Disturbing Examples of Christian Fundalmentalism

UU

For those who haven't seen these clips on the LGBT forum, I've linked them here. Basically this woman from some weird fundamentalist church in America is a total freak. She is nuts, portrays hatred and is frankly an embarassment to Christians alike. Take a look :

Crazy Woman On Hannity & Colmes

Return Of The Crazy Woman

mountainyman

It is a tiny church made up of the founders family.
There are 200 million Christians in America why are you drawing this to our attention.

I assure that if I looked for beliefs shared by 80 Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheists (or Christians) i could find worse.

Do you regard the victors of Haditha as heroes by the way.

MM

UU

I doesn't matter which religion or non-religion it is, fundalmentalism is bad in any form. Also, who the hell are the victors of Haditha? And do you have some bloody grunge against me because I'm getting that impression from you. :mad:

I'm drawing it to people's attention because it's interesting. If you don't like it then don't bother posting.

Also, how more worse can it get? What if those people gained power in America. What would it be like?

mountainyman

UU wrote:

I doesn't matter which religion or non-religion it is, fundalmentalism is bad in any form.

Some would say that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

UU wrote:

I'm drawing it to people's attention because it's interesting. If you don't like it then don't bother posting.
Also, how more worse can it get? What if those people gained power in America. What would it be like?

It makes Christians look ridiculous. It is a variant of a sort of tedious anti americanism that I am a bit fed up with.
There are 80 of them how would they gain power in America. What if Ian paisley became king of Ireland, then brought in gay marriage and married Cristiano Ronaldo; who then declared for Ireland (all Ireland team) and we won the world cup. Because that is much more likely.

UU wrote:

Also, who the hell are the victors of Haditha? And do you have some bloody grunge against me because I'm getting that impression from you. :mad:

Haditha is a massacre carried out by American troops. I don't have a grunge against you, though I was annoyed by your making fun of mass. Maybe all Christians should be picketing the burials of American soldiers?

Lets shake hands <HANDSHAKE>.

MM

UU

Well okay lets make peace <HANDSHAKE>. It's the only way forward you know. But if you're fed up of the "variant of a sort of tedious anti americanism" then just ignore it. Simple as that really.

robindch

> She is nuts, portrays hatred and is frankly an embarassment
> to Christians alike

Hardly. She's read and accepts whatever bits she likes from the bible. She believes that anybody who does this is free from error. How's that substantially different in form from what any other christian believes?

All she's done is to grab the worst bits of the bible, instead of any of the more pleasant bits, so she's more extreme than other christians, but the motive reason is the same.

Pocari Sweat

If you have an IQ of 160 plus and have Phd's in several disciplines and have had the distinction of holding professorial posts in Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge and have written ground breaking books on the theories of the universe and make Leonardo Da Vinci look like a knob head, I still reckon that if you try to make sense of the bible, despite respecting the extremely well presented arguments you may offer in its defence and the science and technology you apply to your arguments in defending it, I would always view it as being philosophically flawed not only in its writings but the psychopathic hi-jacking of it from organised religions.

Pocari Sweat

Get back to basics and without skirting round the edges, just tell me how in any universe, is Adam and Eve somehow a nifty way to kick off the bible with regard to humanity, based on the fact that Cain killed Abel and whether it was Seth or his brothers that knobbed his mum, that this is something, (disregarding perfect genetics and people living to 930 etc), we can understand today?

Pocari Sweat

Intelligent answers please, from plain speaking folk, without the pseudo-techno-theological hyper-ventilated ponce talk.

Post sponsored by the the Campaign for Plain Speaking English.

mountainyman

robindch wrote:

Hardly. She's read and accepts whatever bits she likes from the bible...

Not really she is focussing on the old testament so in a sense she is more Jewish than Christian. The old testament has been superseded. She isn't a Christian at all more a sort of 'Jew for Jesus'. Not to mention the fact that they are a sort of patriarchal clan.

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a follower of the Jewish carpenter.

MM

Talliesin

Pocari Sweat. The next post you make will be on-topic and worth reading. It can be worth reading due to the well-made points (if your IQ is nearly as high as mine as you say, you should be able to manage that) its articulate emotional appeal, or for whatever reason you can manage. Otherwise it will be your last here for some time.

mountainyman, your next reported post will report a post stating your objection. It will not include directions to the moderators as to how they should handle the case, irrelevant points as the the demographics of this country or any other garbage like that, or it will be your last here for some time.

Pocari Sweat

Right, whats on the table then?

Disturbing examples of christian fundamentalism is it.

Ok, the crazy woman in the fox news report, (not wanting to cast aspersions on her possibly otherwise good nature), she seems to have some sort of mental illness which could possibly be aggravated by the theoretical view that religious ideology is often suggested as being bi-polar and her upbringing possibly loaded with bible based fundamentalist undertones, has her brain racked with delusions of grandeur about some perceived idea of a god taken too literally from scripts from ancient religious text, allegedly.

staple

robindch wrote:

> She is nuts, portrays hatred and is frankly an embarassment
> to Christians alike

Hardly. She's read and accepts whatever bits she likes from the bible. She believes that anybody who does this is free from error. How's that substantially different in form from what any other christian believes?

All she's done is to grab the worst bits of the bible, instead of any of the more pleasant bits, so she's more extreme than other christians, but the motive reason is the same.

This would be a valid point if mainstream Christianity had not always considered the problem of interpretation. Hermeneutics has been a significant recognised branch of theology and philosophy for about 200 years. It is indeed tricky to interpret the Bible and it is a well-developed discipline. Christians have been interpreting, and considering the methods of interpreting for hundreds of years (meta-commentary, perhaps). However, some people seem to think that anything outside lab science is all just subjectivity and opinion, 'accepting what you like'. It is not, and the lack of understanding and respect for other disciplines that comes from apparently intelligent people is very surprising.

5uspect

staple wrote:

This would be a valid point if mainstream Christianity had not always considered the problem of interpretation. Hermeneutics has been a significant recognised branch of theology and philosophy for about 200 years. It is indeed tricky to interpret the Bible and it is a well-developed discipline. Christians have been interpreting, and considering the methods of interpreting for hundreds of years (meta-commentary, perhaps). However, some people seem to think that anything outside lab science is all just subjectivity and opinion, 'accepting what you like'. It is not, and the lack of understanding and respect for other disciplines that comes from apparently intelligent people is very surprising.

The problem that I have with the Bible and especially the OT is that no matter how sophisticated your analysis of it is - it is still just a dusty old bronze age book. The question of gods existence in this argument is irreverent, the question is how can you justify absolute belief literal or otherwise in what is essentially no more accurate than a cave painting?

Science scourns religion because it is based on irrational blind faith, no matter how much rational thought you heap on understanding the bible the foundations are still irrational.

That woman is a prime example of how the bible can be interpreted in any manner possible, although in an extreme case. Most abrahamic religions have differing views of the bible that range from subtle to irredeemable. This shows that such a jumble of ideas thrown together often conflicting with each other can never be completely understood in any rational sense. It is impossible to follow the bible to the letter verse by verse - every religion makes its selection.

Cantab.

5uspect wrote:

Science scourns religion because it is based on irrational blind faith, no matter how much rational thought you heap on understanding the bible the foundations are still irrational.

Science also tells us that the world we live in is not necessarily always rational (quantum theory etc.). Science does not hold the answers to everything - for example, how would a scientist classify a soul/love/consciousness etc.? This does not of course invalidate all science - in fact, logical reasoning and the ability to have an innate understanding of God's universe is a wonderful gift and rather than diminishing the existence of God, exemplefies Him.

I've an M.Sc. (physics related) and my faith in God was in fact strengthened in my journey of understanding, indeed I came to the conclusion that for every question that we know the answer to, there are an infinite number of questions that we haven't even though of yet (which I pointed out in the acknowledgements of my thesis). That is, there is usefulness in our scientific quest, but real meaning, lies in the hands of God.

robindch

> It is indeed tricky to interpret the Bible and it is a well-developed discipline.

It's not tricky to interpret it. Anybody can do it and many have been for a very long time. Usually to justify whatever they want to justify which frequently amounts to themselves and a hatful of basic biologically-derived prejudices. I've no reason to think that they'll be stopping any time soon.

Even within the limited area of christology, enormous (and enormously pointless) disagreements exist amongst most of the major variations of christianity and many minor ones.

If you're interested in probing any deeper, then I recommend something like Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" which demonstrates, by looking at the interpretations of Jesus produced over the last few hundred years, that all that interpreters have managed to do is to produce biblically-justified mirror-images of themselves. And Schweitzer was sympathetic to christianity.

5uspect

Cantab. wrote:

Science also tells us that the world we live in is not necessarily always rational (quantum theory etc.). Science does not hold the answers to everything - for example, how would a scientist classify a soul/love/consciousness etc.?

Scientists have tried to classify many of these. For example see Harlow's experiments on love.

Cantab. wrote:

This does not of course invalidate all science - in fact, logical reasoning and the ability to have an innate understanding of God's universe is a wonderful gift and rather than diminishing the existence of God, exemplefies Him.

Belief in a god is infact the opposite to logic - it is a refusal to think.

Cantab. wrote:

I've an M.Sc. (physics related) and my faith in God was in fact strengthened in my journey of understanding, indeed I came to the conclusion that for every question that we know the answer to, there are an infinite number of questions that we haven't even though of yet (which I pointed out in the acknowledgements of my thesis). That is, there is usefulness in our scientific quest, but real meaning, lies in the hands of God.

If we're going willy waving I'm in the middle of a Ph.D on turbulence in fluid mechanics I can see no reason to invoke a mystical being in any of my work. As I said above assuming that there is a god (especially in science) is illogical - how can you just jump to the assumption that there is a divine power to the universe when as you point out we are only scratching the surface?

Sorry this is probably getting off topc...

robindch

> [Cantab.] Science also tells us that the world we live in is not necessarily
> always rational (quantum theory etc.).

I don't believe that there's much irrational about QM, though there's plenty which is unpredictable using current mathematical tools which is what I assume you mean.

> Science does not hold the answers to everything

Nobody, except religious people it seems, thinks that it does.

> for example, how would a scientist classify a soul/love/consciousness etc.?

I suggest reading Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained for a good start on some of these.

(BTW, from the other thread, I'm still waiting for you to give a list of ten moral attributes which you believe will not be taught in a non-religious school)...

Cantab.

5uspect wrote:

Scientists have tried to classify many of these. For example see Harlow's experiments on love.

So Harlow can now explain what love is from first principles? Describing anything from fundamental first principles is beyond the comprehension of any man as far as I'm concerned.

5uspect wrote:

Belief in a god is infact the opposite to logic - it is a refusal to think.

Yawn. Simplistic cliche if I ever heard one. Many of the greatest thinkers that ever lived on planet earth were holy men, I suppose you know better? Holy people are not irrational as you appear to claim - science and the advancement of technology, as I said earlier, reflect the wonderous universe that God created.

5uspect wrote:

If we're going willy waving I'm in the middle of a Ph.D on turbulence in fluid mechanics I can see no reason to invoke a mystical being in any of my work. As I said above assuming that there is a god (especially in science) is illogical - how can you just jump to the assumption that there is a divine power to the universe when as you point out we are only scratching the surface?

Ah, you talk about inexplicable turbulence in you Ph.D. studies. I'm glad you brought such a topic up: I'm sure you read many papers from all the top scientists all over the world. Can any of them really explain what happens when fluid flows? What is the fundamental cause of these 'mystical' turbulences? How can you be so arrogant as to pretend that man is the master of the universe and deny the existence of a God?

Son Goku

Cantab wrote:

Science does not hold the answers to everything

I don't understand how this counters 5uspect's arguement. Science lacking knowledge does not somehow make religion more logical.

Cantab wrote:

Science also tells us that the world we live in is not necessarily always rational (quantum theory etc.).

That is a ridiculous statement. Quantum Mechanics does not in any way show the world to be irrational. There is no basis for saying this. What it predicts follows very obviously from what went before. Nothing "unexpected" ever happens.

Cantab wrote:

So Harlow can now explain what love is from first principles? Describing anything from fundamental first principles is beyond the comprehension of any man as far as I'm concerned.

Define what first principles is in this case.
(EDIT: Can religion define love from first principles?)

Cantab. wrote:

Ah, you talk about inexplicable turbulence in you Ph.D. studies. I'm glad you brought such a topic up: I'm sure you read many papers from all the top scientists all over the world. Can any of them really explain what happens when fluid flows? What is the fundamental cause of these 'mystical' turbulences? How can you be so arrogant as to pretend that man is the master of the universe and deny the existence of a God?

What?
The Navier-Stokes equations are analytically intractable. In other words we have the equation which describes turbulence, but it cannot be solved in turbulent scenarios.
Nothing mysterious is happening here. It is a choatic problem, which is what makes it interesting.
As for the part in bold, what is with the tendency to make non-sequiturs that use forceful imagery all the time?
Where has anybody said they think man is the master of universe?

5uspect

Cantab. wrote:

So Harlow can now explain what love is from first principles? Describing anything from fundamental first principles is beyond the comprehension of any man as far as I'm concerned.

Why? How do you define first principles? Adrian Bejan's Constructal theory claims to be able to explain many phyiscal pheonema from first principles.

Cantab. wrote:

Yawn. Simplistic cliche if I ever heard one. Many of the greatest thinkers that ever lived on planet earth were holy men, I suppose you know better? Holy people are not irrational as you appear to claim - science and the advancement of technology, as I said earlier, reflect the wonderous universe that God created.

Let me reiterate the point - once you accept an unexplainable supernatural being as creator of the unvierse you immediately stop to think about the problems that conjuring up this god apparently solves and you also stop to think about the questions that arise from this irrational process. So who created god? Its a simple cliche but proves the point and no one has ever answered it.

Cantab. wrote:

Ah, you talk about inexplicable turbulence in you Ph.D. studies. I'm glad you brought such a topic up: I'm sure you read many papers from all the top scientists all over the world. Can any of them really explain what happens when fluid flows? What is the fundamental cause of these 'mystical' turbulences? How can you be so arrogant as to pretend that man is the master of the universe and deny the existence of a God?

Actually the Navier Stokes equations can be solved numerically - often using simplified statistical models for turbulence but more recently using time resolved direct numerical simulations which solve the equations directly without the need for turbulence models. They have helped explain what causes the turbulence they observe in their simulations - the race is on to verify their findings in the lab to further the understanding of turbulence. Also the Constructal theory mentioned above (and Bejans buckling theory) claims to explain turbulent flows also.

I never said man was master of the universe, we cannot claim such an arrogant position, as I said we are just scratching the surface. Just as you cannot claim that your god is master either just because youu believe it. You can argue that your blind belief in what is a fictional story is just as dangerous as the views of that woman in the OPs videos. Such beliefs are unstable and will always lead to extremism especially when different religous and non-religous views come into conflict.

RE*AC*TOR

That woman and fox news are a good match for each other.

staple

robindch wrote:

> It is indeed tricky to interpret the Bible and it is a well-developed discipline.

It's not tricky to interpret it. Anybody can do it and many have been for a very long time. Usually to justify whatever they want to justify which frequently amounts to themselves and a hatful of basic biologically-derived prejudices. I've no reason to think that they'll be stopping any time soon.

Even within the limited area of christology, enormous (and enormously pointless) disagreements exist amongst most of the major variations of christianity and many minor ones.

If you're interested in probing any deeper, then I recommend something like Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" which demonstrates, by looking at the interpretations of Jesus produced over the last few hundred years, that all that interpreters have managed to do is to produce biblically-justified mirror-images of themselves. And Schweitzer was sympathetic to christianity.

Indeed people have long been interpreting the Bible, but intelligent people acknowledge it is a complex task. You, as usual, take the worst interpretation of the worst practice and pretend that is all of Christianity.

Your suggestion that Christology is pointless is insulting to those who believe Christ is divine but mods don't worry about such things.

I may have a look at Schweitzer's book. I suspect you, as usual, fail to understand the complexities of human situatedness (pretending to some kind of scientific notion of 'objectivity'). We interpret from within a horizon of expectations, and now we understand in part. So the 12th century understood in its terms and the 20th century likewise. Ask 50 theologians to write an essay on John 1.1 and you'll get 50 different essays. However, the truth remains the same. Everyone has the ability to know God, but here on earth we can't know him fully. When you say 'biblically-justified mirror-images of themselves' it sounds like a cynical version of the idea that our understanding of Jesus comes from who we are, which is hardly a devastating attack on Christianity.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking that just because our understading of Christ does not remain as constant as pi that therefore we are all just floating around, making Christ whoever we like. And so I repeat the point, an understanding that is open to adjustment and change is not the same as complete subjectivity, opinion, and 'accepting what you like'. You really seem wedded to the idea that you know a stable objective truth; you have as much certainty about your atheism and as little doubt about what kinds of knowledge are valid as any other fundamentalist. It's more complicated than that.

5uspect

5uspect wrote:

Science scourns religion because it is based on irrational blind faith, no matter how much rational thought you heap on understanding the bible the foundations are still irrational.

Firstly, all religion != the bible, not by a long shot.
Secondly, science does not scorn religion, it just doesn't deal with it for the most part (possibly except in cases where scientists with major chips on their shoulders go on anti-religion crusades). We have an inability to test by experiment whether god exists, so we don't. There are experiments done as to whether meditation has any actual effect on people, etc, but god is still out of it.

(EDIT: Can religion define love from first principles?)

I suppose it would be "god created love and said 'this is love'", the end...

I'd also like to echo that quantum mechanics doesn't say anything is irrational...

5uspect

bluewolf wrote:

Firstly, all religion != the bible, not by a long shot.

Replace bible with the religous manuscript of your choice, sorry poorly put, but the point is still valid.

bluewolf wrote:

Secondly, science does not scorn religion, it just doesn't deal with it for the most part (possibly except in cases where scientists with major chips on their shoulders go on anti-religion crusades). We have an inability to test by experiment whether god exists, so we don't. There are experiments done as to whether meditation has any actual effect on people, etc, but god is still out of it.

Science scourns religion in the sense that it rejects the gods and teachings of the holy books of religion and seeks answers based on evidence. I guess what I'm saying here is that science and religion don't mix.

5uspect

5uspect wrote:

Replace bible with the religous manuscript of your choice, sorry poorly put, but the point is still valid.

I wouldn't call buddhist sutras irrational since a lot of it is centred on being rational, but ok. Maybe I'm biased.

Science scourns religion in the sense that it rejects the gods and teachings of the holy books of religion and seeks answers based on evidence. I guess what I'm saying here is that science and religion don't mix.

Perhaps not for the moment, in most cases

UU

5uspect wrote:

Science scourns religion in the sense that it rejects the gods and teachings of the holy books of religion and seeks answers based on evidence. I guess what I'm saying here is that science and religion don't mix.

Not all scientists scorn religion. Actually many of the most famous scientists were very religious people. Galileo was a devout Catholic, Albert Einstein was an Orthodox Jew and Charles Darwin even was going to become a clergyman but decided to spend better time discovering Evolution and Natural Selection.

Science and religion don't mix because both scientists and religious people have different ideals and both are run by humans to a certain degree. Of course, science and religion do exist alongside each other for the most part. It's just extremists on both sides who are the ones who are like oil and water. What is the emusifier? Education, knowledge and communication probably.

Don't forget that religion scorns science in the sense that it rejects discovery without divine intervention and seeks answers based on experimentation and logic.

Son Goku

UU wrote:

Albert Einstein was an Orthodox Jew

Einstein was an ardent atheist, as was Darwin in his time of intellectual independence.

UU

No Einstein was very much a Jew, sorry. Try reading this article. He challenged his Jewish identity when he was younger but later retained it: Link.

Actually Darwin claimed to be agnostic at his time, not atheist. He had strong links with the Unitarian church during his lifetime. Try these links: Link,Link

Son Goku

UU wrote:

No Einstein was very much a Jew, sorry. Try reading this article. He challenged his Jewish identity when he was younger but later retained it: Link.

www.jewishmag.com ?
A completely unbiased site by the looks of things.
His conversations with Gödel, his autobiography and his personal public lecture where he said "I do not believe in a personal God", make it very likely he was not Jewish.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people claim he was religious, as it then spills over into articles about him (take wikipedia's article on Einstein and the article on religion last year) and put the wrong slant on his motivations.

samb

many well educated jewish people call themselves jew but are also athiests. It sounds like a contradiction but because jews often have a strong sense of cultural identity they although athiest are still jewish by culture. It's a bit like in NI where you may be asked if you are a member of RC community or Protestant community or none. Athiest may well accurately select one of the first two categories. Woody Allen for example is still a jew, but an athiest

Scofflaw

UU wrote:

Science and religion don't mix because both scientists and religious people have different ideals and both are run by humans to a certain degree. Of course, science and religion do exist alongside each other for the most part. It's just extremists on both sides who are the ones who are like oil and water. What is the emusifier? Education, knowledge and communication probably.

Don't forget that religion scorns science in the sense that it rejects discovery without divine intervention and seeks answers based on experimentation and logic.

Mythos and Logos. Both can co-exist quite comfortably - what proportion of scientists are atheists/unbelievers?

When religion makes pronouncements about the physical world, or science about God, the encroachment causes conflict, but otherwise I think this is a non-issue. YMMV.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

5uspect wrote:

The problem that I have with the Bible and especially the OT is that no matter how sophisticated your analysis of it is - it is still just a dusty old bronze age book.

This just isnt true! Later parts of the old testament date to a century or two before christ! The new testament codxe dates into the first and second century after christ.

The question of gods existence in this argument is irreverent, the question is how can you justify absolute belief literal or otherwise in what is essentially no more accurate than a cave painting?

first of all if we leave god aside and deal with the significance of an "old book" how can you praise Hammurabi's code of Laws Plato's Republic etc. and dis the bible at the same time? Also as regards the cave paintings these are from tens of thousands of years ago and not from two thousand years ago. But let us go back as far as we scientifically can with humanity. Say about half a million years. Let us assume we have a time meachine and can take a baby early hunter gatherer to our time. when that child grows up how are we any "better" as humans than that child whose descendents painted those caves?

Science scourns religion because it is based on irrational blind faith, no matter how much rational thought you heap on understanding the bible the foundations are still irrational.

since thomas Acquinas the rationality of science and religion has been the same - the Greek rationality.

One can easliy also criticise fundamental beliefs of science. What are atoms? do they "really" exist? What about quarks? are they real or a mathemitical construct to describe something we cant actually comprhend?

That woman is a prime example of how the bible can be interpreted in any manner possible, although in an extreme case.

and there are extreme quacks who say they can produce cold fusion or perpetual motion. there are people who claim to have psi powers. I wouldnt call them scientists but they call themselves that! Niether would I call fundamentalists "christian"

Most abrahamic religions have differing views of the bible that range from subtle to irredeemable. This shows that such a jumble of ideas thrown together often conflicting with each other can never be completely understood in any rational sense. It is impossible to follow the bible to the letter verse by verse - every religion makes its selection.

It is impossible to follow science by claiming cosmology or quantum physics is totally correct! One must look to a totality beyond these. Chemists make there selection by specialising in a particular field but other fields can show that the basis of chemistry is "wrong" and atoms as seem by chemists dont "really" exist but are sufficient to explain chemistry. Those same scients with the "correct" view are also specialists who do not necessarily have the "ultimate theory of everything" either!

With religion certain people can claim that god is the ultimate and one need go no further. while some scientists believe that there are indeed "ultimate laws to the universe" not all scientists believe this nor may it be scientifically true. Maybe quantum gravity is only an approximation of some deeper reality? Maybe ther is no ultimate physical reality describnable by science? Maybe ther is a deeper ultimeate reality which can be describes but never be tested since the energy requirements to do so would be at a level of the early universe which would entail actually reverting any matter (and hense and observer) to primordial matter i.e. energy so hight that even quarks would not form let alone electrons and atoms. Or they would form but at such a level that it would not be transparent i.e. electrons or photons would be so energetic that they couldnt travel further than an atoms width before colliding so no information could be extracted from any "magic bottle" in which we put such an experiment.

These are questions which are at the base of the philosophy of science. If you aks me what salt is I can describe it in erms of sodium and chlorine atoms. I can also describe maybe how taste buds work and how you get a taste from them. But whether there is an ultimate reality of the quarks which make up the nuclei who knows?

Similarly one can say people are the "salt of the earth" and that people should share with one another, love one another, be kind to one another and that is what God wants. What is the ultimate meaning of "good" "God" "morality" "love" is getting into heavy philosophy? But like the chemist cant one accept the "love one another " ideal without having to dismiss every time it is brought up?

ISAW

samb wrote:

many well educated jewish people call themselves jew but are also athiests. It sounds like a contradiction but because jews often have a strong sense of cultural identity they although athiest are still jewish by culture. It's a bit like in NI where you may be asked if you are a member of RC community or Protestant community or none. Athiest may well accurately select one of the first two categories. Woody Allen for example is still a jew, but an athiest

Very good point. I have talked with republicans of the "we are not provisional IRA wimps" variety. they wont go on ceasefire. I mean the CIRA and RIRA element. I asked a person if he believe in a chriatian God. He did. I asked if he went to Mass and if he believed that communion was actually the body of Christ and changed to such during consecration. He didnt! "Oh" said I "So you are a Protestant" . He nearly exploded! apparently he is like some Rangers Supporters where being a Protestant isnt about going to church reading the bible or kindness to others. Being a protestant is about hating Celtic supporters and Catholics! It would seem the "hate the gays they are damned" element is not so different either.

5uspect

ISAW wrote:

This just isnt true! Later parts of the old testament date to a century or two before christ! The new testament codxe dates into the first and second century after christ.

But its still just a book, it offers nothing other than teachings based purely on the belief in a supernatural god. We can recognize that there are interesting stories in it but nothing else. The problem with the bible is (compared to Plato's works etc) is that it demands supremacy over everything else because it is the word of god.

ISAW wrote:

Also as regards the cave paintings these are from tens of thousands of years ago and not from two thousand years ago. But let us go back as far as we scientifically can with humanity. Say about half a million years. Let us assume we have a time meachine and can take a baby early hunter gatherer to our time. when that child grows up how are we any "better" as humans than that child whose descendents painted those caves?

We are "better" because we have evolved from those early humans to adapt to our modern surroundings. Could such a child function as a normal person in a modern society? Qute possibly - I doubt there has been significant change to prevent it but it would be interesting to see how this child would cope with abstract subjects such as language which have developed greatly since early cave painters. We are better in a sense that our genes have been selected to suit our enviorment in a better fashion. conversly if we sent a modern child back in time would it survive? Wouldn't the genes of the modern child be a handicap to it in this enviroment?

ISAW wrote:

since thomas Acquinas the rationality of science and religion has been the same - the Greek rationality.

How is religion rational?

ISAW wrote:

One can easliy also criticise fundamental beliefs of science. What are atoms? do they "really" exist? What about quarks? are they real or a mathemitical construct to describe something we cant actually comprhend?

You can't apply this arguement to science that is often used regarding god. I can ask about the existence of god because I see no evidence to support this belief. However if you ask this question about scientific theories here on boards you do so sitting in front of a computer. A computer that is designed on the basis of the laws of physics where sub atomic particles play an important part, if you live on the continent etc the power that runs your computer may well come from a nuclear power plant. Sure you can argue that our laws of physics work but may be superseded by a better theory someday but you cannot easily criticize them as you say.

ISAW wrote:

and there are extreme quacks who say they can produce cold fusion or perpetual motion. there are people who claim to have psi powers. I wouldnt call them scientists but they call themselves that! Niether would I call fundamentalists "christian"

I'm an engineer, there are plumbers who call themselves engineers, the difference is that I (try to) publish in the peer reviewed scientific literature. These quacks are few and are ignored by the scientific mainstream.
All religion is based on a supernatural blind faith it doesn't matter how ludricous your particular belief is, its still blind faith. One particular group of christains calling fundalmentalists like those from the OP not true christians are engaging in a case of the pot calling the kettle black. True the beliefs of the fundalmentalist are far more extreme but you still believe in supernatural gods

ISAW wrote:

It is impossible to follow science by claiming cosmology or quantum physics is totally correct! One must look to a totality beyond these. Chemists make there selection by specialising in a particular field but other fields can show that the basis of chemistry is "wrong" and atoms as seem by chemists dont "really" exist but are sufficient to explain chemistry. Those same scients with the "correct" view are also specialists who do not necessarily have the "ultimate theory of everything" either!

Science is the ultimate work in progress. Unlike religion which starts with the conclusion handed down from god science attempt to explain the universe by observing it and attempting to draw conclusions from these observations. There will be contradictions and problems which can only be tackled through further research. Science isn't written in stone, it is constantly updating itself as new information becomes available.

ISAW wrote:

With religion certain people can claim that god is the ultimate and one need go no further. while some scientists believe that there are indeed "ultimate laws to the universe" not all scientists believe this nor may it be scientifically true. Maybe quantum gravity is only an approximation of some deeper reality? Maybe ther is no ultimate physical reality describnable by science? Maybe ther is a deeper ultimeate reality which can be describes but never be tested since the energy requirements to do so would be at a level of the early universe which would entail actually reverting any matter (and hense and observer) to primordial matter i.e. energy so hight that even quarks would not form let alone electrons and atoms. Or they would form but at such a level that it would not be transparent i.e. electrons or photons would be so energetic that they couldnt travel further than an atoms width before colliding so no information could be extracted from any "magic bottle" in which we put such an experiment.

now there's an experiment!
So why if you believe that the universe is so complex and "deep" would you insult it by cooking up some convenient creator and explain it away with irrational arguements about who created the creator? Why not attempt to understand what we see around us before jumping to conclusions planted there from our childhood.

ISAW wrote:

These are questions which are at the base of the philosophy of science. If you aks me what salt is I can describe it in erms of sodium and chlorine atoms. I can also describe maybe how taste buds work and how you get a taste from them. But whether there is an ultimate reality of the quarks which make up the nuclei who knows?

We are quite confident that we know to a very high level. For example physicist Richard Feynman once said that the predictions of quantum theory have given a level of accuracy similar to measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles and being out by the width of a human hair

ISAW wrote:

Similarly one can say people are the "salt of the earth" and that people should share with one another, love one another, be kind to one another and that is what God wants. What is the ultimate meaning of "good" "God" "morality" "love" is getting into heavy philosophy? But like the chemist cant one accept the "love one another " ideal without having to dismiss every time it is brought up?

I can accept the love one another ideal and every thing else you say except that bit about god. We have developed the mental capacity to develop the welfare state - a system that in theory can ensure that everyone gets a fair go at life. Why do we need a belief is a supernatural god for this? In my opinion introducing religion into this quite nice social ideal will only cause bad things to happen as people disagree over what god is breeding diccrimination and hatred.

Cantab.

5uspect wrote:

...In my opinion introducing religion into this quite nice social ideal will only cause bad things to happen as people disagree over what god is breeding diccrimination and hatred.

Effectively what you're saying is that the proverbial 'we' should outlaw religion completely and only allow aetheism. Now isn't that dangerous thinking in itself? You seem to believe in some sort of aetheist utopia where everyone gets along just happy in a perfectly ordered social framework of spiritual nothingness. Recent history points to the fact that such utopian aetheist states (e.g. Russia, Germany) were the most brutal and menacing of any civilisations that ever existed.

A belief that religion is the cause of all human conflict just doesn't stand up.

Scofflaw

Cantab. wrote:

Effectively what you're saying is that the proverbial 'we' should outlaw religion completely and only allow aetheism. Now isn't that dangerous thinking in itself? You seem to believe in some sort of aetheist utopia where everyone gets along just happy in a perfectly ordered social framework of spiritual nothingness. Recent history points to the fact that such utopian aetheist states (e.g. Russia, Germany) were the most brutal and menacing of any civilisations that ever existed.

A belief that religion is the cause of all human conflict just doesn't stand up.

I agree with this, but cannot accept your point about the Communist and Fascist states. Hitler, according to Mein Kampf, believed he was doing the Lord's will in exterminating the Jews. Communism deliberately set out to break the Church as a landowner and alternative focus for belief, using atheism as a tool. Neither of these beliefs were atheist in an organic way (that is, that people became atheistic through personal development), they were prescriptive (and not even that in the case of Fascism).

Having said that, 5uspect is arguing for exactly the kind of prescriptive atheism that makes atheism just another imposed dogma, with all that that implies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> A belief that religion is the cause of all human conflict just doesn't stand up.

Don't see anybody except you saying that religion is the cause of all conflict.

However, as a means of causing trouble, I'd certainly argue the toss that it's the most effective way of doing it that humanity's ever created. As a troublemaker, it's right up there with the human desire for property, power, sex and status, but a length ahead overall, since it also provides an excellent framework for manipulating the emotions of large groups of people.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

As a troublemaker, it's right up there with the human desire for property, power, sex and status, but a length ahead overall, since it also provides an excellent framework for manipulating the emotions of large groups of people.

Which is danged hard to do with sex (and messy).

flippantly,
Scofflaw

robindch

It's probably a bit late to say it, but there's a documentary on this evening on Channel 4 at 2250h about that guy Warren Jeffs, the self-styled top prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A cautionary tale about how easy it is to corrupt yourself and others by publicly practicing your own particular interpretation of your own particular holybook:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/index.html?hpos=LST

5uspect

Sorry, I'm away for a few days and haven't been able to reply as soon as I wished. The weather here is too nice to stay stuck in front of a computer reading posts :cool:

Cantab. wrote:

Effectively what you're saying is that the proverbial 'we' should outlaw religion completely and only allow aetheism. Now isn't that dangerous thinking in itself? You seem to believe in some sort of aetheist utopia where everyone gets along just happy in a perfectly ordered social framework of spiritual nothingness.

It is foolish and naive to believe in a utopia athiestic or otherwise. What I want to see in society is honesty and rational thought. For the most part these values are already common in our daily lives. However for some reason irrational and intellectually dishonest religion plays a huge part in our society a part that it is unqualified for, hasn't earned or doesn't justify. Why do we send our children to school to be force fed irrational religion as tho it were absolute truth without evidence? Why does (did) the catholic church have such influence in irish politics when it is not democratically elected to do so? I could go on.

In a fair, rational and honest society the position of religion should have no more importance than any club or society. You are free to believe what you want and practise what ever religion you wish just don't force it on society.

Cantab. wrote:

A belief that religion is the cause of all human conflict just doesn't stand up.

Not the cause but the label that allows the justification of much of the killing.
Religion allows people to group others into those who are righteous and those who deserve to die/enslaved/persecuted.

Scofflaw wrote:

5uspect is arguing for exactly the kind of prescriptive atheism that makes atheism just another imposed dogma, with all that that implies.

No, I'm argueing for honesty and rational thought to be the basis of our society not blind belief in the great sky god. If honesty and rational thought is a dogma then so is all science.