Science-Religion. Which wins?

[DwightEisenhower]

<p>Can we all just stop constructing straw-man arguments? I have been interested in this issue as long I’ve been old enough to understand the biological and theological concepts in question. I have read extensively the works of well-known atheist writers like Dawkins and Hitchens, of theologians from Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam who write on the subject, and of well-established scientists who openly believe in God such as Francis Collins, the leader of the human genome project from 1993 to 2008. I have debated this issue at length with pastors, professors, friends, and random internet strangers. I have seen all of these arguments again and again. </p>

<p>Now I’m certainly no expert, and I’m a 19 year old college student so my opinion doesn’t mean anything. But in this issue, I nevertheless maintain the following to be true:</p>

<ol>
<li>Arguments that say religion is… are invalid. First, it’s intellectually dishonest because half of the time American high school/college students on the internet are inevitably referring to “Christianity” when they say “religion,” because they have no sizable knowledge of how non-Christian, especially non-Western religions handle the interaction of science and religion. The failure of the “religion is…” camp to define its terms leads to some problems. Namely, as I asked mifune, what Christianity are we talking about? Are we talking about the small, vocal minority of Christians who reject modern biology or are we talking about the majority of Christians who believe in evolution? Are we talking about Catholics or Protestants? Which Protestants? Are we talking about clergymen or laymen? </li>
</ol>

<p>To say “religion is…” is a straw-man argument; it literally can’t be anything else. You can say “religion is…” anything and you could find Christians who have those views. I question how much time those in the “religion is anti-intellectual” camp have actually spent inside a church, talking to a priest/pastor or even more importantly, talking to the congregation. You would laugh at me if I tried talking about the nuances of modern biology if I had never studied biology. How is it permissible for people to argue finer theological points while having 0 experience dealing with religion?! The obvious counterargument to this is, “well, I am very familiar with the Bible.” You simply cannot understand modern Christian thought from reading the Bible, just as you can’t understand modern Islamic thought from reading the Qur’an. You need to ask yourself, instead, “what do Christians believe?” </p>

<ol>
<li>You cannot equate “religion” or even “Protestant Christianity” with “creationism.” Well, actually you can, but not the “creationism” that everyone thinks is “creationism.” First, the belief that evolution is anti-Christian is not a fundamental belief of Christianity, despite what you may think from watching the news or arguing with strangers on the internet. To reuse an example I used earlier, Francis Collins was the leader of the human genome project from 1993 to 2008, i.e. the prime years of its existence, but is an overt Christian. Obviously, given his profession, he didn’t adhere to the notion that the earth is 6000 years old. If you’re interested in this topic, you should read his book, “The Language of God.” It has its problems but it’s a great alternative to “creationism” and “Intelligent design” arguments, which he criticizes at length.</li>
</ol>

<p>The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of interpretations of the first few chapters of Genesis within Christianity; not all of them oppose evolution or science as a whole. Christians must consider God a “creator,” but as an answer to the “why?” question and not the “how?” question. The “how” is answered by science, the “why” is answered by theology, philosophy, and the like.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Thank you. I agree with those points. I disbelieve evolution not because of my religion, but because of my skeptical examination of the theory.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>

Can we all just stop constructing straw-man arguments? I have been interested in this issue as long I’ve been old enough to understand the biological and theological concepts in question. I have read extensively the works of well-known atheist writers like Dawkins and Hitchens, of theologians from Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam who write on the subject, and of well-established scientists who openly believe in God such as Francis Collins, the leader of the human genome project from 1993 to 2008. I have debated this issue at length with pastors, professors, friends, and random internet strangers. I have seen all of these arguments again and again. </p>

<p>Now I’m certainly no expert, and I’m a 19 year old college student so my opinion doesn’t mean anything. But in this issue, I nevertheless maintain the following to be true:</p>

<ol>
<li>Arguments that say religion is… are invalid. First, it’s intellectually dishonest because half of the time American high school/college students on the internet are inevitably referring to “Christianity” when they say “religion,” because they have no sizable knowledge of how non-Christian, especially non-Western religions handle the interaction of science and religion. The failure of the “religion is…” camp to define its terms leads to some problems. Namely, as I asked mifune, what Christianity are we talking about? Are we talking about the small, vocal minority of Christians who reject modern biology or are we talking about the majority of Christians who believe in evolution? Are we talking about Catholics or Protestants? Which Protestants? Are we talking about clergymen or laymen? </li>
</ol>

<p>To say “religion is…” is a straw-man argument; it literally can’t be anything else. You can say “religion is…” anything and you could find Christians who have those views. I question how much time those in the “religion is anti-intellectual” camp have actually spent inside a church, talking to a priest/pastor or even more importantly, talking to the congregation. You would laugh at me if I tried talking about the nuances of modern biology if I had never studied biology. How is it permissible for people to argue finer theological points while having 0 experience dealing with religion?! The obvious counterargument to this is, “well, I am very familiar with the Bible.” You simply cannot understand modern Christian thought from reading the Bible, just as you can’t understand modern Islamic thought from reading the Qur’an. You need to ask yourself, instead, “what do Christians believe?” </p>

<ol>
<li>You cannot equate “religion” or even “Protestant Christianity” with “creationism.” Well, actually you can, but not the “creationism” that everyone thinks is “creationism.” First, the belief that evolution is anti-Christian is not a fundamental belief of Christianity, despite what you may think from watching the news or arguing with strangers on the internet. To reuse an example I used earlier, Francis Collins was the leader of the human genome project from 1993 to 2008, i.e. the prime years of its existence, but is an overt Christian. Obviously, given his profession, he didn’t adhere to the notion that the earth is 6000 years old. If you’re interested in this topic, you should read his book, “The Language of God.” It has its problems but it’s a great alternative to “creationism” and “Intelligent design” arguments, which he criticizes at length.</li>
</ol>

<p>The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of interpretations of the first few chapters of Genesis within Christianity; not all of them oppose evolution or science as a whole. Christians must consider God a “creator,” but as an answer to the “why?” question and not the “how?” question. The “how” is answered by science, the “why” is answered by theology, philosophy, and the like.

</p>

<p>I second this.</p>

[Halogen]

<p>Thirded; physics is an enclosed system within metaphysics and does not necessarily indicate anything about metaphysical reality. With just material evidence to look at, we could be figments of the imagination of some unknown deity, for all we know. When a religion comes through a sacred text, the way to validate the religion is textual criticism. Is it consistent? When it does make statements about the material universe, is it correct?</p>

[mifune]

<p>Again, I apologize for stalling the dialogue but I am still very short on time. I will have an hour of free time in my schedule tomorrow, however, to address any points that may have been extended.</p>

[DanaEffinWhite]

<p>Science. Religion sucks.</p>

[mifune]

<p>I feel like a fifteenth-century geographer debating against those who believe in the model of a flat Earth (a time in which virtually everyone mindlessly and, indeed, fallaciously adhered to the belief) – the latter of which is an outdated judgment/notion/conclusion and tenuously provides its evidence based on the presence of a vertical position and everyday observation that the world is relatively flat. In regards to belief and the “evidence” creationists, non-materialists, or anti-Darwinists advance, it is exactly the same parallel. Or perhaps even a parallel to a reproductionist debating against those who believe in the stork theory. Correspondingly, the creationist believes in similarly fragile and easily forged beliefs – such that the absence of a corroborated scientific belief “confirms” the existence of a supernatural power. </p>

<p>

@Baelor

You need to do better than that.

</p>

<p>You need to do better, on the other hand, in rationalizing your explanations and providing evidence for your deity rather than indolently and irrationally dismissing perfectly valid comments.</p>

<p>

Religion was inevitably a backfired experiment with an original means of propounding truth, and throughout its history, abused this fallaciously believed quality to subjugate those deemed abnormal from the conventional method of thought

</p>

<p>Objectively false. This statement is absolute trash.

</p>

<p>Nothing about that comment is the least bit false. Do you deny the atrocities committed in religion’s name? </p>

<p>

Something may be considered true when there is demonstrable evidence to support it.

</p>

<p>Prove it.

</p>

<p>There is nothing about that statement that requires any form of rationalization.</p>

<p>

To justify this statement you would need to prove that every single religion does not accept all scientific fact.

</p>

<p>Relatively few religions have the concept of self-correction inherent in their existence, or some type of tolerance or elasticity from a competing belief. Understandably, the vast majority of systems of belief do not hold any such flexibility since opening one’s religious doctrine to emendations patently decreases its legitimacy. </p>

<p>

In other words, your idiocy has devolved into idiotic arrogance…</p>

<p>As evidenced by your own mental deficiency.

</p>

<p>I firmly question your ability to provide a half-logical argument.</p>

<p>

You claim that all religious people are fundamentally dishonest, brainwashed, and intellectually decrepit.

</p>

<p>I would not claim dishonesty as a fundamental quality since one cannot properly label ill-consideration as such. The latter two reasonably apply when one engages in nonselective, uncritical thought and maintains an intellectually calcified state even in the presence of observable, verifiable, and duplicable evidence.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

One’s faith is largely a function of an inculcation by whichever religion is studied within the family unit – not a result of an initial personal association and appraisal of its elements.

</p>

<p>Objectively false. Prove this statement.

</p>

<p>No, it is indeed a product of common sense that parents inevitably influence children’s ideological beliefs, a common occurrence to which I am fundamentally opposed.</p>

<p>

Because their reality is not your reality. Your reality is limited to what can be empirically proven, and therefore you consider religion absolute trash, which is an internally consistent philosophy. But you cannot prove that all of which reality consists is that which can be determined empirically.

</p>

<p>What basis does religion (adherence to the supernatural) have in attaining empirical reality, other than its current foundation as an irrational substitute? By the very structure of the concept, it cannot do so, since it is not an objective, actively evolving body due the common absence of the concept of self-correction.</p>

<p>

Your reality includes no morality whatsoever – there is absolutely no justification on an empirical basis for any sense of morality (only scientifically justified action).

</p>

<p>In what fundamental way is morality a necessary component of a religious system? Regardless of our unique ideological inclinations, humans essentially have a basic understanding of what is socially acceptable and what constitutes an unsuitable act. If you claim that you would maintain the same degree of integrity regardless of the moral components propounded by one’s religious system, then there is absolutely no reason why one should attribute some god or religion for the necessity of morality.</p>

<p>

In other words, scientists may be examining a microcosm of reality, and one that is potentially irrelevant anyway.

</p>

<p>Was designing the polio vaccine “irrelevant?” Was discovering the nature of life in terms of a historical narrative “irrelevant?” Is new technology “irrelevant” when it comes to providing individuals with greater comfort, information, and convenience?</p>

<p>

Again, these are just statements that you appreciate posting, but which ultimately include no evidence or justification whatsoever. So I simply ask that you prove it.

</p>

<p>Groundlessly denying the irrefutable evidence provided by science and counteracting it with an unprovable and/or inherently meaningless or contradictory doctrine does not deserve any acknowledgment.</p>

<p>Science is an active force, one that continually seeks new knowledge by filling any apertures in our understanding of the infinite set that there is to know. When difficult questions arise that test human’s intellect, science seeks to gather evidence, formulate conjecture and potential explanations (not indiscriminate belief), and solve the problem through the use of empiricism. However, religion simply claims to already know the answer, not through some rational explanation, but because “God did it. Problem solved! We don’t need to work on anything – we already know.” Religion, by its very ontology, stunts the progress of knowledge and understanding by providing some superficial, facile “explanation” that should not be questioned. Truly adopting such a mindset is very unscrupulous and futile indeed.</p>

<p>

That in which is an honest, honorable, and systematic body for deriving reality.

</p>

<p>Science is all of those things. So are some religions

</p>

<p>Thank you for your first point. Regarding the second, how can a system be labeled as “honest, honorable, and systematic” when it is nothing but an assortment of unverified proclamations?</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

You need to do better, on the other hand, in rationalizing your explanations and providing evidence for your deity rather than indolently and irrationally dismissing perfectly valid comments.

</p>

<p>Again, if an infant were to babble, “Two plus two equals four” but did not understand nor could prove what he was saying, that would not mean that the statement were necessarily false. Your original statement spoke to what role religion plays – one that is totally independent of its validity. I am not dismissing your unproven but potentially correct statement, merely questioning its relevance.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Duping oneself into believing a false reality does not render it correct.

</p>

<p>Fortunately, that isn’t an issue – duping oneself into the cult of empirical-only reality with no empirical reason for doing so is similarly intellectually pathetic.

</p>

<p>First of all, labeling such as a “cult” is not correct since science is not a system of some sort of religious veneration. Science has an immense collection of evidence that substantiates its findings and verifies its results, whereas faith marks the diametrically opposed point of view where there is – unequivocally – nothing evidencing belief.</p>

<p>Regarding that, if there were evidence for faith, it wouldn’t really be considered “faith,” would it? One is only required to use the word “faith” when there is not substantive proof to verify opinion.</p>

<p>

Please stop erecting strawmen left and right.

</p>

<p>I have the full right to discuss whatever portion of this topic that I please and in what way are my arguments misrepresentative of the actions and dogged beliefs that are explicitly articulated by the religious followers in this thread?</p>

<p>

many accommodate the advances of science.

</p>

<p>By stating this, do you admit that pure religion cannot function or subsist as an authority to derive observable and substantive fact? Moreover, if it incorporates scientific reality into the system’s framework, it can no longer be describes as purely religion but rather a hybridized form.</p>

<p>The concept of self-correction is extraordinarily rare in supernatural belief; even so, in belief that recognizes verifiable science, what purpose is there to uncritically hold down the rest of the fort (fill any remaining unknowns) with the “God did it” explanation? There is not need for the belief in a some omniscient force since it only leads to ineffective assessment of our world and does absolutely nothing to advance thought that intrinsically depends on empirically derived conclusions.</p>

<p>

Many religious people are the latter. Many are the former. Same for scientists.

</p>

<p>By their very nature, scientists conjecture, but do not senselessly assume truth and retain the flexibility to assimilate new evidence into existing frameworks.</p>

<p>

The historical record speaks for itself as to the tremendously positive impact that religion

</p>

<p>And indeed, a negative, atrocious, and embarrassing aspect, particularly in regard to the diabolical tendencies wrought by religious fundamentalism (as archetypically represented by the Crusades, holy wars, Taliban, 9/11, and so forth).</p>

<p>

As far as I am aware, there is only one creationist in this thread.

</p>

<p>There are several.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

@MosbyMarion

How is my belief that the universe stems from a being whose nature we do not understand less verifiable than your belief that the universe stems from a physical process whose nature we do not understand?

</p>

<p>Cosmology is not at the same epistemological point as biology. However, Darwinian evolution and the process of natural selection teach us to treat any design or magical creation phenomenon in other realms of science as very spurious indeed.</p>

<p>

What time in this thread have I used Christianity to claim my assertions accurate?

</p>

<p>By using the Christian bible and assuming its assertions to stand as truths. Any document that uses some transcendent being to superficially describe what is observable is not verifiable. </p>

<p>

you claim that my religion is “a belief in a moral authority without any sensitivity for authenticated evidence”.

</p>

<p>You do not have verifiable evidence at your disposal. You use a book that is not any more justifiably accurate than any other piece of fiction. Curiously, faith operates on a non-empirical, non-rational basis, yet it attempts to dabble in “explaining” empirical phenomena when it has absolutely no validity to do so. In essence, it tinkers with the incorporeal and the nonphysical; thus, it should be invalidated as an authority concerning evidence-based pursuits and should remain entirely separate and afar from such.</p>

<p>Also, MosbyMarion, I assume, with your 6,000-year-old Earth “deduction,” that you deny the existence of the dinosaurs?</p>

<p>

By that definition science should consider molecules-to-man evolution an unconfirmed hypothesis as I do, as it has not been observed and is not thus far repeatable.

</p>

<p>It certainly is not unconfirmed, as it is contained in the fossil record with geological evidence to substantiate its near-universal influence. And of course it has not been observed in the “I saw it” sense, but observation firmly pertains to the manner in which it is verifiable, over a gradual, incremental evolutionary process spanning anywhere from 3.5-3.8 billion years ([Wikidpedia</a> page that organizes the evolutionary timeline](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution]Wikidpedia”>Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia)). There is an overwhelming deluge of information that is too difficult to refute as demonstrated by a formidable selection of authentic science literature found [url=<a href=“References Fossils”>References Fossils]here[/url</a>].</p>

[mifune]

<p>

You seem to define the word “religion” as “an irrational belief held by a group of people”.

</p>

<p>It is completely fair to define religion as a system of faith and worship of a controlling power that is established on nonmaterial conviction rather than proof. Given that, it has no fundamental basis in scientific pursuits.</p>

<p>

I have a scientific hypothesis about the origins of the universe

</p>

<p>No, you do not; you firmly base your beliefs on an assumptive and non-demonstrable format with absolutely no defense in a rational, empirical method of thought since you fundamentally dismiss the true evidence available to humanity.</p>

<p>

Atheism assumes that only physical matter exists

</p>

<p>More precisely, science, quite obviously, only observes physical matter. From where is this matter derived? Two scientifically derived facts, mass-energy equivalence and the first law of thermodynamics, support the possibility that all matter once existed purely in its energy form and has existed for eternity following the simplification that “energy is neither created nor destroyed.” Energy may be potentially explainable as an inherent consequence of state of the very existence of an existence – a ground-state rationalization for the presence of a void (what exists in the absence of vacuity?). However, when one employs a creative, complex force that is simply there, one must explain who designed the designer and who designed the designer of the designer, and so forth. In essence, one is providing himself with more ineffective questions that, if confronted, receive blanketed answer after blanketed answer. Since they are not, and the idea that a living, superior being is eternal, it ducks the same question. Nothing is being explained or solved with any bit of resolution. </p>

<p>

So, while I grant the possibility of a naturalistic atheistic universe

</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>

My distrust of the dating methods is due to the existence of numerous examples of failures, and a basic knowledge of chemistry which informs me that a number of confounding factors may exist.

</p>

<p>Radiometric dating uses a mathematical relationship to quantitatively compare the decayed amount of a substance relative to the parameter of a demonstrated half-life. It is an objective and completely replicable method of determining age.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

@ksarmand

You have made an unfounded conditional statement that does not provide proof for the premises asserted

</p>

<p>Again, faith, by its very definition, does not derive its “reality” from the realm of objectivism, materialism, or humanist thought. Thus, it has no fundamental basis in acting as an irrational substitute for empirically derived conclusions.</p>

<p>

Simply because contradiction exists between discrete factions within and without a religion does not mean that none are correct.

</p>

<p>Contradictions across the entire superset of religious foundation, which are supremely numerous, inevitably do deny logical coexistence. As a basic start, Buddhism claims the absence of a supernatural creator, while Christianity supports such a notion. Immediately, one must be dismissed due to the fallacy of contradiction. Hence, that simple juxtaposition demonstrates that millions upon millions of individuals are embracing a false conviction, a delusion, a fallacious perception of reality. Repeat this process across the entire religious spectrum for every system of belief that has ever existed, for every religious assertion, for every foundational basis and you will demonstrate the dubiousness and the high degree of falsity inherent in the entire theological perspective.</p>

<p>For instance, [url=<a href=“http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=192]here[/url”>http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=192]here[/url</a>] is a document that collocates sixteen different forms of Christianity and in charted form, underscores the sheer degree of confusion, contradiction, discrepancies, and contention within the Christian faith itself – without considering any such juxtaposition to beliefs of far more divergent nature.</p>

<p>I could, for one, by the very seat of my pants, create a religion with 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, 100, or 5,000 gods, declare my bible to be The Three Little Pigs and it would still hold the same degree of authority as any other system of belief.</p>

<p>Mathematically, considering that there is inevitably an infinite number of possibilities for faith-based belief, there is essentially zero probability that one is correct, particularly when each is evaluated on a comparative basis for the sheer search of contradiction, while still completely disregarding where these assertions were initially derived or who originally dreamt them up. Even if one wishes to cling to this slight probability, one must recognize that the “evidence” for one religion is vastly superseded by the evidence from other beliefs since the number of adherents to one particular religion are supremely outnumbered by the number of adherents across all other beliefs. Thus, one must conclude that the possibility for one religion to be uniformly correct across all assertions is boundlessly overrode by the chance of its falsity.</p>

<p>By the Humean paradigm, whatever is different (particularly in regard to systems purported as absolute, unquestionable basis of fact), is contrary. Moreover, by religion’s very diversity, “evidence” for one must inevitably serve the effect as evidence against another, which is, in turn, reciprocated.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

The only onslaught has been from your ego and inability to see anything but from a Manichean view.

</p>

<p>You previously expressed the discourtesy in ad hominem, yet you resort to one yourself.</p>

<p>

My belief in evolution - with mild hesitancy in accepting certain aspects - did and does not rely upon my religious persuasions; rather, evolution affirms my beliefs.

</p>

<p>While I appreciate your proper assessment of evolution as scientific fact (which draws a better, yet still contradictory, viewpoint to that of other individuals who have posted here), you do not have evidence to substantiate your claims for a creationist design and a subsequent evolutionary acquisition or a sporadic material inheritance. If you wish to convince individuals of religious validity in the belief of some omnipotent instrument, you ought to provide the proper empirical evidence for its existence (although the possibility of such is essentially invalidated in #193). In the absence and, of course, unobtainable nature of any confirmation, the rational individual must wholly reject the belief in favor of the scientific evidence that it verified, knowable, and objectively observable and reproducible.</p>

<p>

Cretinous and bogus? Don’t refer to your writing in such a manner; self-hate isn’t beneficial to your personal growth.

</p>

<p>You deliberately misconstrued my statements.</p>

<p>

This would inevitably hold true across all cultures that hold a belief in a moral authority without any sensitivity for authenticated evidence.

</p>

<p>Proof, please?

</p>

<p>That statement is not exactly a find-it-in-the-book fact. My assertion was that individuals will naturally resort to their own faith to adamantly defend their own unique, unverified theological perspective.</p>

<p>

If religion does not “describe truth,” something you claim is only the province of science, then why the rancor?

</p>

<p>Religion attempts to exert its influence into “finding” empirical reality although that is not the basis on which it is intrinsically formulated. Thus, it has no authority in such.</p>

<p>

Clearly, you have recognized that religion’s ultimate purpose is not being served when it is manipulated by various governments. Why do you then have the blind temerity to cite it as an example of the invalidity of religion?

</p>

<p>I did not use that argument to invalidate faith *per se<a href=“that%20is%20left%20to%20my%20aforementioned%20assertions%20stated%20above”>/i</a>, but rather recognizes the danger of the fanatical nature of religion.</p>

<p>

Science can be used in the name of committing great atrocities; have you never heard of the Tuskeege experiment?

</p>

<p>Do you mean the Tuskegee experiment? That was primarily motivated out of racist and ideological tendencies and indeed, an ulterior faith in an inherent sociological dichotomy.</p>

<p>

in addition to creating fulfillment for individuals that you may simply be incapable of understanding

</p>

<p>This process of “fulfillment” is something to which I have consistently alluded so I am not quite certain where your “incapable of understanding” charge is derived.</p>

<p>

Stop posturing as a representative for every atheist’s beliefs.

</p>

<p>First of all, atheism, is not a belief or a faith or whatever one may construe it to be. It is the absence of one. The perspective of science is the natural outlet, as the swelling modern investment into objective endeavor provides the necessary means to obtain intellectual fulfillment of the natural world. That fundamentally marks a departure from other systems in more primitive eras that proclaimed a belief in the objective world that did not have the means to support their assertions.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

You need to do better, on the other hand, in rationalizing your explanations and providing evidence for your deity rather than indolently and irrationally dismissing perfectly valid comments.

</p>

<p>Again, if an infant were to babble, “Two plus two equals four” but did not understand nor could prove what he was saying, that would not mean that the statement were necessarily false. Your original statement spoke to what role religion plays – one that is totally independent of its validity. I am not dismissing your unproven but potentially correct statement, merely questioning its relevance.</p>

<p>

Nothing about that comment is the least bit false. Do you deny the atrocities committed in religion’s name?

</p>

<p>No. I do not. I have bolded the parts that are false, since you are obviously so inept that you are unable even to regurgitate what you have previously posted.</p>

<p>

Religion was inevitably a backfired experiment with an original means of propounding truth, and throughout its history, abused this fallaciously believed quality to subjugate those deemed abnormal from the conventional method of thought

</p>

<p>Pick which parts you want to argue and I’ll show you the historical record that definitively establishes your position as false. Omitting one will be taken as a concession that you were just engaging in the same insidious demagoguery filled with flowery speech with which you associate religion.</p>

<p>

There is nothing about that statement that requires any form of rationalization.

</p>

<p>Yes there is. I ask for clarification on the following points:</p>

<p>1) The definition of true
2) The definition of demonstrable, and therefore the definition of evidence
3) The definitiveness with which something must support something else
4) Some reason to accept your definitions of 1-3)
5) A condition of completeness – that everything that is true can be defined by 1) and shown by 2-3)</p>

<p>

Relatively few religions have the concept of self-correction inherent in their existence, or some type of tolerance or elasticity from a competing belief.

</p>

<p>That is absolutely incorrect. Let us take, for example, the Catholic Church, which stands as the primary example of religious authority in Europe for over a millennium. There are very few beliefs that are considered de fide, and are therefore subject to change. In fact, Vatican II changed the format for Mass, which had remained relatively constant and in Latin for almost the entirety of the Church’s existence. The only ex cathdra statement issued since the determination and complete definition of that same principle has been the Assumption of Mary. Limbo was another issue that was only recently resolved. The list goes on.</p>

<p>This is one example, as I said. But your statement is in the long term not really that important because it does not even characterize religion as a whole. The fact that many religions do one thing obviously means that it is not an inherent part of religion, and therefore you cannot argue from that assumption.</p>

<p>

Understandably, the vast majority of systems of belief do not hold any such flexibility since opening one’s religious doctrine to emendations patently decreases its legitimacy.

</p>

<p>Unless the legitimacy lies not within the doctrine but within the authority that makes that doctrine.</p>

<p>

I firmly question your ability to provide a half-logical argument.

</p>

<p>Consider it questioned firmly. I have only to say that I am incapable of providing a half-logical argument, as mine are fully logical – more than I can say for your “arguments.”</p>

<p>

The latter two reasonably apply when one engages in nonselective, uncritical thought and maintains an intellectually calcified state even in the presence of observable, verifiable, and duplicable evidence.

</p>

<p>Religion is not uncritical. It merely does not limit itself to empirical evidence. If you are committing religion to the realm of non-selective and intellectual sterile thought, you are relegating all of philosophy to that same pile. That statement is absurd as philosophy and religion seek to understand the very basic nature of humankind. The fact that millions of religious followers do not think critically does not mean that religion is causing that – those same people would almost certainly blindly follow whatever authority, as you state.</p>

<p>

No, it is indeed a product of common sense that parents inevitably influence children’s ideological beliefs, a common occurrence to which I am fundamentally opposed.

</p>

<p>I don’t want common sense. I want data. I want to know why religions experience dropouts and converts. The mere existence of those phenomena suggest that your statement is at best incomplete. Parents influence beliefs, but I reject any indication of degree without empirical evidence (at least from you).</p>

<p>

What basis does religion (adherence to the supernatural) have in attaining empirical reality, other than its current foundation as an irrational substitute?

</p>

<p>It is not an irrational substitute. We will also need to work with the same definition of empirical. So I adopt the following convention –
Empirical: Able to be determined by the scientific method and scientific observation
Actual: What is the case</p>

<p>The ultimate goal of religion is actual reality. Empirical reality is a subset (and perhaps the complete set) of that same reality. </p>

<p>

By the very structure of the concept, it cannot do so, since it is not an objective, actively evolving body due the near-universal absence of the concept of self-correction.

</p>

<p>Again, you are defining religion on some bizarre perception that clearly only applies to a few religions. This statement can’t go anywhere because it is fundamentally flawed until you establish that no religion is self-correcting.</p>

<p>

In what fundamental way is morality a necessary component of a religious system?

</p>

<p>It is not. Religion is a necessary component of a moral system.</p>

<p>

Regardless of our unique ideological inclinations, humans essentially have a basic understanding of what is socially acceptable and what constitutes an unsuitable act.

</p>

<p>You clearly have not read any natural law – there is no justification for ANY action or lack of action whatsoever without religion or philosophy. Science does not proscribe a particular course of action that can be considered a moral code in the same way religion does. There is no “right” or “wrong” without religion or philosophy.</p>

<p>

Was designing the polio vaccine “irrelevant?” Was discovery the nature of life in terms of a historical narrative irrelevant? Is new technology “irrelevant” when it comes to providing individuals with greater comfort, information, and convenience?

</p>

<p>Ontologically, those are all irrelevant. And yes, I do consider every single one of those things irrelevant in the long term (i.e. eternity). Take away religion. Take away philosophy. There is no reason to do anything other than some biological drive for increased quality of life and comfort. Life has no purpose. It is completely hollow and without point.</p>

<p>

Groundlessly denying the irrefutable evidence provided by science and counteracting it with an unprovable and/or inherently meaningless or contradictory doctrine does not deserve any acknowledgment.

</p>

<p>Again, where are these denials of irrefutable evidence? I certainly don’t believe in any! In fact, I do not deny ANY scientific fact! But somehow, I still believe in religion. You tell me how that is possible. You are pitting two sides together that are not mutually exclusive, hence the fundamental problem with your entire line of reasoning.</p>

<p>

Religion, by its very ontology, stunts the progress of knowledge and understanding by providing some superficial, facile “explanation” that should not be questioned.

</p>

<p>Not so. Again, you must establish that this is the approach and justification for every single religion that has ever existed in any part of the world ever in order to make such a broad claim involving the quintessential components of religion. Again, many religions adapt to scientific discoveries (read: add them to the doctrine). And again, you are assuming that the only worthwhile investigation in life is scientific. Philosophical inquiry is another type of investigation.</p>

<p>Why is that bad? Why is science good? What does it matter if people are lying to themselves or to others? What does it matter if I wake up tomorrow and decide to nuke the capital, or murder every infant in a hospital? What does it matter what I believe? Or do? You tell me.</p>

<p>

Thank you for your first point. Regarding the second, how can a system be labeled as “honest, honorable, and systematic” when it is nothing but an assortment of unverified proclamations?

</p>

<p>That would be problematic. Except that it’s not unverified. It’s only scientifically unverified. I absolutely reject the equivalence of the two, so you will need to definitively establish it before I am willing to move with you on this issue.</p>

[Halogen]

<p>

Science is an active force, one that continually seeks new knowledge by filling any apertures in our understanding of the infinite set that there is to know. When difficult questions arise that test human’s intellect, science seeks to gather evidence, formulate conjecture and potential explanations (not indiscriminate belief), and solve the problem through the use of empiricism. However, religion simply claims to already know the answer, not through some rational explanation, but because “God did it. Problem solved! We don’t need to work on anything – we already know.” Religion, by its very ontology, stunts the progress of knowledge and understanding by providing some superficial, facile “explanation” that should not be questioned.

Religion is far from that. A religion, by its very ontology, is a metaphysical belief system. The scientific method, by its very ontology, tries to explain phenomena within the physical system of the universe.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

@ksarmand

You persist in your derogatory statements towards religious individuals’ intellect without empirical proof as to any innate mental deficiency in those who choose to hold belief in any god.

</p>

<p>Your “innate mental deficiency” accusation is flagrant distortion so allow me to restate my thoughts regarding that. Faith is perniciously indoctrinated as a virtue, when in essence it breeds a complacency in our thought because it is taught in such a fashion so that it does not require justification and the mention of any counterargument, dissent, or protestation is thought as a mortal sin. Virtually, it rules out of fear.</p>

<p>

Given your lack of exposure and immersion in various religions

</p>

<p>You construct a completely assumptive argument by claiming that I have no religious experience when I have never made mention of my background. Although I have never participated in a church environment, I was taught during the first years of my life, that the “God” concept “explains” things. However, I had not yet begun elementary school before I felt that attributing everything to some fairy in the sky was inherently fallacious, primarily because I was fairly exposed to the concept of other gods simultaneously and alternate explanations, and not necessarily brainwashed or instituted into a particular belief on a de facto basis. </p>

<p>

Stop preaching. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know.

</p>

<p>You state that you understand the concept of a progressive, stepwise procedure that increases the biological complexity – and state that you fully agree with it – yet you state that you do not believe it. Instead, you resort back to the fill-the-gap belief. </p>

<p>

However, this does not account for the absence of RNA signature continuum between domains of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya

</p>

<p>You are speaking of the biological concept of saltation. However, the RNA issue truly is not remotely troublesome and does not mark inconsistency since the evolutionary divergence among the three occurred approximately two billion years ago, which is an extraordinary biological time scale for the process of natural selection and mutation to occur.</p>

<p>

Empirical proof before claiming it as truth, then. No double standards here.

</p>

<p>Why do you believe I stated that it is in the conjectural phase? I did mention the hard evidence provided by colonial theory, but it is not safe to assume that it is incontrovertibly true. Using such as an opportunity or excuse to institute the “God did it” justification is indiscriminate.</p>

<p>

@DwightEisenhower

Arguments that say religion is… are invalid.

</p>

<p>It is perfectly valid to make such assertions when staying within a reasonable definitional parameter. I asserted a basic definition of religion in one of my posts above and is the framework on which I have based my statements.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

First of all, labeling such as a “cult” is not correct since science is not a system of some sort of religious veneration.

</p>

<p>Cult: “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing”</p>

<p>I’ll just move on.</p>

<p>

Science has an immense collection of evidence that substantiates its findings and verifies its results, whereas faith marks the diametrically opposed point of view where there is – unequivocally – nothing evidencing belief.

</p>

<p>False. Science does not justify religion. That does not mean that religion is unjustified unless you establish science as the only metric of truth, which you have failed to do.</p>

<p>

I have the full right to discuss whatever portion of this topic that I please and in what way are my arguments misrepresentative of the actions and dogged beliefs that are explicitly articulated by the religious followers in this thread?

</p>

<p>Do you understand we have different beliefs? If you did, you would not be saying the things that you have been.</p>

<p>

By stating this, do you admit that pure religion cannot function or subsist as an authority to derive observable and substantive fact?

</p>

<p>NO. Merely that religion does not limit itself to empirical fact. It involves actual fact. Religion, in some cases, includes science. Fundamentalism does not, evangelism frequently does, Catholicism does, Judaism does, etc.</p>

<p>

Moreover, if it incorporates scientific reality into the system’s framework, it can no longer be describes as purely religion but rather a hybridized form.

</p>

<p>I do not agree with that definition of religion. </p>

<p>

The concept of self-correction is extraordinarily rare in supernatural belief

</p>

<p>This has been addressed. It is simply false and not worth further discussion unless you unleash the historical record. So do it or retract it.</p>

<p>

There is not need for the belief in a some omniscient force since it only leads to ineffective assessment of our world and does absolutely nothing to advance thought that intrinsically depends on empirically derived conclusions.

</p>

<p>It’s only ineffective if you a priori establish religion as false. It does not hinder thought.</p>

<p>Furthermore, why is scientific inquiry important? What does it matter that it is inhibiting thought, even if one were to accept that it was? Again, why is ANY of this relevant at all? Why is original thought important at all? Why should we understand the world around us? </p>

<p>

By their very nature, scientists conjecture, but do not senselessly assume truth and retain the flexibility to assimilate new evidence into existing frameworks.

</p>

<p>By their very nature, religious conjecture, but do not senselessly assume truth and retain the flexibility to assimilate new evidence into existing frameworks.</p>

<p>

And indeed, a negative, atrocious, and embarrassing aspect, particularly in regard to the diabolical tendencies wrought by religious fundamentalism (as archetypically represented by the Crusades, holy wars, Taliban, 9/11, and so forth).

</p>

<p>I agree – people have done horrible things. They have also done fantastic things. But why are the things you described horrible, exactly? I think they are, but I’m surprised you do. What makes them horrible? Can you prove it empirically?</p>

<p>

There are several.

</p>

<p>For my own context, could you name them? Or could they identify themselves?</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>Mifune, your lack of belief in religion in religion is justifiable. However, it would seem as if you are trying to disprove religion. While I acknowledge the possibility of this universe being entirely God-less, I have two questions.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Is God, and thereby religion, impossible within reality?</p></li>
<li><p>There are people who accept religion as a belief system, and readily believe all scientific findings, even going so far as to make their own scientific finding. If a person in said group tolerated atheism and did not work to prove their religion to others (but still firmly held their beliefs), would you reciprocate their tolerance?</p></li>
</ol>

[DwightEisenhower]

<p>

And indeed, a negative, atrocious, and embarrassing aspect, particularly in regard to the diabolical tendencies wrought by religious fundamentalism (as archetypically represented by the Crusades, holy wars, Taliban, 9/11, and so forth).

</p>

<p>Gross statement. First, Al-Qaeda is a political group, not a religious group.</p>

<p>Second, this statement says “groups of people who misunderstand religion and use it for destructive purposes are evidence to the fact that religion is overall destructive.” So let’s abandon science because of the eugenics movement, or the people who said thalidomide was safe to take for morning sickness. </p>

<p>0/10.</p>