OT: religion

[scaredyclassic]

i think what it means is that there’s no reason people cannot be polite to one another, or at least not burn questioners at the stake, or put them in the stockades, or the rack, or insert long pikes into their rectums so that the point comes out of their mouths, or drown them, or put them in boiling oil, or coat them with tar, or one of any other number of tortures

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar]What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?

[/quote]

I think it means that science can’t prove absolutely there’s no god. Of course, science can’t prove absolutely there’s no santa claus, either. But you never hear anybody say, “santa claus and science are compatible,” because nobody over the age of 10 or 11 really cares all that much whether santa claus is real.

So, what “science and religion are compatible” really means, is, “god, while it is an absurd proposition, can’t be proven absolutely not to exist. And we don’t want all the believers out there to hate us, so rather than pointing out the absence of scientific evidence for god, we’ll just say “science and religion are compatible.” Because it’s technically true, and therefore we’re maintaining our standing in the community while not technically lying.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar]What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?

[/quote]

I think it means that science can’t prove absolutely there’s no god. Of course, science can’t prove absolutely there’s no santa claus, either. But you never hear anybody say, “santa claus and science are compatible,” because nobody over the age of 10 or 11 really cares all that much whether santa claus is real.

So, what “science and religion are compatible” really means, is, “god, while it is an absurd proposition, can’t be proven absolutely not to exist. And we don’t want all the believers out there to hate us, so rather than pointing out the absence of scientific evidence for god, we’ll just say “science and religion are compatible.” Because it’s technically true, and therefore we’re maintaining our standing in the community while not technically lying.[/quote]

we watch ELF every year and I ahve a pretty emotional reaction to it. i doubt i would feel as strongly as i do if there were not at leats some chance that santa claus exists. you can just feel the power when you watch it i defy anyone to watch it and not feel anything.

[Coronita]

Wait. What do you mean Santa Claus isnt real?

[zk]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/religions_smart_people_problem_the_shaky_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/

Here’s a fascinating article that talks about the dearth of religious beliefs among scientists and philosophers.

“Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.”

And it gives some reasons why those 7 percent might believe (none of them having to do with evidence – mostly for reasons having to do with emotions overcoming their rationality).

It also brings up another reason why scientists might try to sell the “science and religion are compatible” line.

“Second, the proclamations of educated believers are not always to be taken at face value. Many don’t believe religious claims but think them useful. They fear that in their absence others will lose a basis for hope, morality or meaning. These educated believers may believe that ordinary folks can’t handle the truth. They may feel it heartless to tell parents of a dying child that their little one doesn’t go to a better place. They may want to give bread to the masses, like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.”

And, it mentions that someone like CA renter with her high IQ and (what appear to be) her beliefs would be relatively rare:

“But we shouldn’t be deceived. Although there are many educated religious believers, including some philosophers and scientists, religious belief declines with educational attainment, particularly with scientific education. Studies also show that religious belief declines among those with higher IQs. Hawking, Dennett and Dawkins are not outliers, and neither is Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.“

[all]

Religion helps people cope with mortality.

[zk]

[quote=all]Religion helps people cope with mortality.[/quote]

Which is why they want to believe it and, in most cases, are able to convince themselves it’s true.

[Doofrat]

[quote=all]Religion helps people cope with mortality.[/quote]
Kind of like saying “Ignoring that growing black spot on my skin helps me cope with cancer”.

[scaredyclassic]

everybody wants to go to heaven
but nobody wants to die.
hell, no one is that dumb….

[NotCranky]

Thanks for the comments on my question.

I am going to get a lot of laughs every time I hear or think about the compatibility of science and religion in the future. Now that scaredy has taught me be phony , I’ll just keep it to myself (offline).

Atheism and Christianity are compatible because Science and Christianity are compatible and Science and Atheism are compatible.” Doh. no it doesn’t say that in the bible”

[scaredyclassic]

to say on average that atheists are smarter than believers is the same as saying on average religious people are dumber than atheists. the data does seem to support that religious people have statistically significant less iq points, on average…

but individuals obviously vary for all kinds of reasons. theres plenty of very smart believers. my wife, for instance is very smart, and was a very devout catholic for many years. lots of reasons. tradition. strong family indoctrination. devastating losses int he family. ritual comforts. others…i would never mock anyone personally for believing. on the other hand, some believers in my exerience have no problem pitying nonbelievers, which to me feels like a form of mockery.

i do think it plausible that smart people ar emore likey to lose the faith with age. need data on that.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar]What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?

[/quote]

I think it means that science can’t prove absolutely there’s no god. Of course, science can’t prove absolutely there’s no santa claus, either. But you never hear anybody say, “santa claus and science are compatible,” because nobody over the age of 10 or 11 really cares all that much whether santa claus is real.

So, what “science and religion are compatible” really means, is, “god, while it is an absurd proposition, can’t be proven absolutely not to exist. And we don’t want all the believers out there to hate us, so rather than pointing out the absence of scientific evidence for god, we’ll just say “science and religion are compatible.” Because it’s technically true, and therefore we’re maintaining our standing in the community while not technically lying.[/quote]

No, it means that things like the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and the Biblical explanation are not incompatible. If you could set aside your biases for a moment, read the Biblical version, and then compare it to the scientific version. For many Christians, the Bible is not the actual “word of God” but the telling of the stories of God. Not everything is to be taken literally (such as the earth/universe being created in six Earth days), but if you look at the series of events, they are not out of line with one another. Many people believe that the “days” noted in religious texts simply refer to a period of time.

What you seem to miss, zk, is that your belief in the absence of a god/higher power is no different than another person’s belief in the existence of a god/higher power. We DO NOT KNOW what exists outside of our very tiny window of knowledge. To claim that we know, one way or another, is ludicrous.

Our differences seem to lie in the way we think. You seem to think more in terms of black and white, which is why your statements sound more absolute — whether about religion or vaccines, etc. I tend to think much more about all the grey, which is why I so often use terms like “IMHO/IMO,” “it seems,” “I believe,” etc. I will almost never speak in absolutes unless I know something for a fact. This is where you and I differ.

For the record, I am not religious at all. My kids have never stepped foot in a church except for their grandmother’s funeral (not saying that’s either right or wrong). Personally, I’m agnostic and anti-religious because I hate how religion is used to control the masses (which, IMO, is why religion is so dogmatic…it keeps people fighting against one another and creates an easy way for those in power to get people to do what they want). Like scaredy, I acknowledge the benefits of religion in giving people something to help them with their fear of dying or by setting up incentives/disincentives to do the right thing and not do the wrong thing.

But to claim that you KNOW that people who have a different belief system believe in a fantasy — assuming that a lack of evidence is what constitutes a fantasy — then you’re just as guilty as they are. There are so many things about the universe that we don’t understand — our knowledge is infinitesimally small — we cannot claim one way or another without sounding foolish.

Are there other intelligent life forms in the universe? Statistically speaking, probably so. Could they be so much more intelligent than we are that if early humans have had contact with them, they might refer to them as a sort of god? As you probably know, there are many examples around the world where primitive people seemed to indicate visitors from space.

The options are endless. None of us knows anything for a fact, so we all believe in a fantasy of some sort unless we just acknowledge all the possibilities and admit that we do not know. The fact that we do not know is the only fact that exists.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk]http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/religions_smart_people_problem_the_shaky_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/

Here’s a fascinating article that talks about the dearth of religious beliefs among scientists and philosophers.

“Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.”

And it gives some reasons why those 7 percent might believe (none of them having to do with evidence – mostly for reasons having to do with emotions overcoming their rationality).

It also brings up another reason why scientists might try to sell the “science and religion are compatible” line.

“Second, the proclamations of educated believers are not always to be taken at face value. Many don’t believe religious claims but think them useful. They fear that in their absence others will lose a basis for hope, morality or meaning. These educated believers may believe that ordinary folks can’t handle the truth. They may feel it heartless to tell parents of a dying child that their little one doesn’t go to a better place. They may want to give bread to the masses, like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.”

And, it mentions that someone like CA renter with her high IQ and (what appear to be) her beliefs would be relatively rare:

“But we shouldn’t be deceived. Although there are many educated religious believers, including some philosophers and scientists, religious belief declines with educational attainment, particularly with scientific education. Studies also show that religious belief declines among those with higher IQs. Hawking, Dennett and Dawkins are not outliers, and neither is Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.“[/quote]

Of course, the opposite of what you suggest could be equally true. It’s pretty well known that many atheists are every bit as dogmatic and insistent regarding their beliefs as other religious people are. Many atheists are incredibly zealous about their beliefs and try desperately to discredit anyone who believes differently than they do…no different at all from what many religious people do. I have no doubt that scientists get a LOT of pressure from the atheists in the scientific community, so they go along to get along.

Many atheists are drawn to science because that is their religion, but science does not support atheism any more than it supports Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or Islam, etc. That is where atheists fall flat on their faces. They believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]to say on average that atheists are smarter than believers is the same as saying on average religious people are dumber than atheists. the data does seem to support that religious people have statistically significant less iq points, on average…

but individuals obviously vary for all kinds of reasons. theres plenty of very smart believers. my wife, for instance is very smart, and was a very devout catholic for many years. lots of reasons. tradition. strong family indoctrination. devastating losses int he family. ritual comforts. others…i would never mock anyone personally for believing. on the other hand, some believers in my exerience have no problem pitying nonbelievers, which to me feels like a form of mockery.

i do think it plausible that smart people ar emore likey to lose the faith with age. need data on that.[/quote]

Scaredy is right again.

Why do non believers have to be pitied and guided to God?

An old lady I met recently actually told me “it’s ok as long as you believe in God.”

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]to say on average that atheists are smarter than believers is the same as saying on average religious people are dumber than atheists. the data does seem to support that religious people have statistically significant less iq points, on average…

but individuals obviously vary for all kinds of reasons. theres plenty of very smart believers. my wife, for instance is very smart, and was a very devout catholic for many years. lots of reasons. tradition. strong family indoctrination. devastating losses int he family. ritual comforts. others…i would never mock anyone personally for believing. on the other hand, some believers in my exerience have no problem pitying nonbelievers, which to me feels like a form of mockery.

i do think it plausible that smart people ar emore likey to lose the faith with age. need data on that.[/quote]

Scaredy is right again.

Why do non believers have to be pitied and guided to God?

An old lady I met recently actually told me “it’s ok as long as you believe in God.”[/quote]

You’re talking about the extremes in religion, the ones who wear their religion on the lapels. Many religious people keep it to themselves and acknowledge, even if it’s somewhere deep inside, that they just don’t know anything for a fact so they ought not to push their beliefs onto others and have no right to judge others.

You notice the loud, obnoxious religious people precisely because they are loud and obnoxious. Many religious people are not like that, and will only discuss their beliefs if specifically asked about them.

[Author]

Posts