Iran and nuclear power

[Tannhauser]

as for Dawkins, yes a populariser is exactly what he is. Still doesn't change the fact that he is popularising something he believes in, something that has a heck of a lot more evidence behind it than adam and eve, or god created the heavens and earth in 6 days - honestly, this sort of thing makes me laugh, litterally, it's so rediculous.

 

Ok, my dinner is here also and I'm hungry.

 

We may need to agree to disagree because there is no way I'm buying what you are selling.

 

FYI a lot of promenant scientists have some extreme views that push the boundaries - I'd suggest you are hypocrytical if you have issues with extremist scientific views (that are still rooted in fact) and yet are ok with the bible etc - madness! get a grip please!

 

OK food time

 

Well, this confirms what I thought: you make no distinction between fundamentalism and mainstream Christianity (as an example of one religion). You seem to be of the opinion that most Christians believe the Earth was created in six days. They don't. Most Christians would be perfectly happy with the Big Bang for example - their view is that God lies behind it. Mainstream Christian doctrine regards The Bible as a moral authority, but not literally true.

 

Thank you for providing me with the information that prominent scientists often have views that push the boundaries. I must write that down in case I forget. You assume however, that scientific extremists still 'follow facts' in the way that religious arguments don't. To repeat: a lot of biological determinists, like Dawkins, have scientific views that ignore plenty of other facts. They have such immense faith ( word chosen deliberately) in genetics and evolution that they seek to explain all of the human condition in those terms. In so doing, they ignore the wealth of information from learning theorists, cognitive psychologists, sociologists etc.

 

It's strange to me that you advance Dawkins of all people as a model of rational scientific enquiry, whereas to me, he is as trapped in his own little world as any religious fruitcake.

[chilli]

It's odd for me also, because if you had asked me many years ago, I would have had more time for the "it makes people feel good, it gives them some hope, it gives them a sense of identity" argument, but these days it doesn't cut really cut the mustard for me. After all, you can't compare this wooly subjectiveness, this inadequacy in some people to the cold hard fact that historically religion has caused some large scale evil!

 

In a way I liken it to mob mentality, this is equally bad. I think in an earlier post I said "people need to think for themselves" and I whole heartedly standby that.

 

For everyone you can quote from religion who has done good, I could find someone to match who isn't. You can't suggest that religion is good because an individual made a contribution to science, I say it was down to the idividual and that it is science itself that is the discovered truth.

 

I think in there may well be a void in peoples lives today, one that over time the human race may learn to overcome, heck some of us already have - but you won't get there by believing in God, Ghosts, Paul Daniels. The transition may be painfull. Just like it will probably be painful for muslems to treat their (their lol) women as human beings, still does that justify not making the change? Not in my books.

 

Agreed it must have been miserable times for people in the past, you say religion was an escape that enabled them to be happy, I say if they hadn't been so held back by this man made nonesense they might have been in a position to actually make things better for themselves sooner. There have been long periods of stagnation in mans history, caused by religion and it's influence. IMHO this does far more harm than all the good you are struggling to find from it. Pockets of it still exist all over the world and I find it very sad, but heck it makes some people a lot of money and gives others an excellent way to weald influence they otherwise wouldn't have!

 

Religion, sure is wonderful, oh sorry, what's that, you don't worship in the same way as me, then I'm right and you're wrong, I might even be justified to fight and kill you about it - progress, that hasn't changed for how long?

 

Like I say, some good has come from it, just like some good comes out of having a war. Don't think that makes it the best way to go about it, or that we should suggest that things would be worse if we did it a different way.

[chilli]

Well, this confirms what I thought: you make no distinction between fundamentalism and mainstream Christianity (as an example of one religion). You seem to be of the opinion that most Christians believe the Earth was created in six days. They don't. Most Christians would be perfectly happy with the Big Bang for example - their view is that God lies behind it. Mainstream Christian doctrine regards The Bible as a moral authority, but not literally true.

 

actually I don't think like that, this was just one example of what is preposterous about it. You don't need the bible, or to subscribe to a set way of worship in order to live a moral life, I think maybe this is where you are going wrong. Many religious people don't live morally, even people high up in positions of authority within the church itself, you do know that right?

 

Thank you for providing me with the information that prominent scientists often have views that push the boundaries. I must write that down in case I forget. You assume however, that scientific extremists still 'follow facts' in the way that religious arguments don't. To repeat: a lot of biological determinists, like Dawkins, have scientific views that ignore plenty of other facts. They have such immense faith ( word chosen deliberately) in genetics and evolution that they seek to explain all of the human condition in those terms. In so doing, they ignore the wealth of information from learning theorists, cognitive psychologists, sociologists etc.

 

nice sarcasm lol. Anyway, I'd trust a scientific method over a religious erm oh wait what is the counterpart - that's right there isn't one.

 

I think you miss the point. Not all scientists claim to be right, often ideas are offered up and part of the challenge is to knock them down again. Same can't be said about religion can it? You challenge a religious idea, you make enemies, challenge a scientific one and you make progress!

 

It's strange to me that you advance Dawkins of all people as a model of rational scientific enquiry, whereas to me, he is as trapped in his own little world as any religious fruitcake.

 

Get this for a radical concept, I don't believe everything he says, I don't take it on face value. Like most normal individuals, I strive to believe in things based on fact, or that make logical sense. A lot of what Dawkins says does, and his personal, extremist views don't even come into it, this is not what this conversation is about. He is just one of many scientists, some are right, some are wrong. What's good is that the truth persists and we don't need to "just believe" in anything.

[Tannhauser]

actually I don't think like that, this was just one example of what is preposterous about it. You don't need the bible, or to subscribe to a set way of worship in order to live a moral life, I think maybe this is where you are going wrong. Many religious people don't live morally, even people high up in positions of authority within the church itself, you do know that right? [/chilli]

 

No, you don't need a Bible to live a moral life. You can manage through absorbing a set of cultural values from your parents and others. And I accept that religion has never guaranteed moral behaviour. Those values have been formed by the Judeao-Christian ethic, of course, so there's no escaping the way religion has shaped our moral thinking as a believer or non-believer. Nevertheless, without direct belief this echo of religion will die off over time. After all, if there's no one watching, you can do whatever you like, right?

 

nice sarcasm lol. Anyway, I'd trust a scientific method over a religious erm oh wait what is the counterpart - that's right there isn't one.

 

 

I think you miss the point. Not all scientists claim to be right, often ideas are offered up and part of the challenge is to knock them down again. Same can't be said about religion can it? You challenge a religious idea, you make enemies, challenge a scientific one and you make progress!

 

 

Sorry, you really are totally lost on this. You seem to have this view that scientific belief follows FACTS, which are cast in titanium, incontrovertable, discoverable and unarguable, whilst anyone who has a religious belief is blundering along in a haze of blindly accepted dogma.

 

The distinction you draw is a false one:

 

1. The 'counterpart' religion apparently doesn't possess is philosophy, the rational examination of fundamental questions. Philosophy, through most of the middle ages, was a logical examination of ideas about God. Science was 'natural philosophy', a branch that looked at the natural world. Science and philosophy diverged when it started to concentrate on the nitty-gritty of the 'how', leaving the 'why' question to the philosophers.

 

2. Christian philosophers disagree with scientists on what constitutes valid evidence for, say, the existence of God. In the 17th century, for example, Descartes argued that only the mind can be relied upon, as the senses may be deceived. Modern Christian philosophers are more likely to point to a 'moral sense' as evidence of God, or modern miracles, or the existence of the universe. They do not, as you seem to think, base their arguments on the Bible.

 

3. For the average person, Science vs. religion is a matter of 'pick your high priest'. An example: What created the Big Bang? A Christian philosopher might argue that it was God. Some physicists argue it's a necessary property of super-string theory: God doesn't enter into it. Can you understand the arguments for super-string theory? Not unless you're one of the most skilled mathematicians in the world. If not, you're taking it on faith, same as anyone who listens to a church sermon.

 

4. You underestimate the amount of faith, judgement and dogma in Science. You mentioned the Earth and Sun earlier. One of the main reasons that the Ptolemaic idea of an earth-centred universe was abandoned was NOT because the evidence fitted a heliocentric model better. It was because it was a more elegant theory - it explained the maths more simply. Same for Einstein's theories -it's appeal was aesthetic (though experimental data helped to confirm it). Super-string theory is the third example. I read Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe' recently and the title gives the game away. Scientists are trying to prove Superstring theory right, trying to crack this impossibly hard puzzle, because mathematically, it's a neat way of explainig some stuff. It looks good, it's psychologically appealing, it's elegant.

 

5. I think you have a view of anyone with religious beliefs as deluded, weak-minded and unable to face 'facts'. This is a comforting belief until you run into somebody like Prof. Rich Swinburne, a committed Christian philosopher, who could run rings round anyone on here in an argument. I still think I'm right and he's wrong about God, but meeting him taught me that taking a religious standpoint does not mean that you have abandoned your reason.

 

6. Whilst I'll grant you that no one yet has gone to war over a scientific belief, again the gap is narrower than you suggest. By claiming religious disputes can only end up making enemies, you deny centuries of learned debate at a stroke. In suggesting that scientific debates always proceed in the spirit of mutually cooperative progress, you underestimate the human element in Science.

[Tannhauser]

It's odd for me also, because if you had asked me many years ago, I would have had more time for the "it makes people feel good, it gives them some hope, it gives them a sense of identity" argument, but these days it doesn't cut really cut the mustard for me. After all, you can't compare this wooly subjectiveness, this inadequacy in some people to the cold hard fact that historically religion has caused some large scale evil!

 

Wrong. You can compare the two in terms of evidence. You could look at the historical records in their millions, written by countless people describing their own lives, that quite objectively show how religion helped them explain their entire universe and offered a source of comfort and hope.

 

You dismiss it as inadequacy, because it suits you to do so, but one might equally dismiss your disbelief (or mine) as fear of judgement, or arrogance, or of having to make some personal sacrifice that was a bit inconvenient. You also can't prove, and neither can I, that they are the ones who are delusional.

 

 

 

For everyone you can quote from religion who has done good, I could find someone to match who isn't. You can't suggest that religion is good because an individual made a contribution to science, I say it was down to the idividual and that it is science itself that is the discovered truth.

 

But I can suggest exactly that, and I do. What does 'down to the individual' mean? The discovery was due to the individual's own determination, genius, endeavour etc. But you can't get round it - the faith was, in many cases, part of it. People did things 'for the glory of God' all the time, and it would be silly in the extreme to claim that this is just their own thinly disguised ambition. People believed in God, as a real person, whose wonderful work could be better understood through science.

 

I think in there may well be a void in peoples lives today, one that over time the human race may learn to overcome, heck some of us already have - but you won't get there by believing in God, Ghosts, Paul Daniels. The transition may be painfull. Just like it will probably be painful for muslems to treat their (their lol) women as human beings, still does that justify not making the change? Not in my books.

 

Agreed. I think. Except I see God as at least a step up from Paul Daniels.

 

Agreed it must have been miserable times for people in the past, you say religion was an escape that enabled them to be happy, I say if they hadn't been so held back by this man made nonesense they might have been in a position to actually make things better for themselves sooner. There have been long periods of stagnation in mans history, caused by religion and it's influence. IMHO this does far more harm than all the good you are struggling to find from it. Pockets of it still exist all over the world and I find it very sad, but heck it makes some people a lot of money and gives others an excellent way to weald influence they otherwise wouldn't have!

 

I think the reason you equate it with stagnation is because (a) you see human progress as being dependent on Science and technology and (b) religion as slowing science and technology. The second one we've already discussed. To some extent, you're right, it has caused stagnation in science during some periods; however, as I've pointed out, it actively boosted it in others.

 

Seeing as you think I'm 'struggling' to find the 'good', I'll give you a concrete example that may appeal to what you regard as 'FACTS'. The Reformation gave us the printing press, developed specifically to print The Bible and then used to spread Martin Luther's 'sedition'. Is there one mechanical invention that has been more powerful? Mass produced information, the spreading of knowledge like wildfire. (It also gave us the protestant work ethic, the belief that toil was good for the soul that stiffened the backbone of the industrial revolution).

 

Human progress doesn't just depend on technology, though. It depends on economic growth, movement between peoples, even mindset. As far as I can see, the reason why we live in one of the richest countries in the world, instead of the poorest, is because of the galvanising action of Christianity.

Talk about biting the hand that fed you.

[chilli]

Ok, you and I are a whole world appart and I can't be really justify my time responding to each of those points right now, if you don't have an open mind.

 

Personally I think you still don't get it, you are covering the same issues yet still missing the fundamental points. Let me just recap.

 

1) Religion has done good, I've said that all along, you don't need to convince me of that, I already knew that before you tried to convince me, yet again - this is wasted effort on your part.

 

2) Not everyone who subscribes to a religion uses it to justify acts of violence, dogma or amorality even! You don't need to convince me of this either.

 

3) I already know that science makes mistakes - but most scientists who offer up a theory actually encourage it to be challenged - this is how it progresses.

 

4) There is more fact in the majority of scientific theories than in any basis for any religion that I have seen.

 

5) I have no problem with God, people who believe in God, atheists, religious people individually (judged on their own merit) - I have issue with any 'on mass' behaviour, especially when it is based on something arbitrary, man made if you like (how ironic)

 

6) You don't need to subscribe to a religion to philosophise!

 

7) It's not just religion, it's any man made institution that tells you how to lead your life, think for yourself about how you want to worship and have faith!

 

8) The original question was has it done more harm than good. For me I'd say on balance (it has done both, glad we have established that *sigh*) it tends to do more harm than good.

 

9) People are individuals, create your own faith. Believe in what you want, be it a God in the traditional sense, some higher power, a higher order, the universe, life and so on and so forth.

 

10) If you need to justify your existance by believing in something, do it on your terms not by a man made institution.

 

11) If religion really did believe in what they preach, why do the fight each other over something essentially arbitrary?

 

I've made my own religion today it's a religion of personal faith, anti-dogma and institution, it promotes scientific method and the search for the truth, it does not ask you to believe in some artificial, man made construction. I promotes and even encourages challenge, it embraces change. It encourages the individual to adopt whatever personal beliefs he or she needs to justify existance, to give meaning to life. It asks you to lead a moral life, and suggests that morals values include accepting people who choose other religions, so long as their individual or on mass behaviour does not come with the risk of detriment to the progress of the human race. Denounce anyone who decides their belief or God is justification to fight, be violent, harbor hatred and resentment against any other individual or group.

 

I'm sorry, separate religion from faith, read those points, realise you don't need to convince me of what I (and most people) already know, then come back to me when you have actually worked out what point you are trying to prove.

 

In case you need help, the original point was "does religion do more harm that good?". In my mind the answer is yes, as a historical generalisation of course and that is true even today. You will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions, but that works on both sides, you can't prove an instition is right because an individual did good, when on mass those people would go up in arms to fight a holy war or on mass, denouce science that is based largly of fact, burn heretics and books or even on a more down to earth, daily basis, harbor contempt or deliberately segregate themselves from each other to form arbitrary groups.

 

If you don't have a point that strongly sways the balance over the question "does it do more harm than good" I suggest we look to stop this thread because it will only serve to be a waste of both your and my valuable time.

 

PS: Ptolmic values upheld because these were asthetically pleasing, oh come on FFS! Even if this were true, this is a good thing because...?

[Scoboblio]

To get back completely onto topic, the Iranian President is currently holding a news conference on the matter (it's on BBC news 24).

[chilli]

oh, I missed that, went out for a blitz in the supe instead lol

 

edit, ah it's back on

[chilli]

I only saw a small part, but what I heard him say made a lot of sense, he made some good points. What did you think of it?

[DShox]

owww oww i cant keep up now.

[chilli]

lol don't worry, you havn't really missed much

[Tannhauser]

Ok, you and I are a whole world appart and I can't be really justify my time responding to each of those points right now, if you don't have an open mind.

 

Fine - and I have stuff to do elsewhere, too. I am very amused by the suggestion that I don't have an open mind (but I bet you think you have one!)

 

Nevertheless, there is one specific point on here that I'll address.

 

You will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions, but that works on both sides, you can't prove an instition

is right because an individual did good, when on mass those people would go up in arms to fight a holy war or on mass, denouce science that is based largly of fact, burn heretics and books

 

I want to pick up specifically on the point that religion has, generally speaking, suppressed and opposed Science, because this is obviously a firmly ingrained idea you have that is quite wrong. Now, I've already given you plenty of reasons why this is incorrect, but you won't have it.

 

OK, if you won't accept it from me, how about from a world-renowned expert, who studies these things for a living? I'm reluctant to type out quotes, because it's time consuming, but I think it might serve to illustrate that the view I am proposing isn't something I've cooked up. It might also point out where the populist view comes from.

 

This is from Alistair Mc. Grath, Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, an historian of Science and Theology. It's from 'The Twilight of Atheism' (however, you could pick up any serious book on the history of Science and find the same thing)

 

Firstly McGrath gives a summary of the popular view, which pretty much covers your views, as expressed on here:

 

"Science is at war with religion...Science proves things, whereas religion depends on the authoritarian imposition of its dogmas, which fly in the face of evidence....Religion has been the implacable opponent of scientific progress. Religion was violently opposed, for stupid and self-serving reasons, to Copernicus's theory of the solar system in the sixteenth century and to Darwin's theory of evolution in the nineteenth."

 

Is that a fair statement of your position?

 

Mc. Grath then goes on to firstly trace the origins of the popular beliefs of about the two examples. The accounts of how both science-church encounters proceeded, casting the church as brutal and stupid oppressors ",,,have been known to be completely false since about 1970, and are now viewed by historians as the urban myths of journalists too lazy to check their sources, perhaps telling us more about what what certain people would like to believe than what actually happened"

 

Incidentally, one of the people who tracked down the origins of this myth was the great Thomas Kuhn, the most influential phiosopher of Science in the twentieth century.

 

My guess is that, in the absence of any concrete examples (other than Galilieo), you would respond 'you can always find exceptions, but in general science has held back religion' So, again, don't take it from me, listen to a professional on this:

 

"Most historians regard religion as having had a generally benign and constructive relationship with the natural sciences in the West." [ my italics]

 

And again: "The idea that science and religion are in perpetual conflict is no longer taken seriously by any major historian of science, despite its popularity in the late nineteenth century.....it survives only at a popular level - namely, the myth that an atheistic, fact-based science is permanently at war with a faith-based religion"

 

And, to back up something I said a few posts back:

 

"In the eighteenth century, a remarkable synergy devloped between religion and the sciences in England. Newton's 'celestial mechanics' was widely regarded as at worst consistent with, and at best a glorious confirmation of, the Christian view of God"

 

The main culprits in setting up the view of religion as Science's historical enemy can be traced to the first 'professional scientists' of the nineteenth century, who wanted to put a distance between themselves and their amateur colleagues (who were largely in the clergy).

 

I could go on, and address each of your points. Most tempting is to take a hard look at your mistaken belief in the way Science operates and its naive view as an enterprise that it is a wholly objective enterprise.

 

Lastly, and I wondered at the outset if it would descend into this, the general tone of condescending rudeness in your last post is unbecoming and does nothing to enhance your arguments. For example:

 

In case you need help, the original point was "does religion do more harm that good?".

 

In all fairness, you're in no position to suggest I need any help with my arguments. Comments like this:

 

PS: Ptolmic values upheld because these were asthetically pleasing, oh come on FFS! Even if this were true, this is a good thing because...?

 

...are so muddled as to be nonsensical and show that you don't really understand how science operates, or about the history of science.

 

I started at the same position you are at now. When I was 18-20, I swallowed hook, line and sinker the same mainstream view on science and religion that you have. In fact, hated organised religion to such an extent that I spent some time studying it - a 'know thy enemy' approach, initially. I also took a two year course looking objectively at the history of Science and then philosophy of Science. This showed me that my starting point on this was mistaken and simplistic. And it's also why the implication that I might not have an open mind is ironic.

 

If you are as dedicated to the objective pursuit of truth as you claim (congratulations on your new religion, by he way, which sounds absolutely identical to the belief system of around 40% of scientists, according to a 1996 poll), then the best thing to do would be to go and do a bit of reading that challenges your preconceptions, rather than watching TV programmes that confirm your prejudices. If that sounds rather snotty, Sir, then you're only reaping as you've sown.

 

Amen.

[chilli]

lol I did wonder how long it would take you. Not rising to your bait you still miss the point to some extent. You seem to be going to great lengths to pick a hole in only one very small part of the overall point I was making.

 

Do I think science is always directly opposed to religion, in fact I don't, not always. However science exists as an absolute truth inspite of religion, religion exists for it's own purposes.

 

I'm sorry that you think you are now an expert and automatically right because you've changed your mind from what you believed at 18 lol

 

I do understand the history of science, I also know an excuse is not a justifcation (in the case of a Ptolmic view).

 

I don't actually need to quote anyone from a large body of people who would dispute your argument, I'm sure you are aware or can go and read about them youself at your leasure.

 

You seem to suggest I only agree with this view because it is popular, I'm sorry to disapoint you but this is my personal view arived at based on the facts in front of me - something you can't really level at a large mass of people who subscribe to one arbitrary religion or another!

 

Going way back, you tried to argue against the cold hard objective fact that religion has historically causesd large scale bad and continues to do so today with the subjective idea that we wouldn't have some of the things loosely connected with religion today! I say this is tenuous at best and quite possibly backwards, because it is quite likely we would be further ahead now, on balance, considering all the influence religion has had (good and bad) over history.

 

I'm not open minded? Considering yesterday I purchased a book on Buddhism out of personal interest (and maybe you should read the opening paragraphs because it does a far better job of pointing out the flaws in religion than I ever could!).

 

On my bookshelfs I have numerous books on scientific history, on balance the number of historical events that have found religion to be a hinderance not a benifit is quite self evident - I'm sure you know this

 

I've already met you half way, in the sense I see good and bad from religion. All I am saying is that on balance, the scales may be tipped towards bad - overall when all is considered.

 

PS: I forgot to add, religion and the printing press, from historical accounts I have read, a large driving force for this was actually to disseminate more copies of the bible - hardly altruistic, nice example

 

So from two examples you have given from your hard and fast perspective, hardly overwhelming evidence is it?

 

You have to appreciate there is no black and white here, there are shades of grey - and I've picked my overall view on this scale of shades. This is an open minded approach, your points seem to be more black and white, I'm right you are wrong - this is why I felt you might not be being open minded, you seem to make no effort to meet in the middle. I wonder, as is often the case this is because you are stuck on a metaphorical ledge to which to move an inch is to fall off and face the cold truth of reality.

 

I'd also like you to consider this. Good and bad has come from religion. You argue that it has been instrumental in keeping people 'happy' in bad times. I say yes but also it has been responsible for concrete large scale bad like ongoing wars and conflict resulting in death and distruction. I'd say it is better to avoid the large scale bad at the price that every one of has to find our own personal faith and meaning to existance - in the long term I conjecture that it would actually be better for everyone, human kind as a whole would be in a better place when each of us confronts our fears on a personal level and doesn't require a man made construction to do the thinking for us