Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[wufwugy]

What problem?
give me an example.
I don't mean to ask you about your private life, so just give me a hypothetical.

If I don't know what you're talking about I can't say if there's no way to convey the solution to the problem through logic.

You CAN convey the solution to the problem through logic, but that's different than if the person conveyed to would be persuaded by it.

As I discussed about my family. I have put a good deal of effort into doing exactly that, and the results are of no change in perspective by them. YET when I started doing the same thing through the lens of the Bible, perspectives began changing.

[wufwugy]

Wife asks do I look fat in these jeans

Husband says yes

Wife gets angry

Husband says you asked you want the truth

Wife gets angrier

Wife says you always do this you're always a jerk

Husband says you always do this you're a bitch

It escalates and escalates.

Then a friend shows up and sees the escalated conflict

The friend gets irritated that the husband and wife would do this in front of people and eventually attempts to bring in logic to bed the situation down.

The husband and wife want nothing of it. The wife points the finger at the husband for being wrong and the husband points the finger at the wife for being wrong.

Now, imagine they are both devoted Christians who view the Bible as greater than their own egos, and instead the same situation happens yet the friend brings out the Bible and explains the same logic through the lens of Jesus or Moses or a parable. Then the husband and wife filter that logic through the authority that is God (in their minds) instead of through the lens that is the natural homo sapien that naturally protects the ego.

[Poopadoop]

Or, he could just hit the husband with the Bible for being such a fucking idiot that he doesn't understand women at a grade 1 level.

Srsly, Oskar you are asking him a different question than the one he's talking about. You're right because you're talking about how you don't need religion to have a moral code, and he's right because he's saying a lot of people respect a moral code that's based on Jebus but not one that is based on logic and reason alone.

[wufwugy]

Srsly, Oskar you are asking him a different question than the one he's talking about. You're right because you're talking about how you don't need religion to have a moral code, and he's right because he's saying a lot of people respect a moral code that's based on Jebus but not one that is based on logic and reason alone.

I tend to think that maybe some people can successfully navigate the world through their own logic. I don't see much evidence that this is the average, though.

[oskar]

Srsly, Oskar you are asking him a different question than the one he's talking about. You're right because you're talking about how you don't need religion to have a moral code, and he's right because he's saying a lot of people respect a moral code that's based on Jebus but not one that is based on logic and reason alone.

Most of the moral code that's in the bible is being dismissed by most christians. The criteria by which they select what they choose to apply and what they choose to dismiss is based on logic, their own sense of morality and the zeitgeist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most of the moral code that's in the bible is being dismissed by most christians. The criteria by which they select what they choose to apply and what they choose to dismiss is based on logic, their own sense of morality and the zeitgeist.

Even if the ONLY benefit of religion is that some Christians are less likely to be ass holes for a few hours on a Sunday, that's fine with me.

Yes, a lot of ignorant shit is perpetuated in the name of religions, but not disproportionately so. Humans do ignorant shit all the damn time, often not in the name of religion.

If some people lack the ability to logic (which is widely evident to even the most Pollyanna-ish among us), then I'm in favor of literally anything which helps them find compassion and tolerance, even if that's only a fleeting moment.

[oskar]

Now, imagine they are both devoted Christians who view the Bible as greater than their own egos, and instead the same situation happens yet the friend brings out the Bible and explains the same logic through the lens of Jesus or Moses or a parable. Then the husband and wife filter that logic through the authority that is God (in their minds) instead of through the lens that is the natural homo sapien that naturally protects the ego.

If you could actually find a parable from the bible that works here I'd be genuinely impressed. If you can, maybe that's something to tag on as something they can relate to. It's always good to have an analogy the person can relate to, but it's immaterial if that example comes from scripture or the carphone warehouse.

Yes, a lot of ignorant shit is perpetuated in the name of religions, but not disproportionately so. Humans do ignorant shit all the damn time, often not in the name of religion.

I called out spoon on it so I have to call you out too. You could plug in any two things in this statement to condone anything. The only way this could be valid is if you can show that the shitty things that happen because of religion would happen without religion as well, which is a hard stance to take if you think about circumcision, fgm and all the shit that went down in the middle ages.

[wufwugy]

If you could actually find a parable from the bible that works here I'd be genuinely impressed.

Cain and Abel works.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I called out spoon on it so I have to call you out too. You could plug in any two things in this statement to condone anything, so it can't be valid.

That's not the reason I condone religion.
That's a statement that points out people who cite the negative consequences of religion often ignore the negative consequences which are not of religion.
If you're going to say religion is bad because it has negative consequences, then I ask, "compared to what?"
Naziism was anti-religious, as was Stalinism. Neither exactly great examples of positive consequences.

The reason I condone religion is the other post on the subject, that even if it only helps some people be better people for a few hours a week, then it's fine.
The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.

[BananaStand]

The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.

WHAAAAAAATT?????

I thought you were a physicist??

What if the church wasn't such a dick to Galileo? You don't think that set science, and mankind, back some?

Religion attempts to provide answers where there are none. It's effectively shutting down the search for answers. As a scientist, you must have surely have a gigantic problem with this.

[oskar]

WHAAAAAAATT?????

I thought you were a physicist??

What if the church wasn't such a dick to Galileo? You don't think that set science, and mankind, back some?

Religion attempt to provide answers where there are none. Effectively shutting down the search for answers. As a scientist, you must have surely have a gigantic problem with this.

I'll give them that historically it's difficult to argue, because you could say: if there was no religion to keep everyone from murdering each other, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. And while I disagree, it's kinda pointless to argue. I think there's plenty that's wrong about it in present day that you don't have to go back to that... tho I've been guilty of that myself in this thread.

[wufwugy]

I'll give them that historically it's difficult to argue, because you could say: if there was no religion to keep everyone from murdering each other, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. And while I disagree, it's kinda pointless to argue. I think there's plenty that's wrong about it in present day that you don't have to go back to that... tho I've been guilty of that myself in this thread.

The documentation is a bit better than that. Many people in those times pursuing science were doing so in a big way for their pursuit of the discovery and glory of God.

[wufwugy]

WHAAAAAAATT?????

I thought you were a physicist??

What if the church wasn't such a dick to Galileo? You don't think that set science, and mankind, back some?

Religion attempt to provide answers where there are none. Effectively shutting down the search for answers. As a scientist, you must have surely have a gigantic problem with this.

That would be incorporated into a net effect.

Also, I know the narrative that the secular, atheist education system provides is that Christianity was an obstruction to science, but the actual documents regarding those times don't so clearly say that. Indeed there is very good reason to believe that Christianity was a driver of the growth of science, even as popular negative instances exist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What if the church wasn't such a dick to Galileo? You don't think that set science, and mankind, back some?

Religion attempts to provide answers where there are none. It's effectively shutting down the search for answers. As a scientist, you must have surely have a gigantic problem with this.

Then Galileo would have had a happier end of life, I imagine. I dunno.
Yes, I think that set back scientific knowledge somewhat, but IDK. Galilean Relativity is still taught in introductory physics courses around the world.
What about all non-church people was are dicks to other physicists who were not Galileo? Bullying nerds is a historically verified good time for most non-nerds.
My point isn't that religion does no harm. My point is that harm is kinda a ubiquitous part of humanity, and I don't see secular people as devoid of causing harm.

It's a common misunderstanding that science and religion are at odds with each other.
These fields of study address different categories of questions.
Science is concerned with questions which have measurable answers.
Religion is concerned with questions like, "What is good?" "How shall we spend our time?" "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Science can't answer these questions, and any scientist who makes claims about unmeasurable assertions is speaking beyond their depths as a scientist.
Likewise, any religious person who makes claims at odds with anything that is directly measurable is speaking beyond their depths as a religious authority.

The Big Bang Theory is the work of a Vatican Astronomer, so any assertion that the Big Bang is at odds with Catholicism or Christianity is misinformed.

Religion doesn't shut down the search for answers. Religion is focused on answering questions of ethics and morality.
Idiots who try to use religion as a tool to fight science, and vice versa, are sorely misguided about what they think they're doing.

[BananaStand]

Likewise, any religious person who makes claims at odds with anything that is directly measurable is speaking beyond their depths as a religious authority..

Except that describes almost all devoutly religious people. Do you see the problem now?

Religion doesn't shut down the search for answers.

Yes it does.

[Poopadoop]

Then Galileo would have had a happier end of life, I imagine. I dunno.
Yes, I think that set back scientific knowledge somewhat, but IDK. Galilean Relativity is still taught in introductory physics courses around the world.

A lot of learning in ye olde times was limited to the clergy because they were the only ones who knew how to read and had access to books. Mind you, most of them spent time reading biblical texts and not trying to do science (with some notable exceptions).

The religious dogma that resisted attempts at true understanding (and still does, e.g., the fact that teaching evolution is not allowed in certain places) is hard to reconcile with the idea that religion was a net neutral force for science. The Bible contains all kinds of scientific 'facts' that would surely have been overturned sooner had they not enjoyed the vigorous support of the Church.

What about all non-church people was are dicks to other physicists who were not Galileo? Bullying nerds is a historically verified good time for most non-nerds.

That's news to me. Do you have a source to prove that scientists were historically persecuted by anyone other than religious people for any reason other than religion?

The Big Bang Theory is the work of a Vatican Astronomer, so any assertion that the Big Bang is at odds with Catholicism or Christianity is misinformed.

And yet there are many Christians who still believe that God created the universe, so yes it is at odds with a significant minority of them.

Religion doesn't shut down the search for answers. Religion is focused on answering questions of ethics and morality.
Idiots who try to use religion as a tool to fight science, and vice versa, are sorely misguided about what they think they're doing.

That might be your view, but through most of history it's hard to argue the separation of these questions was something acknowledged by the Church. Historically, they only seem to cave on things when the evidence is overwhelming and generally can't be argued against any more. And even then some of them refuse to cave.

[oskar]

It's a common misunderstanding that science and religion are at odds with each other.
These fields of study address different categories of questions.
Science is concerned with questions which have measurable answers.
Religion is concerned with questions like, "What is good?" "How shall we spend our time?" "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Science can't answer these questions, and any scientist who makes claims about unmeasurable assertions is speaking beyond their depths as a scientist.
Likewise, any religious person who makes claims at odds with anything that is directly measurable is speaking beyond their depths as a religious authority.

The inquisition thought differently.

[oskar]

That's not the reason I condone religion.
That's a statement that points out people who cite the negative consequences of religion often ignore the negative consequences which are not of religion.

Because they're not relevant. It's like talking about axe murder and my position is that the axe was the murder weapon, and you say: other people have been murdered by things other than an axe! Yeah, I never questioned that. That doesn't make this axe not the murder weapon.

If you're going to say religion is bad because it has negative consequences, then I ask, "compared to what?"
Naziism was anti-religious, as was Stalinism. Neither exactly great examples of positive consequences.

The reason I condone religion is the other post on the subject, that even if it only helps some people be better people for a few hours a week, then it's fine.

Nazis had very close ties to the catholic church so I don't understand why people keep bringing this up. But let's say they were ultra-atheists... I'd say the same as above. It's not relevant. This is a different topic.

The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.

For modern day christianity the main negative is that it promotes mystical thinking. If you can accept something on pure faith, there is nothing you can't accept on pure faith. I think that's potentially very dangerous. I don't know what the current situation is on schools removing evolution from the curriculum or teaching creationism on the side, but that's an obvious negative if that's still a thing.