The Faith & Religion mega Thread

LOL, what a ride.

Chimpazees to homo sapien? You have got to be kidding right. Not even on the same path. Allegedly the separation was a very very long time ago. You have shown with this statement that you yourself don't know the evolutionary timeline. Murder can be replicated that is why they have reinactments. If you haven't seen one then go and watch one, the process is fascinating and it is scientific.

What is taught in school. Yes schools have an obligation to teach truth, but who decides what is truth? It has been stated so many times that religion gets special treatment yet it is not allowed in many schools. BTW you didn't answer my question instead you skirted around it.

Lets be blunt, some of the replies I woke up to this morning are not worth the effort that was put into typing them. They are misinformed and unfortunately in some cases just plain wrong. When you start at someone's beliefs you have to be able to accurately describe your own if you proclaim your own to be better. If you can't and you keep picking at others then you are showing you merely have a problem with other people having an opposing pov.

So far in this current discussion I have seen people picked at for believing religion and not being able to explain it, yet not one of you can give an explanation for my questions. I have seen evangelical christians and muslims singled out yet nothing to say why. Why target an entire group I understand that people don't like a pov but to target an entire group made up of individuals is just wrong. I'm an Australian, are you going to target all Australians because I am trying to get you to see that the way some people in this thread have conducted their arguments (i.e. openly picking at and being rude to others) is wrong. I have seen at least twice the argument about gay and lesbian rights, once about womens reproductive rights, introduced but when asked on this the reply is rather odd when compared to some statements about other groups who were obviously singled out for no other reason that to make a point about religion being bad. If you are unwilling to take a discussion further then please don't bring it up.

My point about morals, and it has been this all along, is that when people cannot remain civil in a supposedly adult discussion (and I have seen this many times in this thread) then you cannot claim the higher moral against the opposing pov. My advice is to stop picking at people and also to answer questions when you are demanding that others answer yours to your satisfaction.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Why target an entire group I understand that people don't like a pov but to target an entire group made up of individuals is just wrong.

What? And what is this?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 I really doubt it's a good idea for the science side of the discussion to start talking morality. When you, the science side, ...

Are you not doing the same here?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 What is taught in school. Yes schools have an obligation to teach truth, but who decides what is truth? It has been stated so many times that religion gets special treatment yet it is not allowed in many schools. BTW you didn't answer my question instead you skirted around it.

I'm sorry, which question? Have I seen an alternative to evolution taught in schools? No, of course not, because evolution is a fact, and the modern evolutionary synthesis is do date the best theory we have to explain the fact of evolution - it is, outside of general relativity and quantum theory, probably the most successful well supported theory in modern science.

You didn't answer my questions either.

Who decides what is truth? This is of course what I have been discussing this whole time. Let's start with a fairly standard definition, "A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact." What is a fact? Briefly, I think we can say a fact is a proposition that corresponds to an actual state of affairs. The hallmark of facts are that they can be verified, right? It is a fact that Barack Obama is the president of the United States. If someone said Sarah Palin was the President, you could verify what is true. Aliens exist is not a fact. It might correspond to an actual state of affairs, but we have no way to know, because currently we cannot verify it.

To have knowledge, to determine facts, you must be able to discriminate between competing ideas and have some method for choosing one over another, ie, at some level it must be grounded in empiricism. There is no way to determine whether Hinduism is correct vs. Islam, to determine whether the Sunnis or the Shiites are correct or neither, to determine whether the Pope is correct vs. whatever you believe. It is therefore wrong to teach any of them as true. You want to teach "alternative" ideas in lieu of science, well draw a line for me. What alternative ideas get in and what get rejected and by what criteria? If your religious opinions are acceptable, why is my fluffy bunny gravity hypothesis not?

So far in this current discussion I have seen people picked at for believing religion and not being able to explain it, yet not one of you can give an explanation for my questions.

The specific answers to questions like how did humans evolve, what is the origin of the universe, are not pertinent to the question of what knowledge is and how we know things. It DOESN'T MATTER whether any of us know the answers if we are not claiming to have knowledge. The religious folks are claiming to know that God exists, that God created the universe, that God has particular attributes, wishes, and desires. You have no more basis to claim this than someone who claims to know that unicorns and vampires exist, and no more basis to foist your religious opinions on the rest of us, in schools, in government, anywhere. If someone wants to form a Church of the Sparkly Unicorn, great, they have every right. But they do not have a right not to be challenged on their ridiculous beliefs, especially if they bring them into the public sphere.

Why target an entire group I understand that people don't like a pov but to target an entire group made up of individuals is just wrong. I'm an Australian, are you going to target all Australians because I am trying to get you to see that the way some people in this thread have conducted their arguments (i.e. openly picking at and being rude to others) is wrong.

One, you're as guilty as anyone of making snide and rude comments, so don't pretend to have the high ground yourself. Two, no one is condemning every individual of a group. There are plenty of good and decent religious people. But the major religious institutions have official positions that are abhorrent, such as positions against gays and lesbians, against women, against birth control, etc.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 LOL, what a ride. Chimpazees to homo sapien? You have got to be kidding right. Not even on the same path. Allegedly the separation was a very very long time ago. You have shown with this statement that you yourself don't know the evolutionary timeline. Murder can be replicated that is why they have reinactments. If you haven't seen one then go and watch one, the process is fascinating and it is scientific. What is taught in school. Yes schools have an obligation to teach truth, but who decides what is truth? It has been stated so many times that religion gets special treatment yet it is not allowed in many schools. BTW you didn't answer my question instead you skirted around it.

Sounds like you don't know your time lines. Ape/Human split was about 6 million years ago. That's a few million in my book. Point is, evolution is replicable and observable, and you have not denied that fact.

As for religion not being allowed in school, that is (at least in the US) a legal question, not a moral or scientific one. Faith and religion are, in America, not State issues. They are family and personal issues. Irrelevant to this thread.

What would be relevant to this thread is the idea that religion or faith is required in order to be "good" citizens. It is not. That has been shown.

As for what is truth, schools don't have an obligation to teach some subjective "truth." It teaches that which cannot be denied -- specifically, that which can be replicated and falsified. Whether you "believe" what is taught is irrelevant. Belief is personal, not a State matter.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Take chimpanzees, a changing/ed environment, and a few million years, and you'll wind up with homo sapiens or something very much like homo sapiens.

Few problems:
1. You'll need some kind of global catastrophe (think ice age), otherwise there'll be little reason for chimpanzees to change.
2. There'll be a chance, not guarantee that they involve into civilization.
3. There's no guarantee that the end result will be anything like homo sapiens, even if it will result in civilization. You can get completely "alien" civilization.

Originally Posted by basica I really don't think you grasp what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense.

Has been explained at least 20 times in this thread. Some people just don't listen.

Originally Posted by MrCode What if it were scientifically concluded that the only way to save the planet from environmental collapse would be to rid ourselves from it?*

Then the planet would die. (most likely scenario)

Originally Posted by MrCode Would that still not be considered "evil" just because "science says so"?

Science does not tell you what to do. It explains consequences of actions and physical processes. Choosing what action to take is not the job of science.

Originally Posted by MrCode I'll agree that science is supposed to be morally neutral, but in that neutrality, it isn't exempt from making disturbing conclusions about the world.

Disturbing conclusion about the world does not tell you what to do. You can get disturbing information, but how to react to it is your choice.

Originally Posted by MrCode I think this here is where the problem lies for a lot of people (myself included). There seems to be a point where you start "knowing too much", as it were, to be able to "enjoy" life in the same way you did before.

You can enjoy "knowing too much". It is matter of viewpoint.

Originally Posted by MrCode As an example, take the free will problem: pardon my Français, but when I started thinking about that problem and came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion,

Your conclusion was incorrect, but nobody can convince you about it. It is not my problem, though. If you want to remain depressed, it is your choice.

Originally Posted by MrCode Note the context, though: "sick delusion" as opposed to merely being "mistaken".

There's not much of a difference. However, again you have a choice - you can either lie yourself and convince that new "disturbing information" is a lie and delude yourself, or you could accept the fact that "disturbing information" is true. I think that lying to yourself is not a good idea - it is "running away". When you "run away" from something, it does not disappear.

Originally Posted by MrCode when I started thinking about that problem and came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion

In other words, you chose to believe in determinism.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Few problems: 1. You'll need some kind of global catastrophe (think ice age), otherwise there'll be little reason for chimpanzees to change. 2. There'll be a chance, not guarantee that they involve into civilization. 3. There's no guarantee that the end result will be anything like homo sapiens, even if it will result in civilization. You can get completely "alien" civilization.

All true. The point is, given the changing/ed environment (one of my conditions) you will have some sort of evolution. It may be an extinction of chimps, with them being replaced in the environmental niche by something else, but you will have evolutionary change.

Originally Posted by brianL you chose to believe in determinism.

нет.

The enemy to free will isn't determinism, it's the arbitrary nature of "self". Even in a totally random universe with no concept of causality (as we know it), and assuming anything like humans could even exist in such a universe, how would your actions be any more in your "control" than in a deterministic universe? The only reason we believe we have "control" is because we see ourselves as being unique entities somehow "separate" from the rest of the universe, even if only on a subconscious level. As reed9 stated above, it's a hardwired trait.

This issue has been addressed before.

Mmm, the only arbitration I've ever come across has been between unions & management during disputes, so I can't comment on it in this context...anyway, too much philosophy makes my brain hurt. All I can say is that I take full responsibility for my actions, not blaming them on God, the stars, broken homes, genes, too many food additives, quarks, the Tories, the media, or whatever other excuses some people use.

Mmm, the only arbitration I've ever come across has been between unions & management during disputes, so I can't comment on it in this context...

…that's because I didn't use it in the right context.

Post corrected.

and being motivated by it to do evil things

Actually the Nazis had their own "scientific" theories to justify the superiority of the Nordic race. So in this case, the Nazis did use science (though a rather twisted version of it) as an ideology. Himmler was actually the one who pushed these theories rather enthusiastically and a certain group of Nazis, including qualified medical doctors, actually took the whole "science" rather seriously with tragic consequences.

And also according to this theory, other races were "subhumans" so it was all right to use people from such races as guinea pigs for experiments. Whatever moral scruples these scientists and doctors had, it was suppressed by the science that told them "these people are not really human beings", and so the rather infamous doctors' trials at Nuremberg.

I have actually studied this topic a lot from a lot of historical sources and I've even written a book on Hitler, so I think it's historically accurate to say that.

Originally Posted by MrCode нет.

Bad idea. Seriously.

Originally Posted by MrCode The only reason we believe we have "control" is because we see ourselves as being unique entities somehow "separate" from the rest of the universe, even if only on a subconscious level. As reed9 stated above, it's a hardwired trait.

Doesn't make sense. If you want to argue about that you may want to explain your position in more detail. As I understand it, to prove there is no free will, you'll have to reverse-engineer human brain and come up with thinking algorithm. I doubt you have this kind of info. Anything shorter than this will put your claim into "belief" category.

Originally Posted by MrCode This issue has been addressed before.

Broken link. Use post number.

Regarding your claim:

Originally Posted by MrCode In a non-deterministic universe, where everything is left up to random chance

Wrong! That's chaotic universe, not "non-deterministic". In my opinion, you're jumping to conclusions by falling into "black and white" thinking trap. To support your claim, you'd need full/complete understanding of human decision making (and universe) and it must support your point. You don't have it.

Originally Posted by MrCode Think about it: when was the last time you didn't act on your desires (or any other prior cause)?

Many times. All people ignore many of their desires every day, and do not act on them.

Originally Posted by MrCode "thou shalt follow the only path the universe hath set for thee".

This position is meaningless - it is equivalent to suicide (you give up), and as result is impractical. There's no path set because of randomness. Yet universe is not completely chaotic, so your actions are not out of your control. In my opinion, what matters is that you are making decisions, and are responsible for their consequences. It doesn't matter how you're making decisions.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Actually the Nazis had their own "scientific" theories to justify the superiority of the Nordic race. So in this case, the Nazis did use science (though a rather twisted version of it) as an ideology. Himmler was actually the one who pushed these theories rather enthusiastically and a certain group of Nazis, including qualified medical doctors, actually took the whole "science" rather seriously with tragic consequences. And also according to this theory, other races were "subhumans" so it was all right to use people from such races as guinea pigs for experiments. Whatever moral scruples these scientists and doctors had, it was suppressed by the science that told them "these people are not really human beings", and so the rather infamous doctors' trials at Nuremberg. I have actually studied this topic a lot from a lot of historical sources and I've even written a book on Hitler, so I think it's historically accurate to say that.

As it was said before, science (how accurate or inaccurate) did not suggest Himmler to kill or experiment on people. Science could have provided them with some facts that certain groups of people might be genetically (or otherwise) different. That's where science ends. The question whether some of those groups are inferior or whether it's ok to experiment on people has NOTHING to do with science. However enthusiastic I might be about the theory of gravity, you can't blame science if I start pushing people off a cliff to check whether blue-eyed people have stronger bones. Nowhere in the theory of gravity is there a mention that it's recommended or moral to push people off cliffs. Again, as it was said many times already: Science doesn't tell you what to do.

Originally Posted by sycamorex As it was said before, science (how accurate or inaccurate) did not suggest Himmler to kill or experiment on people. Science could have provided them with some facts that certain groups of people might be genetically (or otherwise) different. That's where science ends. The question whether some of those groups are inferior or whether it's ok to experiment on people has NOTHING to do with science. However enthusiastic I might be about the theory of gravity, you can't blame science if I start pushing people off a cliff to check whether blue-eyed people have stronger bones. Nowhere in the theory of gravity is there a mention that it's recommended or moral to push people off cliffs. Again, as it was said many times already: Science doesn't tell you what to do.

The thing is, however much you split hairs on this issue, science did provide a justification for killing off "inferior" peoples. And science did prevent many otherwise normal people from feeling guilty about their actions because "those people weren't human beings anyway." We're also talking about medical doctors and scientists who received their education probably well before Nazism took over and Hitler came to power. Surely the entire scientific community in Nazi Germany should have revolted and refused to participate in those crimes against humanity. Yes, many feared the concentration camps. Yet not every one of those scientists played their part reluctantly or out of fear. Most were willing and active participants in medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners.

I'm sure the victims of Nazism will be glad to know that science never suggested those things directly, but Himmler and his henchmen merely used science to justify their evil ideology and thoughts.

Well the same as you accuse religion of "suggesting" that people do certain things. Well directly or indirectly doesn't matter in my book if the end result is undesirable for humanity.

Now, the real point I'm making is that you keep discussing science as though we human beings have been perfect in using the scientific thought process and principles through the ages. Yet you refuse to grant the higher principles of religion the same benefit of doubt.

Originally Posted by vharishankar The thing is, however much you split hairs on this issue, science did provide a justification for killing off "inferior" peoples. And science did prevent many otherwise normal people from feeling guilty about their actions because "those people weren't human beings anyway."

That's a strawman, bullshit and not science.

A madman could use algebra book to justify killing of people whose height (in CM) does not divide by 5. This, however, won't make algebra responsible.

Science tells "if you do A, B will happen". And that's it. The rest is up to you. You could use same knowledge to create something useful, or to create weapon of mass destruction - the decision will be yours and you'll be the only one responsible. There are no commands, no suggestions, only information. What to do with information, is your decision.

As for religion, it does not "suggest". It tells "this is a truth, obey, do not think". And you'll have an excuse - "a man in the sky told me this was a right thing to do". Which isn't really convincing.