Religion vs Science

Religion and Secularism
181
I’m not suggesting people’s freedoms be limited. That’s different than saying where my personal boundaries are set and saying what I think is right. We don’t have to pass laws that tell people what to believe but we can create a society where being reasonable is a clearer choice.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
You are completely resisting all of the reasons we have been giving for the dangers of passing religion on to children, so I’m getting a little a tired of responding to that.
What reasons? You've indicated you are opposed to it, but I'm not clear on why you feel that way. That's why I keep asking.
Children should be allowed to decide for themselves what religion they are. They should be taught to think for themselves. Currently we put the parent’s right to teach their kids whatever they want above the child’s right to learn about the real world. You seem to be siding with the parents.
Yes. I do side with the parents. It seems as reasonable to me to say that a child is the same religion as their parents as it is to say they are are the same nationality as their parents. Why do you have see it as a problem?
I never suggested phyiscally quarantining anyone based on their beliefs, only on their actions.
Okay. I misunderstood your comment about quarantining fundamentalists then. Sorry.
Again, you are reluctant to discuss how it is legal to teach someone to hate.
Actually, I see this as a big problem with no easy solutions. How can we prevent people from teaching hate to their children without causing bigger problems than we are attempting to solve? Consider just one small hate-based organization: How could we keep KKK members from teaching their children to hate blacks? Maybe if we could figure that one out, we might be able to generalize the solution and keep fundamentalists from teaching their children to hate gays. But I don't know how to do that without what I would consider unacceptable intervention by the government and even then, it's unlikely to be successful. If you aren't talking about laws, but just what your opinion is, then sure I agree that parents shouldn't teach their kids to hate other groups of people. IMO, whether they justify their opinion with their religious beliefs is irrelevant. Atheists shouldn't do that either. If we want it to not be legal, we need to have a justification for why it is bad besides we just don't like it.
I’m not going to discuss what laws should be in place anymore, that is a different issue. It’s a free country. I used prayer in schools as an example of how best to handle the issue, to get you to think about it. I’m not suggesting we take away someone’s right to pray for their kid.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
The question is, what does that communicate to them?
That their parents either a) believe it will help or b) find comfort in doing so. What do you think it communicates to them? Why do think it is a problem for parents to pray?
How do you answer the question from them about why go to the doctor if prayer is an option?
That isn't a hard question. A religious person can explain that when someone is ill, seeing the doctor and following their recommendations is the best course of action to improve their health.
Can you see how you doing something that doesn’t have a rational basis is potentially disruptive to teaching them critical thinking?
No. There's no rational basis for many normal human activities. There is no rational basis for creating or enjoying art. Do you think exposure to artistic endeavors is potentially disruptive to teaching children critical thinking? If not, why do you think exposure to religion will?
It’s like spanking them because they hit their sister. You can’t teach them to solve their problems non-violently if you use violence.
While I agree that spanking isn't necessary, based on the empirical evidence that most of my generation was spanked and most of us learned that violence is not a good way to solve our problems, I'd have to say that the weight of empirical evidence is against your statement here. You can, in fact, use spanking and still manage to teach your children to solve their problems non-violently. Odds of success are probably lower.
182
No, I don't, because I'm not hostile toward the idea of religion . . .
The comment wasn't personal to you. Your reference was to people in this group, not you personally, and that was what I commented on.
183

Okay, I’ve let this go for a while, but I have to stop you. You keep making up evidence. You can’t make broad assumptions about the last 50 years and claim spanking is okay. You did it earlier when you said “people who attend church regularly are healthier, both mentally and physically, than those who don’t" Not true. Show me a study. I listen to a podcast called “Reasonable Doubts". They often cite studies showing people feel better if they have group affiliation and positive reinforcement of your worldview, but that doesn’t mean that your worldview is healthier.
And you keep responding to sentences and seem to be missing the point of the paragraph. You have stated a lot of trust in the courts and our government to sort these things out as well as parents ability to explain difficult concepts, but world history has been a constant battle against irrational thought and the last 150 years have shown how difficult it is to predict the waxing and waning of that.
You ask so many questions I can’t possibly answer all of them, and keep my regular job. Here’s a couple. There are very rational reasons for art. It engages the mind using allegory and symbolism. Good art is a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words. Prayer is communication with something that doesn’t exist, asking for something impossible.
Why do you say “whether they justify their opinion with their religious beliefs is irrelevant" when religion is well known to be a great way to get people to accept all sorts of crazy ideas? When Pope Urban gave his speech at Council of Clermont in 1095 he probably had no idea the overwhelming response he would receive of common people ready to go kill the infidels.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago."
Since then, that type of call to arms has been repeated in a wide variety of ways. The above is old language, but this idea has never died. Once you can get someone to accept that there are spirits and invisible powers that can be drawn upon, you can get them to accept just about anything. This is well documented.
http://www.sfu.ca/~ywu/d/Mistakes Were Made.pdf
I don't expect you to be convinced by my claims. It took me years of study (in my spare time) into history and psychology to reach my conclusions. I've provided you with quite a bit of information and offered more and so far your responses have been along the lines of "the courts are working on that" or you trust parents to do a good job of parenting. It's not very convincing.
184
Okay, I’ve let this go for a while, but I have to stop you. You keep making up evidence. You can’t make broad assumptions about the last 50 years and claim spanking is okay.
Talk about making stuff up! That is not what she wrote. I had to go back a re-read her remarks to make sure. That's a mischaracterization.
185
Okay, I’ve let this go for a while, but I have to stop you. You keep making up evidence. You can’t make broad assumptions about the last 50 years and claim spanking is okay.
Talk about making stuff up! That is not what she wrote. I had to go back a re-read her remarks to make sure. That's a mischaracterization. I'll do you the courtesy of quoting the alleged offense..... this time. It’s like spanking them because they hit their sister. You can’t teach them to solve their problems non-violently if you use violence. -- Lausten While I agree that spanking isn’t necessary, based on the empirical evidence that most of my generation was spanked and most of us learned that violence is not a good way to solve our problems, I’d have to say that the weight of empirical evidence is against your statement here. You can, in fact, use spanking and still manage to teach your children to solve their problems non-violently. Odds of success are probably lower. -- Beth I'm not going to defend being brief. This is a discussion forum, not a dissertation defense. And it doesn't change my point. Spanking is to teaching non-violence as prayer is to teaching critical thinking. "Odds of success are probably lower"
186
Okay, I’ve let this go for a while, but I have to stop you. You keep making up evidence. You can’t make broad assumptions about the last 50 years and claim spanking is okay.
I didn't say that spanking was okay. I provided a large sample of counterexamples (most of my generation) that disproved your contention/overgeneralization.
You did it earlier when you said “people who attend church regularly are healthier, both mentally and physically, than those who don’t" Not true. Show me a study.
This is the first one google gave me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210025 I gather it's a relatively robust correlation.
I listen to a podcast called “Reasonable Doubts". They often cite studies showing people feel better if they have group affiliation and positive reinforcement of your worldview, but that doesn’t mean that your worldview is healthier.
What constitutes a 'healthy worldview'? Churches provide both group affiliation and positive reinforcement of their worldview, so it would logically follow that what I said was true from that association alone. That isn't making up evidence; that's believing the research.
And you keep responding to sentences and seem to be missing the point of the paragraph.
Sorry about that. It helps if you can state the general point of the paragraph in a single sentence.
You have stated a lot of trust in the courts and our government to sort these things out as well as parents ability to explain difficult concepts,
Not at all actually. But those are the people our society tells us to trust regarding these issues. What I'm trying to indicate by that sort of response is that I don't have much interest in debating that best possible general societal solution and prefer to leave the judgments of right/wrong in those cases to the currently assigned parties.
but world history has been a constant battle against irrational thought and the last 150 years have shown how difficult it is to predict the waxing and waning of that.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. That I shouldn't trust parents, the courts, or our government on these issues? I agree with that. I just don't have any better options to advocate for instead.
You ask so many questions I can’t possibly answer all of them, and keep my regular job.
You're right, I do ask a lot of questions. It's my inquisitive nature. I try not to complain when people choose not to answer them. I just keep asking if it's something I'd like to understand and still don't.
Here’s a couple. There are very rational reasons for art. It engages the mind using allegory and symbolism. Good art is a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words.
I don't think art is generally considered a rational pursuit even if there exist very rational reasons for it. I also think that rational reasons for pursuing religion exist completely apart from the truth value of the claims. Religion also engages the mind using allegory and symbolism. Good religion could also be described as a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words. So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
Prayer is communication with something that doesn’t exist, asking for something impossible.
Rather a poor description of prayer. You said you belonged to a liberal church, so I'm surprised you never heard that prayer changes the prayer. This can be a useful tool for people who wish to change themselves.
Why do you say “whether they justify their opinion with their religious beliefs is irrelevant" when religion is well known to be a great way to get people to accept all sorts of crazy ideas?
Because we were discussing public policy. I thought we were agreed that religious beliefs should be irrelevant with respect to public policy. If that is the case, then we should not have a public policy to deal with harmful/wrong beliefs. We set public policy to deal with their actions when their actions cause sufficient harm to others to merit intervention. It doesn't matter why Jeff Warrens thinks he should be allowed to marry 13 yo girls with their parents consent. It's illegal and he can be prosecuted. I fear the consequences of using any method but gentle and rational persuasion to change other people's beliefs, even beliefs that might legitimately be considered "harmful". I fear the consequences of having any public policy limitations on the ability of people to communicate "harmful" beliefs to others, especially to their own children, more than I fear the spread of their harmful beliefs.
Since then, that type of call to arms has been repeated in a wide variety of ways. The above is old language, but this idea has never died. Once you can get someone to accept that there are spirits and invisible powers that can be drawn upon, you can get them to accept just about anything.
I don't think theistic beliefs are the culprit here. Atheists haven't been any better when they have held power. I don't find this a convincing argument that religion is therefore bad.
I don't expect you to be convinced by my claims.
Which claims are you referring to here?
It took me years of study (in my spare time) into history and psychology to reach my conclusions. I've provided you with quite a bit of information and offered more and so far your responses have been along the lines of "the courts are working on that" or you trust parents to do a good job of parenting. It's not very convincing.
I've been trying to understand your point of view and been forthright with my own. You don't have to agree with my conclusions. What is it you think I'm trying to convince you about? If you don't want to continue, that's fine. I thank you for the interesting conversation thus far sir.
187
Back to the top of your post, if you hadn't been participating in the discussion, then why did you assume I was referring to you?
Simple. I didn't. In response # 112, you wrote: "in one topic you accused us of having some kind irrational FEAR of 'religious terms', which is simply not true!" If, by "us," you meant to include yourself, then that's exactly what you did. If, by "us," you did not mean to include yourself, then I do not understand what you meant by "us." Shall we launch an argument over the meaning of that word, too?
188
So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
Because people don't put paintings in the front of a room and sing songs about it every Sunday.
189
Okay, I’ve let this go for a while, but I have to stop you. You keep making up evidence. You can’t make broad assumptions about the last 50 years and claim spanking is okay.
Talk about making stuff up! That is not what she wrote. I had to go back a re-read her remarks to make sure. That's a mischaracterization. I'll do you the courtesy of quoting the alleged offense..... this time. It’s like spanking them because they hit their sister. You can’t teach them to solve their problems non-violently if you use violence. -- Lausten While I agree that spanking isn’t necessary, based on the empirical evidence that most of my generation was spanked and most of us learned that violence is not a good way to solve our problems, I’d have to say that the weight of empirical evidence is against your statement here. You can, in fact, use spanking and still manage to teach your children to solve their problems non-violently. Odds of success are probably lower. -- Beth I'm not going to defend being brief. This is a discussion forum, not a dissertation defense. And it doesn't change my point. Spanking is to teaching non-violence as prayer is to teaching critical thinking. "Odds of success are probably lower" This just gets silly at this point. Beth's comments speak for themselves and were entirely clear. You claimed that parents cannot teach their children to solve problems non-violently if they use violence themselves. Beth pointed out that they can but it's probably harder. That is not to say that it's "okay."
190
... I can give you my definition of a religious humanist. It is someone whose central concerns are those of human beings and other sentient beings, sees these concerns as central in every dimension of his life, feels passionately about it and acts accordingly...
Actually, that definition could apply to any passionate, holistically-dedicated humanist. They wouldn't need to self identify as religious. Conversely, there could be persons who are religious, in the more conventionally understood way, who are humanists, but are not passionately acting to promote humanistic ideals. Your definition does not include them as "religious humanists".
191
Actually, that definition could apply to any passionate, holistically-dedicated humanist. They wouldn't need to self identify as religious. Conversely, there could be persons who are religious, in the more conventionally understood way, who are humanists, but are not passionately acting to promote humanistic ideals. Your definition does not include them as "religious humanists".
Assuming all that to be true . . . so what?
192
Good religion could also be described as a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words. So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
So, I'm feeling like I'm doing a lot of the work here. If you think religion can reflect reality or be inspiring, show me. Does your church put any sermons on line? Any good book recommendations? Speakers I may not have heard of? Or just a story from you. Your choice.
193
Actually, that definition could apply to any passionate, holistically-dedicated humanist. They wouldn't need to self identify as religious. Conversely, there could be persons who are religious, in the more conventionally understood way, who are humanists, but are not passionately acting to promote humanistic ideals. Your definition does not include them as "religious humanists".
Assuming all that to be true . . . so what? So, as definitions go, it lacks broad utility.
194
Actually, that definition could apply to any passionate, holistically-dedicated humanist. They wouldn't need to self identify as religious. Conversely, there could be persons who are religious, in the more conventionally understood way, who are humanists, but are not passionately acting to promote humanistic ideals. Your definition does not include them as "religious humanists".
Assuming all that to be true . . . so what? So, as definitions go, it lacks broad utility. 1. What does that mean? 2. On what basis? 3. So what?
195
So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
Because people don't put paintings in the front of a room and sing songs about it every Sunday. Given that music is a form of art, I don't think that qualifies as a counterexample. Why do you think this makes a difference with respect to whether or not they learn critical thinking?
196
Good religion could also be described as a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words. So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
So, I'm feeling like I'm doing a lot of the work here. If you think religion can reflect reality or be inspiring, show me. Does your church put any sermons on line? Any good book recommendations? Speakers I may not have heard of? Or just a story from you. Your choice. And if I share with you those things, will you accept that I find them to reflect reality or be inspiring? Or will you demean my opinion for thinking that? At any rate, I'm not comfortable posting information about the church I attend on-line here. Book or speaker recommendations? Nothing I think you would find to be reflective of reality or inspiring. Sorry. I did post a citation for the correlation between health and church attendance though. Does that count as contributing?
197
I did post a citation for the correlation between health and church attendance though. Does that count as contributing?
I saw that, and I also noticed there was no response. Does that mean that Beth's link was ignored? The matter was important enough, apparently, for the question to be asked but did the answer make any difference? Might there have been at least some acknowledgement that - gee - "here is a study in a peer-reviewed journal, which suggests that I was wrong. Maybe I should try to find some other studies; and if I can't, then maybe I should admit that I wasn't aware of those data, and must rethink my views." Or are we just here to state our opinions as though they were facts, and when the facts come, ignore them? And what would be so devastating if Beth is right, and church attendance is correlated with better mental health? It doesn't mean that God reached his hand down from heaven and massaged the congregants' brains. It could be a measure of the effects of a sustained community, or it could be that the population of churchgoers is mentally healthier overall than the population of non-churchgoers. There's no reason why these data should threaten anyone's humanism, so why are they ignored? What about Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion. I keep mentioning them. The man spent a lifetime of scholarship to come up with these categories. Aren't they even worth considering? How about acknowledging? And if we're not going to do that, then how will trying to have a reasoned discussion here be different from trying to have a reasoned discussion on theology with a rabid fundie? This is a serious question, not merely a rhetorical one.
198
Good religion could also be described as a reflection of reality, or a vision of what’s possible, a window into things that can’t be put into words. So I'm not understanding why you think this makes art different from religion with respect to undermining critical thinking.
So, I'm feeling like I'm doing a lot of the work here. If you think religion can reflect reality or be inspiring, show me. Does your church put any sermons on line? Any good book recommendations? Speakers I may not have heard of? Or just a story from you. Your choice. And if I share with you those things, will you accept that I find them to reflect reality or be inspiring? Or will you demean my opinion for thinking that? At any rate, I'm not comfortable posting information about the church I attend on-line here. Book or speaker recommendations? Nothing I think you would find to be reflective of reality or inspiring. Sorry. I did post a citation for the correlation between health and church attendance though. Does that count as contributing? I asked for no such promises from you and you've been pretty critical of everything I've said. I guess I can't blame you for not giving me personal information. But I don't understand your prediction that whatever you put up I would not find it inspiring. What if I happened upon your church and wandered in, isn't that the whole idea, that you offer members something? You've known me for two days and you've already decided that my mind is completely closed and nothing you could show me would make a difference? I haven't had time to review the study you posted. PLaClair, expecting someone to evaluate something like that it in a matter of hours is rather demanding don't you think?
199
I haven't had time to review the study you posted. PLaClair, expecting someone to evaluate something like that it in a matter of hours is rather demanding don't you think?
If this was the only time it had happened, and if you hadn't continued the dialogue on other matters, yes, but it isn't and you have. I'll await your response, Lausten. How long do you think you'll need to review the data?
200
Actually, that definition could apply to any passionate, holistically-dedicated humanist. They wouldn't need to self identify as religious. Conversely, there could be persons who are religious, in the more conventionally understood way, who are humanists, but are not passionately acting to promote humanistic ideals. Your definition does not include them as "religious humanists".
Assuming all that to be true . . . so what? So, as definitions go, it lacks broad utility. 1. What does that mean? 2. On what basis? 3. So what? Note: The following is not an answer to the above questions: I have learned that rhetorical questions are not really requests for information. I suspect that the questions above are rhetorical. It would be better, I think, for you to just explicitly say what you want to say.