What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
Would those be the same monotheists who forced Galileo to recant his assertion that the earth orbited the sun, and didn't admit he was right until 1998? I can certainly see how that must have advanced science --
Well, no... you're conflating the philosophy of monotheism with the actions of individual monotheists, who were largely acting for political rather than faith-based reasons.
That seems to be a common thing here at TA, but it's sort of silly. Just like me making the parallel claim that Stalin and the Soviets were atheist and therefore atheism leads to mass-murderer. It's a nonsense argument for the most part.
It's not mostly nonsense. Religious and political practices conflate often, in reality. Dogma enforced by presumed divinity, and worship of a father figure is the problem. North Korea's an illustration of this conflation, just not based on a world religion. Religiosity isn't the only cause of rabid allegiance, but it's historically the largest.
Atheism isn't even patriarchal, much less a cohesive religion. Nor is science. But this is a good discussion. Perhaps divinised, enforced dogma is the real evil, with religion just its (historically) most effective tool.
Perhaps divinised, enforced dogma is the real evil, with religion just its (historically) most effective tool.
I think you need to take it farther, @Pope.
I think perhaps the real evil is tribalism. It is our genetic predisposition toward tribalism that insists on seeing some people as "us" and some as "them." Religion can be and often is suborned to this human trait, for sure. So can politics, as the situation in the U.S. at present demonstrates. Raising the specter of fear of another tribe empowers dictators of all sorts.
All wars, whether actual or political, are always, "us" vs "them."
I think perhaps the real evil is tribalism. It is our genetic predisposition toward tribalism that insists on seeing some people as "us" and some as "them."
I can agree with that mostly, but not absolutely. I wrote a few paragraphs to clarify, but will save it for another thread.
It IS an old tradition, Papi, but we can outgrow it.
I confess I'm not sure what this thread is about any more. It seems every thread gets turned into a discussion of pedophilia whenever I'm around. <:( So I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to.
Do science and religion go "hand in hand"? Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "hand in hand". I would agree that they are not mutually exclusive worldviews. I'm perfectly happy being a scientist and a Catholic, as are quite a lot of people now and throughout history. I would go further and say that they are complementary, and share some essential epistemological features that likely can be traced back to Judaism.
If you really think that science follows a "formal process", then the anthropologists of science are going to have a good chuckle. That "scientific method" that you learned in elementary school is largely a fiction, when you look at the observational evidence from the actual practice of science. From my own experience, the process by which my church develops teachings and the process which happens in science are remarkably similar. That's no surprise, as western universities in general along with western science arose from my religious tradition.
"Christinsanity" - I like the phrase you've coined, Terrance, welcome to the monkey house!
I disagree that they are complementary...they share only a superficial similarity
So that's a claim. Explain that a bit. Again, I don't think the anthropologists of science who actually like to pay attention to this sort of thing would concur. They see the practice of science as being quite similar to other human forms of social interaction and development of knowledge. There's no particular evidence to show that it is "resilient", though I suppose it depends on what you actually mean by that term. One might argue that Christendom is the most "resilient" philosophical systems because it has persisted and thrived across so many varied peoples for such a long period of time.
The core ideas of Christendom - that there is an external Truth, that the external truth is immutable / governed by law, that the external truth is knowable through learning and observation, that some understandings of that Truth we hold tenuously, others more firmly, others more absolutely, but never completely, that the Truth is advanced by argumentation and discussion and common enterprise with others, that new ideas and discoveries can change centuries-old understandings or practices, and should be tested, that one's own notions should be held with humility and subject to evidence and argument... those are Catholic/Christian notions.
One might argue that Christendom is the most "resilient" philosophical systems ...
Christendom is not a philosophy, Professor, it is a religion. You are sounding like Bill O'Rilley.
Here, hopefully this blurb will help you see the difference between the two.
"One of the major differences between religion and philosophy is the need for rituals. While almost all the religions in the world have certain set of rituals which are to be followed by the followers of the respective religions, philosophy does not have any sort of rituals, as it is only a way of thinking. So, while a person can be philosophical without having to do any sort of practices or rituals, it is almost impossible for him to be religious without doing any sort of rituals or practices stated in that particular religion. This is one big difference which makes people say that religion and philosophy are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.
Yet another difference between religion and philosophy is the concept of belief. While almost all the philosophies do not accept the concept of belief, religion tends to bring in the belief angle quite a few times. In philosophy, something is considered true only if it is completely proven true on a long term basis by means of various forms of reasoning. If it is not, then it will not be considered the ultimate truth. However, in case of religion, a lot of things are supernatural, superstitious, and incredulous in nature that only the concept of belief can make people stand by those things. This is the reason why a lot of philosophers were against organized religions." - Not written by me.
The core ideas of Christendom - that there is an external Truth, that the external truth is immutable / governed by law, that the external truth is knowable through learning and observation,
... of a bronze age collection of myths and fables, ignoring any contradictory evidence presented by any other group.
that some understandings of that Truth we hold tenuously, others more firmly, others more absolutely, but never completely,
Which is decided by whom exactly? Oh, yeah... the rest of society, to which your religion conforms the best it can in an attempt to stay relevant in a world that needs it less and less.
that the Truth is advanced by argumentation and discussion and common enterprise with others,
... who share the exact same belief, otherwise you are to condemn them, treat them with false kindness, and in the past torture and kill them.
that new ideas and discoveries can change centuries-old understandings or practices,
Like evolution changed the Adam and Eve story? Or Noah's Ark?
and should be tested, that one's own notions should be held with humility and subject to evidence and argument...
And that one should never present any evidence for his notions, and ignore all evidence contrary to one's own notions.
those are Catholic/Christian notions.
I'm pretty sure that the celibate, old, male virgins in dresses and funny hats that live in that palace which controls the teachings and tenants of Catholicism would disagree with you.
I think you are one of the Mel Gibson style Catholics (minus the racism, I hope), Professor... The sect that doesn't consider the pope as god's interpreter and all that jazz.