Religion and modern society.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by nightcracker haylie, facts don't exist by default. You can only state rules that make something a fact or an opinion. What are yours?

What do you mean "what are my rules"? I only posted them, like, 2 times already.

[Opthimus]

So it's wrong to base an opinion on the likeliness of something? I'll link you forward to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_hHCWlldo (the good part starts around the middle)


With risk of using "multi-shoot". Richard Dawkins on The Greatest Show on Earth This explains i think in a good way what many of us who is "non-belivers" feels.

I can many time feel that i cant argue to hard when i argue with religious people. Religion have over the year got its own protective shield that automatically makes all arguer to trouble makers.

All scientific beliefs need to be argued, revalued, dismissed and so on to be realistic, and to develop.
Religion on the other hand just is at is is.

If you argue about it you are a trouble maker and you certainly cant argue to much! Then you comes to points where the religion isn't enough to answer the questions.

I think this is a great thread with really interesting questions.
Btw, im from Sweden and we don't have many native religious people left in our country.

[Jooze]

Now I'm just going to ignore some of the discussion topics made as I don't see them coming to a conclusion anytime this century.

Roman Catholic here, although I'm quite liberal.

Religion for me is just a way of interpretation.
You can call it God or the Powers of Nature one thing remains clear:

There are things we don't know, there are things we don't understand.
Can Science answer all questions? Are Religion and Science really that different?

Religion simply tries to fill out the gap between knowledge and uncertainty. Without it we'd be lost.

Or to quote the blockbuster Angels and Demons:

... but science and religion are not enemies! There are simply some things that science is just too young to understand. So the church pleads: "stop", "slow down", "think", "wait"... and for this - they call us backward. But who is more ignorant: the man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its natural awesome power?

Some of the most important science today was present in ancient greece (especially in mathematics). And those scientists believed in the greek gods.

Btw, im from Sweden and we don't have many native religious people left in our country.

I'm living in Sweden aswell and tbh we don't have many religious people at all here. When I mention I'm catholic people are shocked, astonished and ask me things that relate to alot of prejudice.

[Led ++]

And if it has nothing to do with what you believe in, why do you say that taking the context out of religion is wrong?

How can you take the context out of the religion is what I ask myself.

If the state or whatever organ is at the head of a society doesn't provide what the individual and by extension the society as a whole need to function properly (government, justice, moral code, philosophy, meaning of life, science, whatever)

But I'm talking about a hypothetical state. Belgium for example already fills all those things. Some parts in Africa for example don't. However I also heard that they have new anti-gay laws since recent. I wonder where the influence came from.

with time the concept of religion itself will change from what we know today, either in the form of new religions or evolved old religions.

True, just as it did for thousands of years. It adapts for it's survivability.

About the new religions, where do you draw the line about what has to be taken seriously? Is Scientology to be taken seriously, should they have an influence in society? Should Mormons? Etc.

Assuming I'm building a democratic society where all citizens are treated equally, religion would be one of the first things I would take care of, ensuring that everyone is free to practice their own religion and they have the facilities needed to do so (churches, mosquees (pretty sure I misspelled that), optional religion classes in schools, etc.) I believe that is the statement of true democracy and modern thinking, not telling everyone "okay, we know God didn't create the world, you're all stupid for believing it so I'm not gonna support the citizens that want to practice religion in this society". How is that "modern" in any way?

First question would be, can everyone be treated equally when religion has a deciding impact in your society? In my society people would be free to build their facilities too. It wouldn't be taught in schools tho. It would be replaced with something like "Non confessional ethics". Something like we already have in Belgium. I would ofcourse also teach em evolutionary biology instead of creationism. You know, things not based purely around faith and dogmatics, but based on things we can scientifically explain. (But but, it's not 100% proven!")

I also never claimed I wouldn't support non religious people. Everyone has the right on social security, a job, health insurance, etc. regardless of believe, race, sexual orientation etc.

Humans are actually quite a stupid species if I may offer my unwanted and biased opinion.

We might as well be the smartest living organism that will ever live in this universe. Who knows. We've got nothing to compare ourselves to so.

The opinion thing about why we are here. Isn't that a bit easy? "Well it's my opinion, there isn't a certainty, so therefore our opinions have the same value." ?

What gives religion this power to be based purely around belief? When it doesn't apply anything else?

Religion simply tries to fill out the gap between knowledge and uncertainty. Without it we'd be lost.

Why would we be lost? I think every scientist can live with the fact that he doesn't know everything and never will. Knowing that you don't know everything is better then filling that gap with possible beliefs imo.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Led ++ How can you take the context out of the religion is what I ask myself.

Why do you ask me this again? I already answered you. In every single reply I've ever made in this thread. So have others. How you managed to ignore them is beyond me.

But I'm talking about a hypothetical state. Belgium for example already fills all those things.

Really? Then how come 70% of Belgians are Roman Catholic? How come the archbishop André-Joseph Léonard is the grand chancellor and member of the board at the Catholic University of Leuven? A university. That *gasp* teaches evolutionary biology and everything! How can that be!

Some parts in Africa for example don't. However I also heard that they have new anti-gay laws since recent. I wonder where the influence came from.

I'm pretty sure it came from this.

In all fairness, Europe also used to have anti-gay laws, and not just because of religion. People just thought it was unacceptable, religion or not. With time, they changed their views and so will Africa.

True, just as it did for thousands of years. It adapts for it's survivability.

Like humans? Like we also adapted every other aspect of our lives, starting with politics and economy and ending with the way we dress? Why should religion NOT survive, if people will still need it?

About the new religions, where do you draw the line about what has to be taken seriously? Is Scientology to be taken seriously, should they have an influence in society? Should Mormons? Etc.

Probably where you also draw the line about what is acceptable in economy (ever watched this movie?), science (cloning? genetic modifications?), politics (death penalty?) and basically every other aspect of our lives.

First question would be, can everyone be treated equally when religion has a deciding impact in your society?

What do you mean "deciding impact"? There is a set of laws that respect basic human rights and everyone has to follow them. Those who don't are punished. What's so hard to get?

If you mean that religious people will be corrupt and want power, I'm gonna tell you that so do politicians, CEOs, Joe the farmer, etc.

It wouldn't be taught in schools tho. It would be replaced with something like "Non confessional ethics". Something like we already have in Belgium.

So if I wanna study religion in school, I can't?

Funny story: at my old school we had a special category of classes called "ethics". You had a one hour class a week of either Moral as they called it, which was where you learned that democracy is awesome, people should be good to each other, yada yada yada; or you could choose a religion course and the school would find a teacher for you regardless of your religion and even if you were the only one in the school who belonged to that religion.

The punch line here is that both types of classes taught the same basic things: freedom of choice, equality, solidarity, selflessness, tolerance, etc. The moral teacher would talk about religion at times and the religion teachers would talk about climate change at times. Just that the moral teacher claimed everything she taught was "common sense" while the religion teacher said it was "how God/Allah/whatever intended it".

I would ofcourse also teach em evolutionary biology instead of creationism. You know, things not based purely around faith and dogmatics, but based on things we can scientifically explain. (But but, it's not 100% proven!")

Uh, all schools nowadays do that? Are you still stuck in the Middle Ages?

Besides, I never said I was against that. On the contrary, I would want my child to be taught BOTH and decide for himself which is more accurate.

The opinion thing about why we are here. Isn't that a bit easy? "Well it's my opinion, there isn't a certainty, so therefore our opinions have the same value." ?

Yes. Yes they do. "My opinion is better than yours cause I think so" ain't gonna cut it.

What gives religion this power to be based purely around belief? When it doesn't apply anything else?

Last time I checked, people today believe in it because they want to believe in it. Even when they go to school and study biology and philosophy and science and economics and politics, even when other people mock them for what they believe in. The Church doesn't hold them at gunpoint telling them to be Catholic or die. They believe because they want to believe. Maybe you should ask them why they believe? Maybe because it makes them happy?

At the end of the day, people don't really care what science or politicians or intellectuals say. They'll believe in what makes them happy and there's nothing you can say or do that will convince them otherwise. Maybe that's the power of religion.

Why would we be lost? I think every scientist can live with the fact that he doesn't know everything and never will. Knowing that you don't know everything is better then filling that gap with possible beliefs imo.

Highlighted the essential for you.

[Led ++]

Why do you ask me this again? I already answered you.

"Like I said before, the fact that you blindly believe in whatever other people tell you makes no difference whether you believe God or the Big Bang created the Universe, whether the Ten Commandments or the Constitution are what people should follow, etc. You believe in something other people told you, be it religion, the state, your parents, your teachers, etc."

Was your answer. I find it strange that you refer science and god both as blindly believing. While I think it's quite clear one of them is actually based upon study, evidence etc. Does that make science infallible? No. They get influenced by whoever pays the studies etc too. Does that mean we have to believe made up stories from people just because the actual intention in the end might be the same? I don't think so. I think it's quite normal that we search for the truth. Religion could've been the truth thousands of years ago, but not in 2010.

What I try to say with "you can't take the context out of religion" is that if you are a religious person, even a modern religious person, you will always have these sort of "prejudices" (and I don't mean racism, or discrimination or things like that) which are just a part of your religion.

Then how come 70% of Belgians are Roman Catholic?

But you know 70% isn't religious right? And surely not Roman Catholic. I don't know how they came to that exact number. But I bet it's something like "all the people who are baptized are considered roman catholic". That doesn't mean you're actually religious. Just like how our tax system gets handled. They don't specifically ask you if you're religious, they just presume it.

"How come the archbishop André-Joseph Léonard is the grand chancellor and member of the board at the Catholic University of Leuven? A university. That *gasp* teaches evolutionary biology and everything! How can that be!"

Yes and?

In all fairness, Europe also used to have anti-gay laws, and not just because of religion. People just thought it was unacceptable, religion or not. With time, they changed their views and so will Africa.

And you don't think religion had a considerable responsibility for making people believe it was unacceptable? I mean, our archbishop basically still think it isn't natural.

Why should religion NOT survive, if people will still need it?

Because people don't need religion. I honestly don't think there is a situation in life where religion would be better then just logic/rational thinking.

Probably where you also draw the line about what is acceptable in economy (ever watched this movie?), science (cloning? genetic modifications?), politics (death penalty?) and basically every other aspect of our lives.

And where is this line in let's say medical science? I for one am all for stem-cell research. Or the idea of enhancing ones body with technology resulting in a longer lifespan for example.

If you mean that religious people will be corrupt and want power, I'm gonna tell you that so do politicians, CEOs, Joe the farmer, etc.

I mean that religions will never agree with each other. None will ever give up their truth. Thus you already start with people being unequal in each others eyes.

So if I wanna study religion in school, I can't?

If you have this ethics class which is filled with sociology, science, ethics, moral, what happens in the world, ... all aimed to make these kid self-conscious hoping they will make the right decisions when they grow up. Then I don't think there is a need for a pure religion class which would basically try to teach the same things. They can learn about their religions in private all they want.

Uh, all schools nowadays do that? Are you still stuck in the Middle Ages?

Thank god every school does that, in belgium.

On the contrary, I would want my child to be taught BOTH and decide for himself which is more accurate.

So in one class you wouldl tell them all about the big bang and the formations of planets and whatever happened in those billion years, and then in another class you would tell them a god created the universe some 10000 years ago or so. And then give them the decision to just choose?

Yes. Yes they do. "My opinion is better than yours cause I think so" ain't gonna cut it.

It's not because I think so, it's because basically everything we already know tends to lean to that 1 specific side just a tiiiiiiiiny bit more. DO you also take people who believe in flying monkeys with pink umbrellas who want to take over the world?

Highlighted the essential for you.

Congratulations. I use my opinion and knowledge. I assumed that was handy in a discussion on a WoW forum. I never claimed that everything I right here is a fact. And I don't think that you can either.

[Viridis]

All human religions are almost certainly not true, however they should be tolerated, but have no power outside the believers mind. While the concept of a god, afterlife etc. is plausible, believing in any one of the founded religions is completely irrational.

[nonameform]

Just finished watching "Religulous" for the second time. In my opinion, there is no point in discussing whether society needs religion or not. I speak only for myself.

I'm an atheist and I've been like that for many years. Even though I used to study Bible in school for 6 years, I never had faith. Maybe I have to thank my other teachers who taught me about Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse and other mythologies, so I never had any doubt that most things that were described in holy books of the past did not take place.

I agree with Bill Maher about people being able to fulfill the prophecy of Armageddon without interference from any almighty being and that actually scares me more than some sort of punishment I might get for my sins after I die.

I feel myself pretty comfortable without faith and I don't try to fill the "hole" with drugs, sex and alcohol or whatever poison people come up with. At the moment science can't provide answers to all questions that we might have about ourselves, our planet and the Universe in general, but in the past three hundred years we as a race gained a lot of knowledge about things that were thought to be there just because some creator put them there. Scientists can't answer why the Universe appeared in the first place and it's not really a scientific question, but is it really that important to find an answer to that to be able to live a happy life?

Without faith I don't have to worry about Judgment Day and I don't have to go to church to confess in my sins. It doesn't mean that I don't do bad things, but I do have my own mind to decide whether I was right or wrong. If you don't follow Machiavelli's teachings it does actually take some effort to forgive yourself for certain deeds. Looking back at my life, the only things that I regret are the good things that I never said to some people, not the bad things that I said to others since I already asked them to forgive me and most of them did.

I'm not a rapist, not a child molester, not a killer, not a burglar or a thief. Pretty much, I'm just your regular Joe or John or whichever name is popular in your country today. Even though I do believe that religion is a bad thing for the same reasons most atheists probably do, I do realize that some people will have hard time living without faith. I know that I will sound like a snob, but currently being a non-believer is as hard as being a homosexual in some redneck state in USA.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I skimmed through some posts here. Opthimus has written "All scientific beliefs need to be argued, revalued, dismissed and so on to be realistic, and to develop. Religion on the other hand just is at is is." To be honest, I don't think that it's the problem of religion. Some people just don't want to hear perfectly rational explanations even if it's not about religion, but about something controversial. I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine who just dismissed everything I said, even though I actually tried to prove my point with scientific facts. The only thing that I realized is if I want to continue the friendship, I will just have to accept her opinion, even if it's based on "no matter what you say, I'm right" sort of argument. On the other hand, I had a very long discussion about god with one religious friend of mine. Though none of us succeeded in persuading the other, I don't feel like it was a waste of time since I learned some facts about Christianity and he actually tried to reason with me. The former case proved to me that some people just can't acknowledge the fact that they might be wrong and that's the root of all evil. If such a person is religious, it only adds insult to injury.

In before any possible answer someone might decide to write, I voiced my opinion and I'm leaving this thread for good.

[voodoodad]

Originally Posted by voodoodad This can't go anywhere but bad, horrible, awful places. I'm not taking one "side" or the other, I'm saying this is WAY the wrong place for debates over religion.

I was right on the first page of this thread and people just keep proving my point. Thank you... I guess...

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Led ++ I never claimed that everything I right here is a fact.

Then why do you keep on arguing?

You know, I'm getting pretty tired with you trying to impose your opinion on me just because you can't accept the fact that religion is a big part of our society and it's not gonna go away no matter how hard you try to convince people it's not needed. So instead I'm gonna underline what I said before and leave it at that:

People today believe in religion because they want to believe in it. Even when they go to school and study biology and philosophy and science and economics and politics, even when other people mock them for what they believe in. The Church doesn't hold them at gunpoint telling them to be Catholic or die. They believe because they want to believe. At the end of the day, people don't really care what science or politicians or intellectuals say. They'll believe in what makes them happy and there's nothing you can say or do that will convince them otherwise.

[Led ++]

Cause I don't agree, obviously. That's something that can occur in a discussion.

Ofcourse I accept the fact that religion is a part in our society. But that wasn't the question.

At the end of the day, people don't really care what science or politicians or intellectuals say.

Not until the bombs are fired, camps are made, gays are prosecuted (executed), etc.