Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the fact that religion pops up in every form of civilization...

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zombrex wrote: »
    They might not amount to anything, but I'm not sure how you can sa it is unlikely.

    You seem to have already made up your mind.
    I've a bias, clearly. Reality is incomprehensible without a bias. However, absolutely, you're right that there's no basis for any statement about how likely it is that some testable model will come up with anything that folk actually find useful, as an alternative to religion.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Why would you say that?
    I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but how could it be any other way? The fact that people, very commonly, adhere to religions can be accounted for by saying that it gives answers that are credible to people who lack understanding of how things work, and/or gives people a sense that the world is safer and more predictable than it is, and/or gives people an assurance that, in the general scheme of things, they are more than self-loading cargo. But there's no way of moving from saying that it could be one or all of those things, to actually saying it is one of those things.


  • Options
    #93
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Justin1982 wrote: »
    Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.

    I suspect the truth of that sentence hangs on a very specific definition of the word "properly".


  • Options
    #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I've a bias, clearly. Reality is incomprehensible without a bias. However, absolutely, you're right that there's no basis for any statement about how likely it is that some testable model will come up with anything that folk actually find useful, as an alternative to religion.I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but how could it be any other way?

    We already have testable models that come up with useful explanations that are alternatives to religion.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    The fact that people, very commonly, adhere to religions can be accounted for by saying that it gives answers that are credible to people who lack understanding of how things work, and/or gives people a sense that the world is safer and more predictable than it is, and/or gives people an assurance that, in the general scheme of things, they are more than self-loading cargo. But there's no way of moving from saying that it could be one or all of those things, to actually saying it is one of those things.

    Sure there is, again we have already started doing this.


  • Options
    #95
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Justin1982 wrote: »
    Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.

    The Inquisition must have been great craic.
    "Christianity & Moral". Talk about the biggest oxymoron .................. EVER.

    But I like the word "adopted" because that is what christianity did to create itself out of the multitude of religions that existed before it did.

    See my signature below.
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    V


  • Options
    #96
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zombrex wrote: »
    We already have testable models that come up with useful explanations that are alternatives to religion.
    I'm trying to think of some way of getting to the nub of the matter.

    If we agree that much social science is hokum, then we've to ask ourselves what science is really contributing to a ranges of serious questions that have a lot to do with human welfare. (If we don't agree they're hokum, then clearly this line of argument won't work.)

    Decisions need to be made. For the sake of argument, Government needs to decide how to deal with personal debt in a way that both meets economic needs and is politically acceptable. "Science" does damn all that's useful there. In fact, arguably, science added to the mess by convincing some people that it could tell them something useful about the future value of property.

    Bearing in mind, again, that a key difference between physical and social sciences (leaving aside Schrodingers Cat for a moment). Predictions made by social sciences influence outcomes, where predictions made by physical sciences (largely, so far as we know) don't. independently of whether the proposition is true or false, an assertion that there is/isn't a god has a social impact.

    And it's not easy to tell if the impact, on either side, is good or evil. Its not easy to tell an Egyptian mother that circumcising her daughter is worse than accepting she'll have a pre-marital sex life, with risks of single motherhood and other social problems. I mean, it's easy to make grandstanding statements about FGM in front of a sympathetic Western audience who fundamentally don't give **** about Egyptian teenagers in any real sense. The gap in credibility is when you're trying to convince someone who actually stands to gain or lose from the outcome.

    (I've a feeling this threads either going to suddenly die a quiet death, or explode to about 1,000 posts, 900 of which will be spluttering with outrage over what they wished that last paragraph said, just to make the grandstanding that bit easier.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Go away and read Karl Popper ffs


  • Options
    #98
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Go away and read Karl Popper ffs
    Sure I did. Years ago. That's why I said
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    <...> some folk confuse one theoretical view of what science is with the actual practice of science.
    Do I take it that Thomas Kuhn isn't on the Level Seven syllabus?


  • Options
    #99
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Go away and read Karl Popper ffs
    are you not allowed disagree with karl popper even if you have read him?


  • Options
    #100
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Do I take it that Thomas Kuhn isn't on the Level Seven syllabus?

    At last. I was waiting for you to trot out Kuhn.

    “Some of the principles deployed in my explanation of science are irreducibly sociological, at least at this time. In particular, confronted with the problem of theory-choice, the structure of my response runs roughly as follows: take a group of the ablest available people with the most appropriate motivation; train them in some science and in the specialties relevant to the choice in hand; imbue them with the value system, the ideology, current in their discipline… and, finally, let them make the choice. If that technique doesn’t account for scientific development as we know it, then no other will.” (Kuhn 1988:237-38)

    The foregoing can also easily account for figures like Lysenko. Let Solzhenitsyn speak here by way of explanation.

    "In 1934, Pskov agronomists sowed flax on the snow – exactly as Lysenko had ordered. The seeds swelled up, grew mouldy and died. The big fields lay empty for a year. Lysenko could not say that the snow was a kulak or that he himself was an ass" (The Gulag Archipelago 1974:57).

    (The full Kuhn source is “Reflections on my Critics” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan) Cambridge UP, 1988 (article originally published in 1970).

    I have a doctorate by the way but the ignorance of tiresome, would-be intellectual trolls must be exposed.


  • Options
    #101
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    At last. I was waiting for you to trot out Kuhn.
    HO HO. YOU FELL INTO HIS TRAP.
    HansHolzel wrote: »
    I have a doctorate by the way
    Kenneth-Williams.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Carry On is the intellectual level I'm up against all right.


  • Options
    #103
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    HO HO. YOU FELL INTO HIS TRAP.

    Kenneth-Williams.jpg

    Or, to quote Ken from Carry On Up the Khyber,

    "Get rid of this idiot!"


  • Options
    #104
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Justin1982 wrote: »
    The vikings, celts, ancient greeks and pre christian rome didnt have a particularly high level of moral values and they had a lot of gods who were mainly pre-occupied with War, Sex, Capitalism and one up man ship. For a ruler of any of these kingdoms or civilizations it contributed to a fairly turbulent and violent society. Christianity when adopted properly made for a rather peaceful and moral society.
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Pre-Christian Celtic societies had more gender equality, right to divorce, gay rights, and provisions for the care of the sick, elderly, and disabled than Christian societies have, in some places, today (and in places where there are gay rights etc it's not for want of opposition from the church). In Viking societies rape was punishable by death, rather than the fine and free wife that the bible prescribes. There was more democracy in pre-Christian Greece than after Christianification. IMO there are many societies which were made less civilised by the introduction of Christianity.
    HansHolzel wrote: »
    (1) The early Christians obeyed an unusual religious duty to look after the sick.

    (2) Basic nursing care will save many lives in times of epidemics e.g. the late Roman empire.

    (3) Christians were seen to have a better chance of survival, hence the practical appeal of their god.

    (4) Then Constantine made it the official religion.
    I'll have to disagree with you about point 3 there. IMO it was the promise of eternal life after death which swayed people to Christianity. When your life expectancy is only into your mid-20s some guy telling you that if you worship this new god you'll have life after death has to be a fairly tempting option.


  • Options
    #105
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Source for the disease angle in the rise of Christianity - William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (1976).

    If you can name a more eminent historian than McNeill, you can be sure CerebralCortex and Sarky will have heard of neither :-)


  • Options
    #106
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm a research microbiologist, not a historian. I'm sure bannasidhe will be happy to embarrass you at some point though.


  • Options
    #107
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Go on, go away and get a gang after me :-)


  • Options
    #108
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the force is strong in this one.


  • Options
    #109
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If we agree that much social science is hokum, then we've to ask ourselves what science is really contributing to a ranges of serious questions that have a lot to do with human welfare. (If we don't agree they're hokum, then clearly this line of argument won't work.)

    That seems a non-sequitur. Even if "much social science is hokum", science can still offer huge contributions to the questions of human welfare. It depends on the impact the science makes. If only 1 out of every 100,000 scientific hypothesis turns out to be supported that can have a huge impact if the 1 hypothesis cures small pox or creates a toilet.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Decisions need to be made. For the sake of argument, Government needs to decide how to deal with personal debt in a way that both meets economic needs and is politically acceptable. "Science" does damn all that's useful there. In fact, arguably, science added to the mess by convincing some people that it could tell them something useful about the future value of property.

    That statement isn't true, so there isn't a huge amount of point in debating the conclusions that stem from that sentence.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Bearing in mind, again, that a key difference between physical and social sciences (leaving aside Schrodingers Cat for a moment). Predictions made by social sciences influence outcomes, where predictions made by physical sciences (largely, so far as we know) don't. independently of whether the proposition is true or false, an assertion that there is/isn't a god has a social impact.

    It does, but again your apparent assertion that science cannot therefore not study this question or provide any useful theories is not true.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    And it's not easy to tell if the impact, on either side, is good or evil.

    That isn't relevant to the issue.

    You don't seem to have addressed any of the points properly, so I'm not sure how you view this post as getting to the nub of the issue.

    The nub as I see it is that science provides explanations for religious belief and behaviour that explain this behaviour as a result of mental processes, an explanation that does not require supernatural deities in order model the behaviour accurately.

    How "good or evil" that is is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #110
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Go on, go away and get a gang after me :-)

    Oh, she's not a gang. Just a professional historian. It'd be silly, me debating history, so I won't. She knows a thing or two about it though, so she's a far better choice.

    You'll be grand, sure you wouldn't have posted stuff without knowing whether it held up to scrutiny or not, would you? You'd have to be *mad* to do something silly like that...


  • Options
    #111
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Source for the disease angle in the rise of Christianity - William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (1976).

    If you can name a more eminent historian than McNeill, you can be sure CerebralCortex and Sarky will have heard of neither :-)

    Does he have actual evidence that this is why people were converting to Christianity, such as documents or letters, or is it his opinion based on his interpretation of the evidence available?

    The 'afterlife' proposal is one I came across from Simon Sebag Montefiore. I don't know if he's 'eminent' enough for you though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    At last. I was waiting for you to trot out Kuhn.
    Grand. And what point is it that you are under the impression that you've made?
    HansHolzel wrote: »
    I have a doctorate by the way
    Pacific Western University?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    That seems a non-sequitur. Even if "much social science is hokum", science can still offer huge contributions to the questions of human welfare. It depends on the impact the science makes. If only 1 out of every 100,000 scientific hypothesis turns out to be supported that can have a huge impact if the 1 hypothesis cures small pox or creates a toilet.
    The point is that the social impact is complicated. If you ask "how do I get political agreement to continuing investment in Dublin City water services, to ensure an adequate supply to cater for expected population", science can't really help you. I'm really only repeating that post - there's a slate of questions, intimately related to human welfare, that science can't add to.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The nub as I see it is that science provides explanations for religious belief and behaviour that explain this behaviour as a result of mental processes, an explanation that does not require supernatural deities in order model the behaviour accurately.

    How "good or evil" that is is irrelevant.
    I'll agree that "good or evil" could be misleading. Science can certainly account for religious belief in those terms - you'll notice I've explicitly acknowledge that. My point is more that, if you listen to that account and say "that's plausible, but so what?" science doesn't have much (and probably not anything) to say.


  • Options
    #113
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh, she's not a gang. Just a professional historian. It'd be silly, me debating history, so I won't. She knows a thing or two about it though, so she's a far better choice.

    You'll be grand, sure you wouldn't have posted stuff without knowing whether it held up to scrutiny or not, would you? You'd have to be *mad* to do something silly like that...

    I know it stands up to scrutiny. I'm qualified to know that.

    You admit you don't know if it does or it doesn't.

    When I start making ignorant comments about microbiology, then you can step in.


  • Options
    #114
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'd really rather you didn't. You'd probably accuse me of hanging up on you all by myself.


  • Options
    #115
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Grand. And what point is it that you are under the impression that you've made?

    If you were able to understand what I wrote, you'd realize you're out of your depth, not least where Kuhn is concerned.


  • Options
    #116
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'd really rather you didn't. You'd probably accuse me of hanging up on you all by myself.

    No, I'd accuse you of contributing to this thread in spite of self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter.


  • Options
    #117
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    If you were able to understand what I wrote, you'd realize you're out of your depth, not least where Kuhn is concerned.
    If you're genuinely a Phd, which clearly we can't know, you're demonstrating precisely the quasi-religious aspect that folk object to.

    Make your point, or leave the field.


  • Options
    #118
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    I know it stands up to scrutiny. I'm qualified to know that.
    is this how you got your qualification? 'never mind reading my argument, i'm qualified to make my claims without evidence'?


  • Options
    #119
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If you're genuinely a Phd, which clearly we can't know, you're demonstrating precisely the quasi-religious aspect that folk object to.

    Make your point, or leave the field.

    If you can manage it at all, do as I did and show us you know something about Thomas Kuhn, whose name you dropped.

    Or else stay in the field, with your sprong.


  • Options
    #120
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    No, I'd accuse you of contributing to this thread in spite of self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter.

    I post once in this thread calling antiskeptic's bollocks idea bollocks, and weeks later you're insulting me out of the blue with no provocation? How does that work, than?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Motopepe
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Motopepe


    History will not enlighten us on the subject of the inception of religious beliefs and / or practices among humans. Its pre-historic.


Advertisement