We all know that philosophy is best left for Friday nights but I’ve had an interesting day following some thoughts regarding science and religion around the Internet. So why not have some mid-week philosophical musings amongst the nitty gritty of relevant political issues?
First off, the renowned biologist EO Wilson has asked if science and religion can ever be reconciled?
Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.
Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.
I am just as wary of anyone promoting science as the answer as of those who promote religion as the answer. Wilson’s implication is that science can provide ethical answers. I find this idea quite wrong. But Wilson is correct in regards to the dangerous tribalism that religion encourages, whether it is Muslim extremists or Christian fundamentalists. A society that adopts a particular religious view will discriminate against those not of that view. However, scientific humanism would be just as open to such abuse.
The secular nature of Australian society while not perfect (and being needlessly undermined by political religious pandering) is not a bad starting point.
Other avenues have me looking into the demarcation problem in science. A difficult question indeed though I am partial to the Lakatian concept of science as research programs. In simplification good science is a progressive research program, bad science is a degenerative research program.
This brought me to the article The Scientific Status of Theology: Imre Lakatos, Method and Demarcation. I offer no opinion other than it is an interesting read regarding science and religion.
It does lead one to ask why do some feel that faith needs the imprimatur of science? Is science as a means of knowing got something that religion lacks?
From the wikipedia article on demarcation:
Damn straight, and what’s more, people whose faith seems to lack the certainty of a lab test should start to realise an unpleasant fact about hypothetical systems of inquiry: conclusions are never final or beyond dispute.
I’ve often wondered what the response of an omnipotent God would be to centuries of intelligent humans trying to scientifically prove or disprove beyond dispute His/Her existence. Perhaps it’d be “Since I’m responsible for the scientific method working in this universe anyway, how do you know I didn’t fix it to make myself unproveable”?
I know I’m a lurker here at best, but it can’t be said often enough: this science vs. religion malarkey is utter rot.
Science and religion are, broadly, attempting to address very different questions about existence (what can we observe and deduce about the physical world, vs. what does it all mean, morally). Or at least they should be. I see no inherent conflict between science and faith, but I see a lot of people who see fit to make a conflict.
“But Wilson is correct in regards to the dangerous tribalism that religion encourages, whether it is Muslim extremists or Christian fundamentalists. A society that adopts a particular religious view will discriminate against those not of that view.”
Wilson’s theory resonates beyond the religious debate into the area of ideology or opinion or world view. We choose our isms and then beat everybody with them.
Well, I know I do.
Someone losely put it that science explores the how, and religion the why. I’d go further and say that philosophy provides the why.
Religion without philosophy is useless. Science without philosophy is similarly useless. Science is not the root of ethics or courtesy: philosophy is.
“It does lead one to ask why do some feel that faith needs the imprimatur of science?”
# To give it some firm basis other than a book, perhaps?
“Is science as a means of knowing got something that religion lacks?”
# Yes. It is a means of knowing. Religion is not a means of knowing. I really do think that religious literalism/fundementalism is an opting-out on philosophy. Religion, like science, is a wonderful starting point for philosophy. I have a soft spot for the old naqme for science: natural philosophy, mostly because there is no point knowing something new unless you are prepared to think about it. Unadorned fact is a useless tool. A fact surrounded by a philosophy is a useful tool.
Christian fundementalism has nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with getting a kick out of being a lobbyist. The cause of Christianity is hampered by fundementalism, so it’s no surprise that it has so little momentum in Australia.
I’m with Kieran.
What Kieran said. Asking ‘can science and religion be reconciled’ is missing the point on a grand scale.
I was going to go with the science is how and religion is why, but Harry has already stated that. BTW I think it may have been Gurdjieff…. well at least on the issue of science only concentrating on the “how”.
Essentially what you’re asking is an exercise in epistomology (follow the link) ie where truths and beliefs overlap….. to intersect in the area known as knowledge.
As for tribalism, fundamentalist atheiests are the most hard core I’ve come across!
I’m sure someone more credible than Gurdjieff has said it. harry, for instance.
I agree with Kieran – to a point. Ultimately, we have to make moral / political decisions about values etc, and not leave these to soulless technocrats.
However, I do think we ought to do so on the basis of evidence. Take AIDS prevention in Africa as a classic example. Certain US funding agencies take the moral view that programs supporting abstinence is what should be funded. Problem is – it doesnt work. And there’s just been a perfectly good ‘ABC’ approach in the country (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) for the last 10 years, which reducing the rate of HIV infeection from 15% to 4%. An outstanding African success, imperilled by a faith-based aversion to empirical evidence.
An atheist Johnno I don’t agree but understand your point.;-)
I detest fundamentalism whether theistic or atheistic. It is one of the problems I have with Richard Dawkins. Love his science writings but his anti-religious screeds I often find grating.
An aside, I find American atheists often quite militant in their approach. I assume that is a reaction to the Christian fundamentalism of the States.
harry, the question is do scientists understand philosophy? Personally for some time I’ve suspected that what scientists do and what philosophers of science think scientists do are worlds apart. I find myself a more than a little Feyarebendian on this issue.
It has been argued that prospective scientists would benefit from doing a philosophy of science course. There is some merit in this remark. But I suggest that in daily practice inductive reasoning is the norm rather than deductive reasoning contrary to Hume and Popper.
I think the regard faith has for wanting the imprimatur of science is more than being based on a book. Not all religion is fundamentalism. The ID movement, even though it welcomes the fundies, has adherents who are relatively progressive in their faith. Some of the brouhaha is a mistaken notion regarding philosophical and methodological naturalism. There is a culture war happening in some instances. At other times I would regard it as science envy.
And nice comment regarding ye old expression of ‘natural philosophy.’
Finally, yes I agree with Kieran as well. However exploring the issue I always find fascinating.
And James, I always use wit, facts and compelling arguments to convince others of my particular isms.
And if that fails well yes, then it is time for the beating.
LE, what you have is when faith and idealogy becomes policy. Time to resurrect an old Ranty post titled Politics of Abstinence where I had a look at the Ugandan experience.
After we’ve reconciled science and religion, we can move on to reconciling electrical engineering and dancing. Makes about as much sense to me.
Too late Andrew. It has already happened.
I like this one better, Shaun:
Dancing with robots…
At the risk of repeating myself, Liam makes an extremely important point about what scientists actually do, as opposed to the more ‘mythical quests’ like astrobiology or the big bang.
I don’t think it’s an esoteric question at all Shaun. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – a very exoteric one – whether we like democracy or we need some other point of reference to conduct our lives. I don’t really care whether that’s religious or some Platonic ideal of an objective world out there which we’ll progressively know better in a linear process of reduction and mastery. The point is one of a normative orientation.
Take, for example, Cosma Shalizi:
Notice the caution in the language? I could provide such examples in the social sciences too, but truth comes down to metaphysical, and ultimately normative, questions.
Johnno,
”
“As for tribalism, fundamentalist atheiests are the most hard core I‚Äôve come across!
# Militant atheism, that is: religious-bashing atheism – those who think the job of an atheist is to thwart the gods and his followers, is no different to a religion.
Shaun,
Richard Dawkins other problem is that he is sooooo freakin boring. He’s writing pop-science books as part of his mission to bring science to the mass (a mission I applaud) yet he seems to go out of his way to make it hard for laypeople to understand his point. No wonder ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ as a metaphor has been mutated by opponents into that idea of a hurricane blowing through a scrapyard to make a fully functioning 747. The person he most has to blame for obscuring science is himself! Contrast his writings with Matt Ridley (The Origins of Virtue); Timothy Taylor (The Buried Soul: How Humans Invented Death); and James Shreeve (The Neanderthal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins) and you can’t but cry out for any of them to have written his books instead.
“harry, the question is do scientists understand philosophy?”
# ooh. Good one. Philosophically I’d have to say that scientists believe that exploration and investigation are the ways to discovery. Whether that is carried through to all facets of life is another matter.
In a way, the culture wars have been about knocking science off it’s pedastal (a relic of pompous Victorian times) to use science as a trophy, rather than just to knock the pretensions off it and bring it into real life. In a way, it’s as if the anti-science brigade are getting revenge for the elitism inherent in pronouncement’s from science-on-high, rather than trying to actually understand what the scientists are saying.
But the joke will be on them when they all die from cancer because they opposed stem-cell research, so what the hey.
The charge of science being immoral is laughable, but it would help if certain scientists actually acknowlegded that science is a process and is therefore *amoral*, rather than trying to prove that science is actually moral.
It is malarkey as Kieran says, and needs to be stated as such by prominent scientists. Heck, if the vatican can do it…
“Personally for some time I‚Äôve suspected that what scientists do and what philosophers of science think scientists do are worlds apart.”
# I agree with you, Shaun. As well as Johnno’s suggestion of teaching epsitomology we should all be taught philosophy, such that by the time we are legally adults we actually have one!
Anyone in particular in mind, harry?
This seems to be summising by people who basically don’t believe in much, unless you consider science or secular humanism to be belief systems, which some people do.
If you’re going to compare science with ‘religion’, you need to have something experiential, since science requires evidence, rather than speculation, which is where philosophical thought falls down.
Therefore you can’t categorise religion into one lump, since most religious systems disagree that the other is right. So, where do you go? Well, each religious system has to demonstrate that there is something in its ‘mystical’ methodology which produces evidence of its being more than an outlet for superstition.
Are you serious? Something in the “mystical methodology” of a religious system provides EVIDENCE that it ISN’T an outlet for superstition?
It’s precisely the lack of anything even approaching evidence that makes all “religious” systems outlets for superstition. It’s why they’re called religions and not science, and why they can be categorised into one lump: spaghetti tentacle god / vengeful sky god / animistic spirits / the TomKat Baby are all simply fairy tales with as much credibility as each other.
Some have more marketing djuzh like pamphlets and training manuals, priestly castes and other bells and whistles, but they’re all reliant upon the suspension of disbelief.
Leaving the fairly obvious conclusion that if all religions are contradictory, they could all be wrong.
I’m (belatedly) with Keiran.
This general argument bugs me a lot, probably something to do with me being a scientist. There are plenty of dumb-assed scientists that like to think that science can replace or disprove religion. There are plenty of dumb-assed religions types or philosophy types that like to bag out on science. I think that both categories are reflective of people who like to work in generalizations and are more interested in pushing beliefs than rational debate.
Religion = This is why it’d better work or else.
Philosophy = Why doesn’t it work like I thought it would?
Science = It seems to work like this.
I concur with the “how” and “why” bit. But picking up from Lefty’s comments, I’d add that we don’t need religion to make moral decisions. In many cases, we’d be better off without it.
Fyodor
‘It‚Äôs precisely the lack of anything even approaching evidence that makes all “religious” systems outlets for superstition.’
You see my point—you judge everthing according your ’scientific’ experience, and completely miss what is being said. You don’t want to believe anything outside of your world, so you don’t see anything.
You see a fossil and know it, by science and reason, to be the evidence of life, but you can’t go the step beyond and explain or give evidence of how that life exists.
You haven’t experienced any evidence of another dimension so you blindly assume there isn’t any experience to be had.
The people who have experienced the supernatural can’t explain to such a narrow thinker how their experience is important to them because the first thing you’re going to do is call them ’superstitious’, or call for the data, which you wouldn’t be able to understand anyway, or would attempt to explain away according the confines of your experience.
So what’s your evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural world? How do you disprove it based on your lack of experience?
Nabakov,
‘Religion = This is why it‚Äôd better work or else.’
Which religion? You too make the mistake of lumping all religion into one bag.
Zarquon,
‘if all religions are contradictory, they could all be wrong.’
What if one were right? The argument is still the same. If you lump all beliefs under one ‘religion’ umbrella you have no discussion because your starting point is wrong since they are essentially different. Equating all ‘religions’ with every other ‘religion’ is as unscientific and illogical as listing monkeys with spiders on the ‘evolution tree’.
“You too make the mistake of lumping all religion into one bag”
And why not? All religions seem to keep lumping us into one bag- the belivers and the damned.
Do you feel happy about following a belief system who’s core tenets would condemn most of your interlocuters here to enternal pain?
Eternal,pain ,,,,,yes…yes..What have you discovered?
I know is was just a glitch Nabs – but I like this “enternal” pain idea.
Im seeing a perpetual rectal exam.
btw, is it an offence in Victoria to vilify all religions, you know, on a equal opportunity basis?
Yes but its the pain,,,let us feel the pain,,,?The horror ,the landscape:?
Nabakov,
Now you’re steering the discussion into a moral question and avoiding the argument that lumping all religions into one bag is essentially fruitless in finding any solution to the question at hand, which whether there can be a reconciliation between science and religion..
So far I’ve avoided calling anyone ‘damned’ or a ’sinner’ or anything similar since I don’t consider this a forum to press my Christian views in that way. Neither have I lumped anyone in any bag, except maybe left or right wing politically. I’m not out ot judge anyone. Judge yourselves!
I’ll discuss it with anyone privately, but I’m not here to be bagged out for what you consider my belief system to be. If you feel you’re ‘damned’ for not believing in God I suggest you do something about it. However if you want to press me on it I’ll go for it.
On the other hand, I will talk about the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension which can be experienced by anyone who is curious enough to want to adventure there, which I believe to be relevant to the subject at hand.
I’ve decided to skip reading the comments for now, so not to get distracted. I’m not sure about whether an ethics can be developed out of science – most likely not, though i think science can, and has, helped in clarifying some ethical issues. I’m quite sure that religion hasn’t contributed much at all to our ethical understanding, in spite of the loud claims of believers. If you look for example at the major philosophical contributors to ethics, from Aristotle to Peter Singer, they owe very little to religion, or to science.
However, i also happen to believe that science and religion are in conflict, as they’re both in the business of explaining how the world is and how it came to be. The claim that they’re concerned with mutually exclusive matters seems to me obviously and demonstratively false. That’s the whole point of the ID farce. The catholic church has apparently put its money on evolution, and that actually puts it in an untenable, self-defeating position, though obviously i haven’t space to demonstrate that here.
“Now you‚Äôre steering the discussion into a moral question ”
Show me a religion which doesn’t try to do just that.
We live in a universe where there are 10 million species of beetles, and where Rembrandt did awe-inspiring shit with light and shadow that can’t be replicated now while at the same time they broke people on the wheel down the road.
We live in a galaxy where we can see both black holes and Big Brother suck light and gravity into the unknown while they slaughter eachother by the hundreds of thousands in the Congo over the trace mineral elements needed for our mobile phones.
In a world where a few Cambridge screwups cracked the code for our genetic assembly manual only a few years after a titchy little short-sighted lawyer in a loincloth faced down the world’s most effective empire.
A way of life where the most well educated western country organised the worst industrial human killing system ever. And then our species came up with the Goon Show within the next decade. We can create absinthe and napalm, neutron bombs and Monty Python, jazz and lynch mobs, Geoffrey Archer and Angela Carter.
But we’re still stuck in a place where we feed cats who then laugh at us for no discernable reason.
I can see no logical, inspiring or thoughtful bronze-age monotheistic solo god that is helping us make sense of this past, present and future gaudy carnival.
Instead I see a pantheon of vaguely anthropometric primal male fighting and building energies, female swarming and caring energies, both irritated and enhanced by a serious helping of trickster and fixer energies – all bubbling around in the long shot cauldron of life as we know it.
It’s the id and ego of Athena, Apollo, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes and Demeter, all infused and enthused through us (and vice versa) that what really makes every little personal involvement in the world kick up their heels, and so keeps the whole bloody thing generally revolving.
Though personally I’m more of Krishna/Pan/Loki player m’self.
And anyway and whatever, that is why LF I have little truck with your insipid and dull little belief system. The human race deserves better than third hand preaching. Real gods build, inspire, create, screw up, fight, fuck around and generally wassail on through us fleshy vessels.
Io Pan!
Oh, I should point out my previous comment was rather influenced by the fact John Fowles just carked it.
But I do believe the godgame will keep on keeping on.
Terce
Oh…kay…
Moving on:
FL, I’ve only shown up the logical inconsistency in your position. You can’t talk of evidence and logic in the context of “mystical methodology” and “superstition”, because they are antithetic to both. The WHOLE POINT of science is that you DON’T believe; you construct hypotheses and test them, continuously. It would be awfully convenient if I bought your line about the separation of the physical and metaphysical worlds, but I don’t as it’s bullshit. Unless you can provide evidence that the metaphysical/supernatural world exists, there’s no reason to believe in it.
Not true: I can provide a range of hypotheses. The point is that I can’t prove that one of them is correct. However, neither can you, only you’ve deluded yourself into believing that you can.
Ah, strawman #415. Unlike you, I assume nothing. You believe without any evidence. Which position is more reasonable?
Somebody tells me a tall story, and my response is “prove it”. You hear the same gumph and you swallow it whole. Which position is more reasonable?
You’ve really not learned a damn thing through these “debates”, have you? How do I disprove something which, by construction, cannot be proven or disproven? I don’t. Do I believe the malarkey? No, of course not.
Why do you persist in believing something whose existence you know you can’t prove? Don’t reply – it’s a rhetorical question. The correct answer is “wishful thinking”: you want it to be true, so you believe it.
Having read more of the comments, i’ll say this. There is a sense in which all religions can be lumped together, in spite of their often being at each others’ throats. That is, that they’re all born of similar impulses. Kieran’s early comment that religion’s about ‘what does it all mean, morally’ is i think wrong. Religion’s only secondarily about morality. It’s primarily about protection, and a sense of importance. One of the most powerful passages about religious need and angst ever penned comes from Pascal, in which he captures a kind of ontological vertigo, a sense of abandonment to the vastnesses beyond, making him feel both insignificant and, in a sense, endangered.
Compare this to the need of a new-born. The first need is protection, and if you like, unconditional love. This i think is the origin of worship – a desperate need to ensure that the god is with you, to which you will sacrifice anything (‘my god, why have you forsaken me’ is acknowledged as one of the more heart-rending phrases of the bible). Only later does the child need to know how to behave, and that’s where morality kicks in, though it’s still largely about protection – but also about growth. I think Aristotle’s idea about ethics preparing the ground for human flourishing stems from this idea of self-preservation mixed with growth.
Science and religion are profoundly related in that they offer vastly different responses to the world and its dangers. Religion turns inward (not so much to the self but to some social in-group) and begs for protection and a sense of ’specialness’ from some father-figure, while science turns outward and goes foth to master (with all the jealousy-inducing hubris that this entails).
Fyodor,
‘The correct answer is “wishful thinking”: you want it to be true, so you believe it.’
Wrong! I, like millions of others, know it to be true. That’s why Christians allowed themselves to be martyred rather than deny their faith. That’s a rather radical ideal.
I have experienced evidence. Between yourself and Nabakov you’ve switched from discussing the subject to a personal attack on Christian beliefs which neither of you knows anything about, apart from what you see in books. I don’t think it means squiddly to this ‘debate’ whether you believe in God or not.
You can’t put things such as wisdom, conscience, morality, love, hate, faith, remorse, preminition, deja vu, visions, ambition, kindness, aggression, sympathy, selfishness, guilt, joy, etc., etc., etc, which are all just as much part of the human make up as hair, bones, flesh and blood, into your scientific ’see and believe it’ think box and say, ‘give evidence of how they work’, and if you can’t they don’t really exist.
You can’t deny the majority of the world’s population’s courtship with some kind of ‘higher power’, which is evidently contrary to all other species, and therefore, if you’re correct about evolution, a development not previously known, so obviously a ‘pneumomutation’ of some kind which has stuck to this species. Surley you want to investigate this phenomenon rather than deny it, or condemn it out of hand.
No, you don’t know it to be true. You believe it’s true. And that’s kinda the point, isn’t it?
What was the evidence? Where’s the personal attack on Christian beliefs? Why do you assume I know nothing about said beliefs?
I didn’t. You’re the one conflating these things with religion. You may think it’s an effective diversion, but it’s a transparent ploy.
Lots of sheeple believe dumb stuff. That doesn’t make it right. Science isn’t a popularity contest. Likewise for evolution and belief in garden gnomes.
I don’t. I’ve investigated plenty of religious systems and patterns of belief. That doesn’t mean any belief set is particularly compelling. They’re all fairy tales.
Nabakov,
‘No, you don‚Äôt know it to be true. You believe it‚Äôs true’
You confuse Biblical belief with mental assent.
‘Likewise for evolution and belief in garden gnomes.’
I don’t see people following garden gnomes to the lions in the Roman arenas.
Evidence? I’ll try to give you a couple of things you might grasp.
What we call demonised people set free. It’s quite an experience. It’s catalogued in the New Testament and I’ve seen it demonstrated, up close, (please avoid throwing ‘charlatan’, ‘deception’ tags around, I’m trying to help you). The involuntary contortions, convulsions, the flashing, rolling eyes, the changing voices, the reluctance to ‘leave the body’, the final ‘deliverance’, when the person ‘inhabited’ falls to the floor, free. The subsequent evidence of a sustained changed life and lifestyle. I’ve seen others ’slide’ along the floor like serpents before being ’set free’.
Speaking in tongues. Quite a phenomenon, this. It seems that you can just ‘catch it’ by having someone pray for you, and it works. I’ve seen entire lines of people just break out into strange languages they didn’t understand. Again, very biblical.
There are many other things happening which identify another realm.
Maybe you just haven’t been in the right places. Specially if you’ve been hanging around garden gnomes for your spiritual kicks.
Religion is primitive thought handed down – undigested and ossified. Science is the accumulation of pragmatic thought in its current state. Philosophy is the human mind lost in wonder and speculation.
As science moves forward to uncover mysteries, philosophy likewise moves on – always staying a step ahead and out of the way of the scientific steam-roller.
The flat-earth religionists do not even feel the passage of the steam-roller.
Ethics is politics – and as much related to philosophy as it is to religion and science.
(Are American atheists more offensive than me?)
‘Religion is primitive thought handed down – undigested and ossified.’
Handed down from what, in evolutionary terms? From apes, ants, crustaceans, gnomes?
The proportion of genuine atheists is extremely minimal. Most people believe in something, or are open to discussion. What does this say about human evolution? How did belief in the supernatural enter the equation?
It’s a little staggering to find that someone is seriously suggesting that witnessing ‘demonised people set free’ is a proof of something. The whole notion of ‘demonisation’ is a construction, and a very primitive one at that, a belief that ‘evil’ is something so simple and basically material that it’s like a virus that can be expelled by exorcism. Of course the only people who suffer this ‘demonisation’ are those who have already swallowed the primitive beliefs that give the construction credence or coherence. The process can of course be much more satisfactorily explained in terms of in-group crowd behaviour.
Religion will always outlast science, I fear, for history tells us that people are by and large prepared to believe anything, no matter how outrageous, in order to avoid thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own lives.
Stewart,
‘the only people who suffer this ‘demonisation‚Äô are those who have already swallowed the primitive beliefs that give the construction credence or coherence.’
What’s your evidence for this? How many ‘demonised’ people have you tried to help? What would you suggest for them? Medication, which is another form of imprisonment? Psychological examination which leads to where? Incarceration as in past centuries? It’s very real for the person involved. What can science do for them? Tell them, Oh you’ve just swallowed a primitive belief, that’s all. Here, have a dose of atheism. That’ll fix it!
Religion is primitive thought handed down – unchallenged and revered – from parent to child, from a culture to its members.
Religions are ancient narratives shared by a group. These days as people are able to move from culture to culture via books and modern travel (and permitted to do so by the lessening of social bonds and the protection of secular law etc) – we are able to pick and choose which of the old belief systems we want to adopt.
wbb,
Nice thought, but I came from a family background of no belief in a culture where druidism was a stronghold (the dolmens and stone circles still exist on Guernsey, where was born), and catholicism took over until Wesley arrived.
The proof of a ‘religion’ is that its precepts work, regardless of its roots. I can only speak of New Testament Christianity, and, in the context of this discussion, the supernatural side of experiences which are consistent with what I read about in the Bible. I gave two examples, but met a skeptical response, which was predictable.
You could be accurate in your analogy, but it doesn’t detract from the reality of a dimension which is interesting enough to be worthy of research and consideration.
I don’t spend alot of time looking for supernatural phenomena outside of Christianity, but there is evidence that a nation like Haiti, which officially subjects itself to voodoo worship, has some weird, otherworldly, if undesirable, stuff take place.
Belief is mental assent, unless you’re willing to admit that you believe in statements you know to be false. It’s you that seems to confuse biblical fairy-tales with the truth.
So that’s your empirical test of religious truth, is it? The delusional believing in something to the extent that they’ll commit suicide before apostasy? Well that’s me convinced. You’re in some pleasant company, fella.
“Demonisation” and “speaking in tongues”. THAT is your evidence? For what? That disturbed people behave in peculiar ways, or that some white-bearded bloke created the universe? Please explain the logical process you’ve followed, as I’ve obviously missed an essential step. Yeshua Ben Yosef, that is pitiful. At least a jesuit would have had the good sense to dodge the messy question of physical proof.
This is one of those “vibe” arguments, isn’t it? If I don’t “get” it (i.e. don’t believe your malarkey), you’re not going to explain it? Yes, very persuasive.
Oh, boy, this is rich. You want an evolutionary explanation for why you believe some omnipotent desert sky god impregnated some “virgin” in Johnny Arab-land and then had the resulting kid crucified?
The idea’s a bit far-fetched for your belief to have been instinctual, yes? Perhaps someone with a little influence over a young FaceLift suggested this particular fairy tale was actually true, and you were gullible enough to believe it? No evolutionary explanation required in this case.
Why do other sheeple believe similarly dopey shit? For a variety of reasons, but it doesn’t mean that what they believe is true.
Fyodor,
You completely miss the point of what I’m saying, perhaps to shred the thread. Whether you or I believe in God or not is not the issue. You’re just deconstructing sentences, and challenging a particular belief, but putting up no logical or in any way compassionate (strange for a LW’er) ideas to explain why people believe and behave.
I used the ‘evolutionary explanation’ route hypothetically to attempt to get a response on evolutionists terms to what I believe is a genuine question of why people believe so fully, to the point of dying for their faith (your comparison of Christian martyrs to suicide bombers was heartless and unworthy of your otherwise clever intellect and debating skills. Those people died in the arenas to avoid violence, not to perpetrate it, and caused thousands of Romans to convert because of their witness (hence the name ‘martyr’ (witness), which unltimately helped change the make-up of the Roman empire). The truth is that there are people in prison today for their Christian beliefs in places as ‘civilised’ as Pakistan and China, who would be released if they wopuld only ‘recant’ andd go baack to being slaves of the state, and children are still being beheaded, without wearing body-packs, for believing in Yeshua). I regret trying to reach your mind that way.
The young FL was agnostic.
Two cents time!
Religion is extremely useful to control communities of people, and not neccessarily in a negative form of control either.
My mother grew up in a farming community with the members of her local community scattered far and wide across the surrounding region. Organised religion has a massive role to play in social cohesion (get everyone together at least once a week for a social gathering), social pecking-order/status/pissing contest (“well my son is the altar boy”/more-holy-than-thou type stuff), social responsibility & caring (“Bob didn’t come to church this week, is he ok?”), and other such advantages such as providing a universal moral code for the community to function by.
However no-one actually has to believe in the particular religion for these advantages to work, pray, sing, etc – these don’t really matter, what matters is the community survives and thrives, and the individuals within it thrive too.
Getting back to control…
Communities use religion as a correction and crime-prevention device too. The afore mentioned universal moral code that a religion provides is an etremely effective – and somewhat self correcting – approach to a Legal system. An example of ‘Everybody reading from the same page’, maybe.
Also on control, it could be argued that Organised Religion along the Judeo/Christian/Islam line of religion is a form of terrorism. All these religions have as a central item of faith that if you’re bad you’ll go to hell (or equiv) after you die. In other words they actively encourage people to live in fear – sometimes sheer terror – of a hypothetical outcome.
Caution: More sloppy, half-formed idle thoughts to follow unless the bottle runs out.
“what I believe is a genuine question of why people believe so fully, to the point of dying for their faith”
The degree of adherence to a belief system is not indication of underlying truth of system. As we know Muslims and Christians are at each others throats going way back – they were both prepared to die for their beliefs – which is therefore more true?
People die for secular beliefs too. Witness the “Freedom Lovers” emanating from the USA recently. And of course the communists all over. Belief systems (whether religious or not) are often rallying points for the hoary tribal pursuits of warfare, rape and pillage.
Not to say of course that religion is only that. It is also an early form of science and philosphy. But religionists who die for their beliefs are proof of not very much that is particular to their particualr religion. They are just doing what we all do for our various delusions and passions.
“My mother grew up in a farming community with the members of her local community scattered far and wide across the surrounding region. Organised religion has a massive role to play in social cohesion (get everyone together at least once a week for a social gathering), social pecking-order/status/pissing contest (“well my son is the altar boy”/more-holy-than-thou type stuff), social responsibility & caring (“Bob didn‚Äôt come to church this week, is he ok?”), and other such advantages such as providing a universal moral code for the community to function by”
Confucianism provides all this without the supernatural bells and whistles
wbb,
I believe the catholic era of the dark and middle ages, including the crusades and inquisition were an affront to true Christianity, and more thirst for power by opportunists.
I’m more of the likes of Huss, Wycliffe and Tynedale, who adhered as much as possible to New Testament concepts including ‘love your enemy’, not pulverise them. These men were persecuted for nothing more than faith and attempting to spread it to others.
I would find it hard to level the charge of ‘deluded’ to Huss as he was burning at the stake for wanting to be a free man in a tyranical world. This is the stuff of heroes, not hoary tribal pursuits.
Time out, FL. My contribution to this thread began when I called you on two howlers, i.e. (1) “mystical” evidence can divide religion from superstition; and (2) all religions can’t be lumped together.
This determination of yours to explain why people believe and behave is entirely new, and follows the refutation of other tosh you’ve submitted. If you want to get your knickers bunched over this subject, here’s my response: human behaviour is complex and largely driven by social and cultural development. Religions, mythologies, superstitions etc serve many purposes, and people believe stuff for all sorts of reasons, including ignorance, cultural norms and wishful thinking. The fact that people CHOOSE to believe in spaghetti monsters in no way proves the existence of such creatures.
BTW, I’m not a Lipsniging Wet, nor do I claim to be compassionate. I do attempt to be logical.
Yeah, I know, because you don’t understand evolution. Belief is a psychological and social phenomenon – there’s no reason to believe that we are hardwired to believe. That is, nobody’s come up with a decent evolutionary explanation for it yet, and nor is there much cause to given the plethora of psychological, social and cultural explanations.
Perhaps heartless, but accurate and apropos. All manner of horrors have been perpetrated by people deluded by religious belief. The fact that some Christians committed those horrors upon themselves and not other people doesn’t excuse the horrors committed by Christians, Muslims, Spaghettios etc on other people. Fanaticism is fanaticism, and you’re not going to reach my mind with melodrama.
.. and Jesus was a nicer guy than Joe Stalin.
The Bible having some attractive ethical philosophy does not make its supernatural underpinnigs any the truer. Humans are capable of goodness. It’s the flipside of our tribal mentality. We know how to get along with each other.
“there‚Äôs no reason to believe that we are hardwired to believe.”
excuse, me
‘All manner of horrors have been perpetrated by people deluded by religious belief’ or in the case of China, no belief – atheism.
No howler to suggest ‘each religious system has to demonstrate that there is something in its ‘mystical‚Äô methodology which produces evidence of its being more than an outlet for superstition.’
There is a separation of religions, since most purport to have a different ‘god’ or ‘gods’, and therefore a different methodology, and many are based on superstition and produce no significant or even minor supernatural events.
Trying to lump all religion together and make a genuine analysis is like saying chalk and cheese are the same so we need to store chalk in the fridge.
“‘All manner of horrors have been perpetrated by people deluded by religious belief‚Äô or in the case of China, no belief – atheism.”
Let’s get rid of this furphy once and for all. The horrors of China and Russia had nothing to do with atheism – they were facilitated by belief systems which were immunised from falsification and overlaid with a cult of personality – much like many religions.
Yeah, people are just beastly.
Nah, it’s a howler. Why? Because you’re discussing evidence – a concept antithetical to belief – in the context of religion. Because you’ve fabricated a meaningless concept in “mystical methodology”. Because you’re making a pejorative and arbitrary distinction between “religion” and “superstition”. Because the whole concept of distinguishing between religious systems on the basis of a rational assessment is ludicrous. That’s why.
Wow. You really believe that, don’t you? So the Spaghetti Monster Cult is “just” a superstition because its adherents don’t [yet] claim to have fettucine stigmata spewing from their ears? So monotheistic Christianity is a proper religion because it has a god and elaborate cosmology (there’s a book about it!), whereas Shinto is just animistic superstition? You can draw any distinction you like between different religions, but they’re all systems of belief surrounding the supernatural.
Or they’re just different types of cheese, in which case we do need to store them in the fridge. Or they’re different kinds of vegetable. Or fruit. Or life is like a box of chocolates. Or they’re like analogies between similar but different things which can be grouped together under the category of “analogy”.
Fy,
So you think people believe in something they can’t in some way experience, or even feel, or know, and that’s what qualifies for real belief? You’re talking about some kind of ‘blind faith’, which is indeed mental assent. Bible faith is not defined as mental assent, but as ’substance’ (hupostasis) and is of the heart. It has nothing to do with superstition, which is phobic and ignorant.
JS
‘The horrors of China and Russia had nothing to do with atheism’, must just have been that religious opiate they wanted to expel.
a one liner does not a refutation make, FaceLift. If you have a serious point to make linking atheism to Stalinism and Maoism, make it. Otherwise you haven’t a leg to stand on.
JS,
From a sympathetic (to atheism) site:
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_more.php?id=40_0_2_0_C
‘Here there is no question that we had an avowedly and officially atheist state which under Stalin‚Äôs rule in particular practised mass extermination on a horrific scale.’
FL the link also states:
The point of the article is to demonstrate that atheism without civil liberties and liberalism can be a dangerous doctrine. But then anything without regard to civil liberties and liberalism can be a dangerous doctrine. It is not something inherent in atheism as such.
Jason,
Agreed!
Do a lot of thinking with your heart, do you?
I think I’m beginning to understand it now: bible faith is different from superstition because it’s really heartfelt. Pull the other one.
Here’s a good line from one of the Western World’s sacred texts.
“Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were…more trouble than they were worth.”
-Worf, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “Homefront”
Fyodor
I don’t know what you have in your heart, but just to help you with Bible faith:
“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” Matthew 12:34
“With the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” Romans 10:10
Well, as they used to say on Curiousity Show, I’m glad you asked: muscle and blood, mostly. Probably more cholestrol than is healthy. What’s in yours? Pixie dust?
I hope you’re not taking anatomy lessons from the bible. It’s chockerblock full of makey-upey stuff. Say, you don’t think God created the universe in six days, do you?
Whatever!!!!!
Fy,
So now explain these things:
To know something by heart
‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder‚Äô
To put your heart and soul into something
To wear one’s heart upon one’s sleeve
To be broken hearted
To disburden one’s heart
‘From the bottom of one‚Äôs heart‚Äô
‘To not have it in one‚Äôs heart to do something‚Äô
To set one’s heart upon something
The secret and innermost recesses of the heart
The cockles of one’s heart
The heart of hearts
To be big hearted
To have a tender heart, warm heart, sensitive heart
To take heart
To be cold hearted, hard hearted
To touch the heart
Cut to the heart
Heart-stirring
Heart-rending
The heart leaping into one’s mouth
Heavy heart, bleeding heart, heart stricken
To win the heart, or do one’s heart good
Top set one’s heart at ease
To talk heart to heart
Yeah, FL, people used to think that passion and emotions resided in the heart. Does this mean you believe in medieval anatomy? If yes, I have some awesome, fresh frogspawn for you, perfect for cleansing the phlegmatic humours!
They’re metaphorical expressions, based on the erroneous belief that the heart was the seat of a person’s conscious mind. Next?
You’re all heart!
Facelift,
I too have seen people speaking in tongues and helped at exorcisms. The thing is that the words don’t matter – it’s the rhythm and parsing.
The reason the bible works in your instances is because the rhythm and parsing works in almost any language: ie it’s baby talk.
The tongues these people speak is identical to what pre-language-capable kids say. It’s a regression to a previous age. Same as the demons: it’s arguing with a child about two years old.
My team induced both talking-in-tongues and demon-possession behaviour (and getting them out of it) using any number of starting points including Talmud, The Bible, Temple of Set Majick, Taoist chant and even Shakespeare.
[This was an offshoot into researching trance music and religious chanting with it's ultimate reliance on a womb-heard heartbeat. It all spiralled from there.]
Harry,
Nice theory. There’s all kinds of wierd and wonderful things happening, and experimentally some of them can be interesting, so this, psychologically, would be a kind of explanation of what tongues and deliverance is, but I doubt very much that you saw what I was describing.
Hearing ‘prelanguage’ kids, they positively are not saying what Christians say when they speak in tongues, any more than their scribble writing imitating mum’s ‘real writing’ is actually a language. Now your experimental guinea-pigs may have spoken ‘prelanguage’ ‘tongues’, and I’m sure things such as hypnosis through trances can induce many things, but you’re way off beam here.
The Greek, “glossalia’ is the term used in the New Testament for ’speaking in tongues’, and it merely means languages, but indicates coherant speach of another language, not baby talk, which is why, Biblically, the speaker didn’t understand the language, but there were those who heard and did understand because it was in their native tongue.
Truly demonised people generally have accompanying social, physical or emotional problems, which, if they are truly ‘exorcised’, are gone after they’ve been prayed for, much to their relief and haappiness, which is surely point of working with people to help them by whatever means we have aat our disposal, whether it is confirmed by present day scientific understanding or not.
People can talk about ‘ancient’ or animist beliefs and practices all they like, but, I reiterate, there are those who are affected by strange phenomena, even in this so enlightened and wisdom-packed 21st century, and medicine and psychology, for all its great and wonderful scientific advances cannot, yet, provide the solution for some of these people who have, in my experience, been set free by simple old ancient, Bible-based prayer.
All I’m saying in this thread is that it is worth investigating.
At least you tried, harry, for which I congratulate you.
Sheesh. Where’re the Mythbusters when you need ‘em?
Ampersand Duck’s husband will do proper talking in tongues if you (a) ask VERY nicely or (b) turn up on his doorstep offering religious guidance and/or salvation.
Facelift, have you taken up a serpent? Now THAT would be impressive.
You guys really need to get out a bit more. Have a nice day!
Don’t believe everything you read, FL. Have a better one!
I was pretty sure you’d never taken up a serpent, but I didn’t think just asking would freak you out.
Zoe,
This is a guy who’s freaked out by people babbling in tongues and acting possessed. He’s obviously a Prodigy fan. That, or a member of the CWA.
Not freaked out. The only thing I’ve done with a real serpent is biff a very large rock at one to chase it off from my back yard where my kids were playing a few years ago.
How ever I was once talking to a rather inebriated aboriginal girl, who was asking me for prayer for help for her addiction, when she suddenly, out of the blue, as I began to pray, fell on the floor and began sliding and writhing around the floor. Her boy friend was freaked out, having not seen this before. The Bible talks about a girl who had a ’spirit of divination’, which was called, in Greek, ‘python’ (not Monty). The apostle Paul cast that spirit out and she comes to her senses, for which he is promptly thrown in jail, having ruined her manager’s income from her fortune telling ability. Remembering this, I told that ’spirit’ to come out of the aboriginal girl as she continued to slide around the floor on her belly. She convulsed for a few minutes, and then lay motionless on the floor before getting up, sober, with shining eyes and a beautiful smile on her face. She was so grateful to be free of that thing.
True story with witnesses.
By the way, Fie, for the Christian, speaking in tongues is good, being demon possessed is bad.
No facelift speaking in tongues is not good.
Read 1 Corinthians again. It doesn’t edify anyone.
however you cannot be a chritian and be demon possesed therefore your conclusion is correct.
“See, I was walking in my garden once, and came across this leprechaun. Finbar was his name, and he was muttering something about these two fat slags…”
Gotcha. What about being possessed by tongues? I’d hate to get that wrong.
Hi Ho,
I’ll rephrase that for you:
For the Pentecostal or charismatic Christian, speaking in tongues is good. For anyone, being demon possessed is bad.
Actually, 1 Corinthians says that speaking in tongues doesn’t edify a person nearby who is listening, purely because they don’t understand what is being said, unless they can interprete, in which case it is as important as prophecy. However it does edify the person speaking. Paul says, “I would like you all to speak in tongue as I do!”
Mu ga en li nu ga hung pa bul zti ub nu glo ben vug ap sheg ku ig aeg pla ooj ag wef pio bud ves poe meg gru awn mor bur awg num av we sut kub veg wpo ke uy ce hn reb pof ee tio pib aek vesk wup loob…
Well Fie,
It would be worse if you were speaking in demons, because then I would really know that you needed help.
Le,
‘Mu ga en li nu ga hung pa bul zti ub nu glo ben vug ap sheg ku ig aeg pla ooj ag wef pio bud ves poe meg gru awn mor bur awg num av we sut kub veg wpo ke uy ce hn reb pof ee tio pib aek vesk wup loob…’
Interpretation:
‘My fresh frogspawn doesn’t work on charismatics, so I’m going to try blood letting with leeches, which is a more recent scientific advance’
FL, leeches are awesome, and still in medical use today, making a comeback in fact. Their saliva’s crazy good stuff; a natural anaesthetic and an anti-coagulant to boot, perfect for controlled bloodletting and clot removal.
Cool! So there’s something the old ways after all!
“It would be worse if you were speaking in demons, because then I would really know that you needed help.”
Dunno about that. There must be some advantage to being a cunning linguist.
The Sioux have a saying for it, “White man speak with forked tongue!”
“White man speak with forked tongue!”
That’s one way to spell it.
I think FL, that when it comes to talking in tongues and matters agape, yer basically just yodelling in the canyons of love.
That’s a Grand thought. I’ll echo it.
More of a pseudo-echo, really. Speaking of canyons grand, that God of yours is a demon with a chisel, ain’t he? I bet that took him the best part of Friday morning.
Just checking your bullsh!t detectors, Facelift.
How do you account for any number of other religions claiming the same thing as you do? – shamanism from a large number of cultures would be the prime example of people being healed: I mean, these guys actively pray to idols etc so aren’t they anti-christian God?
Aren’t you placing a little too much reliance on a document which is a collection of choice bits of previous religions from the region?
The book “the God Experiment” by Russell Stannard is pertinent here. The meat of the book is an experiment done in the late 90s where 600 heart-surgery patients were prayed for and 600 were not prayed for. Those who volunteered for the praying were from all over the US and were given nothing but a photograph of the patient and a request for prayer. The thing is that those who were prayed for *did* have a better recovery rate – both in speed and quality.
Stannard then asks the most relevant question: “Ok, so what actually _is_ prayer?” What did the people actually invoke/do?
I’m sure Rupert Sheldrake would jump in at this point with his fields of Gaia energy and whatnot. Funnily enough many working theories of what ‘consciousness’ actually is are counched in much the same terms.
So, Facelift, why are you so sure it was God and not simply your good intent manifest by other means?
harry, if memory serves me, that particular experiment has been discredited. I think it was originally published in a medical journal and was demolished methodologically in subsequent responses.
Is this the experiment harry and Mark?
And under Popper’s gaze can such studies be falsified?
I love Rupert Sheldrake.
That’s one of them, Shaun.
harry,
‘why are you so sure it was God and not simply your good intent manifest by other means?’
Purely because I’m not inducing the name of Buddha, Mohammed, Ghandi, Gough, Howard, Bush, Ampersand Duck’s husband, Worf, or Sheldrake.
Being a Bible following Christian I just do what it says and lay hands on the sick and cast out demons in the name of Jesus. Not being Jesus, I can’t claim 100% success rate, and there are other factors involved, and believe in any good means of bringing a recovery, including medicine, social interaction, laughter, rest, music, release of tension or stress (which causes 80% of illness), but any success is good, wouldn’t you think?
I hadn’t mentioned healing, which is different in some ways to exorcism, but since you bring it up and point out that the Buddhists claim some success, as do other religions, including Christianity, isn’t there some point to checking out how and why such things take place?
I’m not sure that a controlled experiment is going to yield the kind of results the example sought, particularly since there are number of different religious approaches involved, which goes back to my point that they’re making a mistake to claim that all beliefs belong in one religious category.
“Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. ”
The Devil’s Dictionary – Ambrose Bierce.
“Faith: The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.”
Hebrews 11:1
Anecdote is not the singular of data.
la la la, back to happy non-believer land I go.
Just like to observe that while we’ve been having a merry old time time ragging on FL’s beliefs, he’s held his end up with great good humour and tolerance and has never descended into personal abuse, the prick.
Though I’d be interested to hear his exegesis on this bit of Shakespearean backchat.
Queen Elizabeth: Shall I be tempted by the devil then?
Richard III: Yes, if the devil tempt you to do good.
Kate’s right about Data…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_%28Star_Trek%29
Interesting that ‘he also found Vulcan perspectives regarding logic and stoicism rather limiting.’
I suspect there are a number of Vulcan bloods contributing here.
I’m happy to own up tp Vulcan heritage, FL.
Yes to what Nabakov said. Reading the thread, I thought of the old Chinese story about a crippled Taoist monk sitting on a tree trunk with a sword in each had, holding off the attacks of half a dozen bandits with an effortless ease that indicated he was able to anticipate every move they made, and knew where their sword thrusts were going to be directed before they did.
Go FaceLift! (Not that you’re a crippled Taoist monk, of course.)
When faith healing, or prayer, or chi, or yoga or aromatherapy or astrology or iridology or homeopathy can show up modern medicine’s elimination of smallpox (or even win James Randi’s million dolalr challenge) they might be worth thinking about.
Prayer-pushers have had thousands of years to prove their worth but they have nothing like the success of the BCG vaccine or the polio vaccine at eliminating human suffering to point to.
Umm Rob, I had more in mind a cheerful western (Fransiscan?) monk swapping banter over a brew.
Your analogy would better apply to all the RWDBs increasingly and desperately trying to skewer everyone who pointed out from the start that the Mesopotamia caper was going to be a colossal fuckup. A sword hammered out of lies can’t even cut the air, let alone reality. We just laugh it off now.
And guess who is emerging as the long term winner from out of the sound and fury of the Western Empire’s latest economy-sapping crusade. Yes, all the countries with a solid underlay of panthestic, synergistic, confucian or buddhist/anamist values.Pragmatic, wheeling and dealing belief/philosophical systems. China, India, Brazil.
At the risk of sounding all sweeping and Strocchist here, I’d venture to suggest that the future no longer belongs to any dogmatic culture baked to a hardened shell in inflexible monothestic bronze age beliefs.
Yeah, but Nabakov, in the Chinese story the Taoist monk won. Careful what you wish for.
Taoists don’t wish. They read the flow and go, or no.
As the monk did. ‘Their fullness flowed into my emptiness….’ hehehehe.
Shaun,
“Is this the experiment harry and Mark?”
No, but it’s much the same thing. The one Stannard wrote about was apparently the first large one. Of course that meant that it hadn’t been replicated, which is quite a large problem, as the ones in your link show.
Talk about spoil sports!
“harry, if memory serves me, that particular experiment has been discredited. I think it was originally published in a medical journal and was demolished methodologically in subsequent responses.”
# I thought it was a cute idea. Bummer it’s not real, eh?
Facelift,
“but any success is good, wouldn‚Äôt you think?”
# Absolutely. Most visits to GPs are purely to set patient’s minds at rest. If the net outcome is positive then go for it.
“Being a Bible following Christian I just do what it says and lay hands on the sick and cast out demons in the name of Jesus.”
# Is there that much in the bible about it? It never featured in my short-lived anglican upbringing. Is there a differnce between old and new testaments?
“including Christianity, isn‚Äôt there some point to checking out how and why such things take place?”
# Yes – that’s why I chucked Stannard and Sheldrake at you. Do you have any recommendations yourself?
“I‚Äôm not sure that a controlled experiment is going to yield the kind of results the example sought, particularly since there are number of different religious approaches involved,”
# Sorry, which example? Yours?
“which goes back to my point that they‚Äôre making a mistake to claim that all beliefs belong in one religious category.”
# From a scientific point of view all religions are lumped into the category “unscientific”. It’s definition, not ideaology.
What religious categories would you use instead?
harry,
‘Is there that much in the bible about it?’ There’s enough info in the NT to get anyone started! The difference between the Old & New Testaments is that the new one is more recent! Actually it supercedes,completes and fulfils the old. It is different in that the tough stuff in the Law (ie Leviticus, where people can be stoned for playing up) is replaced by two important laws: to love God and to love people, which takes care of the OT in one hit, and by the crucial fact that Jesus takes care of the sin problem so we can get back to God without having to pay anything (particularly our life!)! (Bare in mind that this is a fairly basic explanation!)
‘which example?’ Yours.
Sheldrake looks interesting, and he’s having a good look, but I don’t think he’s got it right. Don’t know anything about the other except what you mentioned.
Religious categories? Where do you start. If you go to India you’ll find about 300 million hindus who believe in differnt god or variety of deities all doing different things to or for people. That’s what makes this a difficult task. As someone pointed out, even Christianity has different schools. 2 billion nominal and practicing Christians means there are manifold understandings from ultra liberal to ultra conservative. Islam has 1 billion adherants and many schools from deadly militant to moderate to apparently atheistic! Buddhism also has different schools and not all are peaceful or phlegmatic. Then there are animists, ancestor worshippers, animal fetishists, tree huggers, pagans, devil worshippers, druids, zoroastrians, freemasons, Chinese cult systems, Asterix the Gaul, Merlin, Robby Williams, English soccer fans, etc., etc.. Many of these groups can’t be reconciled simply because they’re at the opposite ends of a religious scale. ie Christians and devil worshippers, shi’ites and sunnis.
They can’t all be called unscientific, since there are those who have adapted scientific ideas into their belief system. Some change the rules to suit the times. Some religious groups consider evolutionism to be a cult, as well as secular humanism, and even communism so what or who defines a religious group or an ism?
“so what or who defines a religious group or an ism?”
I’m pretty certain not their gods for starters.
Look, belief and faith in many different secular and non-secular contexts have been great engines for doing good and making many lives better. And the Christos-styled mythos of sacrifice, resurrection and redemption is one of the great stories of humanity.
What I seriously fucking object to though is how so many people who believe (or who have been told to believe) that their personal relationship with their prime mover should be mediated through authouritian hierarchal structures, pretty much always run by old men who live in comfort provided by the sweat of others.
Or to put it another way, the King James Bible is great poetry. But the whole point of poetry is not about laying down rules but making you think and dream about a world where they don’t need to be spelt out.
Unlike the Bible, which is used more as a club than a guide by far too many of all those strange Christian sects. If you’re all singing off the same page, why is there a need for Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Amish, Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, Adventist, Church of the Latter Day Saints, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Plymouth Brethren, Quakers, Methodist, Presbyterian, Marionite, Episcopal, Uniting, Mennonites, Amway (sorry, Hillsong) and ad nauseum?
You may think Hinduism, Buddhism or Shintoism is odd but how about all these divers cults and sects above who all worship the same god in different ways while constantly feuding with eachother over technical and staging issues. Now that’s really weird and spooky.
True belief can move mountains. Religion just lays down laws about how you should climb or mine them instead, according to blueprints usually handed out by blokes hung up on sex.
Tell me FL, what do you really think JC would say on being ordered to put on shoes and then walk through metal detectors by the Swiss Guard before being allowed to enter St Peter’s?
My guess is “Fuck this shit! I‚Äôm off to Rio for Mardi Gras.”
Nabakov,
I can’t think why JC would want to go to St Peter’s except to check out the great art or help someone in particular sort out a cronky life.
Groups fragment because somewhere along the line they become bogged down in form and forget the mission, which is to reconcile people to God.
The good news is that many ‘denominations’ are working through past differences and agreeing to recognise diversity, rather than compounding division.
You know as well as I do that as soon as two people are in the same room (or on the same blog) you have potential for a stoush. The church has just been stoushing for a few centuries that’s all. Very immature, very frustrating, and very damaging. I don’t blame people for being angry about the way things have happened and about the hypocracy. It’s frankly embarassing. But it doesn’t negate the reality of God.
You’re right when you say ‘true belief can move mountains’. I liked the one about ‘ a sword hammered out lies can’t even cut the air’. Maybe there’s a philosopher in you after all!
“I can‚Äôt think why JC would want to go to St Peter‚Äôs except to check out the great art or help someone in particular sort out a cronky life.”
Damn cool response. I’m so sympatico with that.
“which is to reconcile people to God.”
But what is this “reconcile” word? What went wrong? Where not we made in his image anyway? If anything screwed up, shouldn’t we point to the manufacturing defects? Are you saying religion is some kinda prayer-powered warranty?
“The good news is that many ‘denominations‚Äô are working through past differences and agreeing to recognise diversity, rather than compounding division.”
The bad news is they created the bloody problem in the first place. And it’s still not going away. I mean Christians, Jews and Moslems all worship the same god but they still keep killing eachother over which concierge they should tip to get into the same heaven.
“The church has just been stoushing for a few centuries that‚Äôs all.”
Couple of millena by most accounts – including those in that B book.
“But it doesn‚Äôt negate the reality of God.”
Doesn’t prove his or her existence either.
“Maybe there‚Äôs a philosopher in you after all!”
Thank you. But that was only mildly condescending. You have a long way to go before you’re in my league baby.
Reconcile—buy back. Sold our souls to the devil, baby! Sinned on the dotted line. Jesus pays the buy back price – blood, lots of blood, your blood my blood everyone’s blood!
Manufacturing defects, none essentially. Problem – a free will, decisions to be made between right & wrong – towards other people and therefore towards God.
Data is a robot, positronic brain in human form, programmed to be a program. Choice between good and bad conditioned by programming. We’re not robots. We’re people of conscience and choice. Self adjusted and liable to go offline.
Remedy: get back on line!
Facelift,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
“There‚Äôs enough info in the NT to get anyone started!”
No, I meant about the step by step how-to of driving out demons and seeing things writh like snakes and talking in tongues. How specific and detailed is it? I don’t recall anything there being any less vague than your average horoscope.
“Don‚Äôt know anything about the other except what you mentioned.”
Ahh, so you attribute your deomn success wholly on the bible because you haven’t read any other alternatives. Why dismiss animist/shamanist alternatives so readily?
Why don’t you think Sheldrake is right? [This ties back in with the angle Fyodor was taking with you, ie you claim that Christainity was superior to shamanism is no more solid than a shaman claiming superiority over christianity.]
You understand why your dismissal smacks of arrogance, and your claims of it being more than just belief are shaky?
“Religious categories? Where do you start.”
But it’s with regard to a *scientific* approach. You are comfortable with the idea of lumping scientists into one group and not separating them into geologists, microbiologists, ecologists (all the various sects), particle-physicists (the various sects) evolutionary biologists (all the various sects) etc etc.
Religion is experiential rather than experimental – and it doesn’t matter what religion it is. You demon fighting is no different to shamanitic healing during dreams or pointing-of-the-bone.
I must be missing you point as to why, from a scientific viewpoint, all religions can’t be lumped into one catagory – that of “unscientific”.
Enlightment me.
“Maybe there‚Äôs a philosopher in you [Nabakov] after all!”
# Surprised by Nab’s restraint on this one. I’d venture that Nabakov was strongly alligned with the Stoics and the Epicureans – perhaps even representing that perfect sythesis of both thsi is “Be Excellent to each other” and “Party on Dudes.”
Reading his responses you can’t but see that as far as religion is concerned he is 100% philosophical.
I’d agree with your last point Harry, especially as I’m now reclining on my desk, digesting a nice long Friday lunch. Good for me, good for the economey.
In this crazy mixed up world, it’s hard to go past two central tenents for a well lived life.
“A gentleman is never accidently discourteous.”
and
“Toga Party!”
Toga!
Toga!
Toga!
[The mob join in the chanting, tables are stood upon, bottles are opened and the caps thrown away, moral precepts are discarded, and a universal ethical philosophy of behaviour is posited to be nothing more than a social construct]
Hi harry, you’re back.
‘You are comfortable with the idea of lumping scientists into one group and not separating them into geologists’
Where do I say this? Of course I understand there are different schools of thought in science, and I have merely put it to you that there is a similar situation with the plethora of religions. So this is what makes the question, ‘can science and religion ever be reconciled’ complex. Which religion? Which scientific branch?
Why would I want to look outside the Bible for dealing with demons? The instructions are fairly clear if you just read and watch what Jesus did, and what he says, then read what his disciples did in the Book of Acts, and see they had the same success, and, since he said believers can do the same stuff, it should work iff we believe. Nothing complex about that.
I’m not really out to prove anything to anyone in scientific terms, just to help people get out of misery. I’ve just seen it work that’s all. There’s not much point, as a Christian, in trying out black magic techniques for the sake of seeing if it would work for me. It’s against my code of ethics, spiritually, anyway.
The thing is, though, if shamans are having similar success, it demonstratees that there is another dimension which is worth examining for those who want to examine things to see if they are real. How you go about it I’m not sure.
If you want me to give you ABC’s of casting out demons, you’ll have to give me some time to prepare something for you.
Hi Facelift,
“Where do I say this?”
# It was implied. If you’d said “lots of different religions and treating them all the same is as ridiculous AS TREATING ALL THE SCIENCE THE SAME” then I wouldn’t have asked.
I’m happy for all science to be lumped together because all science is based on the scientific method. All religion is based on unprovable belief. hence lumping all science together is no problem, and lumping all religion together. From a scientific point of view, all religion is the same. You agree?
“So this is what makes the question, ‘can science and religion ever be reconciled‚Äô complex.”
# I don’t think it does at all. The question is still: What does science give us, and what does religion give us?
I don;t think there’s anything to reconcile because they play different games on completely different fields.
“Which religion? Which scientific branch?”
# Nah. What we’re trying to reconcile here is unprovable belief on one hand with the scientific method on the other. The really interesting thing is that neither has a better claim to providing a moral framework etc – which brings in Shaun’s last comment on Esoteric Philosophical Discussion Time II: what ARE we meant to reconcile between religion and science?!
“Why would I want to look outside the Bible for dealing with demons?”
# Because it would be scientific to do so.
“The thing is, though, if shamans are having similar success, it demonstratees that there is another dimension which is worth examining…”
# Possibly – or, like I suggested before there is a force that manifests Good Intent regardless of religion.
“… for those who want to examine things to see if they are real. How you go about it I‚Äôm not sure.”
# You’re not interested in seeing if your demon fighting is real? I am probably not understanding what you mean here.
“How you go about it I‚Äôm not sure.”
# Find possessed people.
Get a bunch of guys to try and fix them by religious/spiritual means.
Repeat.
Toga party.