Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

...in America, yes. American religiosity is a blight.

Americans don't know what religion is and does, they simply use it as a platform to buoy the beliefs they already hold.

Like the whole anti-gay rhetoric that people CLAIM they get from the bible. Right.
There are like 5 passages in the bible which speak to being gay in any capacity and 2 of them are in Leviticus, so... let's all read some Leviticus and see how much we want to apply that to our modern lives. I'm pretty sure there are Christians reading this post wearing cloth of mixed fibers, you evil bastards. Your cotton-polyester blend is your ticket to hell.

Meanwhile, there are dozens and dozens of passages in the Bible which clearly and unambiguously say that divorce is a sin.

So if you're going to say the Bible is the reason you're against homosexuality, then I expect you to be 10x as passionately against state-sanctioned divorce, and if not, you're a liar and/or a hypocrite.


American religion vs. international religion is a totally weird thing.

[wufwugy]

...in America, yes. American religiosity is a blight.

There are some problems with American religion. There are also some unique pluses. The first of which might be that it is American religion that created the first widespread adoption of the idea of inalienable rights.

[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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you have a source to prove that scientists were historically persecuted by anyone other than religious people for any reason other than religion?

Nope.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

George Lemaitre believed that God created the universe, too. It didn't phase him that God used a Big Bang as part of the creating process.

[Poopadoop]

George Lemaitre believed that God created the universe, too. It didn't phase him that God used a Big Bang as part of the creating process.

That's nice for George, but there are still people arguing that the fossil record can't possibly show the dinosaurs were around 250m years ago because the Earth is only ~5000 years old. This isn't arguing that religion addresses different questions than science, it's arguing that science is wrong because it disagrees with scripture.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Historically, they only seem to cave on things when the evidence is overwhelming and generally can't be argued against any more.

This describes science, too.

[Poopadoop]

This describes science, too.

But with science, the beliefs being replaced are also based on evidence. It's not like Newton pulled the theory of gravity out of his ass, the way the Bible's theories of many things are.

Edit: Further, with science, they don't keep telling people to go learn about the theory that's been discredited, unless it has some sort of practical application like Newton's theories have to engineering for example.

The religious equivalent to what science does would be to go back and re-edit the Bible every few years to toss out whatever's been proven to be complete bullshit.

[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.