John's at it again

hamonrye

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1120/1224259176736.html

really don't know why they employ him

Coriolanus

Eh, he was boring when talking about religion as an agnostic and he's boring when talking about agnosticism and atheism as a born-again Christian.

I have to give him kudos though for the drum banging on fathers rights.

Dades

I got as far as this and decided not to ruin a nice Sauvignon Blanc.

Religion, rather than just another “category”, is the guiding hypothesis that makes sense of the whole, the public expression of the total dimension of human nature.

He left out the "for me" at that start of this.

fitz0

I'm not "an atheist not defined by an obsession with opposing phenomena whose existence he denies" so am I the exception to the rule or is John talking out of his hole again?

I'm guessing the latter.

"Nobody, looking back at the period when Bruton was leader of the rainbow government from 1994-1997, could point to any direct signs of church interference in matters of public policy."

Wait... so he abided by a secular ethos in his work? How naive of him.

Turtwig

Waters AkA Strawmanning Secularists wrote:

. Secularists do not like this characterisation of the situation, but it has long been obvious that they have nothing to offer society as an alternative source of ethics, meaning or hope.

Bout sums up his dimwittedness on this subject.
Somebody tell him that many religious people are secularists too.
So, uh, religious people offer nothing in the case of ethics, meaning or hope.
Thanks John, we already knew that.:)

philologos

Religion, rather than just another “category”, is the guiding hypothesis that makes sense of the whole, the public expression of the total dimension of human nature. No other channel has the capacity to convey the broadest truths about man’s nature and his relationship to the universe.

This is very true. I don't think anything other than religion has managed to make people contemplate these things on the same scale.

It's very easy to slate people because they are saying things that you do not want to hear, but it's perhaps not the most intellectually honest practice.

People are going to think what they wish, and getting crusty and annoyed at what Waters is saying isn't really doing anything constructive.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

This is very true. I don't think anything other than religion has managed to make people contemplate these things on the same scale.

No Jakkass it is far from the truth.

Religion might make people contemplate things about human nature, but it is nowhere near the contemplation that philosophy,skepticism and science achieve.

It's very easy to slate people because they are saying things that you do not want to hear, but it's perhaps not the most intellectually honest practice.

Indeed it is, intellectual dishonesty also includes strawmanning secularists.
Ergo, Water's article is intellectually dishonest.

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

This is very true. I don't think anything other than religion has managed to make people contemplate these things on the same scale.

But Jackass it is all lies.

philologos

Malty T: I disagree with you. Secular worldviews haven't provided anything on the same scale as religion for pondering about human existence, our purpose and our place in it. In fact in many cases they have denied this effort and called it fruitless.

Personally, apart from being minded to my faith, I'm also philosophically minded, and an outright rejection that there is any answer to the question in my opinion isn't an attempt to deal with it.

What is called secularism, therefore, strikes not merely at specific religions, or even religions in general, but at the very capacity of humans to be human.

To a certain extent this is also true, with the insistence of people to deny that humans are much more than rational beings. The idea that you must suppress your feelings to express yourself intelligently is absurd to say the least.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I disagree with you. Secular worldviews haven't provided anything on the same scale as religion for pondering about human existence, our purpose and our place in it. In fact in many cases they have denied this effort and called it fruitless.

Personally, apart from being minded to my faith, I'm also philosophically minded, and an outright rejection that there is any answer to the question in my opinion isn't an attempt to deal with it.

I thought you already had the answer? Apologies.

No one here (well me anyways) is saying that there is no answer, we are just almost 100% certain that theism as it is defined today isn't the way to finding it.

Btw, Jakkass,
Every post I've read by you of this thread seems to be equating Secularism with Atheism.
(Wonder how PDN (and many other like minded religious folk) would take that?)

philologos

I think the furthest we can go is in respect to saying that no one church will control laws. However, in saying that the church shouldn't influence public life, I clearly disagree with that much.

I do think that John Waters makes a lot of accurate points in his article though.

I'm more skeptical about what people pass off as secularism.

Osgoodisgood

Religion, rather than just another “category”, is the guiding hypothesis that makes sense of the whole, the public expression of the total dimension of human nature

With respect to Dades who has already pointed out the personal nature of the opinion above I would like to add that it quite neatly illustrates the brain numbing effect of religo-doublespeak. I mean really, shouldn't an actual journo be embarrassed about including such meaningless froth and waffle?

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I disagree with you. Secular worldviews haven't provided anything on the same scale as religion for pondering about human existence, our purpose and our place in it. In fact in many cases they have denied this effort and called it fruitless.

Religion doesn't provide any genuine answers to those questions, it just takes guesses and then sticks with them stubbornly.

Compare that to the answers provided by scientific inquiry: now we know how and when the universe began, how humans came into being, our position within the world compared with other animals, our insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe, etc.

Religions like to make claims when they're posed with a question, but they're rarely backed up with facts. If we stuck with the answers religions provided, then we'd still be praying to Tlaloc for rain on our crops, we'd still think illnesses were caused by demons, and we'd still think god created us all and placed us on the earth. Consequently we'd also have lost all the medical benefits we get from evolution theory, and more people would have died.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Religion doesn't provide any genuine answers to those questions, it just takes guesses and then sticks with them stubbornly.

This entirely depends on your interpretation. Now that I am thinking back on it, the title "worldview" might be a bit generous.

An understanding of who we are (an anthropology), an understanding of what is around us, an understanding of why we are here and our purpose, what we intend to do given this purpose, and how we intend to go about this.

Secular opinion doesn't seem to offer this because it ignores what I have left in bold.

Dave! wrote: »

Compare that to the answers provided by scientific inquiry: now we know how and when the universe began, how humans came into being, our position within the world compared with other animals, our insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe, etc.

Science isn't the only form of academic thought, and it shouldn't be given a pedestal above all others. Science like all fields has it's limitations.

Dave! wrote: »

Religions like to make claims when they're posed with a question, but they're rarely backed up with facts. If we stuck with the answers religions provided, then we'd still be praying to Tlaloc for rain on our crops, we'd still think illnesses were caused by demons, and we'd still think god created us all and placed us on the earth. Consequently we'd also have lost all the medical benefits we get from evolution theory, and more people would have died.

Irrespective of what your opinion of these claims are, they still bring forward an answer, and they comprise a worldview.

There is no reason why revering this world as a God-created gift, can stifle our common interest in finding out about science. This seems to be one of the more abused concepts by atheists in argument. Christians for the most part aren't opposed to modern science, neither are most other reasonable people of faith.

Science isn't a gift of atheists. It's a common human effort.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is very true. I don't think anything other than religion has managed to make people contemplate these things on the same scale.

It's very easy to slate people because they are saying things that you do not want to hear, but it's perhaps not the most intellectually honest practice.

People are going to think what they wish, and getting crusty and annoyed at what Waters is saying isn't really doing anything constructive.

The least helpful post ever.

Morbert

Religion, rather than just another “category”, is the guiding hypothesis that makes sense of the whole, the public expression of the total dimension of human nature. No other channel has the capacity to convey the broadest truths about man’s nature and his relationship to the universe.

This is just rhetoric. It's obvious that many people, atheists included, don't accept that religion has the capacity to convey the broadest truths.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very easy to slate people because they are saying things that you do not want to hear, but it's perhaps not the most intellectually honest practice.

But we're not slating people because they're saying things we don't want to hear. We're slating people because they're saying things tha are wrong.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

But we're not slating people because they're saying things we don't want to hear. We're slating people because they're saying things tha are wrong.

What can be wrong on an opinion column that has to do with ones opinion on the nature of secular views and the common arguments made against religion in public life?

It's bad mouthing based on whether or not you like his opinion or not, not whether it is right or wrong. Right and wrongs have to do with objectivity. Personal opinions can be nothing more than subjective.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

What can be wrong on an opinion column that has to do with ones opinion on the nature of secular views and the common arguments made against religion in public life?

It's bad mouthing based on whether or not you like his opinion or not, not whether it is right or wrong. Right and wrongs have to do with objectivity. Personal opinions can be nothing more than subjective.

Opinions are often right or wrong. The opinion that "no other channel has the capacity to convey the broadest truths about man’s nature and his relationship to the universe" is wrong if religion does not have the capacity to convey broad truths about man's nature and his relationship to the universe.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I disagree with you.

Seriously you don't have to keep telling us that we know what you're like at this stage.

Jakkass wrote: »

Secular worldviews haven't provided anything on the same scale as religion for pondering about human existence, our purpose and our place in it. In fact in many cases they have denied this effort and called it fruitless.

Well I can only speak for myself but as a secularist and more importantly as a transhumanist, for me the human condition is completely amenable to science and can only be improved through science. Again this is my opinion but my experience of religion has been is that it both perpetuates and feeds the rat race that is the human existence. You should really check this out I'd love to know how religion fits in with the exponential growth in technological development (I tried to start a thread on the topic, no Christians engaged).

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, apart from being minded to my faith, I'm also philosophically minded, and an outright rejection that there is any answer to the question in my opinion isn't an attempt to deal with it.

Does anybody here really think the question of human purpose has no purpose? I certainly think humanity has a purpose.

Jakkass wrote: »

To a certain extent this is also true, with the insistence of people to deny that humans are much more than rational beings. The idea that you must suppress your feelings to express yourself intelligently is absurd to say the least.

They should put up a fire hazard warning for all the straw men around here.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well I can only speak for myself but as a secularist and more importantly as a transhumanist, for me the human condition is completely amenable to science and can only be improved through science. Again this is my opinion but my experience of religion has been is that it both perpetuates and feeds the rat race that is the human existence. You should really check this out I'd love to know how religion fits in with the exponential growth in technological development (I tried to start a thread on the topic, no Christians engaged).

I'd love to know how irreligion fits in with technological development?

The answer I'd find is that neither do. Religion and philosophical worldviews are something which are separate to general human activities such as science. I.E they were never intended to be scientific by any means, but rather they are motivational, they encourage a certain way of life.

People need to understand that this isn't an atheist monopoly, but rather something which people from all forms of life are involved in. No doubt Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and so on are just about as involved in this technological development as anyone else is.

I disagree with your putting of science on a pedestal however. Utterly inappropriate considering that other fields of learning can encourage improvements. Infact this is particularly true of the humanities which generally encourage people to tackle the social issues that plague this world in some way or another.

Human values are crucially important, and I don't see any reason why they should be snubbed off as being inferior to science or any other form of learning.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Does anybody here really think the question of human purpose has no purpose? I certainly think humanity has a purpose.

Except, I have seen numerous people on boards (not just in the A&A section admittedly) claim the opposite from a secular view. It has been claimed that there is no reason for looking for meaning in this world, and indeed that we have no purpose as human beings.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd love to know how irreligion fits in with technological development?

Well for example I'd be less inclined to believe that people should only have a certain amount of time in existence and that they should have the right to live however long or short they want. In promoting or talking about my transhumanism I've come up against people who abhor the idea of someone prolonging their life due to religious bias. People like Leon Kass, born again Christian policy makers like George Bush are a thorn in the side of sensible life extension research due to rigid theological/philosophical views.

Jakkass wrote: »

The answer I'd find is that neither do. Religion and philosophical worldviews are something which are separate to general human activities such as science. I.E they were never intended to be scientific by any means, but rather they are motivational, they encourage a certain way of life.

So no religion does get in the way, while rational secularism is more free(not completely though because there is so much we don't know about the human condition) to look at who's really suffering the guy with age related chronic disease or the clump of undifferentiated stem cells.

Jakkass wrote: »

People need to understand that this isn't an atheist monopoly, but rather something which people from all forms of life are involved in. No doubt Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and so on are just about as involved in this technological development as anyone else is.

Yes you could take Francis Collins as a good example. I find him highly disturbing, to have such an insight into the reasons why people actually die and still think he'll live for ever.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with your putting of science on a pedestal however.

Again you don't need to keep stating the obvious.

Jakkass wrote: »

Utterly inappropriate considering that other fields of learning can encourage improvements.

I wouldn't call it inappropriate considering how much science has contributed to the improvement of life for everyone. I usually find that best philosophies are based on scientific discoveries or principles. Its why I find Daniel Dennet so refreshing for example.

Jakkass wrote: »

Infact this is particularly true of the humanities which generally encourage people to tackle the social issues that plague this world in some way or another.

I agree completely but science and scientific research are the only way to effect the necessary changes.

Jakkass wrote: »

Human values are crucially important, and I don't see any reason why they should be snubbed off as being inferior to science or any other form of learning.

Again I'm getting tired of the obviousness stating especially when you never explain why cause believe it or not I am interested.

Jakkass wrote: »

Except, I have seen numerous people on boards (not just in the A&A section admittedly) claim the opposite from a secular view. It has been claimed that there is no reason for looking for meaning in this world, and indeed that we have no purpose as human beings.

I do think human beings have a purpose, I feel I do at least. I can't talk for other secularists though.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well for example I'd be less inclined to believe that people should only have a certain amount of time in existence and that they should have the right to live however long or short they want. In promoting or talking about my transhumanism I've come up against people who abhor the idea of someone prolonging their life due to religious bias. People like Leon Kass, born again Christian policy makers like George Bush are a thorn in the side of sensible life extension research due to rigid theological/philosophical views.

Please read my previous posts:

There is no reason why revering this world as a God-created gift, can stifle our common interest in finding out about science. This seems to be one of the more abused concepts by atheists in argument. Christians for the most part aren't opposed to modern science, neither are most other reasonable people of faith.

I'm not willing to deny that some Christians are opposed, but most of us are welcoming of scientific progress. In the same way people in plenty of groups in society oppose certain science irrespective of religious viewpoint.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So no religion does get in the way, while rational secularism is more free(not completely though because there is so much we don't know about the human condition) to look at who's really suffering the guy with age related chronic disease or the clump of undifferentiated stem cells.

On stem cells I disagree with you as pluripotent stem cell technology have given scientists the same ability as embryonic stem cells do, and in a way where people are not likely to oppose on ethical grounds.

The involvement of ethics in science is important, and it isn't something that should be ignored.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes you could take Francis Collins as a good example. I find him highly disturbing, to have such an insight into the reasons why people actually die and still think he'll live for ever.

I don't see him as any more disturbing as anyone else.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Again you don't need to keep stating the obvious.

Sometimes it's necessary when people aren't getting the point :pac:

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wouldn't call it inappropriate considering how much science has contributed to the improvement of life for everyone. I usually find that best philosophies are based on scientific discoveries or principles. Its why I find Daniel Dennet so refreshing for example.

Political progress and social change also change lives. I don't think science is deserving of the pedestal that you place it on precisely because it isn't able to deal with every question. Perhaps meditating on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem will give you food for thought. Put it in a scientific context rather than a mathematical one and you'll soon get what I mean.

Science is great, but it cannot answer everything, nor will it.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I agree completely but science and scientific research are the only way to effect the necessary changes.

How are they?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Again I'm getting tired of the obviousness stating especially when you never explain why cause believe it or not I am interested.

Why are human values useless in assessing life? Why shouldn't we consider other things apart from science when coming to conclusions about the world we live in?

Limiting scientific thoughts as the only thoughts worthy of consideration results in a narrowing of the mind rather than a broadening.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Except, I have seen numerous people on boards (not just in the A&A section admittedly) claim the opposite from a secular view. It has been claimed that there is no reason for looking for meaning in this world, and indeed that we have no purpose as human beings.

It's not very wise to base your world view off the demographic of internet posters.

Jakkass, you can claim religion does what you says it does but anyone with a decent sense of honesty should admit that philosophy trumps religion any day.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...and in a way where people are not likely to oppose on ethical grounds.

Indeed it's allows for a little wiggle room

Jakkass wrote: »

The involvement of ethics in science is important, and it isn't something that should be ignored.

Definitely I completely agree.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why are human values useless in assessing life? Why shouldn't we consider other things apart from science when coming to conclusions about the world we live in?

While I have some respect for philosophy as a way of coming to conclusions on the world we live in. Science has provided me with a far better understanding of the world I live in than any other thought process. Plus I don't believe we have the same interpretation of the meaning of science. I think its inseparable from the human beings desire to understand and elevate himself away from the cruelty of nature.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass, you can claim religion does what you says it does but anyone with a decent sense of honesty should admit that philosophy trumps religion any day.

Why? Philosophy is great (I mean, I'm currently studying it at university), but I have yet to see how it will prove any more beneficial to me than Christianity. Then again, in a lot of cases Philosophy and Christianity coincide, which explains why I like Philosophy of Religion in particular.

However, although Aristotle, Locke, Immanuel Kant, Descartes and so on are great, their writings do not supercede that of the Biblical text as something that is formational to ones identity and how one lives out their lives. I'm not saying philosophy cannot be, but it isn't formational to the same degree as Christianity is.

Then again, philosophy vs Christianity isn't a real diachotomy due to the overlap in many cases.

I don't think they wrote with that intention either

I think it's somewhat funny that you think that people are being "dishonest" by saying that Christianity does more for them than philosophy , I mean the opposite is probably true. People are being truly honest that their faith comes first before philosophy.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

While I have some respect for philosophy as a way of coming to conclusions on the world we live in. Science has provided me with a far better understanding of the world I live in than any other thought process. Plus I don't believe we have the same interpretation of the meaning of science. I think its inseparable from the human beings desire to understand and elevate himself away from the cruelty of nature.

There's nothing more frustrating than hearing people tell you that love is the result of a chemical reaction and nothing more.

To me, that isn't a full answer, because it's leaving out the whole significance that it has in human relationships.

This is my objection to favouring science over other forms of explanation.

Likewise with the constant insistence to explain non-biological things in Darwinian terms. Another thing that frustrates me to no end. Sometimes other fields happen to provide more relevant answers to the questions that you are asking.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing more frustrating than hearing people tell you that love is the result of a chemical reaction and nothing more.

To me, that isn't a full answer, because it's leaving out the whole significance that it has in human relationships.

This is my objection to favouring science over other forms of explanation.

Likewise with the constant insistence to explain non-biological things in Darwinian terms. Another thing that frustrates me to no end. Sometimes other fields happen to provide more relevant answers to the questions that you are asking.

This indicates more than anything to me why you're religious.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing more frustrating than hearing people tell you that love is the result of a chemical reaction and nothing more.

It's the truth.
However, describing something for what it is (an intricate chain of chemical reactions) doesn't diminish what love is.
Jakkass, everything you see around you is the result of chemical reactions.
Does that diminish their beauty? No it adds to it.
(Iirc this is one reason Ken Miller cited for believing in God - That some small processes could produce results so elegant and beautiful.)

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

This indicates more than anything to me why you're religious.

I'm just a guy who believes that God most likely exists, and that it isn't intellectual suicide to think that God could well exist.

So is that because I believe that science cannot give us a complete answer to our existence, why we are, who we are, what is around us, how we should live, why we should live that way?

It's not that science cannot tell us anything or that it isn't profoundly good, it's that science alone cannot give us a good enough answer.

Questions to do with ethics / morality, meaning, values, identity, always go beyond science.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just a guy who believes that God most likely exists, and that it isn't intellectual suicide to think that God could well exist..

Jakkass's Sig wrote:

Some good reasons to believe that God exists are these:

1. The fact that the universe had a beginning. All the evidence points to a beginning at a finite time in the past and if it had a beginning then it must have had a beginner. The only way the atheist can get around this fact is to appeal to mind boggling theories for which there is no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

The universe we live in began from a point of infinite density, this does not say that the cosmos began. Something along the line just was, there is no rational reason to include the Christian-Judeo God as this something.

2. The fact that the initial conditions which permit life were present right at the beginning of the universe is evidence of an intelligent mind and not mere chance, the universe is fine tuned for life.

This Planet HATES human we can only occupy 0.5% of its volume - fine tuned for life my arse. The way the universe works is that blind evolutionary process fine tune the life to the universe, not the other way around.

3. The constants of nature and the complexity of life are all good reasons to believe that it was designed by a designer.

The same constants that left nuclear reactors on earth a few million/billion years ago? These constants also cause stars to burn inefficiently - if it was designer by a designer He/She/It really mucked things up.

4. The fact that there are objective moral values which would be impossible if there was no God. We heard in another thread from atheists that rape and murder are really wrong no matter what. But why are they really wrong no matter what? What makes them wrong? Don't get me wrong I believe they are wrong but surely our belief that they are wrong is not proof that they are really wrong is it? Without an absolute standard for what is right and what is wrong then what we call right and wrong are relative to our society or even our species. But everyone just knows that raping and killing are really wrong no matter what, which means that objective moral values do exist which can only mean that God exists.

If there is a God then either all morality is defined by that God or morality is independent from Him. If the former, then whatever God declares is moral is moral, Hence baby killing may become acceptable again. I cannot subscribe myself to that viewpoint, how can you?

5. And then there is the person of Jesus Christ who claimed to speak in God's place. He was either a nut or a fraud because no mortal man can make such claims unless they are true. Claims for which He paid the ultimate price for. If Christ really was a nut or a fraud then there would be no such thing as Christianity because the first preachers of this new religion paid with their lives for what they believed was a fact of history, that Christ rose from the dead. Which gives credence to His claims that He did speak in the place of God, which means that there is a God.


Christianity started off real slow, and it might just be that people weren't bother to engage in debate with it. Also, the Gospels are just mere journalistic accounts of eye witness accounts taken years after the event occurs so who knows what exactly happened? Contrasts this to the eyewitness claims in Knock of late if someone were to report on them 100 years down the road and only interview people who claim to have seen something what would think of that person as a journalist?

Replied to your other stuff earlier (and still awaiting a reply on those too)

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

It's the truth.
However, describing something for what it is (an intricate chain of chemical reactions) doesn't diminish what love is.

It certainly isn't the truth that that is all that love is, or means to human beings. That's precisely why I feel that answer is inadequate.

The same is true of our world. It certainly isn't true to suggest that there can be no reason, or no significance behind it in the same way that people may claim that there can be no reason, or no significance behind love.

Science only can go so far, and certainly, there is far more to life than dwelling on it entirely. It's great, but there's more to be explained.

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass, everything you see around you is the result of chemical reactions.
Does that diminish their beauty? No it adds to it.

My point is, that it isn't only the result of chemical reactions. There is a significance that we have towards all things.

Malty_T wrote: »

(Iirc this is one reason Ken Miller cited for believing in God - That some small processes could produce results so elegant and beautiful.)

Did he say that everything is only chemical reactions, or that certain chemical reactions are elegant and beautiful? Both are different claims.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just a guy who believes that God most likely exists, and that it isn't intellectual suicide to think that God could well exist.

Who are you trying to convince when you know nobody in here agrees or logically can agree?

Jakkass wrote: »

So is that because I believe that science cannot give us a complete answer to our existence, why we are, who we are, what is around us, how we should live, why we should live that way?

No because you prefer to assign supernatural meaning to things we don't fully understand like all religious people.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not that science cannot tell us anything or that it isn't profoundly good, it's that science alone cannot give us a good enough answer....

....at the moment. Discovery takes effort and time.

Jakkass wrote: »

Questions to do with ethics / morality, meaning, values, identity, always go beyond science.

Science could explain anyone of those given the time and the tools. You should give this guy a listen. In way science is already beginning to explain these sort of things.

Morbert

Jakkass: Science might not be able to completely describe every facet of our existence, but philosophy and theology have similarly failed to show us what would constitute a "complete answer to our existence" in the first place. Yes, atheists reject ideas of objective purpose to our existence, and they reject the idea that love emerges from anything more than chemical reactions, but that's because additional questions of purpose and meaning imply things which have not been established. There is nothing in science or philosophy which suggests that the universe must have meaning, or that love must be the result of more than chemicals. Those assertions belong to theology.

So I don't know why you would get frustrated with claims that are perfectly in line with modern science and philosophy.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Questions to do with ethics / morality, meaning, values, identity, always go beyond science.

All of these things are personal opinions and no particular identity, for example, is any better or worse than any other one.

The science of Evolutionary Psychology, though, gives pretty convincing reasons for why each of these concepts exists, and why they're viewed as so important by so many people. And most interestingly of all, why each can be -- and has been -- co-opted by the world's religions to help themselves propagate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is very true. I don't think anything other than religion has managed to make people contemplate these things on the same scale.

That is like saying nothing since Star Wars has got humans to really think about what space is really like.

Religion gets people to contemplate a whole set of things that have nothing to do with what the world is really like. It makes themselves feel better about themselves but it has nothing to do with the reality of human nature.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It certainly isn't the truth that that is all that love is, or means to human beings. That's precisely why I feel that answer is inadequate.

You believing the answer is "inadequate" has little to do with it being true or not, but might explain why you would reject it even if it is true.

Jakkass wrote: »

The same is true of our world. It certainly isn't true to suggest that there can be no reason, or no significance behind it in the same way that people may claim that there can be no reason, or no significance behind love.

Again the need to feel that there is a given reason behind existence has nothing to do with if there is or not, but would explain why people reject the notion that there isn't even if it is true.

Religion deals with what people want to be true. It's connection to what is actually true is tenuous at best.

Jakkass wrote: »

Science only can go so far

True and nothing so far (especially religion) can go further.

Inventing pleasing answers simply because we have reached the limits of what we can know is not going further.

It is simply making up pleasing answers, independently of determining if they are actually true or not. Which works for an awful lot of people, but it is smoke and mirrors.

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just a guy who believes that God most likely exists, and that it isn't intellectual suicide to think that God could well exist.

A God / creator may exist, but not in the way he is revered by a bronze age text. We should be thanking our sun for our existence.

Jakkass wrote: »

So is that because I believe that science cannot give us a complete answer to our existence, why we are, who we are, what is around us, how we should live, why we should live that way?

There is no answer, life evolved ... THAT IS IT

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not that science cannot tell us anything or that it isn't profoundly good, it's that science alone cannot give us a good enough answer.

But believing in a bronze age fairytale can

Jakkass wrote: »

Questions to do with ethics / morality, meaning, values, identity, always go beyond science.

Yes only a priest or holy man would understand such things.

philologos

patmartino wrote: »

There is no answer, life evolved ... THAT IS IT

Thank you for proving my point.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

So is that because I believe that science cannot give us a complete answer to our existence, why we are, who we are, what is around us, how we should live, why we should live that way?

Yes you're absolutely right!!! All those questions are answered by Islam. Praise Allah!!!

Islam may not have the right answers but at least it has answers which means it's got one over on science right :rolleyes:

All of those questions are only relevant if you begin with the assumption that there is a creator god who put us here for a reason. You must first prove there is a purpose before you work on what that purpose is

philologos

It's not Islam vs science, or Christianity vs science.

Rather it is Christianity vs the secular view, or Islam vs the secular view. I never said it was either faith versus science. Science is great, and goes so far, but religion and philosophy with this science allows people to have a more complete view of the world.

So yes, IMO Islam does do a better job at providing meaning than the secular view.

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great, and goes so far, but religion and philosophy with this science allows people to have a more complete view of the world.

Jackass ... This is nonsense.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great, and goes so far, but religion and philosophy with this science allows people to have a more complete view of the world.

Hmm...

100,000 years of Religion versus ~300 years of Science.

Religion : Gods everywhere (Sun,moon,planets....).
Religion : Creation Myths Galore.
Religion : Human beans are inherently flawed.
Religion : Males are superior.

Science : The moon is not a light.
Religion (Christianity) : Genesis 1 is actually prose (before Christ was born).
Science : Sun may just be a rock not a God.
Religion : Kill the heathen (True Story : Greek Philosopher killed for declaring the sun is a rock!)
Science : Creation Myths are rubbish!!
Religion (A) : Umm......it's meant to be metaphor/prose.
Religion (B) : Blah Blah Blah *Not Listening*

Science : Females are active in the reproduction process.
Religion (B) : Males are Superior Dammitt!!
Religion (A) : Ummm.....it's meant to be metaphor/prose.

Science : Perfection is just an immature idealism.
Religion : Human beings were perfect, but there was some sort of lapse : God will make us perfect again.

Science : Homosexuality is naturally occurring and not always a choice.
Religion : Blah Blah, not enough evidence yet need to find the exact gene that says this...

So let's summarize.
Religon : World Flat, God moves sun around the earth, Only Humans, Humans are superior to all creatures, Earth is center of the universe, Earth is fine tuned for life.

Science : World Round, Earth moves around son, Humans might not be alone, Humans are the same the other creatures, Earth is not the centre of anything, Life tuned itself to deal with a harsh barely habitable Earth...

So errr.
Religion explains human existence better?

Flamed Diving

I love how religion and philosophy are paired together. Only one thing for it:

philologos

Religion with science explains the universe in a better and a more meaningful way than science alone.

Let's not strawman the point. I never said that it was religion versus science, that was your addition. I said, it is religion & science, versus science alone. The first comes out trumps.

A view where religious and philosophical viewpoints are rejected in explaining things in scientific terms alone is dangerous. Not only dangerous as an idea, but dangerous in the impacts that they have on mental health.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion with science explains the universe in a better and a more meaningful way than science alone.

No Jakkass, religion doesn't explain anything, if religion were thoroughly followed there would be no need for explanations.

Science and Philosophy make this universe the wonder it really it is.

philologos

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Religion explains a lot of things, whether or not one likes the explanation / finds it reasonable is what is up for debate. Let's not engage in pretence about what Christianity and other faiths have done however.

Turtwig

What does religion explain?
(Note you must exclude philosophy here.)

Flamed Diving

Translation: science and substituting scientific ignorance with guesses is better than science with scientific ignorance.

There is a saying I like:

Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance.

That isn't a personal attack.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

What does religion explain?
(Note you must exclude philosophy here.)

Considering that religions are essentially philosophical worldviews in their own right, asking me to leave out philosophy isn't really an option. I.E it would be stifling relevant discussion.

Flamed Diving: If that were what I was saying we might be getting somewhere, since it isn't it can be considered nothing but a strawman.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering that religions are essentially philosophical worldviews in their own right, asking me to leave out philosophy isn't really an option. I.E it would be stifling relevant discussion.

I disagree on this, I think Religion and Philosophy are two separate entities that just happen to overlap in places, but I'll let it pass if you can show how religion explains life?

philologos

History has shown how great the overlap is between Christianity and philosophy, Islam and philosophy, and numerous other faith beliefs and philosophy. This is clear.

Christianity provides a philosophical anthropology (including reasoning for the imperfection of mankind), an explanation of why we exist, how we can reconcile our fallen nature, a guide to morality and ethics, a purpose, a reason for being the way we are. It also provides a narrative and a history of mankinds relationship with a higher power, and a description of how we can get to know God, and how we can involve God in our lives.

There are many things that Christianity enlightens mankind on, the question isn't that Christianity doesn't explain things, it's absolutely absurd to say that is the case. Reading the Bible alone will show you that this is false.

The question is, do you think Christianity cuts it, and do you want to accept it as a worldview?