the poster think wisdom comes from? Is it irrelevant?
Actually, the structure of the post invites the reader to (a) agree that wisdom does not come from religion, and (b) question where it does come from then. The para on science then seems to be (c) an answer to that question.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I don't know how much plainer it can be. It's even clearer than the original MLK quote: "Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control. "
I'm reading posts, not minds. You don't seem to be doing either.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What single thing did I say in that post that in any way equated the two?
I was responding to the "science gives knowledge religion gives wisdom" claim from the quote. Science does indeed give knowledge but I have yet to encounter any manner in which wisdom (or values) is produced by religion rather than religion simply constantly being assigned credit for them by the religious without it actually ever producing anything.
Now, where does wisdom come from?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Now, how do cultures transmit wisdom?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And if they choose to attach superstitious drivel to the re-telling their call, but that is not said superstitious drivel *producing* said wisdom.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Let me rephrase the question. Through what social and cultural constructs do cultures transmit experience and insight?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Through what social and cultural constructs do cultures transmit experience and insight?"
Absolutely any type of social or cultural construct they feel like... seeing as pretty much anything works.
And I repeat, if in any given circumstance the construct they feel like using attaches a bunch of superstitious blather to the process the superstitious blather still isn't the thing producing or imbuing said wisdom.
It's just along for the ride and taking credit.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'll provide it for you.
Experience and insight are transmitted through the arts, through philosophy and through religion. Like it or not, much of the other two are inspired by religion--which does indeed itself produce some of that experience and insight. Try looking at some of the liberation theologians, for example, for religiously-inspired social justice advocacy.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That you wanted a different one is of no concern to me.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Dr King also seemed to think that atheism or absence of reference to God automatically leads to "moral nihilism" - any reason for that?
eomer
(3,845 posts)Example: the theory of relativity.
And I also disagree with his characterization of religion as interpreting. That would require it to mostly have some foundation that it attempts to explain. I don't think it mostly does that; rather it mostly imagines things that are not an interpretation of anything else, they are pure imaginings, IMHO.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)obsolete materialism and moral nihilism. I wonder if he instead would have liked to have seen modern materialism and amoral nihilism. I know I like my materialism modern and my nihilism amoral.
longship
(40,416 posts)Typical.
Screw that.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)without any note of finding that "respond if you agree with me" post worthy of your "screw that" scorn, why is that? Just a little hypocritical don't you think.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)If you substitute a word like "humanities" for religion, it makes some sense. However neither is a true dichotomy, and there is an uncovered middle.
Religion is not the model for morality.
--imm
Trajan
(19,089 posts)He is flat wrong ...
MLK was a great man worthy of emulation, but he is still a man, and has erred with this strawman ...
on point
(2,506 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Succinct and to the point.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Religion is superstition, plain and simple. One does not need superstition to be moral, or to have nonmaterialist values.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)need religion to be moral.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You always have a need to assert that things are "more complex" as a way of trying not to seem totally wrong, but you've never once been able to demonstrate the complexity you claim exists. Rather tellingly, you never even try to.
