I don't care who the religious people thank when we fix global warming, as long as we fix that shit. You can eat your Sky Cake as long as I have my fucking planet, but don't tell me that the Sky Baker will bake me cake to make up for your fossil fuel addiction killing everything I love.
Feel free to replace "global warming" with whatever ignorance-fueled danger to humanity you like.
I guess I agree with the comic more than I thought. I'd just never be openly hateful about religion, provided it doesn't impact my life. I will acknowledge someone's religious beliefs and let the subject drop, but I don't respect them (the beliefs). Just keep your religion out of anything and everything that impacts me--science, school, my pizza boxes, whatever--and we'll be fine.
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one. It's fine to proud of it. But please don't pull it out in public and wave it around, And PLEASE don't shove it down my children's throats.
I haven't been able to track down who this should be attributed to, but it's one of my favorites.
You know, it actually really irks me when my friends talk about "rationalism" as if it's something that will cure every problem we have. There's a major problem with that - people aren't purely rational. Relying on people to act according to reason is akin to relying on a pet to not run away when you leave your front door open all the time.
Also, Science and Religion are not fundamentally incompatible, cf. all of science/natural philosophy up to the 19th century.
No, people aren't purely rational. However, subscribing to a rationalist philosophy may help people to become more rational with time; it's an investment philosophy.
And the science of the 19th century is not the science of today. It's still a philosophy, and it is one that has grown and changed with time.
Science and religion are incompatable when attempting to explain the same thing, and it's because they involve fundamentally different approaches to analyzing problems. Religions teach that some things are fundamentally certain, whereas any scientific inquiry is all about the control of uncertainty. You have to accept that uncertainty is a reality, and then learn what you can accounting for the uncertainty.
It's a small but fundamental difference - scientific reasoning necessitates that you reject the idea of absolute certainty, but religious reasoning requires accepting it.
EDIT: Also, who says you can only have one philosophy? Believe lots of things! Try many different modes of reasoning.
Acting rationally isn't always the best thing. Great art often times stems from being illogical, betting against the odds, and doing things that all reasonable thought would say is nearly impossible. If we always acted logically, we would lead very boring lives.
Boring, sterile, and lacking passion. Mr. Spock isn't a role model.
Most western religious reasoning requires accepting some degree of certainty in the dogma, but I'm not sure if that's inherent to religion as a general category of things.
Religion doesn't require certainty; you're still going to shut up and do what the religious authorities tell you to do if you're 90% sure they're right. What it does require, though, is faith - belief without evidence, or even belief in the face of contrary evidence.
Religion doesn't require certainty; you're still going to shut up and do what the religious authorities tell you to do if you're 90% sure they're right.
What it does require, though, is faith - belief without evidence.
Well, the philosophies themselves have certain fundamental absolute certainties that you have to accept. Your personal certainty isn't what matters.
I suppose the more correct way to phrase it is: "acceptance of certain premises to be necessarily true." You might question it, but you still accept it - even in the face of contradictory evidence or in the absence of evidence.
Still sounds like Christianity focused religion. I actually went to look up the word religion because I was a little curious. The big keyword seems to be beliefs, not necessarily beliefs without evidence. I guess you could have a religion specifically based on evidence even.
Still sounds like Christianity focused religion. I actually went to look up the word religion because I was a little curious. The big keyword seems to be beliefs, not necessarily beliefs without evidence. I guess you could have a religion specifically based on evidence even.
There is a language issue where most people conflate "belief" with "faith." I believe the modern synthesis of evolution - but my belief is based on evidence.
I have never heard of a major religion that does not have some fundamental faith component. It's not even a Christian thing - Judaism and Islam both rely on the unsupported existence of a supreme creator. In order for the philosophy to work, you have to accept that central premise - on faith.
Still sounds like Christianity focused religion. I actually went to look up the word religion because I was a little curious. The big keyword seems to be beliefs, not necessarily beliefs without evidence. I guess you could have a religion specifically based on evidence even.
It would have to be non-supernatural, in that case. It seems to me that the meaning of the word "religion" would be rather diluted at that point - you'd have to call something like secular humanism a religion.
As a side note, some religions actively encourage you to doubt them; Judaism is, as far as I know, an example of this. Of course, such doubting is only encouraged so long as the doubt remains unsuccessful.
It seems like a simulacrum religion could be created for just about anything. Ritualized science.
As Wub hinted at with his perspective, if someone's religion gets us to exactly the same place, what's the meaningful difference?
It seems to me that if you're going to fall back on dislike of "major religions" and specifically the family of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you should probably be specific in the language to avoid conflating them with the idea of a religion.
Religion doesn't require certainty; you're still going to shut up and do what the religious authorities tell you to do if you're 90% sure they're right.
What it does require, though, is faith - belief without evidence.
Well, the philosophies themselves have certain fundamental absolute certainties that you have to accept. Your personal certainty isn't what matters.
I suppose the more correct way to phrase it is: "acceptance of certain premises to be necessarily true." You might question it, but you still accept it - even in the face of contradictory evidence or in the absence of evidence.
Right, so basically you're just talking about dogma. Indeed, many religions are heavily dogmatic, especially the Abrahamic religions. Nonetheless, that isn't true of all religions - Taoism, for example, doesn't seem to fit your description.
As Wub hinted at with his perspective, if someone's religion gets us to exactly the same place, what's the meaningful difference?
I just believe that there is likely more in the Universe than will EVER be comprehensively explained by science. This sort of non-dogmatic, open minded spiritualism needs to stop getting lumped in when you guys have your monthly hategasm about organized religions.
As Wub hinted at with his perspective, if someone's religion gets us to exactly the same place, what's the meaningful difference?
It doesn't get us to exactly the same place.
It was a hypothetical question. If they did end up in the same place. Supposing a simulacrum religion to science wherein the belief structure and ritual emulated the same experiments and systems exactly.
Does Taoism even require faith? I mean, I guess you have to have faith in the existence of the Tao, but you can't know what it is - "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" and all that.
That would still technically qualify as dogma. I mean, it's not MUCH dogma, but there it is.
EDIT: There are religions espousing Taoist philosophies; I consider these separate from the more philosophical branch of Taoism.
I'm a big fan of of Zen Buddhism because the overriding philosophy is more or less, "Keep it simple, stupid. Don't be a douchebag. Death. Rebirth. Lather, rinse, repeat."
There's no real god in Zen Buddhism, just the idea that by being a chill bro and being good at thinking about shit, you buy more time to be a chill bro and think about shit. It's an appealing philosophy for a scientist.
EDIT: Also a big fan of philosophical Taoism for the reason Pete noted. I'm generally a fan of religions/belief systems who's operative mode is, "Don't be a dick, live a simple life, help people, think."
I think everyone on this forum is a bit too quick to slap a label on anything having to do even tangentially with religion. Education is fine and all but you can't put me in a box based on what little I've told you. You just look dumb doing it.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact I think I'm the only one in this thread NOT spoiling for a fight. :-)
That nonsense comic that spawned the discussion, though, is basically an atheism Chick tract. It has a few good points and then it starts to put a toe over the crazy zealot line and seem to like the temperature.
I'm a scientist. Putting things in boxes is what I do. I could probably categorize your spiritual beliefs after a 15 minute conversation.
Not that I generally care. Recognizing the different approach in the philosophies is important, but I really only care when people start making Big Decisions for other people using one philosophy or another.
Philosophical Taoism always appealed to me because it seems to focus primarily on thinking. I mean, all philosophies are "ways" of thinking, but the Tao basically says "there is no way but thinking." There's something very pure about that.
As Wub hinted at with his perspective, if someone's religion gets us to exactly the same place, what's the meaningful difference?
It doesn't get us to exactly the same place.
It was a hypothetical question. If they did end up in the same place. Supposing a simulacrum religion to science wherein the belief structure and ritual emulated the same experiments and systems exactly.
Without your giving more details to what is meant by your simulacrum religion, I can't answer that question. What is it that makes this simulacrum religion actually a religion?
Either way, in the real world, my previous answer holds.
I just believe that there is likely more in the Universe than will EVER be comprehensively explained by science.
On what grounds?
This sort of non-dogmatic, open minded spiritualism needs to stop getting lumped in when you guys have your monthly hategasm about organized religions.
What you said just now doesn't constitute a religion, so it was never lumped in in the first place.
I'm a scientist. Putting things in boxes is what I do. I could probably categorize your spiritual beliefs after a 15 minute conversation.
It's your prerogative to be this arrogant, but it's not going to win you any converts.
I'm sure your religious taxonomy skills are excellent but labels in areas of grand subjectivity like religion and spirituality hamper rather than facilitate discussion.
Look, I'm not saying spiritualism is bad. I actually dabble in Zen Buddhist practice (primarily because zazen is conducive to a sort of thought trance, but I digress). I'm saying that most religious go out of their way to piss all over the boots of anyone who says something like, "Look, regardless of whether or not you get Sky Cake, we should probably learn about evolution," and I am really not okay with that shit.
I absolutely agree that Extremism and Fundamentalism are bad. And that cuts both ways, such as when self proclaimed rationalists declare religion the problem rather than than Extremism and Fundamentalism.
Without your giving more details to what is meant by your simulacrum religion, I can't answer that question. What is it that makes this simulacrum religion actually a religion?
It's not actually necessary for the example, but I think there are some meaningless things you can tack onto the example without diluting it. Let's just try on morality for it. They think doing these things would be good, doing anything else would be bad. Basically, they get sky cake. :P
Either way, in the real world, my previous answer holds.
Not worried about the pragmatic here. Just wondering if there's any legitimate difference.
I'm a scientist. Putting things in boxes is what I do. I could probably categorize your spiritual beliefs after a 15 minute conversation.
It's your prerogative to be this arrogant, but it's not going to win you any converts.
I'm sure your religious taxonomy skills are excellent but labels in areas of grand subjectivity like religion and spirituality hamper rather than facilitate discussion.
What's there to convert you to? Categorization is a descriptive process. It has no aim other than categorization.
Labels only hamper discussion because people are poor labelers, and there is a general attitude telling people that being labeled is bad.
With regard to spirituality, I feel that in general it's too ill-defined a concept, and one too intertwined with religion. In order to have a decent conversation on that topic, you really need to be more specific about what is meant by the word.
That nonsense comic that spawned the discussion, though, is basically an atheism Chick tract. It has a few good points and then it starts to put a toe over the crazy zealot line and seem to like the temperature.
I'm a scientist. Putting things in boxes is what I do. I could probably categorize your spiritual beliefs after a 15 minute conversation.
It's your prerogative to be this arrogant, but it's not going to win you any converts.
I'm sure your religious taxonomy skills are excellent but labels in areas of grand subjectivity like religion and spirituality hamper rather than facilitate discussion.
What's there to convert you to? Categorization is a descriptive process. It has no aim other than categorization.
Labels only hamper discussion because people are poor labelers, and there is a general attitude telling people that being labeled is bad.
By the time you got done adequately labeling every spiritualist belief "system" available out there, you'd be fully qualifying your categorizations well beyond the number of levels currently used for living organisms. It's not practical to be thorough to the degree you'd need in order not to avoid incorrectly lumping two similar beliefs together and address them inaccurately. There be a lot of play in that shit, bro.
I'm a scientist. Putting things in boxes is what I do. I could probably categorize your spiritual beliefs after a 15 minute conversation.
It's your prerogative to be this arrogant, but it's not going to win you any converts.
I'm sure your religious taxonomy skills are excellent but labels in areas of grand subjectivity like religion and spirituality hamper rather than facilitate discussion.
I too believe in boxism. With enough boxes we can categorize everything in the world and then beyond.
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one. It's fine to proud of it. But please don't pull it out in public and wave it around, And PLEASE don't shove it down my children's throats.
I haven't been able to track down who this should be attributed to, but it's one of my favorites.
With regard to spirituality, I feel that in general it's too ill-defined a concept, and one too intertwined with religion. In order to have a decent conversation on that topic, you really need to be more specific about what is meant by the word.
That nonsense comic that spawned the discussion, though, is basically an atheism Chick tract. It has a few good points and then it starts to put a toe over the crazy zealot line and seem to like the temperature.
Can you be more specific in your criticism?
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make with Whale.
And no I'm not interested in a nitpick fight over exactly which portions of the comic are a little overwrought. It's not an interesting enough conversation to spend the inevitable couple of hours on.
Philosophical Taoism always appealed to me because it seems to focus primarily on thinking. I mean, all philosophies are "ways" of thinking, but the Tao basically says "there is no way but thinking." There's something very pure about that.
Yeah, I really like Zen for similar reasons, mainly because it operates on the principle that understanding (of the self, existence, what you are meditating on, etc.) is the most important thing. Also, the concept that thought itself is an art and discipline: "Sitting fixedly, think of not thinking. How do you think of not thinking? Nonthinking. This is the art of zazen."
Comments
Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to proud of it.
But please don't pull it out in public and wave it around,
And PLEASE don't shove it down my children's throats.
I haven't been able to track down who this should be attributed to, but it's one of my favorites.
And the science of the 19th century is not the science of today. It's still a philosophy, and it is one that has grown and changed with time.
Science and religion are incompatable when attempting to explain the same thing, and it's because they involve fundamentally different approaches to analyzing problems. Religions teach that some things are fundamentally certain, whereas any scientific inquiry is all about the control of uncertainty. You have to accept that uncertainty is a reality, and then learn what you can accounting for the uncertainty.
It's a small but fundamental difference - scientific reasoning necessitates that you reject the idea of absolute certainty, but religious reasoning requires accepting it.
EDIT: Also, who says you can only have one philosophy? Believe lots of things! Try many different modes of reasoning.
But not objectivism, because holy shit people.
You can be both rational and passionate. Being rational does not require you to be emotionless - rationality is orthogonal to emotions.
I suppose the more correct way to phrase it is: "acceptance of certain premises to be necessarily true." You might question it, but you still accept it - even in the face of contradictory evidence or in the absence of evidence.
I have never heard of a major religion that does not have some fundamental faith component. It's not even a Christian thing - Judaism and Islam both rely on the unsupported existence of a supreme creator. In order for the philosophy to work, you have to accept that central premise - on faith.
As a side note, some religions actively encourage you to doubt them; Judaism is, as far as I know, an example of this. Of course, such doubting is only encouraged so long as the doubt remains unsuccessful.
As Wub hinted at with his perspective, if someone's religion gets us to exactly the same place, what's the meaningful difference?
It seems to me that if you're going to fall back on dislike of "major religions" and specifically the family of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you should probably be specific in the language to avoid conflating them with the idea of a religion.
Or something.
That would still technically qualify as dogma. I mean, it's not MUCH dogma, but there it is.
EDIT: There are religions espousing Taoist philosophies; I consider these separate from the more philosophical branch of Taoism.
There's no real god in Zen Buddhism, just the idea that by being a chill bro and being good at thinking about shit, you buy more time to be a chill bro and think about shit. It's an appealing philosophy for a scientist.
EDIT: Also a big fan of philosophical Taoism for the reason Pete noted. I'm generally a fan of religions/belief systems who's operative mode is, "Don't be a dick, live a simple life, help people, think."
I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact I think I'm the only one in this thread NOT spoiling for a fight. :-)
That nonsense comic that spawned the discussion, though, is basically an atheism Chick tract. It has a few good points and then it starts to put a toe over the crazy zealot line and seem to like the temperature.
Not that I generally care. Recognizing the different approach in the philosophies is important, but I really only care when people start making Big Decisions for other people using one philosophy or another.
Philosophical Taoism always appealed to me because it seems to focus primarily on thinking. I mean, all philosophies are "ways" of thinking, but the Tao basically says "there is no way but thinking." There's something very pure about that.
Either way, in the real world, my previous answer holds. On what grounds? What you said just now doesn't constitute a religion, so it was never lumped in in the first place.
I'm sure your religious taxonomy skills are excellent but labels in areas of grand subjectivity like religion and spirituality hamper rather than facilitate discussion.
Labels only hamper discussion because people are poor labelers, and there is a general attitude telling people that being labeled is bad.
And no I'm not interested in a nitpick fight over exactly which portions of the comic are a little overwrought. It's not an interesting enough conversation to spend the inevitable couple of hours on.
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/prison-food-vs-school-lunches-any-difference-2483371.html