Would a world without religion...

[wensdee]

If men could rid themselves of death they could rid themselves of religion, until then the world must suffer religions in all their ridiculous death defying forms.

 

[Montalban]

Phew, when I clicked on the link I was thinking you were on about Scientology. What a relief. Positivism rankles my theistic bones, maybe because I don't know if we will ever learn enough about the physical universe to develope a comprehensive ethic based on our observations before our impatience to dogmatize consumes us; hence ideas like Scientism (or Scientology for that matter).

I don't know if future generations would be any better at sorting out the basic mysteries of existence than our ancestors, inspite of all the new, complicating knowlege. To me, one of the best things about modern religions is that they are so deeply rooted in our past, with all the bones already picked out for the most part. They connect us to each other in a way that appeals to our mystical and sentimental natures; something a new priesthood in lab coats might have difficulty selling with a purely intellectual approach.

When I question people's faith in science here, though they deny it, their reactions are often just like religious zealots!

 

[HarryCovert]

If men could rid themselves of death they could rid themselves of religion, until then the world must suffer religions in all their ridiculous death defying forms.

Do you mean that if people could live forever they wouldn't need or want religion? I had hoped my faith was more to me than that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When I question people's faith in science here, though they deny it, their reactions are often just like religious zealots!

I think science has the advantage of working. You are, after all, talking on the Internet

 

[oi_antz]

Other, there is simply no way to know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you mean that if people could live forever they wouldn't need or want religion? I had hoped my faith was more to me than that.

I think he means that, without the fear of death, we'd never developed spirituality and religion - how can there be the concept of a soul which persists after death, if no one dies? Specifically to Christianity, there would be no threat of post-death punishment if we didn't die, so no reason for Christ to come to Earth. Not everyone believes in their particular religion due to fear of death, of course, but the origins and focus of most - if not all - religions does still stem from a fear of death.

 

[HarryCovert]

I think he means that, without the fear of death, we'd never developed spirituality and religion - how can there be the concept of a soul which persists after death, if no one dies? Specifically to Christianity, there would be no threat of post-death punishment if we didn't die, so no reason for Christ to come to Earth. Not everyone believes in their particular religion due to fear of death, of course, but the origins and focus of most - if not all - religions does still stem from a fear of death.

Well that's clearer. Death is the ultimate religious mystery, I suppose. Religion does attempt to alleviate the fear some might have about death, to be sure, but it also helps to establish social and ethical codes for living. Maybe, for some those are outdated, or are seen to be coercively connected to the fear of death. I think I follow.

 

[wensdee]

If men could rid themselves of death they could rid themselves of religion, until then the world must suffer religions in all their ridiculous death defying forms.

I think he means that, without the fear of death, we'd never developed spirituality and religion - how can there be the concept of a soul which persists after death, if no one dies? Specifically to Christianity, there would be no threat of post-death punishment if we didn't die, so no reason for Christ to come to Earth. Not everyone believes in their particular religion due to fear of death, of course, but the origins and focus of most - if not all - religions does still stem from a fear of death.

Well that's clearer. Death is the ultimate religious mystery, I suppose. Religion does attempt to alleviate the fear some might have about death, to be sure, but it also helps to establish social and ethical codes for living. Maybe, for some those are outdated, or are seen to be coercively connected to the fear of death. I think I follow.

The last thing I thought would be that someone would need my post to be explained to them.

Death is NOT the ultimate religious mystery because death has nothing to do with religion, religion is no more than a man made concept, everything dies with or without religion, EVERYTHING.

All religions can do is give people a guide on how to live with their neighbours and help them cope with the thought and fear of death.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Religion is neither the problem nor the solution: belief in a deity/deities is not the watershed that separates the suicide bombers from the esteemed pillars of the community - fanatism is, along with authoritarianism.

 

[HarryCovert]

Religion is neither the problem nor the solution: belief in a deity/deities is not the watershed that separates the suicide bombers from the esteemed pillars of the community - fanatism is, along with authoritarianism.

I think that is very close to the truth. Religion is often used as a justification for heinous acts, but often the fanatics seem to actually know very little about the faith on which their actions are ostensibly based. It appears to very easy to recruit people to a radical ideology, if those people are already feeling oppressed and disenfranchised.

 

[Montalban]

I think science has the advantage of working. You are, after all, talking on the Internet

Liberal Arts (Humanities) has the advantage of working. You are, after all, talking using English.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Liberal Arts (Humanities) has the advantage of working. You are, after all, talking using English.

"Liberal Arts (Humanities)" did not create the English language. Science, the scientific method, established scientific knowledge, and fleets of scientists, did create the Internet.

Humanities students may study language, but scientists build upon it.

 

[Montalban]

"Liberal Arts (Humanities)" did not create the English language.

Science, the scientific method, established scientific knowledge, and fleets of scientists, did create the Internet.

False comparison.

Science didn't create the internet. People did, using science as a tool. Science works to make things such as the internet.

People created the English language and built upon it. They used other tools that work just as well in their field.

If it weren't for liberal arts you'd probably not have the Internet because how would those scientists communicate with each other?

Humanities students may study language, but scientists build upon it.

Are you saying no progress comes from the humanities?

What about progress in language forms and expression? Or, do you only use Old English at home?

I'm sure you have a point still waiting to be expressed

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How did we end up with a discussion of humanities vs. natural science?

The humanities are my grand passion as well as my bread and butter, and I would go to great lengths to defend them against any detractors trying to declare them inferior to number crunching.

But why should anybody see the humanities and the sciences as being in opposition to each other? Is an anthropologist inferior to a biologist by virtue of their respective academic fields? I think not.


Likewise, I do not see science and religion as being opposed to each other by definition. I agree that most religions feature foundational myths that are virtually incompatible with what we know about the universe and the history of our planet by now, and that those who'd wish to stick to these myths no matter what are opposed to scientific inquiry.

But religion as such is here to stay. Current ones may adapt to incorporate new scientific insights, new ones may spring up based on our current knowledge of the "nuts and bolts", and it's even possible that science itself might stimulate new forms of spirituality and devotional practice.

 

[oi_antz]

How did we end up with a discussion of humanities vs. natural science?

The humanities are my grand passion as well as my bread and butter, and I would go to great lengths to defend them against any detractors trying to declare them inferior to number crunching.

But why should anybody see the humanities and the sciences as being in opposition to each other? Is an anthropologist inferior to a biologist by virtue of their respective academic fields? I think not.


Likewise, I do not see science and religion as being opposed to each other by definition. I agree that most religions feature foundational myths that are virtually incompatible with what we know about the universe and the history of our planet by now, and that those who'd wish to stick to these myths no matter what are opposed to scientific inquiry.

But religion as such is here to stay. Current ones may adapt to incorporate new scientific insights, new ones may spring up based on our current knowledge of the "nuts and bolts", and it's even possible that science itself might stimulate new forms of spirituality and devotional practice.

Thanks Jane, that sounds very balanced and true. Is it also feasible to say that science is misused by some people to perpetuate the atheist myth?

 

[Montalban]

How did we end up with a discussion of humanities vs. natural science?

Someone was talking about how wonderful science was.

The humanities are my grand passion as well as my bread and butter, and I would go to great lengths to defend them against any detractors trying to declare them inferior to number crunching.

But why should anybody see the humanities and the sciences as being in opposition to each other? Is an anthropologist inferior to a biologist by virtue of their respective academic fields? I think not.

I don't think that they're in opposition, however some people think that science is the ultimate discerner of truth - I mentioned the idea of Scientism

Likewise, I do not see science and religion as being opposed to each other by definition. I agree that most religions feature foundational myths that are virtually incompatible with what we know about the universe and the history of our planet by now, and that those who'd wish to stick to these myths no matter what are opposed to scientific inquiry.

But religion as such is here to stay. Current ones may adapt to incorporate new scientific insights, new ones may spring up based on our current knowledge of the "nuts and bolts", and it's even possible that science itself might stimulate new forms of spirituality and devotional practice.

We Orthodox don't tie our faith to science, because as Basil the Great noted scientists keep changing their minds.

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
The Age of the Earth

Take for example Neptunism. The idea that the earths layers were all set down by giant seas and oceans. A religious person might have said "Wow, that ties in with Noah!" but then after a while Neptunism falls out of favour with scientists and where's that leave the religious people who'd tied their faith to a scientific 'truth'?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is it also feasible to say that science is misused by some people to perpetuate the atheist myth?

Yes, Christians misuse science to perpetuate the myth about atheists that they are all narrowly scientistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't think that they're in opposition, however some people think that science is the ultimate discerner of truth - I mentioned the idea of Scientism

When it comes to figuring out the "nuts and bolts", nothing beats the scientific method -not because it's infallible, but because it takes its own fallibility into account and includes protective measures against inevitable errors and faulty deductions.
Below, you pretty much tried to portray that as a weakness, whereas I would say that this is the source of its strength.

It's those who believe that they already know all the answers and could never be wrong as long as they stick to the established path that need to worry, for they are impervious to new insights, and blind to their own potential errors.

We Orthodox don't tie our faith to science, because as Basil the Great noted scientists keep changing their minds.

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
The Age of the Earth

Take for example Neptunism. The idea that the earths layers were all set down by giant seas and oceans. A religious person might have said "Wow, that ties in with Noah!" but then after a while Neptunism falls out of favour with scientists and where's that leave the religious people who'd tied their faith to a scientific 'truth'?

Probably in the camp of the evangelical fundamentalists claiming that scientists are part of a gigantic Satanic conspiracy to deny God, who then proceed to build Creation Museums and try to sell their convoluted theses as "science".

However, I do not think that you can truly compare the methods of 4th century natural philosophers (who had no knowledge of the scientific method, and primarily performed what would be regarded as guesswork these days) to today's natural sciences.
Heck, even 18th and 19th century science hardly measured up to today's approach.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, Christians misuse science to perpetuate the myth about atheists that they are all narrowly scientistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well that might be your point of view Mark from what you have observed across the board with Christians. But let me show you the point of view that motivated my comment: that some people use scientific knowledge to imply that God doesn't exist, merely because His appearance doesn't suit their criteria. I didn't say that all atheists do this nor that all atheists use science as a scapegoat. What I said is that some people use science to perpetuate the myth of atheism, which is to say that God doesn't exist because they have insufficient evidence that He will jump at their command.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Thanks Jane, that sounds very balanced and true. Is it also feasible to say that science is misused by some people to perpetuate the atheist myth?

While I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins et. al., I don't think that their error is primarily based on their rejection of theism.
The criticisms they raise against anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism and fanatism are all quite valid - but they apply it too broadly, somehow arguing that violent fanatism is the default state of any religion, and any deviation from that path is but a "watering down" perpetrated by lukewarm believers who lack the guts to go full bat-poop.
As such, they're basically in agreement with the dangerous fanatics, calling for a trench war where everybody has to "choose sides".

I think they are wrong on that account, and that they do not help to solve the conflict with the lunatic fringe, but instead only amplify it. By attacking moderates and progressives as if they, too, wanted to teach religious myths in science class, or even strap a bomb to their chest to blow up "unbelievers", they basically create the conflict that they supposedly just draw attention to. Nothing serves better to drive people to fanatism than giving them the impression that their identity is under attack.