Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Agreed. The best bet to accomplish this is via science. However, there are zealots who would mainline their religion if they could.

One of the best ways to illustrate why science is the key is this: If humanity were taken back to the stone age and no records were kept about what was what no religion would be the exact same as it was before said fall of humanity. Science, on the other hand, would be exactly the same as it is because that is how science works. A plane flies because of the lift under its wings, this would be exactly the same, as would chemistry, evolution, physics, and any other aspect of science.

So you wish humanity just followed a flowchart of expected outcomes?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

Just now, slorch said:

So you wish humanity just followed a flowchart of expected outcomes?

Science isn't a flow chart.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

It would be a lot cooler if people worshiped Science.  

Or, at the very least, Satan.

[troph 24562]

y'all haven't really focused on the crux of the issue.  it's the proliferation and access to porn.  jesus loving people love porn and now that you can get it anywhere, anytime, people realize gay is good.  like god is good except change the "od" to "ay" and you're there.

 

actually, it's most people realize is inhumane to deny someone the same rights based on who they love. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

14 hours ago, Lucid said:

When the label is a religion, yes. Most all religions reject relativism. You accept the teachings and traditions or you reject them. Accepting some parts and rejecting other parts is how you wind up with 10,000 protestant denominations

No, I think the Pope flaunting concubines in court and selling tickets to get into heaven was what caused the reformation (maybe some exaggeration). That and an utter unwillingness for the Catholic Church to reform itself when presented with objections to its corruption is how we ended up with so many protestant denominations.

Edited July 6, 2018 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[Guest]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Science isn't a flow chart.

Humanity isn’t scientific either.  

The notion that everything would be sooooo OK without religion is just as misplaced.

Edited July 6, 2018 by slorch

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

Humanity isn’t scientific either.  

The notion that everything would be sooooo OK without religion is just as misplaced.

Humans, by nature, are scientific. Faith, by its nature, is the willful suspension of logic and reasoning. I am asserting that humanity would be better off without the inane belief in something that is not based in the fact of reality.

Science changes based on new information being presented that builds a better model than whatever is currently accepted. There is not any faith-based system that can change when new and better information is presented that better explains how the natural world works. Not one. The problem with any system that requires its adherents to believe anything within it without the ability to challenge the tenants therein, is unable to grow with new information, no matter how reliable it may be or the overwhelming quantity of independent sources that support the new information. So this creates a crisis for any such faith-based system and the entire house of cards upon which it is built to crumble. This is why so many fundamentalists of whatever faith refuse to accept any form of scientific evidence that goes against any facet of their faith.

I like you, slorch. You've always been a great member of this community. I hope some day you can step into enlightenment that science brings. You, slorch (or anyone else), can challenge anything in science if you discover a better model of explaining something that is currently held as the best model for that given subject. That can't be done in your faith or any other.

[CooterBrown 17911]

Humanity isn’t scientific either.  
The notion that everything would be sooooo OK without religion is just as misplaced.

A lot fewer people would be willing to kill themselves for 72 virgins that don’t exist.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

A lot fewer people would be willing to kill themselves for 72 virgins that don’t exist.

 

Indeed.  The reasons would change, but vice would absolutely still exist.

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Humans, by nature, are scientific. Faith, by its nature, is the willful suspension of logic and reasoning. I am asserting that humanity would be better off without the inane belief in something that is not based in the fact of reality.

Science changes based on new information being presented that builds a better model than whatever is currently accepted. There is not any faith-based system that can change when new and better information is presented that better explains how the natural world works. Not one. The problem with any system that requires its adherents to believe anything within it without the ability to challenge the tenants therein, is unable to grow with new information, no matter how reliable it may be or the overwhelming quantity of independent sources that support the new information. So this creates a crisis for any such faith-based system and the entire house of cards upon which it is built to crumble. This is why so many fundamentalists of whatever faith refuse to accept any form of scientific evidence that goes against any facet of their faith.

I like you, slorch. You've always been a great member of this community. I hope some day you can step into enlightenment that science brings. You, slorch (or anyone else), can challenge anything in science if you discover a better model of explaining something that is currently held as the best model for that given subject. That can't be done in your faith or any other.

Why do you believe I am unenlightened? ( insert joke here, meatball, centerline over the plate)

One can love science and still be a man of faith.

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Humanity isn’t scientific either.  

The notion that everything would be sooooo OK without religion is just as misplaced.

It would be a lot better than it is now. Wherever there is conflict, religion is almost always the core reason. Superstitions have stymied us as humans. Imagine what more we could accomplish if we weren’t so afraid of an imaginary being in the sky or thinking that that other person is evil because they don’t believe like us. Religion is a curse. 

[formermav43 4599]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It would be a lot cooler if people worshiped Science.  

Some people do. It’s called scientism, and it applies the scientific method to all fields of inquiry as if it’s only source of human knowledge.

I’d say we have some of its adherents on this board.

Edited July 6, 2018 by formermav43

[formermav43 4599]

Double post 

Edited July 6, 2018 by formermav43

[South Austin 52144]

What did Jesus say about OU?

[troph 24562]

What did Jesus say about OU?

Spawn of Satan. Worse than teh gays.

[Texas73 420]

15 hours ago, Lucid said:

Because I happened across this article first and because I'm not aware of any religion that says divorce is verboten, even the catholics have their annulment thing

Are you aware that up until the 1960's when divorce became more common, conservative churches like the Baptist church and the Churches of Christ would ban people who got divorces from their churches?

[JBJ 3649]

Some of you guys would have existential crises if you were to read enlightenment authors.

Edited July 6, 2018 by JBJ

[yaqdum 182]

14 hours ago, bolverk said:

For a dude who calls himself "Lucid," OP doesn't seem very "woke."

he's being cute with that spelling.  what he really means is loose head.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

9 hours ago, Continental Op said:

So how big of a donation does one have to fork over for that annulment? 

You gotta go Sabotka 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

Why do you believe I am unenlightened? ( insert joke here, meatball, centerline over the plate)

One can love science and still be a man of faith.

I'm not implying you are unenlightened in anyway and I agree that individuals who subscribe to one faith or another can appreciate science. However, they are both at disparate odds with each other and only one of them will ultimately win out. The question each person has to answer for themselves is which one. Faith brought about the dark ages, slavery, mass genocide, and really the worst humanity has ever experienced whereas science brought about the advancement of our species and will continue to do so until the end of humanity. It sure as hell wasn't faith that put men on the moon or enabled humanity to reach the deepest reaches of the ocean or anything in between.

[seven 1366]

Why does lucid favor sharia law? 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Why do American Christians pretend that marriage is a concept specific to Christianity (or any religion for that matter) that should adhere to specific and possibly made up Christian values? 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I agree that individuals who subscribe to one faith or another can appreciate science.

Not only can they appreciate it despite all their mental deficiencies, but they actually created modern mathematics based empirical science.  It's the damnedest thing.  It's fortunate that they weren't aware of this dilemma of science and faith as pitted against each other highlander style that all 21st century internet atheists seem to know innately without the need to bother with worldview examination or trifling historical facts.

[formermav43 4599]

29 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

 Faith brought about the dark ages, slavery, mass genocide, and really the worst humanity has ever experienced whereas science brought about the advancement of our species and will continue to do so until the end of humanity. 

Laying aside the philosophical problems with this post (not to mention the 19th century worldview), the view of history set forth in this sentence is stunning.

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

5 hours ago, Texas73 said:

Are you aware that up until the 1960's when divorce became more common, conservative churches like the Baptist church and the Churches of Christ would ban people who got divorces from their churches?

"What God has joined together, let no one separate." Jesus' own words. 

When the church loses enough customers because they don't share the church's stance on gay marriage, the church will change its stance on gay marriage.

[David Dennison 18657]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

Laying aside the philosophical problems with this post (not to mention the 19th century worldview), the view of history set forth in this sentence is stunning.

It is accurate, in part. In part being the key.

[David Dennison 18657]

5 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Some people do. It’s called scientism, and it applies the scientific method to all fields of inquiry as if it’s only source of human knowledge.

I’d say we have some of its adherents on this board.

Let's explore this.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

[JBJ 3649]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Let's explore this.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

Hence my quip about enlightenment authors.

 

Let's write your argument this way:

Empirical knowledge is the only type of human knowledge.

What type of knowledge is that statement?

Edited July 6, 2018 by JBJ

[Cacti 191]

6 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not implying you are unenlightened in anyway and I agree that individuals who subscribe to one faith or another can appreciate science. However, they are both at disparate odds with each other and only one of them will ultimately win out.

 

To those who think that science and religion are in conflict, I suggest reading Science and Religion in Wittgenstein’s Fly-Bottle, written by Tim Labron. It’s a fairly quick read and is intended for the layperson.

 

Quote

Wittgenstein obviously was never opposed to science, but he was opposed to what is now known as “scientism,” namely, the belief that science, and only science, provides truth in realist terms.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cacti

[Brian Fantana 6668]

The notion that science, and only science, provides truth is nonsense. The notion that faith and only faith can provide one with a strong moral compass is just as nonsensical. The two things can coexist and don't annihilate each other as in a matter-antimatter reaction. This is why, as an atheist and scientist, hardcore atheists annoy me just as much as hardcore evangelicals.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Guest]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Let's explore this.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

Ethics & morality, art, aesthetics, subjective experience, qualia, metaphysics.  These things are outside the purview of science.

In my opinion Sean Carroll is overall the most formidable of the public supernatural skeptics and he is a strong advocate of ontological physicalism (i.e. the view that the physical world is all that there is and the sole basis of reality).   However, in the below linked article he claims that "Morality is not part of science, however much we would like it to be."  This article is an interesting read and makes several salient points on the subject of what is and is not within the domain of science.  Again, Sean Carroll is not my ideological ally and ultimately I disagree with him on many of his final conclusions; but he is a brilliant & thorough thinker and is able to effectively debate and communicate his ideas.    

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/05/03/you-cant-derive-ought-from-is/

Edited July 7, 2018 by Guest

[BrickHorn 18194]

50 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

The notion that science, and only science, provides truth is nonsense. 

Sure.  Guessing can also provide truth, just not reliably.  

[David Dennison 18657]

58 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Ethics & morality, art, aesthetics, subjective experience, qualia, metaphysics.  These things are outside the purview of science.

In my opinion Sean Carroll is overall the most formidable of the public supernatural skeptics and he is a strong advocate of ontological physicalism (i.e. the view that the physical world is all that there is and the sole basis of reality).   However, in the below linked article he claims that "Morality is not part of science, however much we would like it to be."  This article is an interesting read and makes several salient points on the subject of what is and is not within the domain of science.  Again, Sean Carroll is not my ideological ally and ultimately I disagree with him on many of his final conclusions; but he is a brilliant & thorough thinker and is able to effectively debate and communicate his ideas.    

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/05/03/you-cant-derive-ought-from-is/

All of those things are in the purview of science insofar as they exist in the human brain and are abstract notions pondered and developed by human beings.

If it involves a human being, the scientific method has a role.

Edited July 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[Brian Fantana 6668]

11 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Sure.  Guessing can also provide truth, just not reliably.  

It just depends on what kind of truth you're shooting for or what your definition is. Don't get me wrong, I don't think religion provides any sort of truth to anyone. To some, I think it provides a measure of comfort and perhaps helps reinforce their moral compass (or corrupt it, depending on the person), but never actual truth. Science can't provide every truth, as some truths are self evident, are metaphysical in nature, or fall outside the realm of science in some other way. I guess I have to reiterate that I am speaking as an atheist and scientist.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[David Dennison 18657]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Hence my quip about enlightenment authors.

 

Let's write your argument this way:

Empirical knowledge is the only type of human knowledge.

What type of knowledge is that statement?

Your question presents a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The former head of the U.S. Geological Survey and editor of Science, Marcia McNutt can explain it much better than I can: "Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not."

Man believes many things that do not have a basis in the laws of nature. Science helps show us what those things are.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

All of those things are in the purview of science insofar as they exist in the human brain and are abstract notions pondered and developed by human beings.

If it involves a human being, the scientific method has a role.

Did you read the article and understand why Carroll claims that morality is outside of science?

Edited July 7, 2018 by Guest

[formermav43 4599]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

All of those things are in the purview of science insofar as they exist in the human brain and are abstract notions pondered and developed by human beings.

If it involves a human being, the scientific method has a role.

I didn’t know Sam Harris posted here.

[JBJ 3649]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Your question presents a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The former head of the U.S. Geological Survey and editor of Science, Marcia McNutt can explain it much better than I can: "Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not."

Man believes many things that do not have a basis in the laws of nature. Science helps show us what those things are.

 

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Let's explore this.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

And I can simply change the original question to match the new definition:  

Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.

What type of knowledge is this?

[David Dennison 18657]

31 minutes ago, JBJ said:

And I can simply change the original question to match the new definition:  

Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.

What type of knowledge is this?

You tell me.

But the fact that we ask the question is in the purview of the scientific method.

Edited July 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 18657]

41 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Did you read the article and understand why Carroll claims that morality is outside of science?

No.

Why does he make that claim?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

All of those things are in the purview of science insofar as they exist in the human brain and are abstract notions pondered and developed by human beings.

If it involves a human being, the scientific method has a role.

You've obviously never been married. At least to a woman.

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

You tell me.

But the fact that we ask the question is in the purview of the scientific method.

It's procedural inductive reasoning.  So actually, no, not in the purview of the scientific method.  In the purview of teleology.

 

But back to the point, something that contradicts its own truth is called a self-defeating proposition.  "Science is our only source of knowledge" is self-defeating.  The statement appeals to a a non-scientific source of knowledge.  The statement can't be both true and justifiable at the same time, therefore, it can't be known.

[David Dennison 18657]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's procedural inductive reasoning.  So actually, no, not in the purview of the scientific method.  In the purview of teleology.

 

But back to the point, something that contradicts its own truth is called a self-defeating proposition.  "Science is our only source of knowledge" is self-defeating.  The statement appeals to a a non-scientific source of knowledge.  The statement can't be both true and justifiable at the same time, therefore, it can't be known.

Procedural inductive reasoning takes place in the human brain, so it is in the purview of the scientific method.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

Edited July 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[JBJ 3649]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Procedural inductive reasoning takes place in the human brain, so it is in the purview of the scientific method.

What are some other sources of human knowledge?

No, induction doesn't take place in the human brain or follow the laws of nature.  It doesn't have an intrinsic status necessary to do these things.  Like I said, maybe you should read these enlightment thinkers that you think you agree with.

Edited July 7, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18657]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

No, induction doesn't take place in the human brain or follow the laws of nature.  Like I said, maybe you should read these enlightment thinkers that you think you agree with.

Where does it procedural inductive reasoning take place?

[JBJ 3649]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where does it procedural inductive reasoning take place?

It doesn't reside.  It is not instantiated.

i don't know how to explain it better than that.  It's like asking "where is red?"

Edited July 7, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18657]

Just now, JBJ said:

It doesn't reside.  It is multiply instantiated.

i don't know how to explain it better than that.  It's like asking "where is red?"

How does the instantiation happen? Where does it happen?

"Where is red?" is a great question for neuroscientists. In fact, I'll bet they're working on it.

[JBJ 3649]

Just now, David Dennison said:

How does the instantiation happen? Where does it happen?

"Where is red?" is a great question for neuroscientists. In fact, I'll bet they're working on it.

Neuroscientists can identify the process by which red is perceived.  They can't locate red.

[David Dennison 18657]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Neuroscientists can identify the process by which red is perceived.  They can't locate red.

Neuroscientists can't locate where language and abstract thought takes place in the human brain?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

47 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It doesn't reside.  It is not instantiated.

i don't know how to explain it better than that.  It's like asking "where is red?"

Red is a wavelength of the visible light along the electromagnetic spectrum. Red is all around us, however we observe other points along the spectrum based on how light is bent in our medium or how light is shifted as it travels between the stars.