|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion or Science - How do they compare? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faith writes: They may be factually and demonstrably false to you but they aren't to her. The foundation for her beliefs are not the same as yours. I call Faith a liar when she uses willful ignorance as an excuse to believe matters that are factually false and demonstrably false and then assert those beliefs as though they were reality.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
ringo writes:
Absolutely except that I would add that growing up is hopefully an improvement
The Bible does say that. I quoted it. You can believe that it doesn't mean what it says but don't pretend that it doesn't say what it says.There was no "original condition" that changed. The story explains why human life is what it is. It's about growing up. The "original condition" that you idolize is a state of infantile dependence. Yes, growing up is an improvement.ringo writes: ..and the story shows that we are slow learners.
e didn't. The whole Bible is the story of people being in touch with their Creator. ringo writes: I'm kinda agnostic on that but I lean towards the idea of satan metaphorically representing the evil that I am capable of.
Satan doesn't exist. That's just a copout, passing the buck, an excuse for not taking responsibility for our own actions. ringo writes: I'm not sure I'd say meaningless but it sure is a distortion of the nature of God that we see in Jesus. On the contrary, I accept the Bible (and appreciate it) for what it is and for what it says. It's your perversion of the Bible that makes it meaningless. The only meaning you find in the Bible is made-up dogma.Your post is another example of non-Christians often sounding more Christ-like that some Christians. ABE Sorry about the Pats today. I was cheering for them. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Paboss writes:
That misses the point. If this world is the result of nothing but mindless particles coming together by chance with no intelligence involved at any point, then our morality is then simply what works for us,(or me). SIS policies belong to past times when it was morally acceptable to try to impose one’s beliefs and kill those who resist. Morals change with the times, but they also tend to improve because we can look back and see what kind of society we don’t want to be. That’s how we can tell ISIS morals are wrong; neither absolute morals nor gods are required for that. The morality that you espouse is what works for you in your corner of the world. That morality of ISIS is what works for them. Sure it is very reminiscent of the world centuries ago but that doesn't change anything. It simply means that there is no absolute right or wrong.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Paboss writes: The one thing that has fueled the mutual hatred is the lust for land, power and wealth. It is basic tribalism. It is actually no different than a merger of companies that I experienced a few years back. There quickly developed a visceral hatred between the groups fighting over how seniority rights were to be integrated, and this was between well educated people.
Is not that Religion is the only thing that is either used as an excuse or as reason for people to cause harm to others. It may be our tendency to think dualistically and see others as part of the in-group or out-group (friend or foe). This is probably legacy of our tribal ancestry. But religion has that added negative value of revealing the unquestioned truth to believers and move people to do things they wouldn’t do otherwise. Religion can be either the reason or the excuse; in any case it can be very influential in moral values.See for example the conflict between Palestine and Israel. I wouldn’t say this is necessarily a religious conflict. I think it all comes down to the needs of both nations to have a land where to live. But what is the one thing that has for decades fuelled the mutual hatred? Paboss writes: In some cases yes. In the case of the Romans though I would say no. Their slaves usually came from conquered nations, and even then wouldn’t normally be race based. In the case of the Jews the slaves, at least the Hebrew slaves, were generally forced into it due to poverty and in many cases chose it. Also after a specified number of years they could choose their freedom. I thought I’d look it up on wiki and found this. I find this rather dubious. Are you saying that the institution of slavery that we know took place in the Roman Empire, where and when those epistles were written, was simply the equivalent to modern employment?quote: Paboss writes: Certainly slaves had lesser rights, but frankly so do modern employees have lesser rights and are often treated as inferior by employers. It is human nature. It seems like this Onesimus was a person dear to Paul, and who both he and Philemon, found useful in Paul words. Note here that Paul is not pleading for slaves to be treated as brothers but for one specific person who found favour in Paul’s sight. Furthermore, for Paul to be asking for Onesimus to receive a treatment better than a slave, as a brother implies that they saw slaves not simply as employees but as inferior people, with lesser rights. He’s pleading for his dear Onesimus because he knows being slave is not nice. The slavery condoned by the New Testament is the horrible institution we know of.This is a total aside, but we were discussing this issue in church the other day and I had to admit that I am completely unsure of how I would have viewed all this if I had been living in Alabama in 1850. I would like to think that I would have been horrified by slavery but I certainly have my doubts. GDR writes: Firstly it doesn’t say that women can’t teach menPaboss writes:
That is certainly the most difficult verse to deal with in this regard. Firstly again let me say that to read it at face value puts it in contradiction to how Paul actually had women functioning in the early churches. Also Paul was writing to Timothy and it is generally believed that Timothy was in Ephesus at the time. The primary religion with the biggest temple at the time was a female only cult, which had as its god Artemis or Diana as the Romans called her. The Temple of Artemis was massive. The deity was female as were all the priests. They ruled and kept men in their place. It is very possible that this was to speak in opposition to that. In general Paul’s writing in general represented a huge advance for women so it seems to me that we can accept this statement as being in response to some specific situation. Also, at the time most women weren’t educated and Paul is encouraging them to become educated. Yes, it does:1 Timothy 2:11-12 (ESV):Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. However, going back to my last post Paul also wrote that men should love their wives as Christ loved the church essentially meaning that a husband is to put the life of his wife above his own. Paboss writes: There are lots of contradictions in the Bible. If I am inspired by God to write a song that doesn’t mean that God dictated it to me. If an ancient prophet was inspired to write the history of his culture that doesn’t mean that God dictated it.
That’s because the Bible is contradictory, so you can find biblical support for contradictory arguments. Being supposedly inspired by God, this should not be the case.Paboss writes: Firstly they have to be understood within the context of the culture at the time. If I wrote today that it was raining cats and dogs maybe somebody 2000 years from now would read it literally. It also, however doesn’t mean that there was no divine insight. It is written though with Paul’s insights, having had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus as well as with those who had been followers of the Pre-resurrection Jesus.
if this scriptures are to be taken as inspired by God, they shouldn’t look immoral by our modern standards. But they look as what they are: fabrication of the men of ancient times with no evident divine insight.Paboss writes:
I’ve said this a number of times before. To understand Jesus from a theological POV you need the OT. Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews and using the Hebrew Scriptures as a background for His teaching. In order to understand the OT I understand it by using the lens provided by what we have of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Epistles also should IMHO, as well as the whole Bible have to be taken in the context of Jesus and the culture. When you say that God speaks into the hearts of many of the writers of the OT, you imply is not into all of them. So how do you decide which writers are listening to God’s voice in their hearts and which are not? I think the answer is you have to use your own criteria; which in your case, is informed by modern moral values. As far as modern moral culture is concerned I’d again point out that it varies from culture to culture and I assume that the culture you have grown up in has judeo-christian roots.
Paboss writes: As Bob Dylan said you gotta serve somebody. Each of us have some form of moral code that we follow and our own reasons for doing so. It can extend from being completely selfish or completely unselfish. We are all somewhere between the two. It is for all of us a faith. My Christian faith leads me to believe that I should be a person who loves unselfishly and sacrificially. That does not mean that someone who believes atheism represents all that is true can’t hold those values. We just have different foundations for our beliefs. The golden rule is in the majority of world religions, (as far as Christianity is concerned it is both the NT and the OT), in one form or another. It is also something a secularist can support.
But this is something that you take on faith, from what you consider to be good. So it doesn’t work as a criteria for others because it’s dependent on everyone deciding if John’s testimony is true or not. There should be some criteria that could be equally used by believers and nonbelievers to tell what comes from God and what doesn’t. If your criteria is an statement taken on faith it doesn’t get you any closer to the truth; there is no reason to rely on those claims. GDR writes: God confirmed Jesus’ life and teaching. Taking that as a given, (which I am fully aware you don’t), then I can read through the OT where it has God commanding genocide and public stoning and be able to confidently say that those commands were not of God but of very fallible humans.Paboss writes: You seem to keep wanting to understand the Bible in the same manner as Faith. I wouldn’t say that God allowed it but I would say that we can find God’s wisdom in it. We still hear people say today that God had told them to do something. I would say that those passages tell us to be very careful when someone makes a statement like that. It is very obvious when we read about God’s forgiveness, sympathy and commands to love our enemy that those passages are driven by human sin and not by God.
So what do you make of those passages? Why did God allowed such horrible texts to be present in the book that was supposed to convey his truth to people?Paboss writes: In our society that is generally true, but it isn’t true for all societies. I’d add to that and say that when we read the Bible as a single narrative, I contend that it is clear that our understanding of the nature of God is a progressive revelation which would be consistent with your statement.
We are not perfect, but I can confidently say we are morally better than the people of previous ages. This is only because we have a vantage point: we can look from the present towards the past, evaluate history, decide which mistakes of the past we don’t want to commit again and try to be better than them. Paboss writes: That sounds very much like Dawkin’s memes. It is an evolving process that requires intelligence amongst other attributes. That again tells us nothing about why that process and capability exists at all.
We do have evidence, we know that as social species we have had to develop the ability to cooperate in order to survive. This ability to cooperate has been naturally selected, which means the most cooperative humans have had better chances at surviving. The sense of empathy that we and other social animals developed, helped our tribal ancestors to survive as a group by caring for each other. In tribal environments, this also meant we developed the tendency to think dualistically in terms of in-group/out-group (as I mentioned at the beginning of this very long post), thus translating into a sense of hostility towards those who belong to the out-group. As the development of technology, knowledge and awareness that we are not so different from each other, has helped us to transcend our tribal borders, empathy has been progressively extended to people belonging to other cultures, countries, groups. This is how moral values have improved through History.Paboss writes: We can call our deity God, Allah, Zeus or whatever we like. It is all religion and all religion is about trying to understand the nature of our deity and what that means to our lives. Yes morals change but the basis of those morals comes from somewhere. I believe that our morality is not so much what we do but our motivation for what we do. It is all about the heart and, once again is it all about us or can we live to love others, and all creation for that matter sacrificially.
If you look at history and anthropology, morals change from time to time and from culture to culture. If we were to consider morals to be absolute and to adopt those of Yahweh we would degenerate into an absolutist morally sick regime. Morals change with time, but they also tend to improve because we are standing on the shoulders of past generations. We can see what they got wrong and improve. GDR writes: In the future we may come to the conclusion that it is morally right to commit genocide because our tribe needs the resources of some other tribe and that becomes our moral imperative.Paboss writes: We still see genocidal cultures today and nazism was a major force during the life time of some of us.
That would be highly likely the case in a scenario where our whole civilisation collapses and a new one has to start from scratch. That is precisely what the movie The planet of the apes, in its original version illustrates. But if future generations keep building upon our achievements the tendency should be for better moral values. For example, people in the future may get to the point where all their energy comes from renewable sources and their impact on Earth is neutral. They will certainly look down on us as immoral because of the way we treat the environment but they would also understand we were product of our time and ignorant on things they will have figured out by then.Paboss writes: Followers of Christianity have also done a great deal of good in the world. Christianity is a religion formed around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. People have twisted the Scriptures into something that is self serving and have used it to do despicable things. That tells us nothing about the truth of Christianity. In the end, God resurrected Jesus or He didn’t. If He didn’t then we should be looking elsewhere, but if He did then we should all be looking to Jesus to understand how that should impact our lives, and as Jesus said it is all about loving our neighbour as ourself. I’ve learnt a lot from watching his talks and debates. I think he was a great critical thinker and able to present very compelling arguments. Although by the time I heard from him I was already well in my way out of Christianity, his arguments helped me make more sense of the way I feel about Religion, and specially, Christianity. If you have read his book God is not great, he starts explaining how as he puts it Religion poisons everything. The arguments he offers for that have helped me inform my position that religion has exerted a negative influence on people, and its influence has been way more powerful than that of other ideologies.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes:
As I said in an earlier post I don't see morality as being what we do. What we do is usually evidence for whatever sense of morality we hold but it isn't morality itself. Don't kill folks. Don't hurt your brother. Just how huge a chunk of morality can be developed from a couple of what might be easy to come by precepts. It might even be that there is an evolutionary advantage to concepts like that. I am not sure that the lack of absolutes is completely debilitating. Half of the ten commandments are about man's relationship to his closest neighbors and family. Surely there is more than one source for somthing like that. Obviously, the half of the commandments that relate to God must come from a religion of sorts. Our morality is based on where we find or joy, contentment and meaning. It is all about the heart. I contend that we all have as part of our being that still small voice of God which calls us to joyfully do the loving thing when we encounter situations that test our sense of morality. We can choose to listen to that voice and make it part of who we are, or we can freely reject it.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes: I'm using heart in the same sense it is used in the Bible. For example, here is a quote from Matthew 6: I am not sure I understand what you mean when you distinguish between our heart and our mind here. Describing things as "heart" is not literal thinking. Our heart pumps blood, delivers oxygen and helps remove waste products from our cells. Everything we do is mind driven.quote: NoNukes writes: It matters as far as this discussion goes about whether our sense of morality evolved from simply mindlessness or whether there is a cosmic sense of morality that has always existed as a result of pre-exiting intelligence. Whatever the source of our morality, we can grow emotionally attached to following it. How is that different from morality being about our heart. How does the source matter? The only other issue is that if we believe that there is morality beyond our own we can start to become prideful for what good guys we are as opposed to believing that we are simply reflectors of God's love for us. Pride can then evolve in lots of unpleasant ways.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes: Yes. Your claim seems to be that a sense of morality is not possible without that pre-existing intelligence. My question to you is why that sense of morality cannot grow out of a sense of duty to one's family, friends, clan or species? I don't believe that atheists are immoral or that atheistic societies must be amoral, but your argument does not seem to leave open any possibility of a non-theistic morality. What is your best defense for your position? You haven't read all that I have said on this. Here is something I posted earlier in the thread.
from GDRpost 508 writes: As Bob Dylan said you gotta serve somebody. Each of us have some form of moral code that we follow and our own reasons for doing so. It can extend from being completely selfish or completely unselfish. We are all somewhere between the two. It is for all of us a faith. My Christian faith leads me to believe that I should be a person who loves unselfishly and sacrificially. That does not mean that someone who believes atheism represents all that is true can’t hold those values. We just have different foundations for our beliefs. The golden rule is in the majority of world religions, (as far as Christianity is concerned it is both the NT and the OT), in one form or another. It is also something a secularist can support. I wrote to Ringo somewhere recently that he sounded was more Christ like than what I have heard from many Christians over the years. I have also said the same thing about things that Chris Hitchens said. I have also said that the still small voice of God speaks to everyone regardless of their religious, or lack of religious beliefs. I have also said that it is my opinion that if Jesus was telling the story of the Good Samaritan today in our western culture it would be the story of the Good Muslim. I do maintain my belief though that all positive morality is only possible because there is a universal standard that is essentially defined as "The Golden Rule". I contend that a universal standard of morality requires a universal intelligent moral foundation. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes: The material you quoted suggests that morality is universal. What you are adding to that is your belief that it comes from a divine source, and in particular from Jesus Christ, regardless of one's belief system.So, no argument from you. Just belief. At least that what I think you are espousing. If I've missed something, let me know. Of course it is about belief. That's all any of us have regardless of our views in answering this question. All I can do is to give the reasons I believe.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: What we actually *know* is that man is an evolved animal. All his traits have evolved. If we accept that our emotions, like our physical bodies, have evolved - anger, fear happiness, jealousy, love etc - and that empathy - which is the source morality - also evolved (we have evidence of this), then why can't morality have evolved? Why does it need a god? I'm not saying that it can't have evolved. Evolution is a process and I am saying that I contend or believe that the process has an intelligent root. I'd also add that what has evolved naturally is a societal thing. I do believe that as individuals we have a personal conscience and part of that is a discernment of what is loving and what is unloving and the choices we make. We all know that if we find a wallet with money in it some will return it to their owners and some won't. That is personal and not societal. I think that our conscience is God speaking to us in that still small voice, which is not to say that we aren't also influenced by all sorts of natural memes from family, friends etc.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: If this world is the result of nothing but mindless particles coming together by chance with no intelligence involved at any point, then our morality is then simply what works for us,(or me).ringo writes: Sure, That assumes though that we have a common definition of what is good and not good. Our culture has evolved with a judeo-christian background and so we have a common definition of what is good. Other cultures not so much. Isn't that better than taking your morality from some alien overlord whose agenda might not be good for us at all?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: What you call facts are your beliefs. I have no doubt that human traits are affected naturally. You believe that is the whole story. I believe that there is more to it than that, and even if I am wrong in saying that it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not that natural process came from a string of other natural processes back to the BB or whether there is an intelligence that is responsible.. That's not true GDR, those of us that don't share your beliefs accept the evidence that morality like all other human traits evolved and is still evolving naturally. You simply prefer your beliefs over the facts.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes:
Firstly it is obvious that our sense of morality is heavily influenced by family, culture etc. In the final analysis though if we all we are is a collection of mindless particles then how can there be an absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong then is simply what we as individuals or collectively decide what the distinction is, at a particular point in time. The material you quoted suggests that morality is universal. What you are adding to that is your belief that it comes from a divine source, and in particular from Jesus Christ, regardless of one's belief system.So, no argument from you. Just belief. At least that what I think you are espousing. If I've missed something, let me know. If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. Materialists take the point of view as I understand that our moral code has evolved based on what works best for us and individuals and society. There are aspects of that that I question. To start with, what is our society? Is it our gene pool, is it our country or is it the world? If there is no moral code that would exist apart from our existence the I question the idea that we would have adapted a moral code that gives us the notion of sacrificing our own well being for people of different gene pools, different nationalities and even with different moral codes. Why do millions of us send our personal resources of time and money to those less fortunate in other parts of the world when our own gene pool or society would be better off if they would die away and give us full access to their resources? Somehow we instinctively know, that whether or not we act on the instinct to do live altruistically or not, we know that it is good to do so. I would also add that I'm not saying that this comes from Jesus. I'm saying that it comes from an external moral intelligence that I refer to as God, and that Jesus received His morality from the same source , which He usually called Father, and the one to whom He prayed. It is interesting to note that we can see the moral code of Jewish and Christian faith in my Old Testament quote in my signature. I'd also add of course that all mainline religions have similar ideas in their holy books as well, which I suggest might be an indication of an absolute right and wrong that is universal.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Taq writes:
OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be. I don't see why anyone would want an absolute moral code. What if that absolute moral code says that we have to kill everyone who has red hair? It would seem to me that the preferred moral code is the one that is based on humans, not some outside list of rules.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes: In fact, what you are actually doing here is assuming the entire question and putting that forth as your premise. Even if I agreed with you, I would reject an argument of that type.
I'm not at all sure how to respond. Would you accept that Christ's teaching that we should love our neighbour as ourself is universally true?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: Says you. If there are no absolute that is only your opinion based on your life experiences.
That would be an immoral code, not a moral code.Tangle writes:
You can come up with theories of how empathy evolved but it doesn't tell us anything about how the possibility of empathy came to exist in the first place. Well not quite, no. There *is* a universal moral code programmed into us called empathy. It tells us right from wrong and is the source of the 'golden rule'. If there's a 'still small voice' it's the brain function we call empathy. Unless we're psychopathic or trained to ignore it we are all affected by it to a greater or lessor extent. We can overcome it with our intellect, but it's still there holding us back from doing the worst and informing our secular laws by reinforcing and normalising good behaviour and punishing bad.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024