I was just about to go to sleep so I was taking my nightly dump where I do a lot of reflecting.
I started a thread a couple days ago called about atheism and it started a debate. I myself am a die hard atheist but I was just wondering is religion even all that bad?
I mean maybe some people just need that cushion, maybe they cant accept their fates? I would like to hear from you why religion is so bad. Is it halting progression? Is it dumbing us down, what do you have to say?
That is your way of coping with stress. That is not the only way of doing so, some people require the assurance of a ''supernatural'' being. I see no problem in that.
Simply because religion offers consolation doesn't make it true. And you may argue that you weren't trying to say that it is, and I believe it. Often atheists will reserve the consolation card as a way to show their own compassion towards those of faith. Either way, consolation is really what we're talking about when we are reluctant to define religion as bad. Because why would it be bad to have something comfort you?
Because it doesn't allow us room to grow. Religion is a security blanket, a crutch. I would refer you to this quote by Dawkins:
There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else (parents in the case of children, God in the case of adults) has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point. It is all of a piece with the infantilism of those who, the moment they twist their ankle, look around for someone to sue. Somebody else must be responsible for my well-being, and somebody else must be to blame if I am hurt. Is it a similar infantilism that really lies behind the 'need' for a God?
Simply because religion offers consolation doesn't make it true
I never said it was. What we're debating here is whether it is bad or good. Whether it is believable or not, is for another time, although on a personal level I don't believe in any religion.
Because it doesn't allow us room to grow. Religion is a security blanket, a crutch. I would refer you to this quote by Dawkins:
Why doesn't it allow one to grow? Yes it gives one the final possibility of always blaming God. But I find that most Christians always take their mishaps as some sign from their God; as a test, and that they should find the spirit to overcome it by themselves, using Him as a guide. Isn't that growing as well?
But I find that most Christians always take their mishaps as some sign from their God; as a test, and that they should find the spirit to overcome it by themselves, using Him as a guide. Isn't that growing as well?
I am not arguing that religion doesn't have its good points. Crutches can be helpful and beneficial. Up to the point where we don't need them anymore.
The whole problem in your sentence can be summed up in just one part: "using Him as a guide". This is where religion stunts the growth of the human race. Because it actively discourages critical thinking and reasoning. Instead of discerning the truth on your own, you become willing to replace independent thinking with what somebody else tells you to think. It's not always evident and it's not always drastic but this is what happens. Indoctrination is one of my major peeves with religion, because no matter what people say, they will always attempt to raise their children in their own religion, which discourages the child from seeking different answers (be it a different religion, or no religion at all, or indeed, no faith in the supernatural of any kind).
It is not growing, it's preventing growth of conscious, critical thought.
Right let me clarify. When I meant ''use Him as a guide'' I meant, to look to Him for what He supposedly did. Or perhaps what He's son did, and what he went through, i.e, self-sacrifice, not hating one's enemies etc. Using Him as a role model.
Similarly does science actually encourage critical thinking to the masses? Look at it this way. Apart from researchers who actively probe at the mysteries of science, what the vast majority of us do is to swallow almost whole what our textbooks or teachers tell us. Yes, what is written is definitely more valid and much closer to the truth, but what we are doing is eating up facts. There is little actual critical thinking when one just swallows up Newton's laws and conducts experiments that the syllabus has laid out for us.
Right let me clarify. When I meant ''use Him as a guide'' I meant, to look to Him for what He supposedly did. Or perhaps what He's son did, and what he went through, i.e, self-sacrifice, not hating one's enemies etc. Using Him as a role model.
You'd be better off sticking only to Jesus. The Old Testament God is quite a cranky old geezer. Jesus can be a role model without having to necessarily believe he existed as the son of God. In the same way various literary characters can be role models without anyone actually believing they exist in a spiritual sense or have ever physically existed.
There is little actual critical thinking when one just swallows up Newton's laws and conducts experiments that the syllabus has laid out for us.
That's a problem of the educational system, not science in general. Besides, when I say science, I'm using it in the sense Aristotle did, which is to say as "the body of reliable knowledge" and am mostly referring to social sciences and humanities as opposed to natural or formal sciences. Also, my point is in the method - the scientific approach - rather than the result, as being tools of education.
That's a problem of the educational system, not science in general. Besides, when I say science, I'm using it in the sense Aristotle did, which is to say as "the body of reliable knowledge" and am mostly referring to social sciences and humanities as opposed to natural or formal sciences. Also, my point is in the method - the scientific approach - rather than the result, as being tools of education.
Then yes, but most of us over here who profess to using logical thinking and rationality because of science aren't using it per se.
Hmmm, that clarifies sciences up if you meant the social science and humanities. It kind of takes the argument on a new spin seeing the path we have mostly taken here is the formal science one.
Then yes, but most of us over here who profess to using logical thinking and rationality because of science aren't using it per se.
Why do you think that is?
Hmmm, that clarifies sciences up if you meant the social science and humanities. It kind of takes the argument on a new spin seeing the path we have mostly taken here is the formal science one.
In my opinion, it makes no sense to rely on natural sciences when discussing the possible benefits of science versus religion, because religion itself is rooted into the problem of the human condition, and not the laws that govern the universe in a natural sense. Therefore it's much more pertinent to discuss sciences which study the human condition and their methods in regards to religion.
Because face it, most of what people do when they claim they use science is to read their chemistry textbook and learn up formulas. That's not science.
Lucky moi spent close to two years working part time in labs doing research before, so I can safely say I know what doing science is.
Therefore it's much more pertinent to discuss sciences which study the human condition and their methods in regards to religion.
Well, people might also discuss based on the natural science because both the natural sciences and religion attempt to discover and understand the natural way around us, and most would immediately start arguing that science is more relevant and logical, etc.....
Because face it, most of what people do when they claim they use science is to read their chemistry textbook and learn up formulas. That's not science.
Again we cycle back to the issue of the educational system. Aside from teaching about previously established theories and facts, the educational system should provide the means for improving upon aforementioned theories by teaching the scientific method and critical thought.
Well, people might also discuss based on the natural science because both the natural sciences and religion attempt to discover and understand the natural way around us, and most would immediately start arguing that science is more relevant and logical, etc.....
It's an inherently skewed discussion to begin with, considering that science deals in facts which until disproved, are truth. Whereas religion has a basis in faith and doesn't lend itself to theories on the creation of the universe and the laws which govern it. Religion cannot disprove the theory of gravity because it has no means to do so. Therefore, natural sciences would win this argument, but to claim that it means science wins over religion in general is faulty reasoning at best, and ignorance at worst. One must take into account all aspects of either approach.
And as I said, religion has more bearing on the social setting than it does on universal laws. Hence the argument about using the scientific method to counter it in the social and cultural context.
Now if only it wasn't just the two of us, we could get a really rocking discussion going.
Anyway, this whole thread seems to so far have been based on determining whether religion is bad as opposed to natural sciences, when it should have been based on the question: "Does religion have a bad impact on the social and cultural context of humanity?" That's where the meat of the debate lies - how to determine whether religion is a negative influence on the social and cultural settings of the human race.
I'll wait and see what happens. If nothing crops up along these lines and people revert to the old debates, I'm pulling out to deal with my tonsillitis.
Similarly one can also say that the perception that science makes us logical thinkers is stretched and varies from person to person.
Science is knowledge. More so we speak of the method which we use to arrive at that knowledge when speaking of science. The procedural techniques used in the scientific method require the exercise and development of logical thinking. There is no similarity here.
It was merely a comparision of what I value, moral over truth.
Which religion does an extremely poor job of handling.
Similarly, science has caused horrific casualties of war. Nuclear bombs, guns, planes, all results of science.
As stated science is at it's basics is knowledge and expanded from there the methods used to gather that knowledge. How it's used is not the fault of science. This can not be said of religion which dictates actions.
Clarification. The world as it is, how people interact, and personal relationships. Understanding science doesn't help me here.
Actually yeah it can help with all of those.
Most religions start of with good intentions, to help people in times where science did not explain everything and to propagate morals. Fundamentally bad? I disagree.
Good intentions is meaningless. Just making up answers doesn't help to provide a true answer and has caused our ability to find the correct answers. It has not handled morals well at all, at best only hijacking the credit for moral guidance when not actually providing any.
Again we cycle back to the issue of the educational system. Aside from teaching about previously established theories and facts, the educational system should provide the means for improving upon aforementioned theories by teaching the scientific method and critical thought.
I would like to see this more in our educational system though learning what has already been established first can be en important step to take before attempting to make advancements.
Well, it's good for making people behave themselves if they think that they are gonna go to heaven if they don't kill nobody, but it has been the cause of many, many pointless wars. And it isn't factual, it is untrue. Therefore I guess it depends, but it ain't goin away. So I guess u gotta accept that some people are gonna beleive in religion and others aren't so that's what it is.
I would like to see this more in our educational system though learning what has already been established first can be en important step to take before attempting to make advancements.
I didn't say we forgo teaching about previous theories, that would be a very silly thing to do. The state of the educational system has gotten slightly better in recent years, what little I keep up with in countries other than my own. Here it's mostly the influx of young teachers for whom teaching hasn't yet lost its luster and who were taught critical thinking recently enough (since the university is where most people get their first taste of thinking for themselves in an educational setting) to try and transfer it to a new generation.
Similarly, science has caused horrific casualties of war. Nuclear bombs, guns, planes, all results of science.
I'd like to do a different take on this one, if you don't mind, Mage, since you already answered it in part.
Science has not caused war. But war has caused science to grow and expand. In many ways, wars have contributed to scientific advances, far beyond weapons only. One could argue that because of this, war is good. But we know it isn't, right?
