Can secular science ever oust religious belief?

[cwes99_03]

What is a troll, and how does one behave like one? Hmmmm.

 

I just think you don't realize the ramifications of what you are saying.

 

Giving false witness requires intent to be false. It also requires something to give witness to.

 

All I did was quote you and summerize your post.

 

Perhaps you could reexamine your post and mine and show me where I went wrong, and then make an effort to write in such a way (succinctly) so that I cannot misunderstand you.

 

Try putting things in neat points 1) 2) 3).

[cwes99_03]

Pyro says "If religion is ever to be replaced, I don't think it will be replaced by "science". "

 

Do you deny this? See post 16

 

Pyro says, "It will be replaced by another religion, or even a different "kind" of religion."

 

Pyro says, "The trend is clear (to me anyway). People are often attracted to a religion for its fire-breathing dogmatism, only to find that it has negative social and cultural impacts. (Like burning down all the libraries, and vast bloody wars!) Eventually, another religion comes on the scene that gives the same emotional and cultural benefits without the pillage and suffering. Civil liberties and knowledge become more acceptable. Inner peace becomes more important than social dominance."

At this point see thread religion vs philosophy

 

Pyro says, "Fundemantalism is making a GIGANTIC push for social, political and scientific hegemony (dominance & rule) in America right now. What it is destroying in the process is true faith and peace with oneself."

 

Fundamentalism - Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

 

Thus if one were to make a gigantic push for social, political, and SCIENTIFIC hegemony one's movement would be to replace another's religion with a new movement "secularism" or "scientism" if you will allow me to call it.

 

Pyro says, "It will almost succeed. At a horrible cost. In thirty years, the religious landscape in America will be totally different.

 

But religion will not be replaced by secular philosophies or science."

 

So, you think that people will push for scientific reasoning to win out over all religion, but that ultimately that will fail. But returning to the religion vs philosophy thread, you have to come face to face that what you are suggesting is that religion will be replaced

 

by other religions (they may call themselves "Christianity") that have relaxed their defiance and dogma, and that emphasize the value of internal peace and fullfillment. They will incorporate an acceptance of secularism and science. Scriptures will be relegated to "inspiration" instead of "law".

 

Tell me if a religion (whatever name it chooses to call itself) relaxes it's stance and turns away from the teachings passed on by their god in favor of science and the human philosophical values of peace and fulfillment that you sugest, would they not be replacing real religion with human philosophy, even if they choose to reapply the term religion to it?

 

A rose by any other name would smell.... AHEM, let me restate that a philsophy by any other name would still be a philosophy, and not a religion.

[Qfwfq]

If you really insist on trying to prove that Pyro said that philosophies are replacing religion and touting themselves as the new religion, try to cool down if not make a better effort.

 

Tell me if a religion (whatever name it chooses to call itself) relaxes it's stance and turns away from the teachings passed on by their god in favor of science and the human philosophical values of peace and fulfillment that you sugest, would they not be replacing real religion with human philosophy, even if they choose to reapply the term religion to it?

 

A rose by any other name would smell.... AHEM, let me restate that a philsophy by any other name would still be a philosophy, and not a religion.

Now I did not find Pyro saying religions will shed themselves of "teachings passed on by their god" and become pure "human philosophy". There is no aut-aut between religion and philosophy.

[Qfwfq]

I never said that God is an object, all I said is that God is a concept.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had said that, I was just trying to sum up with some comparisons. :esmoking:

 

Since I think we are getting into a pointless debate by shifting statements from the original meaning, I'll first just ask you to be more careful before judging a member's knowledge, as in #23. For instance, according that article from Wikipedia the object/concept distinction becomes a grammatical issue and one could say both of the following correct statements:

• Atoms are objects.
   
  
• "Atom" is a concept.
  

just as it can be said about "apples" and "apple". However, although not all concepts are objects, not all are measurable and not all are observable, that quote doesn't really say so. God of course is neither of these three.

 

evidently it is not essential that every concept be a measurable quantity, for example art is a concept, can anyone measure it?! :esmoking:

Of course not.

 

Please give me a refrence that shows that an atom, not the manisfestation of atoms, that is of phenomena related to atom can be observed directly.

I'll try, once I have succeeded for an apple, rather than the manisfestation of apples (if I ever will succeed even with that).

 

:cocktail: We never observe the Ding-an-sich, only the phenomenon. So, I had replied to your point:

For example we really cannot observe an atom or energybut they are neverthless an integral part of science!

By saying that we do observe them, and: "You might say that we cannot see them but the meaning of observation isn't limited to that. They are phenomena. They are manifestations of something in reality." I really wouldn't say that Dyothelite was ignorant.

[HydrogenBond]

Another way to look at religion, from the perspective of science, is that it is of historical signficance, even if it is not considered important today, by science.

 

We live in a world that preserves old buildings, old documents, vintage cars, etc., yet one has no problem ousting an important historical antecedent of modern human thought. It is a virtual museum that tells about the human condition from many centuries ago. Better than science can deduce from artifacts. Yet many find it necessary to bury it.

 

This is like bulldozing the graphite reactor museum (early nuclear fission) because this is obsolete. We preserve it because it tells us where we came from and therefore gives one a better perspective of where we are heading.

 

A religious person will not beleive that religion is a just museum because it is still a working tool even today for them. But being a museum that tells about the human mind is something that both can agree on.

[PsyCho]

Busy applying for jobs so no time for full scale rant. In short:

 

'God' has always represented the unknown - And provides an explanation for the mysteries around us. A collective coping mechanism that emerges from the sheer ridiculousness of life, the need to believe that there must be more to it (curse of consciousness if you will). And why not if that helps you get through your day. Just don't go trying to teach it as FACT, because we all know it's not; it's just the noodly appendege of the Flying Spaghetti Monster misleading us all in his tricksy ways..... I digress.

 

Essentially, people are different (ref. Personality types), and view the world in fundamentally different ways. Science will never be able to explain everything (Godels paradox), hence there will always be an element of the unknown and therefore religion will have a niche. Whether it will be in the same form as it is currently.. Unlikely; Religion has, and will, continue to evolve and edit itself.

 

But an interesting point is now it is now possible to take an electric probe - Tickle your medolimbic loop for a good old fashioned religious experience; a feeling of oneness with your own god. Apply mr sparky to your left tempoparietal junction and I guarantee you an out of body experience. Don't fancy the ECT way to the ultimate relious epithany (which is all generated by circuits in YOUR head so far), then perhaps sir would like to try a selection of herbal hallucinogens the way mother nature intended them (psilibyde, peyote etc.,).. And again we observe the same response. What does this mean...

 

...Surely not, religious experience something that can be bottled and sold to the punters; a way of activating select circuits to provide that divine feeling on demand without years of following rules or wasted weekends.... Religious organisations know how to do this (though whether this is a conscious process or just emergent can be debated) and we all can learn it.

 

Rant fin.... To be continued...

[hallenrm]

." I really wouldn't say that Dyothelite was ignorant.

 

Well, if that gives u happiness, I take back my words. Happy?

[Pyrotex]

Busy applying for jobs... it's just the noodly appendege of the Flying Spaghetti Monster misleading us all in his tricksy ways...

The FSM?

Hmmmm...

I think I like you already. B)

[CraigD]

Tell me if a religion (whatever name it chooses to call itself) relaxes it's stance and turns away from the teachings passed on by their god in favor of science and the human philosophical values of peace and fulfillment that you sugest, would they not be replacing real religion with human philosophy, even if they choose to reapply the term religion to it?

I think this rhetorical question requires some careful analysis.

 

Restated as an list of assertions it is (please correct me if I’m wrong):

1. A true religion R teaches lessons authored one or more gods;
   
2. R may begin teaching lessons authored by one or more non-gods, and/or cease teaching lessons authored by their original, god author(s);
   
3. When [2] occurs R is no longer a religion

For the truth of these assertions to be evaluated, the existence of the objects of its terms must be proven, beginning with: God(s)

 

Arguments for and against the existence of a single or multiple gods are numerous. I would describe the consensus conclusion of people conversant in these arguments as that the question is “undecided”, or possibly even “undecidable”.

 

So I don’t think the original argument can be supported to the standard needed in the philosophy of science forum. It needs to be restated in term of measurable things. For example, while the objective existence of god(s) is uncertain and controversial, a statement such as “80 +/-5 percent of Americans answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘do you believe in God?’” is not.

 

Please, everyone, feel free to discuss my interpretation of this standard, in this thread, a new thread, or via PM.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I have already been sort of discussing it in that thread you and I discussed a while back (a year ago, CD). We talked about the difference between philosophy and religion here.

 

I'm simply referring this thread back to that one as it seems that is where the discussion is leading. Religion dies when no one practices it any more. However, a particular religion can die when no one practices in the way it was practiced.

While over the centuries, many have turned away from certain practices that were once a backbone of their religion, they have chosen to continue calling their "new religion" by the same name of their "old religion". (Quotes signify an idea that is not necessarily accepted at large.) Thus many on this forum would be in complete agreement and today's "christian" churches teach and worship in many different ways. Likewise, the media has demonstrated that there are various ways in which muslims, budhists, and other followers of religion have changed their way of worship to a form that suits their own purposes.

I don't know how many times I have heard a "peaceful" muslim say that their religion does not teach that it is okay to kill people not of their faith, and yet there are clerics in "radical" muslim regions that preach, "Allah wishes you to kill all infidels." How can they each call themselves muslim?

Likewise how can a protestant and a catholic each call themselves christian? How can two different rebel groups in Rawanda both claim to be Catholic when they are bent on killing one another and their religion teaches that they should love one another? How can a person still call themselves religious if they have abandoned their religious teachings?

Thus when 80% say they still believe in god, what god do they believe in? Do they believe in the god that put forth the way in which he/she should be worshipped or do they believe in some fraction of that and a new set of human philosophies?

 

I agree that it would be very difficult in some cases to prove whether something is human philosophy or godly wisdom. That was part of the intent of that other thread. I realize that the question for most will remain unanswered as they will not be sure of the answer provided, however most religions have made it very clear that certain teachings are godly wisdom and anyone who leaves the understanding (turns away from those teachings) has likewise turned away from the god that they worshipped.

Likewise, please do not believe that I am saying this is a bad thing. I believe some religions and their practices are abhorent and wish people to turn away from them as much as certain members here wish for all people to turn away from all religion. However, I do not wish them to do so and to keep on believing that they can still call it religion.

[Pyrotex]

...list of assertions:

1. A true religion R teaches lessons authored one or more gods;
   
2. R may begin teaching lessons authored by one or more non-gods, and/or cease teaching lessons authored by their original, god author(s);
   
3. When [2] occurs R is no longer a religion

...

Take a parallel look at race. Today in America, we refer to Blacks as Blacks or sometimes Afro-Americans. We refer to Hispanics as Hispanics. We do this because these groups of people have *in essence* named themselves and communicated that these terms are what they want to be known by.

 

A similar principal works in religion, IMO. Catholics want to be called Catholics, even though the church they now serve is significantly different that the Medieval version. Protestants and Catholics insist on being called Christians even though their religions have (arguably) more differences than similarities. "How can they do this?" Because they can. I know folks who "are" Pagans--that is, they think of themselves and call themselves Pagans, even though they have no way of knowing how the original Pagans of Wales, 400 AD, worshiped!

 

I am a member of the Unitarian Church. (Nice bunch of folks.) They accept atheists as members, Buddhists, Pagans, Christians, anybody. They provide a spiritual community without mandating ANY gods. It is still a "religion" because it functions as a religion.

 

Religions, like provincial dialects, languages, cultures and systems of governance, evolve over time. Only by isolating a community from all others (as some Jews have attempted to do) can that community avoid cross-fertilization, cross-contamination, and cross words. :D Catholicism, as a case in point, has a clear history of evolution in terms of structure, methods, dogma, political agenda, exegesis, and relationship between clerics and laity.

 

When is a religion not a religion? Very slippery question--no easy answers.

[Qfwfq]

When is a religion not a religion?

Easy! :D

 

When it no longer worships a divinity. Worshipping one does not rule out philosophical approach, or hermeneutics; these things have in fact long been present in major religions.

 

BTW, the worst trouble Galileo recieved was by the doing of the most stubborn peripatetics. When they ran out of philosophical arguments they resorted to a couple of things in the scriptures. Galileo called upon a bit of hermeneutics but his opponents dug up the Council of Trent agreement. Cardinal Barberini was a staunch peripatetic and convinced the new pope, a lyncean and an old friend of Galileo, that he had deceived him.

[Pyrotex]

Easy! :doh:

When it no longer worships a divinity. Worshipping one does not rule out philosophical approach, or hermeneutics ...peripatetics ...lyncean...

The English dictionaries in Italy must be twice the size of the ones we use over here. (and I wouldn't be surprised!)

 

How about religions that "worship" or memorialize ancestors? Or honor Nature? Or that "deifies" an abstract "path" that leads one to inner peace? The Unitarians embraces worship of a divinity but do not hold it to be necessary. How about religions that "worship" the power within that can be manifest by mastering a martial art?

 

I'll see your "hermeneutics" and raise you five "anchorites"!!! :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

Pyro we had a discussion a while back about gay marriage and whether or not it should be called marriage and we looked at the ways the term marriage has been used in the past and whether or not people could choose to use it in any way they wanted, or if it was defined and that definition should be stuck to and not changed.

 

The SCofNJ has decided that the definition is fine as it stands and it need not be applied to homosexual marriage.

 

While I realize that the term religion has been applied to various "theologies" for centuries, I do not feel that they can rightfully claim to be such. What defines a religion? What makes a religion a religion and not a philosophy?

[pgrmdave]

I kind of like Wikipedia's definition of religion:

Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.

[cwes99_03]

So what does the great Wikipedia say about philosophy? I inserted the italicized part.

 

Philosophy as a concept and a subject encompases all of knowledge and all that can be known (by human means) including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use today and can be profitably used regardless of where one's answers to specific philosophical questions lie.

 

Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence in the most fundamental sense. It attempts to answer the question as to what is the most fundamental attributes that all existing things share, if any, as well how they relate to one another. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how man can know things. As such certain aspects of the functioning of man's mind is included -- his rational faculty and how it functions as well as his emotional capacity and how it functions. Ethics is concerned with the nature of values and in particular how this concept applies to man and his relationship to the external world and to other men. Politics is concerned with the behavior of men toward one another in the social context. Hence the first question of politics as a philosophical subject might be: how should men deal with one another in such a social context? Hence it can be seen that politics is really a sub-category of ethics since ethical criteria must be applied in order to answer it's initial question. Aesthetics is concerned with man's artistic creations. It also involves value criteria and as such can also be viewed as a sub-category of ethics.

 

There are a number of broad approaches to the subject as a whole which vary according to the traditions of people all over the world. One notable approach is that of Western philosophy, a school of thought which developed in the West and which fundamentally uses reason to evaluate arguments. Eastern philosophy is considered its counterpart since subjective non-rational criteria are largely used to evaluate and resolve issues. The methodology of philosophy is itself debated within the field of metaphilosophy and epistemology.

So a group of beliefs and attitudes concerning an object, person, or system of thought, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such a belief or system of thought is a human philosophy. Basically, you take out the sacred, supernatural, etc parts and you have a human philosophy.

[Dyothelite]

The weird thing about the term religionis that if you say you have no religion....then that's youre religion: that you have none. Even if you "eradicate religion" you have done so as an act of your own religion: that there should be none. If you say "there is no God", then thats you're religion, if you say "I refuse to have any religion"...then thats your religion.