[helene_t]

mikeh, on Apr 1 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

Do you think that these people would not help the poor unless they had a bible to inspire them? Or is it possible that their personalities are such that being raised in a generous, compassionate, secular environment would also lead them to such charity?

While some religious sects encourage compassionate acts, that does not mean that we need religious sects in order to have compassionate acts.

With the risk of over-generalizing, I would say that those who do charity work based on a religious motivation are more devoted.
{speculations based on small amount of anecdotal evidence}
Non-religious charity volunteers usually need some mundane reward, at the least that the beneficiaries show gratitude. Some religious charity volunteers find sufficient motivation in the belief that God appreciates what they do.
{/speculations}

[ASkolnick]

There are many people whoever who do need a religious sect in order to create compassionate acts. By having faith, they make themselves a better person and in turn help other people out.

So, I do think, that in many occasions, that these people would not have the same view if they did not have religion/faith to guide them.

As for all of the wars, hatred, bigotry caused by religion which there are, there is also a large amount of teachings, learnings, and libraries which were developed because of religion as well.

As for the old versus the new testament, I always said "g-d" just got a better PR person.

As for the story of Jesus being true or not, I do not have to worry about it. We are still waiting for what we consider our "messiah".

[mikeh]

ASkolnick, on Apr 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

There are many people whoever who do need a religious sect in order to create compassionate acts.  By having faith, they make themselves a better person and in turn help other people out.

So, I do think, that in many occasions, that these people would not have the same view if they did not have religion/faith to guide them.

As for all of the wars, hatred, bigotry caused by religion which there are, there is also a large amount of teachings, learnings, and libraries which were developed because of religion as well.

As for the old versus the new testament, I always said "g-d" just got a better PR person.

As for the story of Jesus being true or not, I do not have to worry about it.  We are still waiting for what we consider our "messiah".

I must admit that I am always puzzled by the claims that religion has been responsible for much 'learning' and 'teaching'.

I can accept that religion may have had its beginnings in human curiosity... a need to come up with explanations for the way the world unfolded, coupled with a lack of actual knowledge, limited investigatory tools (both physical and conceptual) and an unwillingness to accept random chance as an explanation.

I can accept that religion combined the affording of explanations (usually coupled with exhortations to stop thinking of alternative explanations at the peril of excommunication or worse).

I can accept that religion held out some guidelines for 'moral' behaviour, usually behaviour that would benefit the hierarchy in the religion. As in tithing to the church. Even acts of charity and penance arguably enhance the status and power of the religion in whose name those acts are carried out.

But no religious learning has actually advanced our understanding or control of the world in which we live. Prayers for a good harvest, for example, don't work as well as the application of modern agricultural science. No priest ever invented a computer by prayer or by divine revelation.

Faith healing has been debunked in the minds of all but the zealots. If I get diagnosed with cancer, I am going to a medical doctor for treatment, not my priest (if I had one).

Is technology, a secular process, an unmitigated boon? Of course not, but I would defy all inhabitants of a westernized nation to argue that their quality of life would be better if we returned to live without the benefit, and cost, of the technological changes of the past two hundred years, to take but a fairly narrow time period.

It seems to me foolish to argue that we should continue to believe in the increasingly implausible supernatural merely because historically the followers of such beliefs have engaged in some decent acts in addition to the bulk of the horrific acts carried out, on large and small scales, over the history of organized religion.

Either the tenets of the religion makes sense or they don't. It shouldn't be: we willingly believe in religion, despite its being based on the supernatural, because that belief prompts me to be a better human being'. If that is the rationale, then I respectfully suggest that one is better off, in many ways, trying to be a better person without calling in aid (or in terrorem) one's imaginary friend. Most atheists manage it or try to manage it, to varying degrees, and I don't think that atheists are, collectively, any worse, as human beings, than are religious people.

One of the tricks used by the evangelical preachers is to cast out demons and get a previously immobilized supplicant to stand or walk... calling out to the person to cast away their crutches. Maybe we could co-opt this call, when speaking to those who think that they need their religious faith in order to live a good life: cast away that crutch... walk without the aid of faith... you might surpprise yourself by actually being a good person without it.

After all, isn't it the height of arrogance to say of good people... you wouldn't be good if you didn't have faith in superstitious nonsense?

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Apr 1 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

But no religious learning has actually advanced our understanding or control of the world in which we live. Prayers for a good harvest, for example, don't work as well as the application of modern agricultural science. No priest ever invented a computer by prayer or by divine revelation.

I think that you are overstating your case:

The Roman Catholic Church has been responsible for a number of scientific advances. Even today, the church maintains a rather nice observatory, funds a number of respectable universities, etc.

An argument can be made that:

Organized religion concentrates resources
This concentration of resources promotes investment
Some of this investment spills over into science / natural philosophy

Do I believe that religion is particularly effective in advancing science?
Probably not...

However, for a long time, it was one of the only games in town...

[Lobowolf]

Quote

It seems to me foolish to argue that we should continue to believe in the increasingly implausible supernatural merely because historically the followers of such beliefs have engaged in some decent acts in addition to the bulk of the horrific acts carried out, on large and small scales, over the history of organized religion.

Does anyone make that argument? I see the claim of the good works done by adherents to religion (and whether or not its a net positive in light of things like Holy Wars, I think saying "some decent acts" is far too dismissive of an enormous amount of time, energy, and money poured into noble causes by various theists) WHere was I? Oh yeah. I see the claim of their good works done not as a basis to suggest that those works are any sort of foundation for belief, but simply as a counterpoint to attacks on religion by a one-sided litany of the bad things done that were motivated by religion. Many, many positives and many, many negatives have come out of man's beliefs in a higher power.

I also think that while it's patently ridiculous to suggest that all, or even most, or even a substantial minority of atheists are nihilists, I think that it's reasonable to believe that most nihilists are atheists. And your average nihilist is probably average-minus when it comes to improving society.

[mikeh]

Lobowolf, on Apr 1 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I also think that while it's patently ridiculous to suggest that all, or even most, or even a substantial minority of atheists are nihilists, I think that it's reasonable to believe that most nihilists are atheists.  And your average nihilist is probably average-minus when it comes to improving society.

Your average religious zealot is probably average-minus as well.

I have not argued that a belief in religion makes people, on average, any less 'good' than they would be absent the belief. All I have said is that I reject, and find offensive, the argument that a belief in a god is necessary in order to be good, or to increase the chances that any particular person will do 'good' acts. Simply put, I don't accept any causal connection... in my view, the evidence suggests that religious belief can be used and is used by good people to explain their acts and by bad people to explain theirs.... atheists have to have other excuses.

I can accept that peer pressure can make people perform more public 'acts of goodness' when the people are part of an organized group... but the group need not be religious to accomplish that end.

I do not for a moment suggest that religious believers are more prone to either good or bad acts than are atheists.

As for overstating my case in terms of religious belief not advancing human understanding of the world, yes, I recognize that the RC church, for one, employs a number of very intelligent researchers... but the findings they make are, today, based on the use of technological devices and processes that in turn came about through non-religiously obtained knowledge.

I do not say, and would never have said, that technology or scientific insight was developed solely by irreligious scientists. Mendel was a monk. Newton was devoutly religious, and so on. And organized religion was a very powerfull and often wealthy source of patronage, on which natural scientists were often forced to depend. Galileo, however, didn't write his dialogue because of anything he found in the teachings of the church.

I was merely observing that neither technology nor science come out of holy books. They come out of secular thinking, not praying or religious devotion. This has nothing to do with whether the technologist is ALSO a religious believer. A physicist today might well spend a lot of time reading a bible and a lot of time reading professional journals... I am willing to bet that he or she will derive little insight into their field of work from the former, compared to the latter.

The fact that the inventor of a process or the discover of a new principle in science may be a believer is an example of correlation, not causation. The fact that a religious body has, from time to time, funded some scientific work does not make the science a product of religious belief, save in the most indirect manner.

There is a difference between a belief structure and the organization that benefits from enforcing that structure... I suspect that many popes and others within the Holy Church, historically, paid scant attention to their own dogma... certainly, if the stories of papal mistresses, bastards, and accumulation of wealth and interference in secular life are accurate.

And there is ample evidence that most religions are very conservative: understandably so if one considers that most organized religion is fundamentally about power and control.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Apr 1 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

The fact that a religious body has, from time to time, funded some scientific work does not make the science a product of religious belief, save in the most indirect manner.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a product of religious belief." I don't know of anyone, say, praying and having thermodynamic laws divinely revealed to him.

Of course, if a religious physicist DID claim that that was exactly how he came to discover a scientific truth, which of us atheists would accept that as evidence? We'd all say, "Well, we've all had the experience where the answer to a solution that had baffled us suddenly became clear. That's what happened, and he attributed it to God."

I agree that the average religious zealot, too, is average-minus. And I posit that the average religious person is no more a zealot than the average atheist is a nihilist.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Apr 1 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 1 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

The fact that a religious body has, from time to time, funded some scientific work does not make the science a product of religious belief, save in the most indirect manner.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a product of religious belief." I don't know of anyone, say, praying and having thermodynamic laws divinely revealed to him.

Of course, if a religious physicist DID claim that that was exactly how he came to discover a scientific truth, which of us atheists would accept that as evidence? We'd all say, "Well, we've all had the experience where the answer to a solution that had baffled us suddenly became clear. That's what happened, and he attributed it to God."

I agree that the average religious zealot, too, is average-minus. And I posit that the average religious person is no more a zealot than the average atheist is a nihilist.

you might be right... in any case, i wonder what the definitions of the terms are

[Winstonm]

Quote

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true...

I think this is all fair and right. I also think some of the problems between you and others (including me at times) is that when you speak about the universe and ID and evololution you seem to always incorporate into your thoughts the "beginning of things" as a condition, whereas the rest of us simply say we cannot explain the beginning of things but the evidence since that time points to a natural method of progression.

Is that a fair assessment?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Quote

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true...

I think this is all fair and right. I also think some of the problems between you and others (including me at times) is that when you speak about the universe and ID and evololution you seem to always incorporate into your thoughts the "beginning of things" as a condition, whereas the rest of us simply say we cannot explain the beginning of things but the evidence since that time points to a natural method of progression.

Is that a fair assessment?

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

[PassedOut]

It had slipped my mind that there is still one place where miracles are required and (therefore) found: Benedict Prays for John Paul's Beatification

Quote

Only a month after John Paul's 2005 death, Benedict put him on the fast track for sainthood by waiving the usual five years before a person's life and works can be examined. Vatican officials say the process is taking its course, and the required miracle has been identified for examination.

The possible miracle involves the curing of a French nun with Parkinson's disease.

And who said nuns were obsolete?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Quote

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true...

I think this is all fair and right. I also think some of the problems between you and others (including me at times) is that when you speak about the universe and ID and evololution you seem to always incorporate into your thoughts the "beginning of things" as a condition, whereas the rest of us simply say we cannot explain the beginning of things but the evidence since that time points to a natural method of progression.

Is that a fair assessment?

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

You can't even know there was a beginning of things, as things could have always been. And further, I think it's a meaningless statement to say something must be philosophically necessary. But I guess that explains the difference between us. I neither find a beginning of things necessary, nor even if I thought it were would I find an explanation of the beginning of things necessary.

[TimG]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

I know I shouldn't ask, but if there is a beginning and this beginning was brought about by intelligent design, who designed the designer? And, where was this designer of the designer before the beginning? Wasn't there nothing before the beginning?

[blackshoe]

Heh. Science fiction speaks of multiple universes. Heinlein called it "the multiverse". Maybe the designer of this universe came from another. Maybe it depends on the meaning of "universe".

IIRC, one cosmological model (not currently in vogue, I think) has this universe being cyclical. Big Bang, expansion, "heat death", a new big bang. So, no beginning, and no end either.

A beginning and an end may fit some folks' view of what's "right and proper", but that doesn't make them necessary.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Apr 2 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

I know I shouldn't ask, but if there is a beginning and this beginning was brought about by intelligent design, who designed the designer? And, where was this designer of the designer before the beginning? Wasn't there nothing before the beginning?

You're right... you shouldn't ask: this point has been made time and time again, not least in these fora.

The point is that believers can't internalize these questions: it all 'ends' with the prime mover and by the very definition of the prime mover, the questions make no sense.

One of the most important of the differences, for me, between science and religion lies in this area. Science currently has no satisfactory answers, and both acknowledges that fact and seeks to change it, while belief has its answer: the question is meaningless, and hence we don't and won't think about it.

But posing this logical question to Jimmy isn't going to accomplish anything: he has dodged it before. If he does answer this post, I give long odds that his answer will, on analysis, be devoid of content.

[jdonn]

Mike, I think rather than make a post like that you would be better served to wait for him to reply, then accuse him of either dodging the question or typing drivel if you think he has done one of those things. The preemptive accusation prevents the discussion from advancing imo.

I disagree with you that religion considers the question meaningless btw. Although I think the answers I have heard for it are meaningless, I don't think the answerers think so.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Mike, I think rather than make a post like that you would be better served to wait for him to reply, then accuse him of either dodging the question or typing drivel if you think he has done one of those things. The preemptive accusation prevents the discussion from advancing imo.

I disagree with you that religion considers the question meaningless btw. Although I think the answers I have heard for it are meaningless, I don't think the answerers think so.

I understand, but the fact is that this point has been explicitly made before, and his answers then were meaningless. One thing about Jimmy, which I agree can be said about me, is that his arguments are much the same every time a particular topic arises. Anyway, point taken.

[Winstonm]

I want to stand up for Jimmy on this point, as I think he made it abundantly clear that he thinks a certain way, and that type of thinking is important to him. I don't believe anyone can condemn someone for his personal beliefs about what is and isn't important. I think the more important point going forward is how far apart the two side are in what is considered on importance.

Quote

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

Obviously, to Jimmy the question of how it began is crucial. As Josh pointed out, to most of us we accept that as an unknown and are not really interested in guessing about the start without valid clues or proof.

What Jimmy views as proofs seem to be the result of logic arguments - but to me these arguments are speculations as they seem based on speculative premises - that does not make me right and him wrong or vice-versa. But it makes it difficult to communicate.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Quote

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true...

I think this is all fair and right. I also think some of the problems between you and others (including me at times) is that when you speak about the universe and ID and evololution you seem to always incorporate into your thoughts the "beginning of things" as a condition, whereas the rest of us simply say we cannot explain the beginning of things but the evidence since that time points to a natural method of progression.
Is that a fair assessment?

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

You can't even know there was a beginning of things, as things could have always been. And further, I think it's a meaningless statement to say something must be philosophically necessary. But I guess that explains the difference between us. I neither find a beginning of things necessary, nor even if I thought it were would I find an explanation of the beginning of things necessary.

i use philosophically here because for there not to be a beginning means the universe itself is infinite in actuality, and an actual infinite is logically impossible

TimG, on Apr 2 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

i think so, but the beginning of things is necessary both philosophically and physically, imo

I know I shouldn't ask, but if there is a beginning and this beginning was brought about by intelligent design, who designed the designer? And, where was this designer of the designer before the beginning? Wasn't there nothing before the beginning?

it depends on who one thinks the intelligent designer is, i suppose, and how one defines that entity... for example, one can prove logically either that something is eternal or something is not eternal... since logically this eternal (if it exists) can't be a part of this universe, it would not be bound by space or time... in any case, how do you answer your second question (you can skip the first one if you want)?

mikeh, on Apr 2 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

But posing this logical question to Jimmy isn't going to accomplish anything: he has dodged it before. If he does answer this post, I give long odds that his answer will, on analysis, be devoid of content.

just for the hell of it, why don't you give it a shot? i'd like to see how chock full of content your answers are

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

i use philosophically here because for there not to be a beginning means the universe itself is infinite in actuality, and an actual infinite is logically impossible

Says who? You say it's logically impossible for the universe to have existed forever, but possible (true in fact) that there exists a supreme being capable of creating the universe who has existed forever? I think you and I have different definitions of logical.