Thread: Good religions Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029598
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Christianity has brought the kind of goodness to the world that bears the fruit of love, kindness, gentleness, forgiveness, faithfulness, hope, etc.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
No religion...just people doing Good Things - great and small - from any of the religions.
We have all met people from various religious and denominational backgrounds who take their religion seriously and act from it.
(Likewise we have met other people whom we would describe differently...but that does not mean we lump all their co-religionists in with them)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
No religion...just people doing Good Things - great and small - from any of the religions.
We have all met people from various religious and denominational backgrounds who take their religion seriously and act from it.
Or from no religion.
More and more, I think any real good a religion does is in the areas of good works, help with growing and healing and living, and hope for getting through this life. If it gives the hope of a path after this life, great. But ISTM that's an added bonus.
The Dalai Lama said, "My basic religion is kindness". That's pretty good, too.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Dalai Lama said, "My basic religion is kindness". That's pretty good, too.
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
How do kind people cope with unkind people? That's probably the ultimate test of just how kind we really are.
I do think a good test of a good religion (or any other belief system) is the extent to which it encourages people to behave kindly towards one another. How effective such exhortations, commands, pleadings are seems to be a matter of how people respond.
I suppose you also have to take into account what company those exhortations take, how important they are within the belief system. Some people seem to me to be drawn towards the hard-edged pronouncements, rather than the gentler ones. I wonder about that. Kindness and gentleness are sometimes seen as signs of weakness. You hear folks say "sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind". I've heard that said about the bringing up of children, particularly when dealing with bad behaviour. You used to hear folks say "spare the rod and spoil the child". That sort of thinking never sat easy with me. But you find it in people of faith and no faith.
I guess another test of a good religion or other type of belief system is how it wrestles with the tendency or the temptation to be cruel, to use power to determine outcomes. Solzhenitsyn said something like that in Gulag Archipelago Part 2. He knew something about being on the receiving end of human cruelty thinly disguised as dishing out "just deserts".
[ 15. December 2015, 07:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions!
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
You will find no psuedo-appeasing emoticons in this post.
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God. In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions!
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
You will find no psuedo-appeasing emoticons in this post.
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God. In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
Of course, I'm coming from the perspective of a person of faith, but this is precisely why I have persisted with my faith in spite of doubts, droughts, and boiling anger with the associated structures. It says something about me as a human being, and puts me in touch with parts of me, that is/are not available by any other means. That is my experience, so that is my understanding. It's simply a matter of integrity between the two.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
TB--
Susan doesn't need me to speak up for her; but it looks like maybe her connection or computer fizzled mid-post.
So I'm just going to say that, from her past posts, I think her atheism and humanism, that world view, is every bit as important to her as your faith. IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
FWIW.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I find the "7 years in Tibet" film interesting - Heinrich Harrer is asked by the young Dalai Lama why he climbs mountains - and he describes how it expands his senses, gives him a sense of profound peace and spaciousness and love for the world. And then says he has only ever experienced that feeling in one other place - "in your presence, Kundun". This isn't unique to Buddhism - it's really (at least part of) the essence of spirituality in whichever religion you practice. The nice thing about Herrer's autobiography is that he started off as a brash, egotistical and quite unkind person with very little conscious thought about the spiritual. But at the same time something in him already knew what nourished him profoundly. If there are "good" religions, I'd say that they are ones that nurture and nourish this natural human desire for the numinous. Perhaps more relevantly, I'd also say that the good part of all religions is the part that nourishes this deep and often unconscious pull towards "God". And the not good part is the part that suppresses that or subverts it or over-explains it (and so adulterates the experience) or demands that is done by proxy.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living. The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - we are dealing with truth claims here, and various religions lay claim to be The TruthTM ... or in the case of Christianity we might prefer to say that a Person has laid claim to embodying the TruthTM within themselves ... 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life ...'
However we assess these things, it strikes me that all religions have the capacity to be good or bad ... we can cite examples of things 'going wrong' within each and every belief system we could care to name ...
I'm not sure I'd single out particular religions as being particularly 'bad' - although one might argue that, if the evidence for large scale ritual sacrifices can be believed, Aztec religion didn't have a great deal to recommend it ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Ok - it's possible that the accounts from early RC missionaries of hundreds and thousands of human sacrificial victims were exaggerated ... but it does seem that at times Aztec human sacrifice was carried out on an almost industrial scale ...
And besides, human sacrifice on any scale - even if it were one person every 150 years or so would be unacceptable of course ...
We don't know enough about the bodies found in European peat bogs to know whether they were ritually sacrificed or not, but the Romans certainly claimed that the Celtic peoples went in for human sacrifice ...
As for the 'mainstream' religions we have around us today - well, I'd certainly say that Christianity's influence has largely been positive - but also acknowledge that it too can often slide across the line ...
It's one of these both/and things again.
Was Ivan the Terrible terrible because he was Russian Orthodox and extremely Erastian or was he terrible because he had some kind of psychopathic personality?
I'd say both ... the same sun that melts the wax, hardens the clay. Conditions within the Russian Church at that time could create examples of great asceticism and holiness, and also provide a platform for psychos like Ivan.
It wasn't Orthodox Christianity's 'fault' that Ivan used to delight in throwing live puppies out of turret windows as a boy ... but conditions within Russian Christianity at that time created a platform whereby he could rule in a cruel and autocratic way.
It wasn't Roman Catholicism's nor Lutheran Protestantism's 'fault' that Hitler and the Nazis emerged in Weimar Germany ... but they were complicit to the extent that they failed to prevent the level of popular support that Hitler undoubtedly enjoyed.
It's not Western Christianity's 'fault' that forms of gung-ho individualism, the pursuit of personal gain and 'actualisation' have emerged in the USA and across the Western World in a way that can be - and is - detrimental to the more corporate or 'social' aspects of the Christian faith ... but it has helped create a platform where wonky emphases have developed.
It seems to me that each and every tradition or belief system is capable of producing both its St Francis of Assisi and its Torquemada ...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
I prefer love. For a fairly recondite reason without much practical application, but I prefer love.
The reason is that in heaven nobody needs to be kind, because there's no suffering. Kindness needs suffering to exist. Love can exist without suffering.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sure. But we have pretty good authority for understanding that love (the "agape" love described in 1 Cor 13) is both kind and patient. Kindness is the present outworking of that love in times of sorrow, suffering and pain. Patience is necessary for its final fulfillment.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Simon Weil: quote:
“There are two atheisms, one of which is the purification of the nature of God.”
Not for us to disparage those who call themselves atheists, I think.
Look at their fruits to see what their lives show to others, don't just write them off as if atheist describes someone whose purpose is bad.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Penny S ... spot on.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Christianity put an end to Roman infanticide.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
"I cider drank much and very drunk became", said Yoda.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
TB--
Susan doesn't need me to speak up for her; but it looks like maybe her connection or computer fizzled mid-post.’/QB]
Oh dear! Yes, I see my sentence was unfinished. I should have deleted the last two words. quote:
So I'm just going to say that, from her past posts, I think her atheism and humanism, that world view, is every bit as important to her as your faith. IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
Exactly so! Thank you. quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God.
Can you describe this ‘vital aspect’, I wonder? I do not of course accept the unsupported assertion. quote:
In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
What makes for good in the world is the evolved, human instinct and nurtured reinforcement for co-operative, altruistic behaviour towards other humans. quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[qb] IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living.
No, I don't think those of faith are living a lie; they are living with a sincere belief in a God/god – and such has been the predominant way of things for thousands of years. I think that more and more people are realising that, since no-one has ever seen any god and that, although the names of those of, for instance, some ancient gods live on in the days of the week, etc, beliefs in God/god/ss continue. quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty. quote:
] The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
Well, I can’t argue with that, and beliefs which assist in improved ways for humans to live are of course good, but the beliefs are an unnecessary stepping stone, an interim stage which can be avoided by going straight to a realisation that, as I indicated in ‘Bad religions’ , religions are entirely human and therefore gods are not needed.
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope. quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Penny S ... spot on.
Agreed. Also liked your longer post.
(I think I missed a [/B] tag out somewhere....)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living.
No, I don't think those of faith are living a lie; they are living with a sincere belief in a God/god – and such has been the predominant way of things for thousands of years. I think that more and more people are realising that, since no-one has ever seen any god and that, although the names of those of, for instance, some ancient gods live on in the days of the week, etc, beliefs in God/god/ss continue.
I too think that you sincerely believe that God does not exist, but both of us cannot be right.
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God, as there are more ways of seeing than observing matter with the physical eyes. God is a supernatural being who lives in more than historical memories.
quote:
quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty.
Nor can anyone be certain that God is not real, hence the word 'if'.
quote:
quote:
] The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
Well, I can’t argue with that, and beliefs which assist in improved ways for humans to live are of course good, but the beliefs are an unnecessary stepping stone, an interim stage which can be avoided by going straight to a realisation that, as I indicated in ‘Bad religions’ , religions are entirely human and therefore gods are not needed.
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
quote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Raptor Eye
Interesting - thank you. I'll be back tomorrow!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Raptors Eye:
quote:
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God
This is a poor way to phrase the idea.
The positive and negative of this are a matter of belief, not demonstrably objective.
Your defence of your statement illustrates this.
True, in regards to belief systems, is meaningless outside of those systems.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
My previous post describes the conclusions I have reached about the place of faith and therefore, why I persist with my own rather than jettisoning it, as would in many respects be far more convenient.
As such, I won't be offering a point by point defence, because that would require me to set out my entire life history.
In any case, faith is not a propositional exercise. To make it so would be to denature it, and I'm not prepared to do that however many emoticons are flung in my direction.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"I cider drank much and very drunk became", said Yoda.
Shouldn't that be "Cider much drank I and drunk very became"? Doesn't Yoda speak OVS?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"OVS"?? Definition, please? I did a quick look at possible ones, and didn't see anything obvious.
Thx.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"OVS"?? Definition, please? I did a quick look at possible ones, and didn't see anything obvious.
Thx.
I know (and care) nothing about Star Wars, but I assume this means object-verb-subject?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ah! Thanks.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doesn't Yoda speak OVS?
Wrong you are ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I too think that you sincerely believe that God does not exist, but both of us cannot be right.
Well, I suppose I'll have to concede that ... only grudgingly though!!! quote:
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God, as there are more ways of seeing than observing matter with the physical eyes. God is a supernatural being who lives in more than historical memories.
I'm on firmer ground here, since there is no valid method to make that assertion credible objectively. quote:
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one. quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?
I shall be out for most of today, but will continue to reflect on the topic while travelling.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO. I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things. Your mileage, may of course, vary.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Leprachaun: I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO. I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things. Your mileage, may of course, vary.
Not sure whether this is a Straw Man or an Excluded Middle, Lep. Possibly a bit of both.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Suzi. You asked:
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles.
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
SusanDoris wrote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
That sounds like saying children should only learn about sport by being taught the rules while sitting down in a classroom, but under no circumstances are they allowed to actually experience playing sport. You can only get so far in understanding by standing on the outside or reading books. Sometimes experience is necessary, even if it is just to learn that you didn't enjoy the experience and won't be repeating it (thinking of rugby lessons when I was a lad).
As for the point of the OP, I think something religions do well is create community and bring people together, and this gives a much better platform for social action than when we are unconnected individuals. Looking at my own town, the churches are very good at organising foodbanks, street pastors, hospital visiting, homeless shelters, debt advice services, family support groups, etc. etc. The local humanists aren't. Not because I believe the local humanists aren't caring people, I'm sure they are, but because the social and institutional aspects of religion give Christians a head start in turning their concern into co-ordinated action. Humanists are sometimes involved in local charitable stuff, but in terms of new things being set up the churches seem to be doing the heavy lifting.
I hope that the Sunday Assembly movement might give the non-religious more of a platform for getting together and co-ordinating some good in their local communities, but at present it is a very small movement, and whether it flourishes or fizzles out in the long term remains to be seen.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
You don't think that your neighbour's virtues have anything to do with God, neither does (s)he, but I do. God gives good gifts to us all, but we don't have to accept them.
You have not addressed the question of transformation, however.
quote:
quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?
To tell a child that there is certainly no god is OK in your eyes, but to tell a child that there certainly is a God is not? We naturally give our opinions to children, but how far should we impose them? I would tell a child that I believe in God because I found God when I prayed and asked Jesus, if he existed, to help me to know whether or not God was real. Do you think I should not tell this true story?
I think that I might say that a lot of people do believe, like me, but they must find out for themselves. Similarly, I would encourage them to find out for themselves which religions were good or bad, perhaps with a few starter questions to ask themselves. I think that it is more important to help a child to make observations than to test everything by scientific evidence.
If someone is demonstrating harmful behaviour, attributing it to his religion, while someone else demonstrates gentle behaviour, attributing that to the same religion, it perhaps is not the religion that is bad.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Leprachaun: I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
Interesting. And where does science give us evidence for what people living successfully together is like? I would have thought science is at best neutral on that question, is it not?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
There are surely contradictions here too. Why if altruism is part of our dna are so many people nasty to each other, including those of their own families, and why do so many have tendencies to violence, selfishness, etc?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
There's a very simple neurological reason for that. The triune brain contains heaven and hell. the fontal lobes are supposed to provide a moral guidance and reality check. They do this by being in an emotion of love/gratitude which a) entrains the mid and hind brains, and b) is physiologically more efficient (and therefore physically healthier). If the frontal lobes no longer run the brain, then it usually falls back to the hindbrain (interested in sex, food, territory) and the mid brain (with its capacity to fall into fear-based pattern recognition via the amygdala). The amygdala are neutral in that they only do pattern recognition - the problem is when that is focussed on fear. Altruism is not compatible with fear or with a hindbrain-drven personality.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Steven Pinker
And the question is not why are so many nasty, but why are so few that way. Unless, of course, you are living somewhere rather different from the places most of us live.
[ 17. December 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Steven Pinker
And the question is not why are so many nasty, but why are so few that way. Unless, of course, you are living somewhere rather different from the places most of us live.
So Steven Pinker says we're not as bad as we used to be. That doesn't explain why some people are bad at all if altruism is an evolutionary by-product.
Anyway, saying "science shows how we evolved so that we get on together so it's really great" assumes the inherent value of us getting on together/life continuing/ happy society or whatever. My only point to SusanDoris was that you are teaching values whatever you teach, rather than it being value driven education versus scientific facts.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
As far as I can make out, the argument is not that altruism is an evolutionary by-product, but that it is for human beings, an evolutionary driver. With a bit of garlic and a crucifix or two, I might mention Dawkins as a holder of this sort of hypothesis as well.
Through game playing experiments and simulations it can be shown that a group which is internally altruistic is more likely to survive and pass its genes on than a group which is primarily composed of selfish individuals. I have got so used to seeing reports of this sort of science that I can't lay hands on references.
This does not rule out that individuals may arise who are selfish, and violently so, nor that such individuals may pass on their genes. What it does say is that the group as a whole will thrive by being altruistic. (In a way, this is a weakness, since sense would suggest eliminating the aggressive, selfish, dominant types from the gene pool.)
In Cumbria there were far more cases of people supporting each other after the floods than there were of looting.
In the supermarkets, the tubs for collecting food for food banks fill fast, when the donors don't even know the people they are supporting.
Some of us are better at extending a trait which developed in small foraging groups who needed to share the fruits of their food searching to others.
You seemed to imply that science has nothing to say about what you define as values, and that it is not worth taking notice of. If we take on board what it does say about human nature, and see the violent and the selfish as aberrant rather than the natural state of humanity, we are for more likely to establish a peaceable society than if we don't.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
You seemed to imply that science has nothing to say about what you define as values, and that it is not worth taking notice of. If we take on board what it does say about human nature, and see the violent and the selfish as aberrant rather than the natural state of humanity, we are for more likely to establish a peaceable society than if we don't.
I am absolutely NOT saying science is not worth taking notice of. But it simply does not answer value questions: it may be an established scientific fact that the group survives better when we are altruistic - but why should I care about the group more than myself or my beliefs? (A failure to answer this question is probably the root of every decision we describe as evil)
I'm also wondering - and I may just need to read Pinker - where "survival of the fittest" fits into this. It's only 100 years ago that the "science only" school of thought was advocating eugenics on that basis. In fact, from reading Dawkins, I'm surprised to hear he advocates the view of altruism you are describing; in , for example, The God Delusion he seems much more to say we can "rise above" our evolutionary background, our selfish genes to be nice to each other if we so choose. (Rising above is also a question begging phrase here, because why should altruism be "higher" than selfishness in scientific terms)
I think, to be frank, if you think you can just start with the scientific method and out of it will fall, eventually, a liberal, tolerant, other-people serving view of the world, you are naive. I may be wrong, I guess only time will tell.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here is the problem with asserting the value of religion: if it so fantastic, why is its track record so objectively bad?
This is not an attack on religion, but a questioning of religion. There are religions and philosophies I admire greatly. But they should make us better people than we are.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The problem is with our own tendency to focus on the bad but not to acknowledge the good. We do it all of the time. Friendships end because of one remark that hurt, while all of the kind remarks are forgotten. Sometimes people do bad things in the name of a religion, and all of the good things brought by that religion are forgotten. Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Looking at the latest posts just now, I see that I should probably alter some of the following, but I think I’ll leave it and post again if necessary. Also, I’ve been typing this on a document and instead of it going down and down page by page, it puts pages 1and 2 side by side, then 3 below 1 – very confusing! quote:
Raptor Eye wrote: I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
To begin with, what method could you use to distinguish between an apparent ‘transformation’ from not such a good way of behaving caused by God/Holy Spirit/etc, or an exactly similar improvement which had nothing to do with any God or faith etc?
Each human being is born with a set of genes which means they are outgoinggregarious, happy or morose, grumpy and sad, with of course an infinite range in between. The nurture received will influence the use each one makes of his/her characteristics, but there is in my opinion no transformation, caused by any imagined spirit. The choice of how to behave is entirely human and all influences which help or hinder a person’s thoughts and actions are from other humans. quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO.
I can see why a lack of belief in any god was ’historically aberrant - life must have been impossible for atheist - but not how it is 'inhumane'. Humanists, secularists, atheists seem to have a common view that teaching ABOUT is essential so that indoctrination or brain-washing of any sort does not take place. What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method? Of course there are many things for which total answers will have to wait, but in those cases, a ‘don’t know just yet’ is the best interim response. quote:
I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Absolutely agree, and these are all human values promoting survival in the best possible way.
Penny S has said it better! quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Suzi. You asked:
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles.
Ah, well, simply leave out the words ‘in God’s image’ and I agree! quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
SusanDoris wrote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
That sounds like saying children should only learn about sport by being taught the rules while sitting down in a classroom, but under no circumstances are they allowed to actually experience playing sport. You can only get so far in understanding by standing on the outside or reading books. Sometimes experience is necessary, even if it is just to learn that you didn't enjoy the experience and won't be repeating it
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
I think this is Raptor Eye:
quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those religions you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?[/qb][/QUOTE]To tell a child that there is certainly no god is OK in your eyes, but to tell a child that there certainly is a God is not? We naturally give our opinions to children, but how far should we impose them? I would tell a child that I believe in God because I found God when I prayed and asked Jesus, if he existed, to help me to know whether or not God was real. Do you think I should not tell this true story?
I think that I might say that a lot of people do believe, like me, but they must find out for themselves. Similarly, I would encourage them to find out for themselves which religions were good or bad, perhaps with a few starter questions to ask themselves. I think that it is more important to help a child to make observations than to test everything by scientific evidence. [/QB][/QUOTE]That sounds thoroughly reasonable!
Apologies for any repetitions, messed up tags or quotes.
[ 17. December 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Love is complicated 'tho, isn't it?
Such a mixture of hormones - dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin. Such a mixture of rewards and motivations. So many ways of showing 'love' to friends, family and strangers.
All those biblical words for love, agape, philia etc none of which are straightforward.
"God so loved the world" then caused all living things to need to eat each other to survive (?)
I don't think saying 'God is love' is simple at all.
[ 17. December 2015, 19:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
As I recall, "survival of the fittest" wasn't Darwin, but Thomas Huxley, but even so, he didn't mean what many people think. He didn't say "brightest", "fastest" "strongest", "most able to enforce his wishes on others". (You might argue with the "his" there, but I would counter that with the general view of what "fittest" means, that is the most probable pronoun.)
Imagine a group of chimps. There is an alpha male. (This is appropriate for chimps, but I could get quite aggressive with some human male who wanted to assert that he was an alpha. The best human males show other characteristics.) He asserts his rights over the females, even to foregoing food at times, and faces off any male he thinks is challenging his place. But there is another male, quite down the bashing up order, but clever, empathetic, and devious. He smiles (or chimp equivalent) at a female he likes the look of, quietly, when alpha is out of the way. Eventually, she sneaks off into the bushes, and he has a tender moment or two with her, as a result of which her next baby is his, not the alpha's, a matter of which the alpha is never aware. (This behaviour has been observed.) Who is fittest?
Fittest means the ones most able to pass their genes on to the next generation and see that generation on the way to parenting the next. And being part of a group which tends to nurture all the young is going to be a good way of ensuring that. (Originally, of course, the group would have been closely related, so caring for other people's young would have been helping one's own genes.)
The eugenics business was a total perversion of what had been the theory put forward by Darwin and Huxley. But what would you argue if you thought you were an alpha and wanted all the goodies for your offspring instead of Tiny Tim and Stephen Hawking? It's nothing to do with the science.
[ 17. December 2015, 20:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
I prefer love. For a fairly recondite reason without much practical application, but I prefer love.
The reason is that in heaven nobody needs to be kind, because there's no suffering. Kindness needs suffering to exist. Love can exist without suffering.
I've always thought of the word kind as being based on the idea of "one's own kind (or kin)". From that point of view kindness means treating people as if they are one of the family. What is radical about the Christian gospel is that it enables people to transcend cultural barriers, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility". But how has the cross put to death hostility? It is surely because "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God". God was 'kind' to us and so we are to become 'kind' to one another. Now I know that there have always been those who profess to be Christian who have struggled to overcome cultural boundaries but there have also always been those who strive, endeavour and succeed in doing precisely that.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
Thank you, however I see that Boogie and PennyS have answered this.
What do you think is the source of the range of feelings and emotions that, in all cultures and languages, have come to be encapsulated in the word 'love' if it is not from the evolved reactions and behaviours of humans?
If you believe it was an input from God, then at what stage in our evolution would this have happened, do you think?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I wonder whether love came into the human language at the same time as God did, at the point when we became conscious of good and evil, and free will choices became our responsibility. Transformation comes from yielding to God's love.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The eugenics business was a total perversion of what had been the theory put forward by Darwin and Huxley. But what would you argue if you thought you were an alpha and wanted all the goodies for your offspring instead of Tiny Tim and Stephen Hawking? It's nothing to do with the science.
I agree with this. Scienctific theories are bound to lend themselves to the imposition of the already held beliefs, values and preferences of those who learn about and teach them. My point is that, just as you are arguing that altruism "falls out" of the scientific method, so they argued, perfectly plausibly, that eugenics did so. My view is that neither have to do with the science but with the values of the people doing the science. So we have to choose which values we are going to use in educating people.
Pretending that you just do biology and physics and children will learn about sharing, love, respect and consent is just a nonsense, as the pseudo science of Julian Huxley shows. He thought (or at least said he thought) he was just following the science.
SusanDoris seemed to be saying that anything based on values is just opinion and therefore shouldn't be taught to children "as if" true. Even if that is a laudable aim (and I don't think it is) truth is you will be teaching values anyway.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
Thank you, however I see that Boogie and PennyS have answered this.
What do you think is the source of the range of feelings and emotions that, in all cultures and languages, have come to be encapsulated in the word 'love' if it is not from the evolved reactions and behaviours of humans?
If you believe it was an input from God, then at what stage in our evolution would this have happened, do you think?
SusanDoris, asking me questions doesn't prove your case.
You asked what cannot be discovered via the scientific method. I said love. I made ZERO assertions about love other than it cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
Please show me how the scientific method discovers love.
Vague, statements about human evolution just won't cut it I'm afraid. Your assertions about love being the result of human evolution are as non-scientific as the claim that God exists.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Love is complicated 'tho, isn't it?
Such a mixture of hormones - dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin. Such a mixture of rewards and motivations. So many ways of showing 'love' to friends, family and strangers.
All those biblical words for love, agape, philia etc none of which are straightforward.
"God so loved the world" then caused all living things to need to eat each other to survive (?)
I don't think saying 'God is love' is simple at all.
You entirely miss my point, I didn't say God is love or make any claim other than that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
SusanDoris, asking me questions doesn't prove your case.
No, but an answer, or a suggested one, might help explain more about your point of view and understanding of love and its source. quote:
You asked what cannot be discovered via the scientific method. I said love. I made ZERO assertions about love other than it cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
If you make that claim, then can you give your definition of love so that it can be compared with the explanation about hormones, chemicals, etc which give rise to the human feelings and behaviours which come under the heading 'love'? quote:
Please show me how the scientific method discovers love.
As I understand it the scientific method involves (a) observations - of physical changes,
behaviours, (b) devising tests to see if these observations are consistent and repeated, brain and body function in the way expected when the people being tested think about/see photos of/meet/etc a loved one, (c)
make predictions based on the results, and (d) submit the report to peer review in order for those who disagree to find fault with the procedure, challenge the results, devise better experiments, etc. quote:
Vague, statements about human evolution just won't cut it I'm afraid. Your assertions about love being the result of human evolution are as non-scientific as the claim that God exists.
My personal statements would of course be better explained by an evolutionary biologist, yes, but the TofE is one of the most reliable, best tested
Theories and has endured, with minor alterations and additions, for over 150 years.
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause. Just like with the brain - just because certain brain areas fire doesn't mean that they cause something. And just like a starter motor turning doesn't cause the car to start - it's the driver who turns the key. Yes - the driver cannot start the car without the starter motor, and there are other factors (battery power, petrol, etc) - but all are useless without a driver. To follow the same analogy - if all that is looked at is mechanically connected to the car, then the driver becomes invisible. Love - yes, we can measure HRV and oxytocin and DHEA etc etc, but they are not the experience. Unless you disagree with Chalmers and say that we are all chemicals and consciousness is an illusion. True - that is one viewpoint - but not one that matches lived experience.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed. When people have joy in their 'hearts' this flows out from them, as does love. When people are transformed by the Holy Spirit, their whole outlook and way of life and way of being is apparent to all who know them. None of this is imagined experience.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed. When people have joy in their 'hearts' this flows out from them, as does love. When people are transformed by the Holy Spirit, their whole outlook and way of life and way of being is apparent to all who know them. None of this is imagined experience.
Susan's view sounds very much like scientism. Edward Feser, for example, defines scientism as the view that "science alone plausibly gives us objective knowledge, and that any metaphysics worthy of consideration can only be that which is implicit in science." He argues that scientism is self-refuting, since it is impossible to prove via the scientific method that only what is discoverable by science is true. He also argues that it is self-fulfilling, in that if you only use science to discover truth, then you will by definition only discover those truths which can be discovered by science. He uses the metaphor of using a metal detector on the beach, and coming to the conclusion that there isn't anything under the sand which isn't made of metal.
All of which has been pointed out many times on these threads....
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Just to move this on a tad, one of the positive impacts of Christianity (as an example) is in providing the conceptual basis for modern scientific study. Consider the following.
Loren Eisley, writing about Francis Bacon in The Horizon Book of Makers of Modern Thought (p95-96) makes the point that science is an “invented cultural institution.” Modern science emerged in the C17 out of the particular cultural millieu of the Western world. Niall Ferguson (Civilisation loc5977 Kindle) “..all the major seventeenth century breakthroughs in mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology happened in Western Europe.”
Ferguson notes that the “new science” was based on accurate observation, systematic experimentation, and the identification of mathematical relationships. He goes on “The possibilities of mathematics were in turn expanded when Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz introduced, respectively, infinitesimal and differential calculus.” He lists some of the most important scientific C17 breakthroughs including William Gilbert’s description of the magnetic properties of the earth and electricity, the invention of the telescope and its subsequent observations, the foundation of analytical geometry (Descartes) Boyle’s elements and chemical analysis and, Boyle’s law, probability theory (Fermat and Pascal), Newton’s law of universal gravitation and the laws of motion, and the creation of the first true geological maps.
So what's this got to do with the o/p?
Well as Eisley draws out, it was the theistic - in particular the Christian - philosophical worldview that provided the seedbed for the explosion in Western scientific discovery: “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself” (Darwin’s Century p62).
And just to make the point clearer, consider also the counterfactual. Christianity is distinguished from pantheistic or animistic religions in that it sees the universe as a natural product of a transcendent Creator’s design. Cultures with a different worldview didn't share the same drive towards scientific study since they didn't share the same confidence that the code of nature’s laws could ever be unveiled and read.
So the modern scientific method is based on certain philosophical assumptions - that the external word is orderly and rational, and that we can trust our minds to grasp it. Neither of these assumptions can be proven by the scientific method. Both have, historically, been heavily influenced by Christian thought.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I think you're mistaking Christian thought with Aristotlean (which was absorbed into Christianity in the C13) ... ?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause. Just like with the brain - just because certain brain areas fire doesn't mean that they cause something.
If parts of the brain show activity, then a stimulus received through one or all of the senses has caused the brain to react.
I googled Chalmer and will read what he has to say asap. quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed.
I shall of course be interested to read what instructions I should follow in order to observe God!!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed.
I shall of course be interested to read what instructions I should follow in order to observe God!!;
First of all, pray and ask. Then read the New Testament, pray and ask, while following the teaching and example of Jesus. In time, you will see God, and you will know that Christianity is a good religion.
You might also go to a church service, and/or you might engage with Christians through whom you may see God. You must keep an open mind as to how you will see God.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris
Can you give your definition of love
Not mine but this about sums it up.
"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other." - Rainer Maria Rilke
quote:
Itsarumdo
Love - yes, we can measure HRV and oxytocin and DHEA etc etc, but they are not the experience.
Exactly, and measuring the release of such chemicals doesn't explain why the release is triggered and why it may be triggered by one person and not by others.
quote:
Susan Doris My personal statements would of course be better explained by an evolutionary biologist, yes, but the TofE is one of the most reliable, best tested
Theories and has endured, with minor alterations and additions, for over 150 years.
The theory of evolution has been around a long time and I've got nothing against it but what's that got to do with your point about love being discoverable by the scientific method? You have not even come close to building a scientific case for love being the result of evolution. Dawkins at least admits he is unable to use science to explain things like morality, but I guess that's what happens when you actually understand science.
quote:
In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins tries to strengthen this claim using his biological expertise, arguing that humans have evolved to be altruistic because it ultimately helps their genes to survive. But in the end, he admits that no firm case can be made concerning the evolutionary basis of morality. He’s just gesturing with his expertise, rather than really applying it to the issue at hand.
Link to article from which quote is drawn
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
Well one benefit that comes to mind is the spread of literacy. This is very much a legacy of Christianmissionary movements in particular. I seem also to remember a Roman emperor (sadly his name escapes me) who got more than a little annoyed by the success Christians had converting his citizens through the compassion shown through hospital services. To that we may also hazzard the addition of the hospice movement. Much we take for granted today in terms of universal services has its roots in the pioneering activities, not to mention motivations, of people of faith
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As I understand it the scientific method involves (a) observations - of physical changes,
behaviours, (b) devising tests to see if these observations are consistent and repeated, brain and body function in the way expected when the people being tested think about/see photos of/meet/etc a loved one, (c)
make predictions based on the results, and (d) submit the report to peer review in order for those who disagree to find fault with the procedure, challenge the results, devise better experiments, etc. [/QB]
What you are explaining is that science can explain the physiological impact of love and can maybe even describe how people love. What you can't explain however is 'why' people love. Part of the mystical power of TofE is that it seems to explain the 'why'. "Why do people love?" is answered with "..because love has enabled people to survive". Now in fact the answer in this scenario cannot be observed. You can observe fossils to be sure but you can't observe the emotions that fossils had.
You may reply that the theory has been proven and that as such TofE can fill the gaps but the simple fact is that it does not fill all the gaps. Loving kin could lead to the survival of genes but equally so could competing with kin. In any event loving those that aren't kin, including other species, will not lead to the survival of the individual's genes. In spite of this there are numerous examples of altruism in both humans and other species.
Moreover, TofE, and nothing else in science, to date can explain why something like love originated in the first place. If love enabled its original bearers to survive that does not explain how it originated in them. The standard answer would be that it was it was fortuitous however this answer cannot be observed or tested and in any event I believe that love, though an emotion, also involves 'agency'. Is it an emotion or an act of will? I believe that it is an interaction between the two; between the individual and its environment. If this is correct then the broader statement is that science cannot explain "will".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
You can observe fossils to be sure but you can't observe the emotions that fossils had.
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
Or perhaps when a lover's touch causes goosebumps, it is merely a Thetan wiggling about.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Moreover, TofE, and nothing else in science, to date can explain why something like love originated in the first place.
There are many 'whys' which we cannot answer. New explanations emerge all the time and these change over time. Science is a process of discovery, not a list of definitive certainties. Much is for practical purposes. The theorists love to push the boundaries to the edge of knowledge and beyond - changing and adapting their theories as they go.
That doesn't mean that the answers to the unexplained 'whys' are theological. It just means they are not yet known.
Love exists - we don't know why - but we know we like it and want people to have more of it!
The problem with the Church (back to the OP!) is that it often tries to sell certainties where there are none. It's so easy and comfortable to buy into certainties, put our prayerful slippers on and forget the questions.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The problem with the Church (back to the OP!) is that it often tries to sell certainties where there are none. It's so easy and comfortable to buy into certainties, put our prayerful slippers on and forget the questions.
That's something of what worship has done for myself and I'm reasonably happy about that. An over questioning mind can be a burden to some. The big problem that forever dogs the Christian faith is the matter of why a God of Love allows shit to happen, often seeming powerless as opposed to all powerful.
That though is something the Christian practitioner has to live with. If it's a conundrum that screws with one's mind then maybe the best thing to do is just bail out.
I was wondering if secularism could be described as a religion, and if so is it a 'Good' one. I mean you do see a lot of kindness around these days, and practiononers of simply living life do appear to be reasonably happy.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
AIUI an autopsy of someone who died yesterday will not find any emotions. It is extremely unlikely that they will be found in fossils.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty.
Where, in this life, is there certainty? There are plenty of people who FEEL certain about this or that. But often what they feel certain about flatly contradicts what somebody else feels certain about. So the feeling of certainty is no sure guarantee. There is no certainty in science, as any scientist will tell you. Certainty would seem to be an ideal, but not one ever obtained by humans. An asymptote, perhaps, that we approach but never quite reach.
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Suzi. You asked: So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles.
This seems to be verging on Conspiracy Theory territory. Proof of the existence of something proves it exists. Lack of proof of the existence of something proves it exists. Is your belief at all falsifiable? What evidence, if discovered, would lead you to say, "Well, perhaps I'm wrong"? If any and all evidence can be made to fit into a theory, then it's not a theory at all, it's merely a tautology and tells us nothing about the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
Two thousand years of wrong, I submit, is a bad track record.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause.
Indeed, and one doesn't need a TED talk to know this. It's the ancient fallacy that has the name post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's all in Hume, all in Hume. What do they teach them in these atheist seminaries?
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think you're mistaking Christian thought with Aristotlean (which was absorbed into Christianity in the C13) ... ?
Not east of the Adriatic it wasn't, Bub.
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
Well one benefit that comes to mind is the spread of literacy. This is very much a legacy of Christian missionary movements in particular.
This is true in part. But it is also true that literacy among the Russian peasantry was suppressed or at the very least not addressed by the religious, and was ultimately brought about by the Soviets. Religion would seem to be an agent for the spread of literacy not by virtue of its being religion, but by virtue of its being a system that seeks converts. As did Sovietism, as did Protestantism in its early days, another time of greatly expanding literacy.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
Two thousand years of wrong, I submit, is a bad track record.
Two thousand years of good influence, I submit, is a good track record. Wars will happen, usually with the human failings of a desire for power, self-interests, and/or racism as the cause on one side, defence on the other. Are both sides equally bad, whatever their religion?
Peace on Earth! Goodwill to all men!
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's the ancient fallacy that has the name post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's all in Hume, all in Hume.
Actually Hume thinks that there isn't any difference between cause and observed association. Causes are just observed associations that we've observed sufficiently often that we think we won't observe anything else.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
First of all, pray and ask. Then read the New Testament, pray and ask, while following the teaching and example of Jesus. In time, you will see God, and you will know that Christianity is a good religion.
At this point we shall have to agree to disagree. However, I think I would agree that the moderate, laid back CofE is the least worst.
quote:
You might also go to a church service, and/or you might engage with Christians through whom you may see God.
The former I did for a large part of my life, the latter I shall of course be doing when I visit the nunnery in Feb. quote:
You must keep an open mind as to how you will see God.
I will of course listen carefully to all that is said, but I have not ever, since becoming completely atheist, heard anything at all which would change my mind.
But I never tire of reading and joining in here.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Evangeline
Thank you for your post. As I have just written to Raptor Eye, we will have to agree to disagree about whether the emotions, feelings etc
labelled love can be better explained by evolutionary biology or some God. To choose the latter involves the need to explain the why, what and wherefor of the creator of said god, but I'm not asking that here.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
This would be far more creative as a discussion if we could actually talk about the question raised in the OP, rather than this constant and utterly tedious sidetrack.
The subjects for discussion which occur to me, under the banner of the thread title are these:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
AIUI an autopsy of someone who died yesterday will not find any emotions. It is extremely unlikely that they will be found in fossils.
Moo
Wasn't meant in any seriousness.
I find the We don't understand something so it must be magical or divine to be a silly argument. Not that I'm arguing that whatever phenomenon cannot be divine, but that our lack of understanding/explanation isn't any sort of proof or indication.
Neither, of course, is our understanding of something any proof that it wasn't divinely created.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
To me, it depends on what we mean by 'good'. And good for whom?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
To me, it depends on what we mean by 'good'. And good for whom?
That's at least as good a question. It depends, of course, on the religion it is based. By that I mean, a religion whose god is worshipped as the creator seems to me to be likely to be better for non-adherents than one whose god is seen as separate from creation, because the former religion gives its adherents the duty to revere creation as the product of its god, meaning that the effect on non-adherents must, logically at least, be positive as an expression of love of the creator god.
Without that link between that which is outside the religion and the god it worships, a religion is unlikely to be positive in its effect on the wider world, because it would legitimate indifference, or even hostility, to that world.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Evangeline
Thank you for your post. As I have just written to Raptor Eye, we will have to agree to disagree about whether the emotions, feelings etc
labelled love can be better explained by evolutionary biology or some God. To choose the latter involves the need to explain the why, what and wherefor of the creator of said god, but I'm not asking that here.
You refuse to engage with the points being discussed and instead invent what you think somebody is arguing and argue against that.
I am not arguing that emotions are explained by God, not at all. What I am saying is that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method-I said this in direct response to your question earlier about what cannot be discovered by the scientific method. That's a huge difference in argument there, and you must acknowledge that you haven't proven (I'd say can't prove) that emotions are the result of evolutionary biology.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You refuse to engage with the points being discussed ...
That is incorrect. I read posts and respond to them as best I can. I do not 'refuse to engage' and am sorry that it might appear that way. The word 'love' has so many meanings; in a discussion involving it though I try to keep to its scientific-type meaning. quote:
...and instead invent what you think somebody is arguing and argue against that.
I'm sorry that is how it appears to you, but I assure you I'm no good at inventing arguments! quote:
I am not arguing that emotions are explained by God, not at all. What I am saying is that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method-I said this in direct response to your question earlier about what cannot be discovered by the scientific method. That's a huge difference in argument there, and you must acknowledge that you haven't proven (I'd say can't prove) that emotions are the result of evolutionary biology.
But in order to say that a human emotion cannot be discovered by the scientific method, it would be necessary to have a precise description of it, or the aspect of it in question, wouldn't it? Otherwise the scientific method has no way of creating a hypothesis for a start.
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
quote:
Susan Doris wrote:
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
My example was showing a similarity between religion and sport (both of which are tangible), not religious belief and a belief that sport is a good thing, both of which are subjective. But the point is that you need to participate in the tangible to come to an informed opinion on the subjective. You can't stay on the sidelines and really understand what it's all about.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
quote:
Susan Doris wrote:
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
My example was showing a similarity between religion and sport (both of which are tangible), not religious belief and a belief that sport is a good thing, both of which are subjective. But the point is that you need to participate in the tangible to come to an informed opinion on the subjective. You can't stay on the sidelines and really understand what it's all about.
Your post really set me thinking – thank you! Yes, I see what you mean I think.
Both religions and sports have adherents, books, biographies, uniforms, leaders, venues, equipment, rituals, rules rights and wrongs, histories, etc. Sport, however, does not have any God/god/s anywhere in the background, or at its base, which necessitates faith only.
As far as participation goes, I was (as you may know) a believer in God for a large part of my life, although I was never taught to believe that biblical stories were true … if I was, I did not accept it!
My visit to the nunnery in February will not change my mind, but it will be most interesting to converse with those who are so wholly involved.
[ 22. December 2015, 16:44: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
SusanDoris, all I can suggest is that you read some intelligent atheist philosophy because what you are espousing is an extremely impoverished form of scientism, it's just not academically tenable.
This article by atheist philosopher John Gay may be a start. A couple of pertinent quotes are below
"Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be. But they can be more or less truthful to human experience, and I've no doubt that some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself." and
"The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories. There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind.
and
"Because it's a human invention, science - just like religion - will always be used for all kinds of purposes, good and bad. Unbelievers in religion who think science can save the world are possessed by a fantasy that's far more childish than any myth. The idea that humans will rise from the dead may be incredible, but no more so than the notion that "humanity" can use science to remake the world."
All the best.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Evangeline--
Thank you so much for linking to that great article!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
SusanDoris, all I can suggest is that you read some intelligent atheist philosophy because what you are espousing is an extremely impoverished form of scientism, it's just not academically tenable.
Thank you for the link to the interesting article. It is of course ridiculous to think that humans can live without stories, myths, legends, or fiction of any kind. I was a bookworm all my life until the time I had to change to talking books and braille. Interestingly, though, having to slow down the speed of reading has made for a more thorough reading.
The more stories we read, the more we can learn about life, people, rights and wrongs, etc etc. I’m not sure that I entirely agree with the quote: quote:
Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be.
since available facts about the past are always increasing, but , yes, of course they represent human experience from which history should learn!
I do not know who believes that Science can ‘enable us to live without myths’ – he does not say where this idea comes from. He also talks of unbelievers who think that Science can save the world or re-make it – well, if there are such people, I think he should quote them!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0